Jump to content


Common Myths debunked.


  • Please log in to reply
636 replies to this topic

Zinegata #21 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostKarlvonC, on Jul 30 2015 - 16:22, said:

  the thing is you missed my point totally. this isnt about the tiger. Its about Gun ranges. And clearly the Germans had the advantage.

A good Example is the Warfare in North Africa  before El Alamien.  The 88 Flak Gun could  outrange and out damage every gun of the time.The british had  to close range to about 500m with thier 2 pounders before they could engage a 88..   (They Couldnt even do that cause the Matilda MK2s ,valentines,crusaders and 2pdr ATG didnt carry any HE in the early stages of the desert war Just AP)Meanwhile the rest of thier Troops are KIA

 

Being able to shoot at 2km is completely irrelevant when the actual average engagement range was 500 meters. Meanwhile the big gun made the tank bigger and harder to conceal, cost about two or three times more fuel to move, and killed the engine and automotive systems within a few hundred kilometers while the Shermans kept going and going. Seriously, the Tigers and their bigger guns were so resource-intensive that a battalion of 45 Tigers required 130 trucks and 3 gantry cranes to support them. A Sherman battalion of 60 tanks by contrast required 30 trucks.

 

So "better" gun is in fact a myth to begin with. It's only better if you're comparing Trump Cards. In practice, at 500 meter actual average engagement range, it was factually irrelevant. No Tiger ever engaged a Sherman at 2km+ range and won. Not even once. Again, there were only three engagements in total against the US Army - only one involving a Tiger vs Sherman, and the Shermans won.

 

Oh, and in North Africa? The Germans used primarily the small 50mm gun. Rommel never had more than a handful of 88mm guns and their hit rate at long range was 5-20%. The vast majority of kills were in fact inflicted by 50mm guns at 500 meter range; the British just like making excuses by claiming German superweapons were killing them instead of their own tactical incompetence verging on mass suicide.


Edited by Zinegata, Jul 30 2015 - 09:47.


Zinegata #22 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Post_RUDOLF_, on Jul 30 2015 - 16:38, said:

 

Another horrifically misinformed Youtube video paid for by scale modelers with a fetish for German armor.

 

This is reality:

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/445740-myths-of-american-armor/

 

 



KarlvonC #23 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 65715 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jul 30 2015 - 18:39, said:

 

Being able to shoot at 2km is completely irrelevant when the actual average engagement range was 500 meters. Meanwhile the big gun made the tank bigger and harder to conceal, cost about two or three times more fuel to move, and killed the engine and automotive systems within a few hundred kilometers while the Shermans kept going and going. Seriously, the Tigers and their bigger guns were so resource-intensive that a battalion of 45 Tigers required 130 trucks and 3 gantry cranes to support them. A Sherman battalion of 60 tanks by contrast required 30 trucks.

 

So "better" gun is in fact a myth to begin with. It's only better if you're comparing Trump Cards. In practice, at 500 meter actual average engagement range, it was factually irrelevant. No Tiger ever engaged a Sherman at 2km+ range and won. Not even once. Again, there were only three engagements in total against the US Army - only one involving a Tiger vs Sherman, and the Shermans won.

 

What about Villiers Bocage? what about engagements with the Commonwealth forces?

Edited by KarlvonC, Jul 30 2015 - 09:48.


Zinegata #24 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostKarlvonC, on Jul 30 2015 - 16:47, said:

 

What about Villiers Bocage? what about engagements with the Commonwealth forces?

 

Villers-Bocage had one Tiger kill seven Allied medium tanks in total, but the important thing to remember is that the battle was in fact fought at point blank range - less than the 500m average - and Wittman had taken the British completely by surprise.

 

Indeed, a close observation of the battle would reveal the British were so surprised that they managed to fire as few as three shots in total against Wittman - a 75mm shell that bounced from the front (but it may have been an HE shell), a 17 pounder that missed, and a 57mm (!) gun that hit and knocked out the Tiger. Yes, Wittman's Tiger was in fact taken out by the smallest gun to shoot at it.

 

Replace the Tiger with any German tank, and the results would have been pretty much the same. It was the tactical surprise that mattered.

 

Other Commonwealth vs Tiger engagements were in fact pretty much flops too. Indeed, the very first engagement between a Tiger and Commonwealth forces happened in North Africa, where again three Tigers were knocked out by 57mm guns. The Tigers were simply not well-armored.


Edited by Zinegata, Jul 30 2015 - 09:54.


KarlvonC #25 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:55

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 65715 battles
  • 145
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jul 30 2015 - 18:53, said:

 

Villers-Bocage had one Tiger kill seven Allied medium tanks in total, but the important thing to remember is that the battle was in fact fought at point blank range - less than the 500m average - and Wittman had taken the British completely by surprise.

 

Indeed, a close observation of the battle would reveal the British were so surprised that they managed to fire as few as three shots in total against Wittman - a 75mm shell that bounced from the front (but it may have been an HE shell), a 17 pounder that missed, and a 57mm (!) gun that hit and knocked out the Tiger. Yes, Wittman's Tiger was in fact taken out by the smallest gun to shoot at it.

 

Replace the Tiger with any German tank, and the results would have been pretty much the same. It was the tactical surprise that mattered.

 

Other Commonwealth vs Tiger engagements were in fact pretty much flops too. Indeed, the very first engagement between a Tiger and Commonwealth forces happened in North Africa, where again three Tigers were knocked out by 57mm guns. The Tigers were simply not well-armored.

 

yes at close range they were quite vulnerable

 



Zinegata #26 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 10:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostKarlvonC, on Jul 30 2015 - 16:55, said:

 

yes at close range they were quite vulnerable

 

 

At "effective combat range" they were quite vulnerable, not "close range".

 

The ideal engagement range of the Tiger based on its manual was in fact just 600m, slightly above the average engagement range of 500 meters. This distance is so insignificant that the 100m difference can be easily covered by a Sherman in just 12 seconds.

 

Shoot any farther, and a Tiger tank crew would get shouted at by their commander for wasting ammunition and prematurely giving away their position.


Edited by Zinegata, Jul 30 2015 - 10:03.


LeuCeaMia #27 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 11:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11553 battles
  • 626
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011

View PostDestin65, on Jul 30 2015 - 12:23, said:

True, as long as they were within 600m and 500m, respectively, on average in order to have any hope. So if you had a meeting of a T-34 paired with a Sherman and a Tiger I tank, one of the two would be knocked out before either one could start moving. The second would be knocked out well before they could close to within 1500 meters, some 1,000 meters short of being able to penetrate the Tiger I.


Did someone remove the clarifications that Jentz's Wa Pruef 1 report table are with the targets at a 30 degree, 30 degree, 30 degree angle from the wikipedia article again...

 

Also you're cherry picking because the same tables say that the Tiger can't penetrate the Sherman's glacis and struggles against the mantlet.

 

Simple fact is the M4 Sherman has effectively more armour than the Tiger as this table from WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery estimates.



Gwennifer #28 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 11:04

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9407 battles
  • 815
  • [DOGGO] DOGGO
  • Member since:
    12-28-2010

View Post_RUDOLF_, on Jul 30 2015 - 02:38, said:

Why is the fake-Tiger from that White Tiger model in the thumbnail?



Legiondude #29 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 11:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,947
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostGwennifer, on Jul 30 2015 - 05:04, said:

Why is the fake-Tiger from that White Tiger model in the thumbnail?

Nah that looks like one of the props from Saving Private Ryan, the White Tiger one was built on an IS not a T-34 IIRC



_RUDOLF_ #30 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 12:06

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7833 battles
  • 548
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

Very well then watch this

 



Slayer_Jesse #31 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 13:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 26466 battles
  • 8,988
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

View PostZinegata, on Jul 30 2015 - 03:17, said:

You guys do realize that the US Army encountered the Tiger I a grand total of three times to begin with, yes? And to quote the Chieftain - In one encounter the Shermans beat the Tigers, in a second encounter the Tigers beat some Pershings, and in the third encounter the Tigers were being loaded into rail cars so it wasn't really a fair fight.

 

The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war.

 

By the way, the average engagement range was just over 500 meters. Somebody in fact tried simulating the Fury battle which was fought at this range using the Squad Leader simulation system (whose designers are notoriously pro-German) and yet the Shermans won on the first shot by a 75mm hit that went through the front.

 

The guy who tested this out was so upset - claiming that the Shermans had lucked out on a 10% chance of hitting and killing - that he gave the Tiger a second life. At which point the Tiger knocked out a grand total of one Sherman before getting killed again.

 

The Tiger in fact was not that great of a tank armor-wise. Its front was only slightly thicker than the effective front armor of the Sherman.

 

"The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war."

 

You need to qualify that statement. It was, for the Americans. I'm sure the Russians felt differently.



cashdash #32 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 13:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 5143 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
The Russians were so impressed with the impact the Tiger made when it was first unveiled that it took them 6 months to notice a new tank was being fielded.

At which point they hauled a bunch of prewar 57 mm guns out of storage and called it good.

qcarr #33 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 13:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27256 battles
  • 1,795
  • [REJCT] REJCT
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 30 2015 - 05:25, said:

Nah that looks like one of the props from Saving Private Ryan, the White Tiger one was built on an IS not a T-34 IIRC

 

Isn't the Tiger in this video built on the chassis of a T-54 or T-55?

Legiondude #34 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 14:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,947
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postqcarr, on Jul 30 2015 - 07:54, said:

 

Isn't the Tiger in this video built on the chassis of a T-54 or T-55?

On closer inspection, looks like it might be



EnsignExpendable #35 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 14:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on Jul 30 2015 - 07:08, said:

"The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war."

 

You need to qualify that statement. It was, for the Americans. I'm sure the Russians felt differently.

 

They did, they thought "nice, finally a use for all these 57 mm guns we made!" If you actually check all the glorious achievements of Tiger battalions against the Red Army, you will swiftly notice that they never actually happened.

 

http://tankarchives....t-imitates.html

http://tankarchives....s-at-lisow.html

http://tankarchives....r-conjurer.html

 

These are just some of my favourites, but feel free to click through the rest of the series.



Tigermate #36 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 15:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 24829 battles
  • 1,411
  • [DNGR-] DNGR-
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
#bringbacknegrep 

Allu_o7o7o7 #37 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 15:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20477 battles
  • 6,207
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostDestin65, on Jul 30 2015 - 16:23, said:

german armour fanboiism

 

you're an idiot.

 

that's not opinion btw, but fact.

 

without a -1, this is all i can do to tell you such


Edited by Allu_o7o7o7, Jul 30 2015 - 15:49.


Browncow13 #38 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 15:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20591 battles
  • 1,074
  • [T-GBU] T-GBU
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on Jul 30 2015 - 04:08, said:

 

"The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war."

 

You need to qualify that statement. It was, for the Americans. I'm sure the Russians felt differently.

 

Quite a few self proclaimed experts here spewing their "expertise". 

GAJohnnie #39 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 16:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 8992 battles
  • 6,069
  • [_BOT_] _BOT_
  • Member since:
    12-22-2012

View PostKarlvonC, on Jul 30 2015 - 03:47, said:

 

What about Villiers Bocage? what about engagements with the Commonwealth forces?

 

Villers-Bocage has more to do with surprise then the armor involved.

 

Under the command of Brigadier William "Loony" Hinde, the 22nd Armoured Brigade group reached Villers-Bocage without serious incident in the morning of 13 June. The leading elements advanced eastwards from the town on the Caen road to Point 213, where they were ambushed by Tiger I tanks of the 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion. In fewer than 15 minutes numerous tanks, anti-tank guns and transport vehicles were destroyed, many by SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann. The Germans then attacked the town and were repulsed, losing several Tigers and Panzer IV. After six hours Hinde ordered a withdrawal to a more defensible position on a knoll west of Villers-Bocage. Next day the Germans attacked the defensive "Brigade Box" in the Battle of the Island. The British inflicted a costly repulse on the Germans and then retired from the salient. The Battle for Caen continued east of Villers-Bocage, which was captured in ruins on 4 August, after two raids by the strategic bombers of the Royal Air Force.



AKA_The_Titan #40 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 17:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24554 battles
  • 364
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    04-26-2012

View PostGwennifer, on Jul 30 2015 - 02:35, said:

 

No, the 76mm M1A1.

 

Alright.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users