@SMGJohn Officially? Medium tank. You don't actually know the standards of either country because the weight doesn't determine a tank's class as much as its capabilities do.
Thanks for the video. The buildtime for a Panther was two times faster than for a Tiger. The most produced german tank was the Pz IV but the Panther was the most successfull imho.
THEY NOT SAY HERE: WHEN GERMANS CREATE 1 TIGER OR PANTHER - RUSSIANS (SOVIETS ) CREATE MORE THAN 10 T-34 .... And on battlefield much better heave 10-t-34 , than just one tiger or panther .
Until the arrival of the Sherman Firefly no allied tank could knock out a Tiger and that had to be done within 500yards.. The Tiger could hit at 1200yards but the Tiger was slow and that included turret traverse. The Panther delivered better hitting power as the calibre of its gun was greater than the 88mm. But the Panther was far more manoeuvrable so add a gun with a better punch and make it more mobile and you get a first rate killer I think the Russians feared it more than the Tiger.
@TheBritishEngineer The gun was lower calibre, it was just longer giving the round more time to accelerate and thus giving it better penetrating power.
The Panther was a great tank. but come on more feared than the tiger? NO WAY! there are dozens and dozens of stories about tigers holding off and destroying numerous Russian tanks . The Panther did great but didnt have the same reputation as the Tiger. and in the east range is what mattered. And the 88 in the tiger had awesome range
@SSBlackAngel That comment about fearing the Panther more than the Tiger was complete bullshit. Many of these "History Channel" videos contain reidiculous and stupid narrator's comments. The Tiger was the most feared because of not only its firepower, but its armor. The Tiger II had a FAR superior gun than the Panther of course and really couldn't be taken out from the front by any allied gun at all.
@aranax69 ha ha ha ha, an study made by the US army after the war, accounted an average of 5 Sherman to destroy a Panther and 7 t-34 to destroy a Panther. and about the tiger... the heavy tank battalion 503 destroyed more than 100 soviet tanks during the battle of kursk for the lost of 3 Tigers.... so the theory of the invincible T-34is only a remind of the soviet propaganda during and after the war....
@Dreachon Shore, that losses were horrible, only a giant country like the urrs was, can hold with this... So the Germans made a really professional job in his army and weapons, but against that mass of people of tanks is nearly impossible to win.
@samuraispirit88 if the panther was germany's most produced tank they still would have lost the war by 1945 because the panther was prone to constant break down. A german army report dated march March 15,1945 showed that there were 117 panthers left in the western front of only 49 were actually operational. thats over 50% out due to mechanical failure rather than combat and there are only a few times tanks got into a real battle and it was in the Ardennes and the shermans beat the panthers
@lynx69able very true. one of the reasons that the panther was prone to break down is that the panther was rushed into operation without proper testing. hence mechanical failer that was not properly picked but during the testing phase. :)
Dollar for Dollar and Pound for Pound the Panther was far superior to the over engineered and VERY expensive Tiger series. Our (USA) Sherman's feared the Panther as much as they feared the Tiger. T-34 and Panther were probably the 2 best tanks fielded in WW2 when all factors are considered. Just my opinion...
PANTHER - HV 75mm round penetrates better than Tiger at medium to long range...but both could penetrate anything so that didnt matter much. Panther's sloped armor was better at short and medium range but served against it at long range...tigers at long range was better. Panthers weaker side armor was not as good as tigers, but Panthers turret was faster, so Panther can oporate in towns and hilly areas better than Tiger. Panther is best all around tank...Tiger best for long range field battles.
TIGER - best long range weapon. 88mm KwK L/56 Flak could destroy at over 2000 meters. Bigger ound had better HE as well. Tigers frontal armor 100mm thick...was best at long range incoming deflections, because they generally arc'd downward, hitting the tigers flat front at angle and deflecting.
Tiger could drive underwater. Tiger could "spin-turn". Again, best tank for big fields and rivers. Tiger was most feared since almost impossible to destroy.
@calimar28 Panther's gun was way better than Tiger I's in the anti tank role. HV anti tank rounds do not arc that much downwards because of the high velocity and of the very flat trajectory, so Panther's frontal armor vastly outperforms Tiger I's. The side armor of the Panther was thinner but well sloped so that helped a lot. For long range duels against tanks I'd choose the Panther. If the enemy flanks a tank, that tank will be destroyed anyway so side armor is of less importance.
Mate , the L70 75mm of the Panther could indeed penetrate more armour than the 88mm L56 of the Tiger 1,but only up to 1200-1400m . Beyond that the Tiger 1s gun could penetrate more armour due to the larger caliber. And while the usual tank vs tank combat range in ww2 was about 1000 m,the L70 was more profficient .
@Cosmin1511 Penetration of the 75mm L70 gun against an armor plate 30 dgr from vertical: 111mm(149mm-APCR)-1000m, 99mm(127mm-APCR)-1500m.
Penetration of the 88mm L56 gun against an armor plate 30 dgr from vertical: 100mm(138mm-APCR)-1000m, 91mm(122mm-APCR)-1500m. The speed of the shell is much more important than the weight of the shell when using APCR rounds (Kinetic energy=mass times speed squared).
Indeed the muzzle velocity is more important as armour penetration is concerned. Ur penetration chart regarding the L56 coincides with what ive read . However with the L70 my numbers are slightlly different : @1000 m with Pzgr 39 - 115mm , 149mm with Pzgr 40/42 ; @1500 m - 90mm Pzgr 39 & 115mm Pzgr 40/42 .
I Incline to belive my numbers since mass is still a variable, and while the L56 APCR weight 7.5kg the APCR for L70 weight 4.75kg .
@Cosmin1511 True that, the muzzle velocity of the Panther had massive kinetic energy impact on targets. The Tiger did have a large shell... hence the many turrets of T-34's blown off. Cheers!
Germanys most produced medium tank is the Stug, which has more kills than any other in the war. The Germans thought of it as a "tank destroyer"...but it is a tank of course, without a turret. It was the master of camoflauge.
The Stug III was more like an assault gun. Although it did end up proving itself an effective tank destroyer. The Stug III was under the control of the artillery wing of the Wehrmacht.
And someone here said that the Panther is Germanys mmost produced medium tank. Wrong. The Panzer 4 is Germanys most produced medium tank, and served until the end of the war (Panzer 4 H model).
And let me tell you somthing else, the Panthers side armor was a weak 40mm thick compared to the Tigers 80mm side armor. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
The Panther tank was an excellent designed tank, but in the start of its operation plagued by several technical problems since the tank was actually not ready yet to see service. Allso the german egineers had a habit of trying to egineer perfection, meaning the Panther was well designed but complex and took a long time to build. Still the panther marked a milestone in tank design and served as an example for the Leopard tank.
The Panther and the Tiger were excellent tanks for there era. They were designed to do different things. Very much like the guns the carried. The Tiger carried an 88 which was redesigned to fit in a tank. It was a flak weapon originally. The 75mm was, at wars start, a heavy, long range, highly accurate anti armour weapon. The mobility, firepower, reliability and survivability are what make good tanks. These were generally ok in some areas, excellent in others.
The Tigers 88mm was far stronger than the Panthers 75mm. What do they mean by the 75 was better than the 88...what nonsense is that? The 88mm can engage at over 2000 meters (up to 3000 meters!), and has far thicker armor than the panther. Feared? Nothing was feared as the Tiger.
Ohh you seem to forget (or what is more probable - don't know) about muzzle velocity of the shell which is even more important if it comes to armor piercing effect (due to formula Ek=(mv^2)/2). Panthers was better for anti-tank purposes. Were also lighter and faster. Had a bit worse armor then tiger, and this is because they were not heavy tanks like tigers. So you are absolutely wrong in your opinion.
You should get the facts straight, the panthers 75mm had a higher muzzle velocity than the 88mm of the tiger and therefor better at penetrating armour, it's armour although not as thick as the tiger was sloped and therefor provided better protection as it deflected shots away from the vehicle.
a panther G can penetrate the frontal armor of a t 34 85 on a distance of 900 meters the t34 85 has to be within 500 meters, the panther is also a lot more accurate and faster. its the perfect tank on the field but expensive(even if a tiger is as expensive as two panthers)
The Panther started out poorly but then got better and better. They fixed technical issues, and of course the KwK 42 was so good at firing APCR rounds. (If it was firing those it was better than the feared 88mm cannon.)
I don't agree it was more feared than Tiger...the most feared tank of WW2 was panzer VI, or Tiger, and countless war veterans agree to this. Panzers were not reliable enough and had too many mechanical breakdowns to be considered most feared weapons...tigers on the other hand were heavy monsters with massive armour and powerful gun, blowing T-34's sloped armour from far distance
I can't agree with that. The Tiger embodied fear in the battlefield mainly because of its thick frontal armour and the massive 88mm gun on its turret. The Panther on the other hand had a lesser thick armor, but its sloping angle gave it a better chance at surviving. Thus being more practical and effective, it can be said that in that respect, the Panther is better than the Tiger.
True that. But I was referring about the fear factor and fire power of the two tanks. And like I said the Panther is actually better because it was more practical and considerably easier to build than the Tiger.
soso hab was geiles entdeckt haha
ValrieDennyuk378 1 month ago
Hitler is the man who made all German tanks heavy armored. Good job Hitler you had a brain enough to understand that tanks had to be heavily armored
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn REALLY? All he did was put orders on manufacturers asking for tanks that would fill the right roles in the war.
MultiAREE 1 month ago
@MultiAREE But Hitler said that the Panther had to be more heavy armored when he first reviewed the first Panther prototype
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn Yeah... because the Russians were using a combination of heavy and medium tanks to assault German positions.
And the Panther is a medium tank.
MultiAREE 1 month ago
@MultiAREE Panther would be a Heavy tanks in Soviet standards. And T-34 was a light tanks in German standards
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn Officially? Medium tank. You don't actually know the standards of either country because the weight doesn't determine a tank's class as much as its capabilities do.
MultiAREE 1 month ago
I thought the Panzer 4's gun was capable of firing up to 2000 meters,
lolololololololtoast 4 months ago
@lolololololololtoast it was able to do so
but the tigers 88 could penetrate a t34 or sherman on ranges over 2000m
the pak 40 could not
the panthers gun was in the same range as the tigers
TheLordZhufor 2 months ago
Thanks for the video. The buildtime for a Panther was two times faster than for a Tiger. The most produced german tank was the Pz IV but the Panther was the most successfull imho.
Panzertaktik 5 months ago
Why do these children think they know so much about this subject
RaulMeatFactorys 6 months ago
Achtung Panther
haiherosner 7 months ago
no its most produced are tank are my cock thumbs up
general1774 9 months ago
One of my favorite tanks.
TraustiGeir 1 year ago
the best tank is the king tiger 1/14 a true predator
siebendragon 1 year ago
thanks sir.
Rico8458 1 year ago
who designed the T-34?
Rico8458 1 year ago
@Rico8458 I do not know exactly who, but it was based on an american design.
HeartGoldMVP 1 year ago
THEY NOT SAY HERE: WHEN GERMANS CREATE 1 TIGER OR PANTHER - RUSSIANS (SOVIETS ) CREATE MORE THAN 10 T-34 .... And on battlefield much better heave 10-t-34 , than just one tiger or panther .
vlad9vt 1 year ago
@vlad9vt Unless you'r the one in the T-34. Theres a reason the Soviets rewarded their best tank crews with a captured Panther.
NightmareGbg 5 months ago
@NightmareGbg this is not answer:
what better on battlefield only (1) tiger or panther or 10-15 T-34 ?
When germans create ONLY 1 tiger or panther- russians in same time create 10-15 t-34 or Su-85 , or another models.
vlad9vt 5 months ago
@vlad9vt well but the kill ratio shows also that on the eastern front for every killed tiger up to 20 russian tanks got shot up
TheLordZhufor 2 months ago
0:17
They see me rollin.....
oosulley 1 year ago
Until the arrival of the Sherman Firefly no allied tank could knock out a Tiger and that had to be done within 500yards.. The Tiger could hit at 1200yards but the Tiger was slow and that included turret traverse. The Panther delivered better hitting power as the calibre of its gun was greater than the 88mm. But the Panther was far more manoeuvrable so add a gun with a better punch and make it more mobile and you get a first rate killer I think the Russians feared it more than the Tiger.
TheBritishEngineer 1 year ago
@TheBritishEngineer The gun was lower calibre, it was just longer giving the round more time to accelerate and thus giving it better penetrating power.
TheGarand01 1 year ago
The Panther was a great tank. but come on more feared than the tiger? NO WAY! there are dozens and dozens of stories about tigers holding off and destroying numerous Russian tanks . The Panther did great but didnt have the same reputation as the Tiger. and in the east range is what mattered. And the 88 in the tiger had awesome range
SSBlackAngel 1 year ago
@SSBlackAngel That comment about fearing the Panther more than the Tiger was complete bullshit. Many of these "History Channel" videos contain reidiculous and stupid narrator's comments. The Tiger was the most feared because of not only its firepower, but its armor. The Tiger II had a FAR superior gun than the Panther of course and really couldn't be taken out from the front by any allied gun at all.
Robert111 1 year ago
@SSBlackAngel After the russians got the T-34 they weren't afraid of the tiger anymore
aranax69 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cosmin1511 1 year ago
@aranax69
The T34 entered service before the Tiger did , genius !
Cosmin1511 1 year ago
@aranax69 ha ha ha ha, an study made by the US army after the war, accounted an average of 5 Sherman to destroy a Panther and 7 t-34 to destroy a Panther. and about the tiger... the heavy tank battalion 503 destroyed more than 100 soviet tanks during the battle of kursk for the lost of 3 Tigers.... so the theory of the invincible T-34is only a remind of the soviet propaganda during and after the war....
tonidmc 1 year ago
@tonidmc
The invicibility of the T-34 get's already wrecked when you look att he losses of t-34 for each year.
2300 in 1941, a further 6600 in 1942, a staggering 15800 in 1943 and 12470 in 1944.
There isn't much left of such a reputation when you look at those losses and these are only T-34.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon Shore, that losses were horrible, only a giant country like the urrs was, can hold with this... So the Germans made a really professional job in his army and weapons, but against that mass of people of tanks is nearly impossible to win.
tonidmc 1 year ago
@tonidmc
Had they followed the Markes plan, Western Russia would have fallen within 14 weeks.
Even with the Markes plan that doesn't fix that the industrial output problems which plagued the corrupt Nazi state.
otester 1 year ago
@aranax69 but the T-34 showed up in 41 and the tiger showed up in 43
jasincl 1 year ago
@jasincl
23 september 1942 near leningrad to be exact.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@samuraispirit88 if the panther was germany's most produced tank they still would have lost the war by 1945 because the panther was prone to constant break down. A german army report dated march March 15,1945 showed that there were 117 panthers left in the western front of only 49 were actually operational. thats over 50% out due to mechanical failure rather than combat and there are only a few times tanks got into a real battle and it was in the Ardennes and the shermans beat the panthers
lynx69able 1 year ago
@lynx69able very true. one of the reasons that the panther was prone to break down is that the panther was rushed into operation without proper testing. hence mechanical failer that was not properly picked but during the testing phase. :)
SkullKing11841 1 year ago
@SkullKing11841 The version of the tank that was prone to break done was only used once and then replaced...
aranax69 1 year ago
Dollar for Dollar and Pound for Pound the Panther was far superior to the over engineered and VERY expensive Tiger series. Our (USA) Sherman's feared the Panther as much as they feared the Tiger. T-34 and Panther were probably the 2 best tanks fielded in WW2 when all factors are considered. Just my opinion...
randy95023 1 year ago
More than 1/4 of total Soviet tanks were destroyed by the panther, the rated second German killer AFV to be the Stug III. the third; the Tiger? Who?
9394JP731 2 years ago
I was shure there was no better anti tank gun then the 88mm. I know that orginaly that was anti-aircraft gun
majorRajn 2 years ago
12 ton lighter than a tiger? :o
infernalzen 2 years ago
PANTHER - HV 75mm round penetrates better than Tiger at medium to long range...but both could penetrate anything so that didnt matter much. Panther's sloped armor was better at short and medium range but served against it at long range...tigers at long range was better. Panthers weaker side armor was not as good as tigers, but Panthers turret was faster, so Panther can oporate in towns and hilly areas better than Tiger. Panther is best all around tank...Tiger best for long range field battles.
calimar28 2 years ago
Did they produce the panther until the end of the war ?
FinalWar1444 2 years ago
Ok, here it is.
TIGER - best long range weapon. 88mm KwK L/56 Flak could destroy at over 2000 meters. Bigger ound had better HE as well. Tigers frontal armor 100mm thick...was best at long range incoming deflections, because they generally arc'd downward, hitting the tigers flat front at angle and deflecting.
Tiger could drive underwater. Tiger could "spin-turn". Again, best tank for big fields and rivers. Tiger was most feared since almost impossible to destroy.
calimar28 2 years ago
@calimar28 Panther's gun was way better than Tiger I's in the anti tank role. HV anti tank rounds do not arc that much downwards because of the high velocity and of the very flat trajectory, so Panther's frontal armor vastly outperforms Tiger I's. The side armor of the Panther was thinner but well sloped so that helped a lot. For long range duels against tanks I'd choose the Panther. If the enemy flanks a tank, that tank will be destroyed anyway so side armor is of less importance.
Bereft008 1 year ago
@Bereft008
Mate , the L70 75mm of the Panther could indeed penetrate more armour than the 88mm L56 of the Tiger 1,but only up to 1200-1400m . Beyond that the Tiger 1s gun could penetrate more armour due to the larger caliber. And while the usual tank vs tank combat range in ww2 was about 1000 m,the L70 was more profficient .
Cosmin1511 1 year ago
@Cosmin1511 Penetration of the 75mm L70 gun against an armor plate 30 dgr from vertical: 111mm(149mm-APCR)-1000m, 99mm(127mm-APCR)-1500m.
Penetration of the 88mm L56 gun against an armor plate 30 dgr from vertical: 100mm(138mm-APCR)-1000m, 91mm(122mm-APCR)-1500m. The speed of the shell is much more important than the weight of the shell when using APCR rounds (Kinetic energy=mass times speed squared).
Bereft008 1 year ago
@Bereft008
Indeed the muzzle velocity is more important as armour penetration is concerned. Ur penetration chart regarding the L56 coincides with what ive read . However with the L70 my numbers are slightlly different : @1000 m with Pzgr 39 - 115mm , 149mm with Pzgr 40/42 ; @1500 m - 90mm Pzgr 39 & 115mm Pzgr 40/42 .
I Incline to belive my numbers since mass is still a variable, and while the L56 APCR weight 7.5kg the APCR for L70 weight 4.75kg .
Cosmin1511 1 year ago
@Cosmin1511 True that, the muzzle velocity of the Panther had massive kinetic energy impact on targets. The Tiger did have a large shell... hence the many turrets of T-34's blown off. Cheers!
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
@Bereft008
Si appo , bine ca ne conversam in engleza :)
Cosmin1511 1 year ago
@Cosmin1511 Persze, hogy jó (Da, e bine).
Bereft008 1 year ago
@Bereft008 Mass times speed squared / 2.
Bereft008 1 year ago
The Stug is medium right?
calimar28 2 years ago
Germanys most produced medium tank is the Stug, which has more kills than any other in the war. The Germans thought of it as a "tank destroyer"...but it is a tank of course, without a turret. It was the master of camoflauge.
calimar28 2 years ago 3
The Stug III was more like an assault gun. Although it did end up proving itself an effective tank destroyer. The Stug III was under the control of the artillery wing of the Wehrmacht.
TheMan6376 2 years ago
how was a smaller round more effective against tanks?
GewherWaffe 2 years ago
If the tank gun is longer it increases muzzle velocity.
TheMan6376 2 years ago
And someone here said that the Panther is Germanys mmost produced medium tank. Wrong. The Panzer 4 is Germanys most produced medium tank, and served until the end of the war (Panzer 4 H model).
calimar28 3 years ago 30
No, the most produced German tank was Trabant.
sinitskyd 3 years ago 23
thats a type of engine isnt it?
Rocafile 2 years ago
No, the most produced and really reliable and durable german tank is the aircooled volkswagen beetle.
tonidmc 2 years ago
that's a car idiot
HerrGeneralVonBraun 2 years ago
@sinitskyd you're both wrong. the sturmgeschütz was the most produced, although technically is was an assault gun.
xxxAldenatorxxx 11 months ago
That still doesn't even come close to the T-34 of which close to 84,000 were made.
TheMan6376 2 years ago
russia makes everything way to much, but Panther kicks ace
johnsextraaccount 2 years ago
@calimar28 exactly, because had the Panther been Germanys most produced tank, i doubt they would of lost the war in 1945!! lol
samuraispirit88 1 year ago
@calimar28 mainly because of it's ease of producibility, and also that it had the choice of upgrades without much work.
kornek21 8 months ago
And let me tell you somthing else, the Panthers side armor was a weak 40mm thick compared to the Tigers 80mm side armor. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
calimar28 3 years ago
I'll tell you about muzzle velocity...the 88 can penetrate 125mm of armor, at 2,500 meters. How do you like that for muzzle velocity?
calimar28 3 years ago
oooh S.E.X.Y! i <3 it
panzers rule!!!!
ThePanzerTank 3 years ago
The Panther tank was an excellent designed tank, but in the start of its operation plagued by several technical problems since the tank was actually not ready yet to see service. Allso the german egineers had a habit of trying to egineer perfection, meaning the Panther was well designed but complex and took a long time to build. Still the panther marked a milestone in tank design and served as an example for the Leopard tank.
MalkavianMadness 3 years ago 2
The Panther and the Tiger were excellent tanks for there era. They were designed to do different things. Very much like the guns the carried. The Tiger carried an 88 which was redesigned to fit in a tank. It was a flak weapon originally. The 75mm was, at wars start, a heavy, long range, highly accurate anti armour weapon. The mobility, firepower, reliability and survivability are what make good tanks. These were generally ok in some areas, excellent in others.
holtbp 3 years ago 2
lets chat
why cant i see the video iw
JLKAJFLKDFKSDKJF 3 years ago
the panther had thicker armor on the front becous of the sloped armor...but the 88mm was a better gun with higher valositi than the panther
rammsteww2 3 years ago
Nope, the panther 75mm had a higher muzzle velocity than the 88mm of the tiger.
Dreachon 3 years ago 3
The Tigers 88mm was far stronger than the Panthers 75mm. What do they mean by the 75 was better than the 88...what nonsense is that? The 88mm can engage at over 2000 meters (up to 3000 meters!), and has far thicker armor than the panther. Feared? Nothing was feared as the Tiger.
calimar28 3 years ago
Ohh you seem to forget (or what is more probable - don't know) about muzzle velocity of the shell which is even more important if it comes to armor piercing effect (due to formula Ek=(mv^2)/2). Panthers was better for anti-tank purposes. Were also lighter and faster. Had a bit worse armor then tiger, and this is because they were not heavy tanks like tigers. So you are absolutely wrong in your opinion.
TheKryan 3 years ago
You should get the facts straight, the panthers 75mm had a higher muzzle velocity than the 88mm of the tiger and therefor better at penetrating armour, it's armour although not as thick as the tiger was sloped and therefor provided better protection as it deflected shots away from the vehicle.
Dreachon 3 years ago 3
the only thing worse on the Panther than in the Tiger I was the sides armor, all the rest is better balanced.
tonidmc 2 years ago
some veterans became so afraid of the tigers,that one general described it as "tiger phobia"
panzerelite88mm 3 years ago
a panther G can penetrate the frontal armor of a t 34 85 on a distance of 900 meters the t34 85 has to be within 500 meters, the panther is also a lot more accurate and faster. its the perfect tank on the field but expensive(even if a tiger is as expensive as two panthers)
boggypete17 3 years ago
The Panther started out poorly but then got better and better. They fixed technical issues, and of course the KwK 42 was so good at firing APCR rounds. (If it was firing those it was better than the feared 88mm cannon.)
ChaosSamusX 3 years ago
I don't agree it was more feared than Tiger...the most feared tank of WW2 was panzer VI, or Tiger, and countless war veterans agree to this. Panzers were not reliable enough and had too many mechanical breakdowns to be considered most feared weapons...tigers on the other hand were heavy monsters with massive armour and powerful gun, blowing T-34's sloped armour from far distance
kimskis 3 years ago
Wow more powerful and feared than the Tiger!!
ME262MKI 3 years ago
I can't agree with that. The Tiger embodied fear in the battlefield mainly because of its thick frontal armour and the massive 88mm gun on its turret. The Panther on the other hand had a lesser thick armor, but its sloping angle gave it a better chance at surviving. Thus being more practical and effective, it can be said that in that respect, the Panther is better than the Tiger.
jolorulz 3 years ago
well its better because the panther was Germany^s most produced medium tank and had less problems than the tiger
ME262MKI 3 years ago
True that. But I was referring about the fear factor and fire power of the two tanks. And like I said the Panther is actually better because it was more practical and considerably easier to build than the Tiger.
jolorulz 3 years ago
I agree with you
ME262MKI 3 years ago
this videos is real
leandrobrap 4 years ago