Were the German Tigers and Panthers (in WW2) as effective as they were portrayed?

Question

I mean with respect to their durability and mechanical break down. They seems invincible to me with their heavy armour plate.

Answer 1

Jason, the Panthers and Tigers were absolutely the best tanks in WWII. Especially the King Panther.
They were, however, susceptible to break down at a much higher rate than the Allied tanks. Some attribute this to the fact that the Germans relied so heavily on slave labor to build them and these folks had a way with sabotaging them. Also, fighting in the East resulted in their encountering and having to overcome the extreme cold weather of Soviet Russia. They just couldn't make the adjustments properly and/or quickly enough to make the weapons effective.
The primary problem Germany encountered with their armored weapons was its inability to build enough, quickly enough. While, as one contributor noted, it could take 6 or 7 Shermans to kill a Tiger, we were building 10 times that number and ours were expendable. We replaced ours much faster than the Germans, our workers were dedicated to the War effort, not being starved to death and toward the latter stages of the War, we had bombed the German War Manufacturing capability to oblivion. We also were constantly upgrading the armor on our tanks which, over time, did make them more durable.
The Soviets probably had the most efficient tank in their T-34.

Answer 2

Its not so much as "were they the best tanks made," as it is "How did they compare to what they were fighting?"

The American Sherman tank, when compared to the Tiger and Panzer, had a LOT of shortcomings. First off, the power of the Sherman was NOWHERE near what it needed to be to pierce the several inches of German Armour. The German guns were much bigger, and were more powerful. The American Sherman had a 75mm (millimeter) gun, and only 2 inches of armor at its thickest point. There were even reports of the Shermans hitting the Tigers and Panzers and the shells just bouncing off.

Now, the British took the Sherman tank, and added a different gun, this time a 76mm gun. You may ask, what does one extra mm do, but they also added to the overall length of the barrel of the gun. The British version was called the "Firefly." The extra barrel length allowed the projectile to fly farther, and much faster to be a lot more effective against the Tigers and Panzers.

Answer 3

Yes,you can be sure about that,there were no better tanks than Tigers and Panthers....Not to mention King Tigers...Just some facts: in 90% of Panthers destroyed by Shermans (or Crommvells) it took 7 Shermans to destroy one Panther.Which means less than 7 Shermans didn't stand a chance against one Panther.

Second:A Tiger tank commanded by Michael Wittman destroyed 23 British tanks and armoured vehicles in fighting around Villers Bocage near Caen,in June 1944.I repeat one tiger vs. 23 British tanks=Tiger victory.

As for Eastern front,there just aren't many reports that I know of.I know however that a StuG IV commander Mueman (or something like that) managed to destroy 13 Russian tanks in Kovel counterattack.If a StuG managed to do that,I wonder how many would a Tiger destroy.

And yet some more facts,lol:Tiger tanks proved as poor attack tanks,they were way better in deffensive fighting,while Panthers were perfect for attacking and could do the deffence job well.

It is not true that they had sooooo many maintenance problems,I know veterans and they said they were fantastic.T-34 is a good tank but couldn't stand a chance against Tiger or Panther.

Answer 4

Whilst being the most effective tanks in terms of destroying opposition tanks, both the Tiger and Panther suffered from mechanical/ maintenance problems.

The Panther was notorious for having a deficiency with its fuel pump which proved difficult to remedy, particularly on the Eastern Front.

The Tiger was also incapable of using its 88mm gun whilst moving and had to remain stationary to engage enemy targets making in vulnerable to infantry attack.

In pure combat terms, both were far superior to any tanks they engaged both in terms of firepower and armour.

Answer 5

They were the best, the mechanical breakdowns, the low-speed traverse of the turret, the teething problems of the tracks....were mainly caused by rushing them into battle before they were fully operational.