Not sure what DPS you're looking at, but the (Command) Panther has a 6.65s reload with only 20/30 more penetration at max range while the Tiger I has more than a 20% faster reload at 5.25s. That extra bit of penetration does not make up for the reload disadvantage, and the Tiger I can easily afford to get closer because of its higher durability.
If I'm calculating it somewhat correctly, the Tiger I has a ~45s TTK while the Panther has a 54s TTK, against an IS-2 at 40-50 range, counting from the first shot. Disregarding accuracy because scatter shots are too unpredictable to quantify.
I am checking DPS according to Relic spread sheet vs IS-2 for the weapons I have written. What i am not surer if is am looking at the correct Tiger weapon.
If your number are true then this is simply bad design since the specialized C.Panther (and thus the Panther)are far less cost efficient in its intended role as a counter to vehicles than the more all around Tiger.
You can't seriously want to take the tournament win rates of sample sizes of 1-4 games per commander, with the exception of Luftwaffe at barely 18 games, and present them as fact? That data is completely unreliable. OKW won 2/4 games with no commanders picked, would that make picking no commander almost as good as Grand Offensive?
I took all the games without G.O. vs the game G.O.
In 34 game OKW won 14 which is 42% while G.O won 21 if 34 games and that is a good indicator that the commander is OP.
I am pretty sure similar number will be available for Special OP before G.O. thus the faction performance in tournaments is heavily affect by the performance of specific commanders.