Jump to content


The Chieftain's Hatch: Fury's Tiger Standoff


  • Please log in to reply
591 replies to this topic

Chien_Lu_Anderman #41 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 21:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24134 battles
  • 605
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View Postflounder2760, on Sep 27 2014 - 13:22, said:

 

its cool to know the chieftain is a fan of the honorverse/honor harrington novels.

 

Ha Ninja'd  me on that one ! Saw that at the top and went groovy he reads the Honorverse books .

Maus123 #42 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 21:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 3432 battles
  • 2,483
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostDominatus, on Sep 27 2014 - 13:16, said:

, although that still seems to hold the record the most tanks knocked out by a single crew in a single action during the war. 

That record goes to Pierre Billotte, who managed to single-handedly destroy 13 German tanks during a single engagement during the Battle of Stonne in 1940.



Boggins #43 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 22:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16356 battles
  • 43
  • [4HIM3] 4HIM3
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012
So what I'm hearing the Chieftain say is that a 5 tank Sherman formation didn't loose 3 before killing the Tiger. I always liked the Tiger and thought it was superior in design to the Shermans. What I have read from the Chieftain is that Sherman was a far better tank than I thought it was. I am curious though as to why the 76mm wasn't used sooner. Also, I thought the Tiger was diesel. I am thinking now I am wrong. Was there any thought to making a diesel for the Sherman? Didn't tthe Israelis mount a 90mm on a Sherman? Please suggest some good lit for learning more about Shermans and Tiger/Panther tanks. 

Legiondude #44 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 22:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,191
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostLordCommanderMilitant, on Sep 27 2014 - 13:39, said:

Well, most Shermans were the 75mm variant, so it makes sense that they'd have trouble.

The margin was getting very close to equal. Armored Thunderbolt's appendices are primed for showing the distributions of 76mm vs 75mm armed Shermans at specific time periods from factory distributions, to units deployed, to lend-lease shipments

 

In April 1945 Zaloga lists 44% of US Armored Divisions in ETO were equipped with 76mm armed Shermans. Reaching 56.3% by May

 

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 27 2014 - 13:54, said:

Not sure if I remember this correctly, but while Fury is a 76 mm, apparently use of HE or something indicates it should have been a 75 mm.

White Phosphorus rounds, which were unavailable for 76mm guns(The effectiveness of the WP round was one of the reasons why tank commanders were so resistant to the 76mm as well)



Walter_Sobchak #45 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 22:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 27 2014 - 15:51, said:

 

Fine, a National Socialist scum who was a propaganda tool with hyper-inflated kill claims to the point it hid the stupidly hyperaggressive method of fighting that caused much casualties on his side so he could have a slightly better record.

 

He was never a good TC.

 

I don't think one word descriptions like "good" or "bad" really do justice to a character like Wittmann.  History is more complex than that, it's not the historians job to pass judgement so much as to try to understand and explain why and how things happened.  Anyhow, writer Wolfgang Schneider seems to be quite critical of Wittmann's actions as a tank commander in Normandy. 

minim8greyhound #46 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 22:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 15477 battles
  • 2,466
  • [_SOC_] _SOC_
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

Personally if I was in a war and I had to choose the tank that I would be serving in I would choose the Tiger over the Sherman.

All I have to say is 8.8 cm, German accuracy, German Steel, etc.

 

Also remember this is an American made war movie about WW2. Who won the war again? Ever wonder why all the German soldiers stink at aiming in all these American war movies?

If you watch all the other war movies (especially the ones during the war) the Americans are almost always superior to the Germans (at least during combat).

 

I agree that a sherman can knock out a Tiger but overall I think the Tiger is the more powerful tank.

Am I saying that shermans are junk? Of course not, each tank was made perfectly for its doctrine.


Edited by minim8greyhound, Sep 27 2014 - 22:56.


The_Chieftain #47 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 22:58

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostBoggins, on Sep 27 2014 - 22:21, said:

So what I'm hearing the Chieftain say is that a 5 tank Sherman formation didn't loose 3 before killing the Tiger. I always liked the Tiger and thought it was superior in design to the Shermans. What I have read from the Chieftain is that Sherman was a far better tank than I thought it was. I am curious though as to why the 76mm wasn't used sooner. Also, I thought the Tiger was diesel. I am thinking now I am wrong. Was there any thought to making a diesel for the Sherman? Didn't tthe Israelis mount a 90mm on a Sherman? Please suggest some good lit for learning more about Shermans and Tiger/Panther tanks. 

 

I'm not saying that no 5-tank formations lost 3 M4s before killing Tiger, just that it was not necessarily going to be a negative loss rate. There are so many more variables to take into account that no two engagements will be identical.

76mm wasn't used sooner because it took them several tries before they created a tank which incorporated the gun satisfactorily. Pretty much all German combat vehicles were petrol, not diesel. The M4A2 was a diesel powered Sherman, as was the ultra-rare M4A6. Israelis mounted a long 75 and 105mm cannon on their Shermans.



Walter_Sobchak #48 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 23:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostBoggins, on Sep 27 2014 - 17:21, said:

So what I'm hearing the Chieftain say is that a 5 tank Sherman formation didn't loose 3 before killing the Tiger. I always liked the Tiger and thought it was superior in design to the Shermans. What I have read from the Chieftain is that Sherman was a far better tank than I thought it was. I am curious though as to why the 76mm wasn't used sooner. Also, I thought the Tiger was diesel. I am thinking now I am wrong. Was there any thought to making a diesel for the Sherman? Didn't tthe Israelis mount a 90mm on a Sherman? Please suggest some good lit for learning more about Shermans and Tiger/Panther tanks. 

The "tiger had a diesel" is probably one of the most persistent ww2 tank myths that refuses to go away.  It has been repeated in films such as Patton, so it's pretty ingrained in the popular conciousness. Earlier this year I bought a copy of the official history of TARDEC (tank automotive research and development center).  Right in the intro of the book they repeat the German tank diesel myth. So of they get it wrong, it's not surprising a lot of other folks do as well.



HereticVoid #49 Posted Sep 27 2014 - 23:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13469 battles
  • 629
  • [BIMBO] BIMBO
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

Nice article. I too have some problems with the movie but its morely on the over all plot of a tank vs 300 men+ tiger + panzerfausts or some sort of at weapon. But oh well its a holy wood movie so its to be expected. Any how i love how people always go either Tiger= crap or Tiger= best tank in the world. Even those with acesess to the tank specs here on the forums generally have a extreme biased view instead of a middle ground.

 

Now back to the subject at hand. What problems did you have with the little trailer clip chieftain? Mine was that they didn't stay at range, dont seem to be turning the hull and seem to have no infantry during the duel. The duel scene doesn't give away much ( i find the lack of infantry weird tho its most likely the case of make epic movie scene of tiger vs Sherman)


Edited by HereticVoid, Sep 27 2014 - 23:57.


KampfKopf #50 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 00:15

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 23475 battles
  • 249
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View PostLert, on Sep 27 2014 - 21:44, said:

 

You can admire a man's skill in warfare without letting his political views come into play.

 

Fact was that Wittmann was an SS officer.

Fact was that Wittmann was a very good TC.

 

Those two are not related.

 

:amazed::facepalm:

He was an SS officer who commanded a Waffen SS tank.

"Those two are not related" alright...they were MARRIED.



Xlucine #51 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 00:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostMosinski2, on Sep 27 2014 - 19:51, said:

my problem is that the trailer explicitly shows Brad's Sherman bouncing a shot from a tiger that's at most 100 meters away. That's the equivalent of a cops bullet proof vest stop a round from an m82 50 cal sniper rifle point blank. To say that Fury wont have at least one layer of plot armor on is just as crazy as saying the Sherman wouldn't have a chance.

 

With the figures from lorrin bird's work the sherman's 2.5" upper glacis should resist 88mm L56 fire at point blank with jut 57 degrees of combined angle, which isn't hard to apply (and it's plain to see that the sherman was well angled at that point in the trailer). You're really overstating the effectiveness of the 88

 

View PostBoggins, on Sep 27 2014 - 22:21, said:

So what I'm hearing the Chieftain say is that a 5 tank Sherman formation didn't loose 3 before killing the Tiger. I always liked the Tiger and thought it was superior in design to the Shermans. What I have read from the Chieftain is that Sherman was a far better tank than I thought it was. I am curious though as to why the 76mm wasn't used sooner. Also, I thought the Tiger was diesel. I am thinking now I am wrong. Was there any thought to making a diesel for the Sherman? Didn't tthe Israelis mount a 90mm on a Sherman? Please suggest some good lit for learning more about Shermans and Tiger/Panther tanks. 

 

there were plenty of diesel shermans made - even fury is a diesel

 

View Postrogue_viking, on Sep 27 2014 - 20:17, said:

Oh I dont discredit that at all. My point was VERY focused and on one statement. 1v1, a Tiger kills Sherman. I even stated that Chieftan was very correct about having to get the flanks/back of a tiger. The trailer shows the sherman in a straight up, face to face with a tiger. Doesnt show it kiting him, it doesnt show the sherman using any tactics at all. From what it does show, that is about to be a dead sherman. And no, the 88 was definitely not more accurate. Its hard to be accurate with a converted AA gun design. Its more of the spray and pray. But face to face at <100m as it shows in the preview, even a rookie Tiger crew would cause a sherman to have a terminal case of lead poisoning...

 

At that range sherman has every advantage over tiger - faster turret traverse, better crew vision, better rate of fire, an overall more nimble vehicle, and a frikkin' stabilised gun - the germans had nothing in service that could compare to that, and the US made tens of thousands of the things. And while the 88 wasn't any more accurate than the other guns of the war, it wasn't inaccurate - really, just about every tank gun in the war was more than accurate enough (barring the 17-pdr)



anonym_8c6WUbf6C7MT #52 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 00:22

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 0 battles
  • 3,868
  • Member since:
    03-12-2019
I was hoping you'd talk about the part where the Tiger bounces the M4s side armor at point blank range.....

Alphabloom #53 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 00:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 16441 battles
  • 2,056
  • [F0XEY] F0XEY
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostLert, on Sep 28 2014 - 02:37, said:

"German philosophy was to shoot at a tank until it burned or changed shape." This amuses me for some reason.

 

Equivalent to a double tap for zombies or Kaiju

Kyrius #54 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 00:53

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15714 battles
  • 177
  • [CHAOS] CHAOS
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View Postrogue_viking, on Sep 27 2014 - 20:17, said:

Oh I dont discredit that at all. My point was VERY focused and on one statement. 1v1, a Tiger kills Sherman. I even stated that Chieftan was very correct about having to get the flanks/back of a tiger. The trailer shows the sherman in a straight up, face to face with a tiger. Doesnt show it kiting him, it doesnt show the sherman using any tactics at all. From what it does show, that is about to be a dead sherman. And no, the 88 was definitely not more accurate. Its hard to be accurate with a converted AA gun design. Its more of the spray and pray. But face to face at <100m as it shows in the preview, even a rookie Tiger crew would cause a sherman to have a terminal case of lead poisoning...

Im sorry but your wrong, it is true the 88 started out as AA in world war 1 but with the Treaty of Versailles Germany was forbidden for purchasing new weapons hence they developed new and improved versions of the 88 and eventually it excelled more at the anti-tank and artillery roles than anti-aircraft.  Simply put if it didnt excel as an anti-tank weapon the wouldnt have mounted it and upgraded versions on all vehicles in some form or another. 

 

8.8cm kwk 43 designated on the Tiger series tanks

Effective firing range 4,000 m (4,400 yd)
Maximum firing range 16,000 m (17,000 yd)
Well outclassing the accuracy of American 76mm on a flat trajectory.

misterbagel #55 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 00:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 51261 battles
  • 106
  • [GMONK] GMONK
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011

Well, this article is not entirely true.  German Tiger I's are used as breakthrough tanks and yes, towards the end of war are mostly used as mobile bunkers.

 

As for better optics, and spotting, I think this pretty much come out even.  The Tiger Commander have better optics and poor Gunner situation awareness.  The Sherman have pretty good optics and average Gunner situation awareness.

If you watch the German panzer bible, and/or their standard panzer tactics, the utilize at least two tank tactic(s) all the time.  One tank advance/retreat, the other tank covers it.

Towards the end of war, this obviously becomes a luxury, and situation with a long Tiger without support becomes a possibility.

If you also looked at standard battlefield first hit ratio on the Tiger 88, your look at 80-90% for the first shot at 1000 meters.  This is not achieved by the M4 76mm gun.



Lert #56 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 01:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 44742 battles
  • 25,715
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostKampfKopf, on Sep 28 2014 - 00:15, said:

 

:amazed::facepalm:

He was an SS officer who commanded a Waffen SS tank.

"Those two are not related" alright...they were MARRIED.

 

Michael Wittmann's political beliefs are as relevant to his skill as a TC as Michael Schumacher's religious beliefs are relevant to his skill at driving an F1 car.



Daigensui #57 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 01:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 32008 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postmisterbagel, on Sep 27 2014 - 16:58, said:

The Tiger Commander have better optics

 

Germany never had "better" optics. At best it was "easier to use".



Xlucine #58 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 01:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View Postmisterbagel, on Sep 28 2014 - 00:58, said:

Well, this article is not entirely true.  German Tiger I's are used as breakthrough tanks and yes, towards the end of war are mostly used as mobile bunkers.

 

As for better optics, and spotting, I think this pretty much come out even.  The Tiger Commander have better optics and poor Gunner situation awareness.  The Sherman have pretty good optics and average Gunner situation awareness.

If you watch the German panzer bible, and/or their standard panzer tactics, the utilize at least two tank tactic(s) all the time.  One tank advance/retreat, the other tank covers it.

Towards the end of war, this obviously becomes a luxury, and situation with a long Tiger without support becomes a possibility.

If you also looked at standard battlefield first hit ratio on the Tiger 88, your look at 80-90% for the first shot at 1000 meters.  This is not achieved by the M4 76mm gun.

 

This is not achieved by any armoured fighting vehicle without a proper rangefinder and appropriate ballistic computer, tiger included. Also, no tank in WW2 had any better arrangement for the gunner than sherman - why is it just average?

The_Chieftain #59 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 02:26

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostHereticVoid, on Sep 27 2014 - 23:56, said:

Now back to the subject at hand. What problems did you have with the little trailer clip chieftain? Mine was that they didn't stay at range, dont seem to be turning the hull and seem to have no infantry during the duel. The duel scene doesn't give away much ( i find the lack of infantry weird tho its most likely the case of make epic movie scene of tiger vs Sherman)

I've read the script, so I am working on more than just the clip. I'm just not giving any clues about the outcome in my article. :)

View PostHallivolve, on Sep 28 2014 - 00:22, said:

I was hoping you'd talk about the part where the Tiger bounces the M4s side armor at point blank range.....

I think most people have agreed that it bounces off the front, not the side.



Priory_of_Sion #60 Posted Sep 28 2014 - 02:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,759
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostXlucine, on Sep 27 2014 - 20:37, said:

 

This is not achieved by any armoured fighting vehicle without a proper rangefinder and appropriate ballistic computer, tiger included. Also, no tank in WW2 had any better arrangement for the gunner than sherman - why is it just average?

Range estimation is extremely important. The KwK 36 goes from an 80% hit probability @ 1000 m to 30% probability with a 25% increase in range error according to Bird and Livingston in WWII Ballistics. 

 

It is also noteworthy to mention the 76 mm M1A1 has the same MV as the 8.8 cm KwK 36 so the flatness of the trajectories of both guns are going to be about the same. The M1A1 should actually be better in dispersion than the KwK 36(.5 m vs .6 m vertical dispersion @ 1000 m). 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users