Panther vs. Pershing - And other tank-rambling...

So, V.P.'s thread finally came to this, a showdown in the sun. Which coffin is better, one on one, from the commander´s hatch down to the threads, including the crews?

 

Voted for the Pershing just because I think that the sacrifice of so many crews in the Ronson must have at least served for american designers to make a decent tank.

 

Thought i'd seen one of these chugging around at Bovington Yankfest in 07, but on checking it seems my addled brain had got the better of me (again)... although they did have one of these (M103) chugging around...
M103 pictures from rides photos on webshots
I think some one must have gone wrong with the slide rule measurements on that one!
Now, with M60 running gear its not surprising she wasn't the nippiest of beasts... big gun tho...
Cheers
Ev

 

why would the Panther be a choice over the essentially 'more mobile and reliable Tiger' that is the Pershing?

Von P,

Interested in knowing why you say the Pershing is more mobile than a Tiger I? I thought the power to weight ratios and the specific ground pressures were much the same. Also, we could have a debate on the reliability comparison....I'm not certain the Tiger was unreliable you see.

I know you are a tank nut (like me) so I'm interested in a good debate.

 

I was thinking mostly of mechanical failure on the mobility front mate, Pershing seems to have been pretty trustworthy, whereas to be honest, Tigger's got a rather grim breakdown record that somewhat mar her other successes.

Just wondering where I picked up that impression of Pershing v Tiger, my stuff on that old dear (m26) being comparatively sketchy...
And I've obviously got it from the good old Chamberlain/Ellis encyclopedia where they refer to it as "very much more mobile" in comparison with Tiger.

I'm just of the opinion these days that much of the Tiger I and esp Tiger II were "too heavy and couldn't move" stuff that is written and quoted is ..... just wrong. Just like the good old 5:1 kill ratio, another example which some bloke probably uttered 50 years ago and now it's fact because it's quoted everywhere. Oh damned, I've just quoted it again...

Forget the Tiger I for now, let's look at the Tiger II;

Power 700bhp
Weight 70 tons
Power to weight ratio 10hp per ton.

At this point most people say "my God how did it ever move?".

Well, look at the Sherman;
Power 350bhp (this is the NET output of the R-975 - the Americans always quote their headline output figures GROSS)
Weight 30 tons approx.
Power to weight ratio 11.6hp per ton.

If you take the M4A4 (I think would have been the most common is service in the Western front 44-45?), the multibank engine output is quoted at 370BHP (NET), giving a power to weight ratio of 11.7hp per ton assuming a weight of 31.6 tonnes.

Not much difference there then between the Tiger 2 and the Sherman!

(Churchill power to weight ratio (the tank not the statesman!) was only 8.6hp per ton, yet that is seldom called underpowered - why is that?)

As for ground pressure, the Tiger 2 was about the same as the Sherman.

Have a look at this, very interesting I thought, the only I've seen of a Tiger II being tested:
YouTube - Tiger â…¡Porsche Type at Haustenbeck in the Senne
Doesn't look immobile to me. In fact, cross-country it looks a match for the Valentine and the Archer, do you think? Also, probably due to the suspension and the size of the tracks, the smoothness of the ride looks much better than the British tanks.

I think much of the Tigers bad press is due to "breakdowns" - sometimes just lack of fuel as Germany had low supplies - so not a failing of the tank itself. Other breakdowns I think are a consequence of the usage of the tanks, if you look at the combat histories you'll see they were moved about all over the place and kept in service as long as possible (as they couldn't easily be replaced), and lastly "minor" breakdowns may have caused the total loss of the tank as replacement parts were not readily available - this is just down to the supply situation and the minor fact that the factories and railways were constantly bombed. I fact I'm amazed they kept them running as often as they did, as the combat readiness is said to be comparible with Panthers and PzIVs.

The Maybach engines were, I understand, reliable. The final drive could be troublesome, I think it's reliability depended on a steady driver, you can't take too many liberties with 70 tons and 700 bhp I suppose, but even then considering the miles travelled, the breakdown rate was not very high.

Finally, and I'll shut up soon, the weight, at 70 tons, did make them difficult to recover and so that would have led to some tanks being abandoned/destroyed when otherwise they could have been saved.

I don't believe the M26 mobility would have been much different to the Tigers, of course we won't find out until Wheatcroft sorts his act out!

Anyway, just my thoughts, welcome your opinions.

 

As for the poll.... I wouldn't like to say, in many ways the tanks are quite evenly matched. I'd vote for the Panther, though, just based on looks!

 

I voted the panther. only because I've heard of it more and that pershing reminds me of the tanks you used to get with them plastic soldier sets.

 

Adam, they're some responses them like.

This Pershing looks like a toy:

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9791&stc=1&d=1222305971

 

Excellent post VP.

I tend to agree with you regarding the mechanical reliability of the German large tanks.

Building the most complex and costly designs with large caliber weaponry is all well and good if all the problems are sorted out before placing them on the front line.
I do not think that this was the case with the German tanks.

The longer the war progressed, the fewer essential materials made it extremely hard to produce what the designers intended, not only for Tanks, but for aircraft, in particular the Jet engines.

This meant either redesigning parts or using inferior metal alloys.
Armour plating was deteriorating all the time and the armour used on the Tiger 2 was less effective than on the Tiger 1, again due to material additive shortages to produce the best armour plating.

Reliability is almost everything and this is why the Sherman was liked, it ran and ran and ran. Ok I agree it had inferior armour to the German Tanks.

A sherman Firefly was a very handy weapon.

A good debate so far!

Tom

 

Excellent post VP.

I tend to agree with you regarding the mechanical reliability of the German large tanks.

Building the most complex and costly designs with large caliber weaponry is all well and good if all the problems are sorted out before placing them on the front line.
I do not think that this was the case with the German tanks.

The longer the war progressed, the fewer essential materials made it extremely hard to produce what the designers intended, not only for Tanks, but for aircraft, in particular the Jet engines.

This meant either redesigning parts or using inferior metal alloys.
Armour plating was deteriorating all the time and the armour used on the Tiger 2 was less effective than on the Tiger 1, again due to material additive shortages to produce the best armour plating.

Reliability is almost everything and this is why the Sherman was liked, it ran and ran and ran. Ok I agree it had inferior armour to the German Tanks.

A sherman Firefly was a very handy weapon.

A good debate so far!

Tom


Need to have a good chat on the firefly, Was it the saviour of the allied tank effort or was it alast minute, oh **** it doesnt fit in anything else, bodge up.

Kev

 

Sorry if I caused you a late night (or maybe you're just nocturnal by nature?)..

I have to say, we are mostly on the same wavelength on this subject.

With Panther in particular they put so much effort into getting the ride & suspension movement etc right, to an extent I seriously begin to think 'was it worth it?'.

I agree - they do/did love to engineer things....in 1942 that was understandable because the engineers would not have been told that they were going to lose the war so keep it simple guys. I guess at that point in the war they thought they had the luxury of time and effort to that to the Panther. If you leave engineers alone, that is what they will do!


Again with the Maybach's, obviously superbly engineered, but there was never really a successful model powerful enough to throw the heavies around with something to spare, clever devices pretty severely compromised by excessive demands placed on them.
.

I agree 100%. Let's not forget - I think - the Maybach was still the most powerful tank engine of the war (flame suit on). I think it was great in the Panther, just fine in the Tiger I, and "adequate" for the Tiger 2. I don't know how reliable the engines themselves were, in the Panthers and Tigers, I don't mean minor breakdowns but proper engine failure like putting a rod through the block, requiring engine replacement. Do you have any stats on this?

Carefully driven's obviously a good thing but it being an absolute requirement's not so great in combat.
.

Absolutely. Just look at ex-Shrivenham Tiger 104 in Bovvy, the only reason that's there was the final drive failure because the driver overdid it. Interesting to note, reports on that tank always state that a Sherman put "a couple of rounds through the right side of the German tank to finish it off", when actually neither shell penetrated the side armour.

Actually that's probably a main essential flaw for German armoured thinking in WW2 to my eye, the allies went out comparatively well kitted with transporters, bulldozers, and other heavy recovery gear, whereas Germany turned something of a blind eye to the essential infrastructure issues.
.

It does seem that way, but I wonder how much was "blind eye" and how much was just a question of priorities and essentially manufacturing capacity. Rail versus road though - rail is better in some regards, and they didn't always have to change the tracks, it would be avoided whenever possible.

Have you got Fletcher's 'Tiger - A British view'? A post action report in there is fascinating. Carried out in Italy as an on the spot inspection of 12 dumped tigers In the Cori area it found at least 9 of them had been disabled by minor breakdowns and had then been scuttled/abandoned as recovery or repair efforts had failed. The other 3 are undetermined causes, but none were judged to have battle damage that should have put them out of commission. Something wasn't right.
.
Yes - it's a great book. Difficult to recover yes, so that lead to losses. But does that necessarily say that the tanks were unreliable? All tanks breakdown and need servicing, the issue again is if the spares aren't available and the tank is then abandoned it is deemed unreliable. In this whole "reliability" issue there is also the factors - availability of spares and also the question of the amount of travel / usage that the tanks had. Were the Tigers "overworked"? Probably.

Kind of along the lines of 'fine vehicles... but not quite the uber-tanks so often claimed'.
I agree, I don't subscribe to the uber-tank stuff. But I do get fed up with the "too big" "too slow" stuff that gets trotted out without any thought. (Let's face it, if these people were taken to Bovvy - and it should be mandatory - they'd see that the Panther and Jagdpanther are as near as damn it just as big as the Tiger 2 and Jagdtiger - but when have you ever heard someone accuse the Panther of being too big?

The Guns they carried on the other hand - superb devices, but why go so over the top with some when the long 75 was such a fine piece anyway.

Don't forget they were looking forward in the arm's race - justifiably
I think - didn't we dither about a lot and therefore failed to get the 17pdr into service in any decent numbers?

The nazi's seemed to have little understanding of 'adequate' even in the face of their raw material shortages, and paid a price for it.

Totally agree.

So much is said about their high points and technical achievements (to the extent allied designs are often undeservedly practically laughed at)

Yes, for the big German tanks you tend to find people have a love them / hate them attitude - either they concentrate on all the good points or all the bad points, but you need a balanced view. As for the allied designs, I think you're right, they are treated "unfairly". Look at the Comet for example, just brilliant. Another thread, anyone?

 

Need to have a good chat on the firefly, Was it the saviour of the allied tank effort or was it alast minute, oh **** it doesnt fit in anything else, bodge up.

Kev

I thought it was both.

 

I suppose 2 reasonably comparable 'big boy' motors of the war are:
Maybach HL230ish (Tiger B?) 6-700 HP (?)
Meteor 600HP (?)

I'm not good on where the Maybach's were developed to postwar, and they're certainly clever devices, but they never quite filled the requirement for hauling 68 ton of Tiger b about & Meteor does seem the more robust beast. (Watching the Bovington chaps work on 131's engine is painful, more like gynaecology than engineering ).

Firefly? - Both indeed.

Can't agree on everything... I still think the MayBach was up to the job...just. As I said before the Churchill got by with a lower power-to-weight ratio, yet it is never deemed a problem- why is that? I agree that the Meteor seems more robust but was it? It was a de-tuned aero engine essentially, so it's life should be very good (ie it could have handled much more power but it wasn't needed), whereas the Maybach was at 700bhp and no more.

Hey, did you see the Bovvy chaps working on the engine or was it a video you've seen?

 

Adam, they're some responses them like.

This Pershing looks like a toy:

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9791&stc=1&d=1222305971
Hey, what's that extra track-tensioning wheel doing down there by the sprocket? Looks like an idler wheel...never ever seen that before on any tank (ok apart from a Churchill......). Is it a one-off? VP???

 

Oh, and no Pershing v Panther thread is complete without this wonderful bit of footage:

YouTube - WW2 Combat Footage - Pershing vs Panther