Jump to content


Account of the Tiger penetrated frontally in combat?

Tiger I Tiger II Penetration

  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

AitoKurittaja95 #41 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 11:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 56575 battles
  • 9,838
  • [2-ND] 2-ND
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

V-2 was what would have ended it all.

No matter how high in quality your equipment is, you cannot win only with that against massive amount of troops and infinite resources.



CapturedJoe #42 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 12:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Actually, rockets and bombs don't win wars. Boots on the ground do.

According to many historians, Japan didn't choose to surrender in 1945 because the atomic bombs that were dropped on its cities (US fire-bombing did similar amounts of damage anyway) but because their main army in Manchuria was getting kicked around by the Red Army the moment USSR declared war on Japan.

 

Similarly, V-2s didn't force the allies to the negotiation table.



AitoKurittaja95 #43 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 14:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 56575 battles
  • 9,838
  • [2-ND] 2-ND
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

You seem to fail to understand how little troops Germans had compared to the trashy amount of allied horde.

You canno't win ground war anymore like that regardless of high in quality troops.

 

Germans lost their resources also compared to infinite allied resources.

 

Firs nuclear bomb the A-2 program could have been the saving grace, but as it turns out it was not ready.

 

German armor was excellent however, given that there were some mechanical issues but when it came to tank combat ability,

allies had nothing compared to them.



CapturedJoe #44 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 14:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View PostGasai__Yuno, on Nov 08 2016 - 14:00, said:

allies had nothing compared to them.



AitoKurittaja95 #45 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 14:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 56575 battles
  • 9,838
  • [2-ND] 2-ND
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

View PostCapturedJoe, on Nov 08 2016 - 13:05, said:

 

 

 

Shame that veteran tank crews were lost in battle mostly already.

 

Superior troops and machinery won't help when there is so many enemies.



CapturedJoe #46 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 14:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Yeah, most German tanks were crewed by badly trained crews from 1944 on due to losses of experienced crews. That explains the high ratio of losses compared to allied tanks, for example they lost 5 times as many panthers as allied M4 losses in reasonably even engagements (sources: Steven J. Zaloga and Nicholas Moran).



mattwong #47 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 16:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 30341 battles
  • 17,166
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostGasai__Yuno, on Nov 08 2016 - 08:00, said:

German armor was excellent however, given that there were some mechanical issues but when it came to tank combat ability,

allies had nothing compared to them.

 

No, German armour was trash.  Stop repeating Nazi propaganda as facts.



AitoKurittaja95 #48 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 16:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 56575 battles
  • 9,838
  • [2-ND] 2-ND
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011

View Postmattwong, on Nov 08 2016 - 15:20, said:

 

No, German armour was trash.  Stop repeating Nazi propaganda as facts.

 

Your M4 sherman and their variants were trash.

All those could do was to receive 8,8cm and 7,5cm shells from the German guns and explode,

while not being able to harm their opposing armor.

 

FACE IT.



Elegant_Winter #49 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 16:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 13615 battles
  • 4,109
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View Postmattwong, on Nov 08 2016 - 11:20, said:

 

No, German armour was trash.  Stop repeating Nazi propaganda as facts.

 

german armor was supreme. there just wasn't enough of it

CapturedJoe #50 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 17:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View PostHiroe, on Nov 08 2016 - 16:44, said:

 

german armor was supreme. there just wasn't enough of it

 

That's why they couldn't get through Polish 7TPs in 1939, French armor in 1940 and T-34s in 1941, right? Because they were so superior?

In those early campaigns German forces relied on overwhelming numbers of light tanks (Pz IIs and LT vz.38s) to beat their enemies. (Main source: Steven J. Zaloga)

But at some point those pesky Soviets and Americans built tanks that were both stronger than the German medium and light tanks and easier to built, maintain and get to and from the battlefield without breaking down. So they had to make heavy tanks that were a huge drain on resources and required highly trained crews (which the Germans lacked late in the war) just to be able to keep up with their enemies.

Late war Shermans and T-34-85 had zero problems frontally penetrating Panthers and Tigers, let alone the humble Pz.IIIs and IVs (main source: Nicholas Moran). Those tanks did the job perfectly well and, usually crewed by more experienced crews than the manpower left for the Germans, were deadly. Meanwhile Hitler made the German industry chunk out a small number of huge impractical armored beasts with guns that were completely overkill against the vast majority of the allied arsenal.

 

Even if somehow the Germans would've been able to create a force of the magic Entwicklungsseries with their wasteful industrial policies, they wouldn't have enough trained manpower left to crew those after the destruction of most of the frontline troops at Stalingrad, Kursk and Bagration. The German armored elite was destroyed there, first in attrition battles and later in a perfect copy of Blitzkrieg by the Red Army. Funny how things turned around for them.



CapturedJoe #51 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 17:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View PostGasai__Yuno, on Nov 08 2016 - 16:38, said:

 

Your M4 sherman and their variants were trash.

All those could do was to receive 8,8cm and 7,5cm shells from the German guns and explode,

while not being able to harm their opposing armor.

 

FACE IT.

 

Sources?

I will make this easy for you M8, here's a lecture done by a historian about US tanks in the war:

There, one of my sources. You can adress it, counter it with sources on your own, or ignore it and call me a liar. Hmmm, I wonder what you'll do...



mrmojo #52 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 18:18

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18508 battles
  • 1,943
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011

View PostCapturedJoe, on Nov 08 2016 - 21:36, said:

Yeah, most German tanks were crewed by badly trained crews from 1944 on due to losses of experienced crews. That explains the high ratio of losses compared to allied tanks, for example they lost 5 times as many panthers as allied M4 losses in reasonably even engagements (sources: Steven J. Zaloga and Nicholas Moran).

 

Define "reasonably even engagements" remember to include: weather, logistics, crew experience, air superiority (or not), attack or defence etc.



CapturedJoe #53 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 18:23

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013
For example in the battle of Arracourt, German tanks outnumbered the allies but the latter enjoyed air superiority. Weather varied quite a lot over the engagements. As said before, generally allied crews seem to have been more experienced or better trained than their enemies at that point (1944-45).

CapturedJoe #54 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 18:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

From the Operation Think Tank series, about the ineffectiveness of the Panther late in the war: https://youtu.be/jgcM2uLUrxA?t=14m31s

The whole series is on YouTube btw, highly recommended to you guys.



mrmojo #55 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 18:43

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18508 battles
  • 1,943
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011

View PostCapturedJoe, on Nov 09 2016 - 01:23, said:

For example in the battle of Arracourt, German tanks outnumbered the allies but the latter enjoyed air superiority. Weather varied quite a lot over the engagements. As said before, generally allied crews seem to have been more experienced or better trained than their enemies at that point (1944-45) 

 

Tank columns advancing through fog without reconnaissance support into an alerted enemy with battle hardened crews with the advantage of the terrain (and total air superiority when the weather cleared) does not come close to reasonably "even."



CapturedJoe #56 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 18:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Tactical situations vary, the Germans had the advantage in numbers (which is usually all the fans of German tanks talk about when the odds are against them) but they botched it by walking into the enemy without reconnaissance.

Edit: This was another problem for the Germans, they underestimated the Americans a lot in 1944 so that might explain the unusual stupidity of advancing in bad weather without recon.


Edited by CapturedJoe, Nov 08 2016 - 18:47.


mrmojo #57 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 19:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18508 battles
  • 1,943
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011
Interesting isn't it - so many variables involved.

Hard to really say what tank was better.

Imagine if something sparked hostilties between russia and the Allies in April 1945 - whose armour was better?

CapturedJoe #58 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 19:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Just back from supper, downstairs my siblings and father are arguing about the start of WW1, bless then:)

 

Anyway, the Germans regularly seemed to manoever themselves into positions where the advantages of their tanks were nullified but the disadvantages were doubled. The Panthers' gun, for example, was very well suited for long-range combat but very inflexible and unsuited for close-range fighting and fast reaction shots due to the fixed zoom of their gunsights and lack of overall optics in the turret besides for the commander. This issue was made greater by the inexperience of the German boys who were put into these high-tech vehicles, and then sent into the Bocage "jungle" against flexible medium tanks. Moreover, their side-armor was so laughably thin it could be penetrated by the archaic 14mm AT rifles which every Soviet infantry unit was equipped with!



CapturedJoe #59 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 19:18

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View Postmrmojo, on Nov 08 2016 - 19:14, said:

Interesting isn't it - so many variables involved.

Hard to really say what tank was better.

 

Yes indeed! Usually someone looks at German statistics and thinks one tank is better because it killed more enemy tanks, but as you said it doesn't tell the whole picture. Usually late in the war German tanks were better suited for long-range engagements (which were quite rare) while allied tanks were very flexible and suited for lots of different tasks. This often resulted, as in the example above, in greater German losses, not due to they being outnumbered, but because those tanks weren't suited for those situations and their crews being quite bad.

 

I'd think at the end of the war the Soviets were in a better shape tank-wise than the western allies, but it's hard to go by technical data only. For example I read multiple interviews of Soviet tankers  who spoke highly of the M4 Sherman, even compared to the T-34-85.


Edited by CapturedJoe, Nov 08 2016 - 19:20.


Tjtod #60 Posted Nov 08 2016 - 21:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6540 battles
  • 1,336
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

View Postmrmojo, on Nov 08 2016 - 14:14, said:

Interesting isn't it - so many variables involved.

Hard to really say what tank was better.
 

Definitively yes.  How effective something almost always is how well it was used to maximize its strengths. What makes it hard to say one was outright better is because the number of assumptions needed to look at things in a vacuum.

View PostGasai__Yuno, on Nov 08 2016 - 06:02, said:

No matter how high in quality your equipment is, you cannot win only with that against massive amount of troops and infinite resources.

Higher quality doesn't always mean better.


Edited by Tjtod, Nov 08 2016 - 21:47.






Also tagged with Tiger I, Tiger II, Penetration

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users