Tiger vs Panther

c.topfer · Post by **c.topfer** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:47 am

Me again with two questions:

Why is it that in the game a Panther costs 9 to produce and a Tiger 8, while in reality it was way cheaper to produce a Panther then producing a Tiger?

Second - can I equip my normal Panzerdivisons with Tigers or can I only equip those 50x Heavy Tank Bn with Tiger?

Later, Christian

panamajo · Post by **panamajo** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 5:09 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by c.topfer:
Second - can I equip my normal Panzerdivisons with Tigers or can I only equip those 50x Heavy Tank Bn with Tiger?

You can only change with tanks of the same type. Tigers are heavy tanks, which get into special heavy tank Bn (the sPzAbt 50* and some SS Bn). Later in the game (when you lose <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> , you can upgrade to Tiger IIs.
The tanks in Pz Divs. are designated Medium Tanks, which can not be replaced with heavy tank.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:41 am

Originally posted by c.topfer:
Me again with two questions:

Why is it that in the game a Panther costs 9 to produce and a Tiger 8, while in reality it was way cheaper to produce a Panther then producing a Tiger?
...
Later, Christian

Hi Christian,

The cost in WIR is not a monetary or even a resource cost. Currently, the only thing that cost affects is the speed of growth of a factory, but no matter what the cost, any factory will grow up to size 15 fairly rapidly. Also, the cost is used to determine the output when switching to a more costly item. Why it is an 8 and a Tiger a 7, I am not sure. However, I can't find the information to confirm it, but I am not positive the Tiger was much more costly monetarily to produce overall. It was relatively crudely made, with vertical armor. It used armor thickness compared to the sloped armor on the Panther. It lacked some refinements present in the Panther also. Thus, a Tiger used more resources but was at least a little easier to make.

In the upcoming release, the cost of both has been made 7, as there are new production rules coming that cause a major decrease in speed of growth after the factory reaches a size related to cost, rather than 15 for all types.

Tom1939 · Post by **Tom1939** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:22 pm

I think I read somewhere that the cost of the tiger was about 300.000 reich marks and the panther 140.000. But this is just a far away memory and I might remember this very badly.

c.topfer · Post by **c.topfer** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 6:12 pm

Tom, you are just about right, the Tiger cost approximately 260.000 Reichsmark, while the Panthers cost was something like 120.000 Reichsmark. (While a Pz-IV cost something like 104.000 RM)

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 7:06 am

I see we need some figures here!

PzKpfw VI Tiger 250800 RM w/o armament & radio / 299800 RM with armament & radio

PzKpfw VI Tiger II 321500 RM with armament & radio

PzKpfw III Ausf M 96183 RM w/o armament / 103163 RM w/o radio

Stug III Ausf G 82500 RM with armament & radio

PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 115962 RM with armament & radio

I cant find figures for a PZ V- but I have seen them somewhere!

But this interests me more-

T-34/76B 4 76.2mm L/41.2 65mm 450km

PzKpfw IV Ausf H 5 75mm L/48 80mm 210km
PzKpfw V Panther Ausf G 5 75mm L/70 110mm 200km
PzKpfw VI Tiger 5 88mm L/56 100mm 140km
PzKpfw VI Tiger II 5 88mm L/71 180mm 170km

The T34 seems to have double the range!!!!!!!!!!

The question is- should a motorised Soviet unit be able to travel further distances than a German one? later int he war of course? or should its readiness have a bonus- much like the blitzkrieg bonus?

Muzrub

jontegrabben · Post by **jontegrabben** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 1:06 pm

If you se to the command structure of the Sovjets you really shouldnt have them go for along distance. (Initiative wasnt really encouraged amongst Stalins boys <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ) But if you se to the point that they had the means, maybe. The supply level wasnt that great through out the war. The motorization was just partly enforced meaning that huge part of the infantry still had to walk. Any comments anyone?

c.topfer · Post by **c.topfer** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 8:19 pm

I agree with Jonas, I have never heard of large Soviet armored columns advancing far ahead of their infantry (which was basically walking), so the range would only be interesting if you implemented some sort of fuel consumption into the game.

Regarding the prices, mine all refer to the Panzers without armament and radio. Still amazing if you look at the Panther with just 25% more than the Pz-IV and the difference in combat value (real life that is).

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 8:56 pm

Looking at the time period- was not the soviet advance west almost as fast if not faster than the German advance east!

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 1:49 pm

Hmmm, July41 till December41 from Polish border to Moscow compared to August43 to May45 from Kursk to Berlin.

I would say the Russians weren´t that fast.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 2:27 pm

Well it took Germany from 41- late 42 to reach their far eastern limit-

But the period I was refering to would begin with the Collapse of Army group centre in 1944 to May 45.

Adnan Meshuggi · Post by **Adnan Meshuggi** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:53 pm

Hm, Muzrub from smolensk to warschaw in 4 months against the distances in 1941... no way... but the inital advance of some elements of operation bagration was very quick, that is true... but the russians had huge logistic problems with that, so you can´t compare that with the german advances of 41... also, to be fair, it is a huge difference if you attack with a 5 - 10:1 advantage or with a 0,5-1,2 - 1 advantage....

Also, the single range of some tanks are not so important, sure it could be a advantafe, but this was street range and not combat range... after that kilometers, you need someone to fill your tanks...

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 6:47 am

Thats fine guys- good points indeed.

Greg J · Post by **Greg J** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 8:42 am

My understanding is along these lines ...

The Soviets had problems throughout the war with large scale attacks. They just did not have the organisation required.

If anything the soviet tank formations should have a penalty to reflect this. Especially in 42 and 43. By the end of the war, they were doing better, but this was also a result of keeping things real simple.

Soviet tanks probably needed twice the range of the German tanks as they could not expect to get refuelled half as much. Even in 1945, soviet attack soldiers knew they had to feed themselves once their attack began. I think, fuel and ammo (where possible), were the only things the Soviets supplied to their advancing troops. All soviet offensives eventually petered out once the food, fuel and / or ammo ran out, thus giving time to the Germans to get their **** together. This happened right up to the advance into Germany itself.

WIR turns are for a week, I wonder how many times the average Russian tank got resupplied in a week, compared to the average german tank? And on average, how much was it resupplied with?

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 11:56 am

Here are the figures on Tiger I costs:

800,000 reichmarks
300,000 man hours

It was very expensive and the average production was only 56 per month over the life 2 year production run of 1,350 total Tiger I's built.

Contrast that with the PZ IV and Panther which went into several hunderds per month by late 1944 and the T-34 which went over 1,000 per month as early as 1943.

Muzrub,
The soviet tanks were more mobile than the German tanks, but the soviet logistical system was far more primitive than the Germans (who themselves were more primitive than the US / Great Britain). So, while the soviet tanks were more mobile a soviet tank corps was not. Further, it was not until very late 1943 and into 1944 that the Soviets began receiving large amounts of US built wheeled transport (trucks, jeeps, etc as well as over 4,00 rail locomotives!!) that enabled them to move their units with any degree of quickness. The soviets themselves admitted to westerm military analysts later that they literally rode on to Berlin on the US provided equipment.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]</p>

moi · Post by **moi** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:41 pm

On 01.05.1945 % of american and british automobiles in Soviet Army was 32.8%.

I think, this information can show that Soviet Army move to Berlin in Soviet auto.

Sorry for my terrible english

Regards, moi

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:02 am

moi,

My information is straight from the mouths of the Soviet high command. They didn't admit this until the 1980s and it woill not be found in any Soviet or Russian domestic publications.

Even if your information is correct (and I don't think it is because the same Soviet Marshalls admitted that they were free to concentrate on tank and AFV production knowing that they were receiving large numbers of US wheeled vehicles), that's fully ONE THIRD of the soviet army rolling on US/UK stock.

How's this for a thought: on 1 Jan 1945 0.0% of the wheeled vehicles in use by both the US Army and the British Army were russian built. And, the US and British Armies were FULLY motorized from day 1 (1939), not largely horse / foot marched like the Soviet and German armies.

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:17 am

What battle cost the western allies over 5,000 tanks, 7,000 aircraft and over 200,000 tons of other material (mostly trucks and radios)?

Why the murmansk convoys, of course. This is what was in the 58 ships that were sunk trying to provide lend lease to the soviets in 1941-44.

moi · Post by **moi** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:32 pm

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
moi,

My information is straight from the mouths of the Soviet high command. They didn't admit this until the 1980s and it woill not be found in any Soviet or Russian domestic publications.

Even if your information is correct (and I don't think it is because the same Soviet Marshalls admitted that they were free to concentrate on tank and AFV production knowing that they were receiving large numbers of US wheeled vehicles), that's fully ONE THIRD of the soviet army rolling on US/UK stock.

How's this for a thought: on 1 Jan 1945 0.0% of the wheeled vehicles in use by both the US Army and the British Army were russian built.

Oh, yes, of course. I dont want speak about this, but you to need me. On 1 Jan 1944 0.0% of both American and British soldiers were in Europian front. Germany aviation do not drop bombs on American cities, American industry do not transfer for thousand kilometer. I think, if 1/3 of american population was under occupation, soviet auto will be in USA army.
In 1941-43, where soviet soldier paid his blood yankees to manufacture auto for USA army.

And, the US and British Armies were FULLY motorized from day 1 (1939), not largely horse / foot marched like the Soviet and German armies.

http://www.freeport-tech.com/wwii/013_usa/40_org/cav-div.html - it about FULLY MOTORIZED ON 1 Day. Some hint: Do you know something about amount of soldiers in USA Army on 1 day? AFAIK not more than 400 000.

Sorry for my terrible English.

Regards,
moi

moi · Post by **moi** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:45 pm

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
What battle cost the western allies over 5,000 tanks, 7,000 aircraft and over 200,000 tons of other material (mostly trucks and radios)?

Why the murmansk convoys, of course. This is what was in the 58 ships that were sunk trying to provide lend lease to the soviets in 1941-44.

Wah! You don't nothing know about lend-lease!
R. H. Jones "The Roads to Russia: United State Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union", University of Oklahoma, 1969.

Not 5000 tanks, more than 9000 before 30.04.1944,
Not 7000 aircraft, more than 12000 before 30.04.1944
Not 200 000 tonn, more than 10 mln tonn weapons, amunition, food before 30.04.1944
This amount from USA, UK, Canada. I hasn't info for 1944-45 in hand right now.

I do not want to decrease a value of allied supply for out common victory.
Thousands and Millions russian was saved from death refer american food. Almost all armored carriers in Soviet army was from Canada, 80% Rail-train (locomotiv?) was from USA. The best of soviet torpedoboat was american and english torpedoboat. And so, and so. Soviet men say "Big Thanks" for this help.

But sentence "Russian army move to Berlin in american car" is wrong!

Sorry for my terrible English.

Regards,
moi