Missing link? -1 reply

Please wait...

::BUNNY::

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

2nd January 2006

0 Uploads

159 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

It just occured to me that there is no Panther tanks in North African maps, though panzers II, III, IV and Tigers are? I don't know that much war history so can someone more educated on this topic lighten me why wasn't Panther used in Africa?...if it wasn't :rolleyes:




Yossarian

Moose frots Obama

50 XP

28th March 2005

0 Uploads

1,768 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

They didn't come along in time. Even though the Panther is designated the Panzer V, it was produced after the Tiger, which IIRC is the Panzer VI. I'm not sure of the exact date, but I believe it was introduced in August 1943 at Kursk. Axis forces left North Africa in May 1943.




Steinmetz

Cant aim,cant fly,cant drive,

50 XP

17th June 2005

0 Uploads

27 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

The first Tigers were used in combat in november 1942. they saw there first combat in Tunisia and outside of Lenengrad. Panthers were first used at the Kursk battle in 1943.




::BUNNY::

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

2nd January 2006

0 Uploads

159 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

Oh, didn't know that! Everyday something new...:) So if it was produced after, did germans develop it to be somehow more advanced than Tiger? All I know it has less armour and weaker gun. But it looks DAMN MEAN!




Yossarian

Moose frots Obama

50 XP

28th March 2005

0 Uploads

1,768 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

The panther basically was a response to the Soviet T-34, which was a highly mobile tank with sloped front armour. This was better at deflecting AP rounds from other tanks. So, while the armour was technically less than the tiger, it could definately take a pounding. The Panther was also more mobile, which allowed it to keep up with Soviet tanks (P3 and P4 just weren't up to the job!). Last but not least, don't underestimate the panther's gun. It was only 75mm, but it sure packed a mean punch.




NoCoolOnesLeft

My Blood Is Olive Drab

50 XP

19th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,329 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

The Panther is in no way less armoured or armed than the Tiger. Like Yossarian said, it had sloped armour (especially at the front) which made it overall better armoured than the Tiger. The only downside of the Panther is that its side armour was very weak, 40mm IIRC, and it wasnt that well sloped.

IIRC, the 75mm on the Panther had a better penetration value and range than the Tiger's 88mm. I think it had something to do with the length of the barrell, but I could be wrong with this one.

Overall the Panther was a big improvement over the Tiger. The first Panthers had horrible problems and most broke down before reaching Kursk. After Kursk these reliability problems were recorded and solved with the later models such as the Panther G.




McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

3rd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

Panther was developed to be a mass produced medium tank (main battle tank, ment to replace the ageing p3 and p4), as opposed to the tiger, which is a heavy tank, never ment to be the backbone of german tank forces. The panther project was too late in coming and they never really fully got phased it.




McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

3rd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

Panther was developed to be a mass produced medium tank (main battle tank, ment to replace the ageing p3 and p4), as opposed to the tiger, which is a heavy tank, never ment to be the backbone of german tank forces. The panther project was too late in coming and they never really fully got phased it.