What if Germany built only Panthers, instead of Tigers also?

What if Germany, instead of wasting valuable time and material building Tigers, decided to concentrate on refining the Panther (even to upgunning it with the 88mm L/71) and ended production of the Tiger I in, say, December 1943, and never produced the Tiger II in any but minute quantities?

I'm thinking, too, that instead of drawing off valuable crews in the Tiger units, they would remain in the divisions, only they'd be equipped with Panthers.

I'm imagining a panzer regiment with one battalion equipped with the Panther G or F, and the other equipped with the Panther II (a perfected one, with a turret with enough room to accomodate the 88mm L/71 gun).

Yours,
Paul

 

Starting with the easy part: The 88L71 Panther was a non-starter. The gun just would not fit in a turret that would fit on a Panther where it was really usable (yes, it would fit but with so many limitations including, elevation, depression, loading only at high elevation, recoil problems...etc). So, that "what-if" is out.

As to the other suggestion; This would have severely disrupted production of armor in Germany for at least a year (short version, if you really want a long why-for I can post it).

My counter suggestion would be to take the Pz IV chassis and, like the M-3 / M-4 was done in the US, upgrade it instead of even producing the Panther at all. The resulting vehicle would have 80mm frontal armor sloped at 40 - 50 degrees, 30mm side armor at 15 - 30 degrees. A new, enlarged turret (ala T-34/85 or M-4 T23 76mm turrets)would be employed. The suspension is spaced out like the M4A3E5 and extension grousers or a new wider track employed making it nearly as wide as that of the Panther's on 10 less tons of vehicle. With a bored out longer stroke engine the addition of 25 - 30 hp keeps the hp/wt ratio the same.
As for gun a 75L48 is used initially then gradually a 75L55 - L60 is introduced. This is more than enough of an upgrade to make this tank a threat to any Allied vehicle on the battlefield.
This scenario removes the problem of introducing a completely new tank (the Panther) with all of its technical deficiencies and slow build-up of production for a vehicle that is primarily based on tried and true parts already in production. This eases the change over and the field parts and maintenance problems as the majority of the parts in the vehicle are already in the field.
The Tiger I could be proceeded with followed by an upgraded version using sloped armor but otherwise the same. The Tiger II would be a non-starter too.

 

how about something along the lines of a turreted low-slung pzjager IV or in the likes of more modern updated equipment of today ? Enlarge the turret for room for the crew and ammo. low and long and wide.

two cents

 

I completely agree with T.A.!

And I've already suggested it some time ago. We know that a Tiger I and II cost as much as two Panthers and as much as 4 Pz IVs.

So, 1.555 Tigers and 5.500 Panthers - as we know- didn't help that much the German war effort.

But building upgraded and improved versions of the Pz IV instead would have allowed 17.622 more tanks instead of those Tigers and Panthers, which could have been much more decisive in the battle field. The Germans still deploying quality tanks but with something new, QUANTITY!

But there's the damned fuel problem to torment us again!

 

Erich, I see in my mind's eye the Argentine TAM tank, on the Marder MICV chassis, but with a turret big enough to house a 105mm gun (as for the M-60, Leopard I, and later Centurion). Yeah, I get the idea. You and T.A. have merit--more than my idea, though I must admit I love the Panther and would much prefer it to the Tiger.

Still, a vehicle just a wee tad larger than the Panzer IV, but with sloped armor and a slightly smaller version of the 75mm L/70 ... yes. One might almost see it as a German counterpart to the late-war British Comet, but with a sloped hull.

Yours,
Paul

 

T.A., Erich, Friedrich

I strictly disagree with you this time!

On the contrary, the Germany delayed the construction of a heavy tank way too long. Guess they had had a few Tigers or Panthers when Barbarossa started (not realistic, ok, as the T-34 had influenced their designs, but it's the What-If section. ) Then they would have given the KV and T-34 short shrift, with MUCH lass casualties. It was almost a miracle that the Germans managed to defeat the Red Army with that inferior tanks.

Do you think the Germans were fools when they pressed ahead with heavy tanks after the troops had encountered the Russian tanks? The Panzer IV was tough till the end, but still a rather obsolete design (similar to the late Me 109). It's ability to carry a big gun was limited, the 7,5 cm L48 was the optimum.

You needed a bigger, better-constructed tank with new suspension to carry a stronger gun - the Panther with the 7,5cm/L71, or the Tiger with his 8,8cm KwK. They arrived, too late, and killed MANY Russian et alii tank crews with their superior guns.

Despite of this, regarding the Panther's, strength, performance and cost efficiency, it was very much better than the Panzer IV. So you're all terribly wrong.

As for the "No Tiger, more Panther" thesis - well, this question is not new to me, but the answer is definitely not so simple. Why did the Tiger have a better reputation on Allied side than the Panther? Because it was a more dangerous opponent, harder to destroy. For a clear judgement, hard facts are necessary - kill/loss ratios for both tanks etc.

 

Knightmove, look at it quantatively and historically.
First, with the exception of the Germans who went towards mass production of only heavy tanks (the Panther and Tiger) all of the other major combatants chose to produce larger numbers of more modest vehicles (T-34, Sherman, Various cruiser tanks). The Russians abandoned the KV 1 fairly early into the War in the East in favor of more T-34 production. Even later in the war the IS 2 was never produced in very large numbers.
The reason for this was both intuitive and quantifiable: Tanks are point target. With then current technology it was difficult if not impossible to build a vehicle with sufficent armor that it could not reasonably be knocked out in combat (a Tiger II is vulnerable to bazooka fire from the side and rear for example). So long as this is the case quantity is far more important than any slight increase in quality. Crew quality, likewise, is far more important than providing a marginally better vehicle. I don't know if you play simulation / wargames or not. If so, you might be familiar with the use of operations research techniques.
Example: (You can play with this using Leichester equations if you wish)
Given 10 Panthers versus 20 Shermans. Let's assume a Panther will always kill a Sherman when it fires (pk = 1). A Sherman has only a 30% chance to kill a Panther (pk = .3). Rates of fire are equal.
The exchange rate then is:
Round 1: 10 Panthers to 20 Shermans
6 Panthers and 10 Shermans are destroyed
Round 2: 3 Panthers are destroyed, leaving 1.
4 Shermans are destroyed, leaving 6
Round 3: The remaining Panther is destroyed
There are 5 Shermans left.

The superiority of the Panther individually does not equate to a winning strategy if the numbers available are limited.
This is why it would have been far better for the Germans to produce a lighter, mechanically more reliable vehicle with a compromise in firepower and armor to the Panther. The vehicle I proposed on a Pz IV chassis would have had equal protection, slightly less firepower, and equal mobility (but less road speed) along with better servicability than the Panther had.
The Tiger I, as I pointed out, could have continued in production in limited numbers as a heavy support tank.
This along with better orgainzation and crew quality goes further than building a "better" (eg heavier) tank.

 

As well I think we should remember Hitler´s tactics on using these beasts. They were top of the class, I think, when it comes to defensive manouevres, having the advantage of the range with their gun and armor. But on the attack, not that good.

On this kind of battle ( attack ) the Panther would have been most optimal of these with its speed and armor, but for the Russian plain country the Ferdinand and Tiger were kings of the hill. Nothing between you and the enemy tank....

I remember reading on Kursk how some 100 T-34´s were attacking and some 10 Tigers started shooting these tanks from some 2000 meters...Just a couple of minutes and not one of the T-34´s were moving...That is devastating!

With all this I mean that if Hitler had not been so obsessed about attacking after the winter 1941-42, he still probably would have lost the war, but he definitely would have caused a lot more damage and losses to the Red Army.

 

T. A.: This episode proves what you have forgotten in your arguing: Range.

This is the reason your entire example is wrong. You assume that the Panther had a more accurate gun than the Sherman, which might be true or not (I don't think so), but it had a way further range. On open floor, the 20 Shermany would be destroyed without the Panthers suffering a scratch. The Allied rule of thumb was "6 Shermans to kill a Panther".

Further you did not regard the fact that 20 Shermans are heavier and use more material than 10 Panthers.

A Panther had about the same amount of material and roughly the same costs as 2 Panzer IV with a MUCH higher fighting strength. You yourself have proven the Sherman to be superior to the IV, so it would have been a terrible mistake to built them only.

About Russian T-34 and IS-2: The T-34/85 was much, much stronger than the Panzer IV, and compared to the Stalin, it was much faster and more agile and had a higher rate of fire. This was not the case for the Panther, which was even (a lot) faster than the Panzer IV.

There can be no debate that the Panther was necessary.

 

The Panther was NOT necessary. It was a tank that consumed too much time to finally fix its mechanical flaws and too many resources. Not to mention that it did not have the strenght nor the range and fire power of the Tigers, thus, making it not the most adequate tank for defense. And its weight, mobility, speed and above all, reliability didn't make of it the perfect offensive tank either.

The Germans would have performed even better by having a multi-use tank in large quantities with adequately trained troops, tactics, communications and quality matching almost anything the Allies had.

It would be the same case as the T-34 and the Sherman, which were inferior to German heavy tanks, but were suitable enough to out-flank them and destroy them by tactics and quantity.

 

The L71 of the Panther did even have further range than the 8-8 of the Tiger. YOU state that the Tiger was not necessary, but the Germany DID need a high-range tank! The Panther was faster than any other tank except the Russians. And you're right that it needed to much time to fix its children's diseases, which is why the Germans should have started to develop a heavier and better tank EARLIER. Stopping the development of new weapons after the fall of France was one of Hitler's worst mistakes.

And ok, maybe you can blame the Germans for not having developped a tank with the strength/weight ratio of the T-34/85, but this again does NOT imply that it would have been BETTER to produce no heavy tank at all!

Heavens, how would masses of German Panzer IV even score one single kill against overrolling masses of T-34/85!

 

By mobile defense and counterattacks.

And I don't think that the Panther's gun had more range than the Tiger's... do you have any source on this?

And yes, I too think that even with the technological superiority of the very good tanks that were both Tiger versions, it was needed more balanced tanks n quantity to achiev more significant stuff in the battle field rather than a lot of Knight's Crosses for knocking out hundreds of tanks...

 

KM, please consider that in Western Europe, there weren't that many areas of "wide-open spaces" like the Russian steppes. In the Ardennes, for example, engagement ranges were limited by the forests, the hilly terrain and the poor weather. In that case, perhaps, 20 Shermans could overcome 10 Panthers as T.A. described.

Friedrich, Germany nonetheless needed a replacement for the Panzer IV, which was approaching the limits of its ability to be upgraded. I agree; perhaps the Panther, in the form in which it existed, was a bit too much, but certainly, more effort could've been made to get a more powerful engine and a better transmission for it, if it wasn't possible to scale it down into something about the size of the British Comet (but with sloped armor).

Yours,
Paul

 

I try to collect web sources on range for Panther and Tiger (and I have books about this at home, later). For a start, this...

Die 88 mm Kanone war auf große Reichweite nicht so wirksam wie die 75 mm Kanone des Panther, jedoch mit der größeren Panzerung und der daraus resultierenden Möglichkeit näher an den Feind heran fahren zu können, konnte der Tiger die ungeheure Wucht der 88 auf kürzere Strecken zum Einsatz bringen.
www.panzerlexikon.de -> Deutschland -> Panzer -> Kampfpanzer -> there scroll down to Tiger.

 

To prove my point.

The Sherman is the perfect example that a not so impressive tank, but in quantities can turn the tide of battles.

 

When you're necessarily way inferior in number (Germany couldn't produce as much as USA/USSR), you need at least far better quality to stand any chance.

And that the Sherman won doesn't mean it was the best choice. If the Pershing would have arrived in large numbers eariler, the Allies would have suffered less losses and been better off.

 

Completely true. But it is the same than 5.000 Tigers instead of 1.555...

Germany could NOT produce as many tanks as the US or the USSR, of course. And yes, she needed to invest in quality. But it was clearly not enough. 17.000 more tanks, good enough to equal - if not tremendously outmatch them in technology and fire power as did the Tiger versions - the Allies would have improved Germany's situation tactically and strategically - though still not enough to win the war.

[ 22. December 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

Again, let's not forget training. No matter how good a weapons system may be theoretically, it's not going to be very useful if the people crewing it are tyros. American and British tankers of 1944-45 were, on average, better trained than their German opponents, and the Russians were getting better all the time. Very few German tankers facing the tides rolling in from East and West were of the caliber of Ernst Barkmann, Michael Wittmann, or Hans Strippel. But there undoubtedly individual Allied tank crews that approached, if not matched, these men and their crews in skill.

Yours,
Paul

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]T. A.: This episode proves what you have forgotten in your arguing: Range.

[/qb][/QUOTE]This is the reason your entire example is wrong. You assume that the Panther had a more accurate gun than the Sherman, which might be true or not (I don't think so), but it had a way further range. On open floor, the 20 Shermany would be destroyed without the Panthers suffering a scratch. The Allied rule of thumb was "6 Shermans to kill a Panther".

Further you did not regard the fact that 20 Shermans are heavier and use more material than 10 Panthers.

A Panther had about the same amount of material and roughly the same costs as 2 Panzer IV with a MUCH higher fighting strength. You yourself have proven the Sherman to be superior to the IV, so it would have been a terrible mistake to built them only.

About Russian T-34 and IS-2: The T-34/85 was much, much stronger than the Panzer IV, and compared to the Stalin, it was much faster and more agile and had a higher rate of fire. This was not the case for the Panther, which was even (a lot) faster than the Panzer IV.

There can be no debate that the Panther was necessary. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Obviously, I made an assumption that you knew something about simulation modelling. Apparently I was mistaken.
My example used a simple linear law Leichester equation. There is no requirement for range, accuracy or, terrain in this. It is an abstract idea. I simply plugged in the probabilities for success as 100% for the Panther and 30% for the Sherman. Different values could have been used. The whole rationale for this example is simply to demonstrate that given equal firing rates, a billiard table battlefield and, both sides able to engage all their units simultaneously that the side with larger numbers virtually always wins (until the difference in effectiveness of the two sides differs so greatly that quality overcomes quantity....but that difference has to be huge).
Napolean said "God is on the side of the bigger battalions." He was right intuitively.
The problem with the Panther, and what I tried to get across, is that it is simply too much tank. It is too complex and unreliable a vehicle to warrant manufacture instead of making one using tried and true parts, of much simpler construction and, a compromise between effective and mass producable. The Sherman mets this criteria. The T-34 mets this criteria. Even the Cromwell meets it. The Pz IV meets it. The Pz III barely does. The Pz V does not.
When the Sherman became relatively ineffective it was given a new turret and better gun. The T-34 likewise. The Pz IV never had this tried seriously on it. The Pz V was developed from new cloth entirely instead.
My question to you would be: How much tank production was lost in having to develop and start up manufacture of the Panther versus simply upgrading a Pz IV with better sloped armor and a slightly better gun?
For comparison you might note that the IS 2 was about 18 months in development. The M-26 required nearly 2 years to get into full production (June 43 to May 45 when it was standardized). Even the Panther took 12 months to get into production. Even with that only 324 were produced in the first 6 months after production started.
For more on Leichester equations go to:

http://www.mors.org/

 

BTW,

I´m not that much into technical data so I´m asking are the figures correct?

Surprisingly despite the fact that due to less armour Allied tanks were generally smaller and lighter than their opponents, their mobility was somewhat inferior due to suspension and track designs that had high ground pressure. When tracked vehicles traverse soft ground, the pressure under the track rises and falls as the bogie wheels of the track run over the track itself, as in effect a tracked vehicle is a continuous track-laying device. The average of the peaks of ground pressure, the MMP, is determined by factors such as vehicle weight, track width, track pitch, and the number and size of bogie wheels, with the lower the MMP the better. Due to experiences with soft ground in Russia and the adaptation of large diameter overlapping bogie wheel suspension for axle loading and suspension travel concerns, German tanks such as the Mk V Panther and Mk IV Tiger had low MMP’s of 150 and 230 respectively. Even the Tiger II, weighing over 65 tonnes, had a MMP of only 184. Therefore this would appear to give these tanks huge advantages in soft going over tanks such as the M4 Sherman at 282 and the Cromwell IV at 352. This was born out in practical experience where, especially in snowy or muddy conditions, Allied tankers repeatedly found that Panthers and Tigers could drive where their own tanks would risk bogging and immobilization.

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytravels/militaryalliedtkwknss.html