Main page

DC1121, on Mar 22 2012 - 05:13, said:

I am not a Russian but that statement is very true. All my friends don't believe it. Like Mr. T would say, "I pitty the fool!"

Ill tell you something.. at least was a nice birthday present

None of the things you mention are things real tankers actually care about.

If given a choice to any tank before and during the main time of the Tiger tank, a huge majority of real tankers are going to choose the Tiger.

No tanker gives a crap about the costs.  At all. We want the best equipment available period.   Just is not relevant at all.

Same thing for fuel and maintenance costs.   These things do not matter to a tanker, and they are not things tankers are concerned with.  Maybe if they had to pay for it, but we don't.  We want to come back alive, so we want the best equipment.

Breakdowns mean nothing. All tanks breakdown, and they all get stuck in the mud.   Been stuck in the mud multiple times from drivers not understanding the trick to it.   And if a tank breaks down on the way to battle, that's also not a huge loss or disappointment for the tankers.  Certainly not enough to take on inferior equipment instead when it is working.  

What is going to matter to me?

1. Firepower including range.
2. Armor.
3. Mobility.

That's what REALLY matters to a tanker.   Firepower and Armor can never have enough of.  Mobility after about 30mph is a luxury and rarely used in battle.   If you are lacking it, then it's a big deal.  But so long as you are above like 20-25, it's all good.

I'm pretty sure very few informed people would call the tiger tank the best of world war II. Definite myth.

smokntuesdays, on Mar 22 2012 - 05:50, said:

I have read interviews of many American, British and Soviet tankers. I don't recall any wishing they had been in the Tiger. I do recall bitterness over not having a gun that would penetrate the Tiger on equal terms. I understand your point of view but consider this, if your tracks are frozen in the morning and cant move because of the lousy design and you got a swarm of t34 coming, you probably care. How about losing the initiative because your tank can only hold 2-3 hours of fuel or being cornered in the middle of battle by a bridge you cant cross because your to heavy. How about having to walk to base because you couldn't complete the march.

easy8tanker, on Mar 22 2012 - 04:53, said:

I'd still call it a waste, about 500-600 were produced, the 88 L/71 was extremely overpowered compared to the other tank guns on the field (forget about the 128 they put on the JagTiger), I'm sure if they used the R&D research costs, they could have made the tanks they had more reliable and efficient.  The same could be said of the Super heavy tank projects, like the Maus, E-100, and the Landkreuzer projects (despite the latter never having prototypes).  But Hitler wanted his wunderwaffe (super weapons) to magically turn the tide of battle.

frantz70, on Mar 22 2012 - 05:14, said:

Germany never really pushed their economy to total war state until 1942, civilian goods were still made in decent quantities compared to other countries.  Maybe if German designs had the resources and manufacturing of the US, they could have won, and still kept that mentality.

The Soviets really had 1 advantage in WWII, numbers.  The Soviet strategy was human wave tactics, which just means, they will send wave after wave until they win, or they run out of reserves, combine that with a large front, and high maintenance machines and you have a recipe for disaster for the Germans.

You have reminded me. On the logistical issue of transport and recovery: It usually took one Tiger to recover another and the practice was generally frowned upon. Otherwise it took 3 18 ton Famos to haul a Tiger.

On the US side there was the M26/M25 combo making the Dragon Wagon. The trailer could hold 40 tons but the dual winches on the transporter could pull 60 tons. Making Tiger recovery possible.If not extremely haphazard and dangerous.  It's also worth pointing out that the system could recover everything in the US arsenal.

Greatest at what. In a one on one battle, the tiger would mop the floor with any other tanks at the time of its release. Now do that same battle 1000 times and see which tank is still running, a tiger or a T-34 or Sherman?

This arguement has been made again and again. Experts will agree that a Tiger is a better quality tank then a T-34 or a Sherman. But that quality cost it reliability and ease of production.

If I had to fight one tank battle, I'd be in a Tiger. If I had to fight 1000, I'd be in a T-34 or a Sherman.

Yep @ OP that sounds about right... panther tanks should be noted required heavy maintenance as well despite the overall refinement of the design... ever read "Tiger's in the Mud" by Otto Carius?

The Tiger was designed to put an 88mm gun in the field after experience facing the British Matildas and French heavy tanks which none of their AT guns could penetrate, not as a result of meeting the Soviet tanks.

The same time it was decided to upgun their panzer III to 50mm KwK 38 L42 'not the 50mm KwK L60 that the panzer troops wished though, which could have dealt with the T34 when they were encountered', even so the Germans also developed a better round for the 50mm that was in short supply which meant the 50mm was equal to the T34 (part of the reasons for the lack of new rounds and the choice of the KwK 38 were to reduce costs as Germanys economy was already strained).

The response to the Soviet tanks was the Panther and upgunning the Panzer IV and StuG III to the 75mm KwK L43 and later L48 while at the same time upgunning the Panzer III to the 50mm KwK 39 L60.

smokntuesdays, on Mar 22 2012 - 05:50, said:

The infantry that are expected to support the tanks do care about reliability. It is better to have a Panzer IV with you rather than two Tigers sitting miles away broken down. Panzer Lehr refused its Tiger II tanks in 1944 (despite being short of armour) due to the unreliability of them.

The 'twue' British tankers wanted better guns than the 2pdr they had struggled with from 1941 onwards (preferably with a HE capability). They had speedy tanks and they had heavily armoured tanks, it was a shame the 6pdr introduction was slowed due to the desperate need for any AT gun in 1939/40.

There is a lot of difference between occasional breakdowns and vehicles being so unreliable that 50% would be out of action due to mechanical failure at any one time not including combat losses. Couple this with tanks that were so heavy you had no adequate recovery equipment, this meant that breakdowns in the combat area invariably led to the vehicle being lost (even if it was a minor breakdown).

Heavy maintenance workloads are also not wanted by crews, who wants to spend hours a day doing daily maintenance especially when in the combat zone. The Matilda II was a case in point, it took a long time to service all the grease points each day, necessary for reliable operation.

German Panzer design proper started off with the simple Panzer III and IV, both were capable of being upgraded, were simple and reliable with chassis that could be used for many roles.

The later tanks tended to be too complicated, rushed into service and poorly designed mechanically. Couple the to the simple facts that as production went on the Germans were forced to remove things like power traverse to save costs and materials.

Well cost effectivly the Tiger was a bad tank, it had it problems but the later models were quite reliable.

The panther was a better tank hands down sure, the shermand and T-34 were pretty OKE too.

but i would have to chooce between WW2 tanks to be in while in battle? Hands down the Jagdpanther or King Tiger. why? 88L71 and crap loads of armor beats "best overall tank" in a combat situation

I find that going into history and judging from a particular perception on a specific matter just obscures the arguments that might arise to put things into perspective.

I would consider that the tiger I as an arms system was very effective. As a mechanical system it sure had problems that anyone could find even with a super quality control process in place, this means, any product suffers from these anomalies and eventually these are found and corrected. Eventually the product is perfected. The same goes for products competing in the same category, no one can claim they are better until they are used and eventually accepted as they have proved to be a good product.

It's like the F-86 Sabre vs the Mig-15. Which tool is best, well, the Mig is best, but, when the whole history is put into action, the F-86 wins with an effectiveness of a 10:1 kill:loss ratio.

How good was the Tiger, well lets look at the numbers (source: http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml)

Total  Lost: 1,715

Total Killed: 9,850

Kill Loss Ratio:  5.74

Was it good ?. It looks like it was.

Was the best ?. We should look at the other vehicles effectiveness.

Anyway, we have an objective way to measure how good it was, the effectiveness in battle.

For example, you can argue that the Soviets put basically cannon fodder into their vehicles (bad crews), and that is true, but, how can you objectively, with a argument like this, state that other vehicles are better if the numbers tell a different story ?. Objectively, the Tiger I was a better arms system than its similar or equal peers.

It was costly and hard to make (as much as twice the man hours needed for the Panther), but performance wise, it was really good at the job, so much, the other armies had to rely on some creative (unorthodox) tactics to engage it in combat and defeat it.

How better on a 1 on 1 , well, that's another debate. Remember that a vehicle needs someone to drive it, if the Tiger I had an advantage with better crews, then it should also be factored into the equation, because a vehicle is as good as the crew operating it, just take a good look at the game we are playing.

Arkhell, on Mar 22 2012 - 15:40, said:

The Panzertruppen when questioned by Speer in Italy said they wished for lighter vehicles with big guns like the 88mm L56 or 75mm L71's rather than the heavy vehicles.

Their reasons where that the allied tanks could go where they could not, the German Tigers, Panthers and variations were too big and heavy for the roads while their cross country ability and climbing ability were poor.

_Freddy_, on Mar 22 2012 - 16:57, said:

jep all true, but i was speaking from the point of view of beeing forced into a tank in battle in WW2 at this moment, for some reason i would feel safer in something with 150mm front and 185 tutter armor then a "fastisch low armored tank with edequate gun"


In the long run i would prefer a panther or a pershing though, trade of from armor to mobility but still exceptable to know that you prolly are able to survive atleast 1 or 2 hits with a bid of luck.

krumpe, on Mar 22 2012 - 16:39, said:

Very good point friend, no doubt that it was a formidable opponent, consider that to use that canon we would need to do it in the same context, so comparing it with the Sherman, t34 or any medium on those terms is not fare. Ill explain;

Was generally accepted that the light tank was to be employed in reconnaissance missions, that demanded great mobility but didn't require much armor protection nor great lethality. The medium tank were to be used in exploitation or pursuit missions, requiring a different mix of mobility, armor protection and firepower. To fulfill these requirements, medium tanks had to be fast, and to have a greater level of mechanical reliability, since those tanks were to be able of conducting fast maneuvers necessary to exploitation or pursuit missions. Under this classification, heavy tanks were to act as support for the infantry and artillery, but the main purpose of the heavy tank was to penetrate the enemy's defenses.

In 1937, Guderian described tactics that would shape German thinking on how to employ armored formations in a future war. Heavy tank within this concept was to effect a breakthrough,

• first objective was to engage and destroy the enemy's anti-tank guns in the defensive line
  
• next objective of the heavy tanks was to destroy the enemy artillery
  
• last but not least Guderian correctly anticipated that the penetration of the defensive lines would force the enemy to throw his armor reserves in a counter-attack and the heavy tank should counter this as well.

The doctrine focused on the offensive. Naturally, when the tide turned, the doctrinal recommendation was that the armor formations would be kept back, and ready to counter-attack any breakthrough of the German defense lines. Consequently, the doctrinal mission of the Tiger was first and foremost, whether in the offence or in the defence, to kill the enemy's tanks. Hence the high Kill Loss Ratio when compared to mediums. And that is why I wouldn't compare tanks only by their Kill Loss ratio. We would need to look at their impact on the battlefield, and the Tiger while fearsome the actual effects of his presence on the battlefield were minimal because of its unreliability.

krumpe, on Mar 22 2012 - 16:39, said:

Those figures have been open to debate for a very long time, they are the claimed kills by the crews but have been rounded off to exact figures for kills (400, 500, 1700 etc).

Tigers that were so badly damaged they had to be sent back to the factory for rebuild were included on the German side but no mention of whether that included the Soviet or Western tanks, so we have no way of knowing whether the vehicles were actually destroyed or whether they were repaired in 1st, 2nd or 3rd line workshops. So to use true figures we would have to know how many were knocked out and returned to service for a start.

The Germans also claimed other armoured vehicles than tanks as tanks (armoured cars, universal carriers, halftracks).

Vehicles were often shot by more than one tank to ensure a kill or if they could not tell it was killed, so many vehicles were claimed more than once.

Its one of those statistics, statistics, statistics and damned lies situations. Figures can be manipulated to make just about anything seem better than it is.

In a sterile, 1v1 engagement, no ands, ifs, or buts....I'll take a Tiger II.

But war is rarely a 1v1 scenario with no outside interference.

In a combined warfare situation with proper artillery, air support, communication, and infantry, I would say Sherman was the best.  It had good mobility, great reliability, decent gun for everything but anti-Tiger duties, great communication gear both with other tanks and with the infantry it supported, and most important of all, good ergonomics for the crew inside.

Crimson_Fart, on Mar 22 2012 - 06:08, said:

Of course nobody is going to say it directly, and if they did it would be edited out.

As for the rest, you just abandon tank.   I'm not saying it's ideal, I'm just saying that in the mind of a tanker, it's better than going out and getting killed because your working equipment couldn't handle the job.

Crimson_Fart, on Mar 22 2012 - 18:52, said:

Since doctrine is the core of how armament  should be used in a combat situation and defines basically how armament should be designed to make it work within the roles defined by the doctrine, then again, superiority can be measured within this variable if the roles are comparable and the armament in question is used and designed within this roles.

How then can we have an objective measure of the effectiveness ?. Guderian with the Blitzkrieg changed the way motorized armament should be used in combat in WWII. It was, a change on the doctrine, which the Germans adopted and eventually, Guderian teachings changed the doctrine in other armies as well. But, tanks are just means to reach an objective in any doctrine. How the Tiger helped to make that possible is the question.

Did the Tiger helped achieve the objectives within what the doctrine dictated ?. Again, looks like its true, at least it helped a great deal as part of the armored vehicles armament in line with the doctrine.

So doctrine is another factor. Which nation used their armament to obtain better results ?. Then, if doctrine is the measure, Germany lost the war, so their doctrine is not as effective as those employed by the allies. In terms of armament and purpose the final result is against the Germans, so any armament system employed by the the allies is better by definition because they helped attain the objective within the doctrine implemented.

These are numbers, probably debatable since propaganda during the Nazi regime was part of the system and some of them can be misleading, but overall the kill-loss ratio is favoring the Germans, that is, until the end of the war. Germany lost about 50,000 armored vehicles (total production, since they lost the war, they lost all of them) and only the Soviet Union lost about 83,000 (tanks only - Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, de G.K Krivosheev, Greenhill Books - 1997). The numbers can't be that misleading, in some cases exaggerated for propaganda purposes, but from the other side, the allies side, there were considerable loses and there is an obvious advantage on the German side in the ratios.

So then, how can we measure the performance of the tank ?. Is it "I think" (subjectively speaking) which is similar to "Somebody told me". There has to be an agreement to objectively measure this.