Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 85

Thread: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

  1. #31
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    It is highly likely that the reason doctrine didn’t change was because the Germans focused on mobile defense. Also deployment in penny packages only increases logistical requirements. Something that was already all too stretched.

    Conceptually deploying companies as fire brigades has some strong points but that too comes at a price.

    The good Major also made some assumptions about speed but he was addressing both types of Tiger.

    I didn’t wade into the whole 140 odd pages but I can link it: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415948

    All in all I don’t agree with all of it but I doubt he had much trouble convincing the infantry and artillery officers of the board that he knew something about tanks.


    As to the Leopard 1 and 2, they were joint designs. The first with the French and the Leopard II with the US. They have more in common with the M-18 GMC than they do with Panthers and Tigers other than the cat names.

    I say the M-18 because of the hull and suspension design. The armor protection fallows the German pattern where they make an effort to protect the crew. Unlike most US tanks prior to the M-60 series at best.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  2. #32

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Very interesting read, ReluctantSamurai. Thank you for sharing it. I hope you didn't have to type it!

    The author repeats some of the same myths about reliability that later research has debunked, but as you and CBR have stated - it didn't really matter whether the tanks were going through teething issues or were inherently unreliable, if they were down they were of no use regardless. Time wasn't on the German's side.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    @ PJ

    No...no....I certainly didn't type all of that

    The author repeats some of the same myths about reliability that later research has debunked
    I'd be curious about this "later research". Throughout the document, Maj. Wilbeck provides ample data that documents the problem with reliability (mostly with maintenance issues). On pg. 129 he uses a table from Schneider's Tiger's in Combat I & II that shows losses of all Tigers due to action, destroyed by crew, and 'unknown'. Yes it's for both variants, but it covers the entire war as opposed to a snapshot figure of 59% like you quoted in your OP.

    All in all I don’t agree with all of it but I doubt he had much trouble convincing the infantry and artillery officers of the board that he knew something about tanks.
    Also deployment in penny packages only increases logistical requirements. Something that was already all too stretched.
    I'll leave the decision about whether the good major knew anything about tanks to others. But I do know he did his homework in preparing that document.

    The case histories of s.Pz.Abt 504 and 508 in action in Italy in 1944 clearly shows that Tigers were used in dispersal, yet maintained a high number of tanks operable (60% in the case of s.Pz.Abt 508, and 82% for s.Pz.Abt. 504). To quote:

    Notably, this was achieved despite being so widely dispersed across the front.
    He also gives the contrasting examples of the performances of s.Pz.Abt. 501 and s.PzAbt. 507 during the Soviet Vistula-Oder offensive in Jan 1945. s.Pz.Abt. 501 was concentrated along with the 17th Pz Div well forward of the main German defensive positions, and was virtually wiped out after it was bypassed by the Soviet advance. In contrast, s.Pz.Abt. 507 was dispersed, in company strength, well behind the lines and was able to give a very good accounting of itself even though the overall situation was hopeless.

    And the example of s.Pz.Abt 502 which operated almost exclusively in the Baltic States, was forced by terrain to deploy mostly in company strength. They gave one of the best performances of all the Tiger battalions and managed a high rate of operational vehicles despite the terrain and the distances.

    So I think Maj. Wilbeck was justified in his analysis, and provides many examples in support.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 01-12-2011 at 15:44.
    High Plains Drifter

  4. #34
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    I went through Schneider's Tigers in combat to check out the battalions that had Tiger II. Details are a bit sketchy for a few of the battalions and especially some of the SS. So some numbers are guesstimates

    But for a total of 9 battalions there would be around 210 tanks in the inventory and maybe 146 operational on March 15

    That sounds really good but each battalion were also in very different circumstances on that date, and the sample size is very small.

    We have 504th in Italy that is spread out and apparently in no action with an operational rate of what must have been 100%. Or the SS 503rd that was doing railroad movement and again had 100% of its 31 tanks ready.

    Then we have 505th with 12 out of 13 tanks ready versus 509th with 8 out of 32 ready. But both had been in heavy combat for some time, and the 509th had managed to recover a lot of battle damaged vehicles while the 505th simply had a lot of total losses.

    When it comes to reliability then we have the 506th that had 3 out of 11 tanks disabled on a 100 km roadmarch on April 3-4, only to have yet another 8 out 11 disabled by a 30 km roadmarch on April 5-6.

    Now maybe some of the glaring problems with the Tiger II had been fixed at that point, but I think it is still fair to say that it was a tank that had difficulties handling long distance movement.

    We can compare it with the T-34: At Kursk the 5th Guards Tank Army did a 300 km roadmarch while still keeping 90% of its tanks operational.
    Last edited by CBR; 01-12-2011 at 17:55.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    A road march doesn’t tell you much about what was going on. Weather, roads, adjacent terrain, and prior maintenance all play a part.

    I have been on road marches over 100 kms and lost no tanks but I have been on road marches of only 5 or 10 kms and seen half a company go down.

    Most are readily repairable and only take a few hours to put back into service. All the same, tanks are quirky beasts that require constant maintenance, particularly the track and suspension. Tired crews and a lack of spare parts could also explain high down rates, as could closing on a final assembly area just before combat.

    It is tricky trying to assess reliability from that data.

    One point I will take issue with is his questioning the veracity of two tanks taking out 64 Soviet T-34s and JS-IIs.

    I have read the story of that engagement and in such a target rich environment I don’t find it at all implausible.

    Tiger IIs carried a basic load of 80 rounds each. The attacks came in several waves. The enemy was crossing open ground, giving the tanks good fields of fire. One tank was knocked out and the other withdrew when it ran low on ammunition.

    Good crews with good fighting positions could be expected to do that. Tiger crews were stacked with the best men that could be rounded up. Their gunnery systems were good. I don’t doubt that they were capable of that.

    I have had similar experiences to that, albeit using MILES,and got a kill rate of about the same magnitude. Also B Co. 4th Tank, a Marine Reserve unit could breakup an Iraqi tank regiment using primarily two tanks, why couldn’t it have happened before?
    Last edited by Fisherking; 01-12-2011 at 19:51.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  6. #36
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    This makes me wonder, are modern tanks still that susceptible to mechanical failure?
    I mean usually a normal person like me thinks at the driving part they're a bit special but generally just heavier cars than can go almost anywhere, that they would just break down after a few kilometers and need repairs seems like quite an outlandish thought to me, one would expect engineers to calculate the strengths of important parts so that they won't just break under the heavy load of the tank, so I find this discussion somewhat fascinating.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  7. #37
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Much of the reliability problems with tanks have to do with their complexity.

    Think of it in terms of the number of moving parts. I will give it to you as simply as I can, so anyone else who knows more, please bear with me.

    Your car has 4 tires and the engine. You have to check the fluid levels for engine oil, transmission, and radiator. You have one driveshaft powering the wheels.

    A tank is a bit more complex. You have a track system and each track block has to be checked for serviceability. Not only that but all of the connections between the track have to be checked and most of the individual track pieces are made up of more than one part. Centerguides, for example, which keep the track on the vehicle have to be checked and maintained. The road wheels and other suspension elements have to be checked for ware and damage. The sprocket on one end moves the track and the idler wheel at the other end adjusts the tension of the track. It can be neither too loose or too tight. With use and strain the track stretches. Most all of these parts require lubricants, grease or oil, and have to be checked for leaking seals (one of the early problems with the Tiger II).

    From the transmission you have two independent drives, called the final drives, powering each track independently and powering the sprockets. Each of these have an oil reservoir, usually of a different oil weight than the engine. More seals and gaskets.

    Engine, transmission, and final drives require different oils. Road wheels and idlers require grease, the breaks require hydraulic oil and all these have to be carried in sufficient quantity.

    The tank is steered by the tracks. One must be slowed or stopped or even reversed to turn the vehicle in that direction.

    I am sure you can imagine the ware that would be caused if you stopped one wheel from your full speed each time you turned your car.

    Too, all these parts weaken over time and may fail without any outward signs of ware, or driving through a tricky spot may cause the track to come off.

    These are just the basics of how the tank moves. We have not touched on the complexities of the turret, the gunnery systems or other parts that can break.

    Add to that, that the weather conditions and conditions of the ground or terrain make a difference in how the tracks behave or the ware on the vehicle. And then remember that people may be shooting at you.

    When ever you stop all of this has to be checked as well as providing security on the ground and in the tank. Add refueling, checking ammunition, batteries, machineguns, main gun, and turret systems to the maintenance and you can see that a tank crew is very busy. During rest periods security has to be maintained, usually two men as a minimum, and ground security of some kind which could mean that another man is also awake. This is with a 4 or 5 man crew. Sleep is not usually more than one to two hours at a time so it is easy to exhaust the crews in only a short time.

    Tired crewmen don’t perform as well and miss or skip a lot of the maintenance tasks.

    All of this and we haven’t touched on the availability of spare parts.

    So yes, tanks breakdown more than your car. That is of course unless you are driving your car through the forest knocking down trees, through streams, up hills, and through the mud without roads.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  8. #38
    pardon my klatchian Member al Roumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sogdiana
    Posts
    1,720

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    This is kind of a general point but applies (afaik) to all high-end military equipment compared to consumer goods. Basicaly, consumers would not for a second tolerate the kind of intensive maintenance required, so a manufacturer has to ensure very high reliability. Nowadays, this leads us to assume that machines will always just run and run, but really they don't without alot of forethought/design.

    Military stuff is very much more at the cutting edge of technology which makes engineering tolerances harder to estimate and gives everyone, from designers to maintentance crews, less of an idea of what works and under what conditions. Military use often also pushes the limits of a machines' capability -kind of to be expected given the life and death nature of use.

    Underlining it all though is the different primary focus for civilian consumer products on safety and military equipment on functional capability above the rest (that's probably a bit simple). A good example of this contrast is fighter jets compared to civilian aircraft, it's not that the testing and safety of a fighter jet is not important, it's just that it is THE main concern for civilian equipment whereas a fighter jet has to be safe AND able to fly a crazy speeds and maneuvre very tightly.

    The balance of performance and maintentance is also apparent when you compare F1 cars with consumer cars. To achieve the peak of performance, a heavy burden of maintence is almost expected. For the ammount of time that an F1 car spends out on track, there is a much larger ammount of time that it is sat in a garage been tinkered with and maintained -much the same as a fighter jet or tank.
    Last edited by al Roumi; 01-13-2011 at 11:36.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    For a pretty good view of what it took to maintain tanks on a WWII battlefield, I'd recommend Belton Cooper's Death Traps. No matter which side of the Sherman fence you stand on, it's a good read, despite the factual inaccuracies and naive outlook on how US tank design happened.

    In addition to the daily (or hourly) maintenance that has to be done on AFV's (and tanks weren't the only vehicles that needed constant maintenance) by the crews themselves, someone has to go out on the battlefield, often under fire, and retrieve the knocked out tanks (a BIG problem for KT's at 70 tons), decide what can be fixed on the spot...what has to go back to divisional shops...what has to go back to Corps, or even as far as Army-level repair shops, and then catalog them for record-keeping. A full-time job and then some.....
    High Plains Drifter

  10. #40

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Also, in general, tracked vehicles, whether they be tanks or bulldozers, are more maintenance intensive due to both the added complexity (versus four wheels) and the nature of their work.


    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
    I'd be curious about this "later research". Throughout the document, Maj. Wilbeck provides ample data that documents the problem with reliability (mostly with maintenance issues). On pg. 129 he uses a table from Schneider's Tiger's in Combat I & II that shows losses of all Tigers due to action, destroyed by crew, and 'unknown'. Yes it's for both variants, but it covers the entire war as opposed to a snapshot figure of 59% like you quoted in your OP.
    Thomas Jentz has several books out on the Tiger II including Germany's Tiger tanks - Tiger I & II: Combat tactics, Kingtiger heavy tank - 1942-1945, and Germany's Tiger tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, production & modifications. In the latter he goes into much more detail about the Tiger II's reliability and maintenance than Schneider does in either of his books, which are mostly focused on combat and tactics. The snapshot in the OP was meant to show that the Tiger II overcame teething issues to become reliable (at least in comparison to other German tanks at the time).

    In the table that I believe you're refering to (which is page 136 in the link Fisherking provided), Tigers "destroyed by crew" could be due to several factors unrelated to reliability, such as fuel shortage or envelopment by the enemy.


    Quote Originally Posted by CBR
    We can compare it with the T-34: At Kursk the 5th Guards Tank Army did a 300 km roadmarch while still keeping 90% of its tanks operational.
    I believe the Tiger II would fare better in comparison to the IS-2 and Pershing, with the IS-2 being more reliable and the Pershing actually being less so.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    In the table that I believe you're refering to (which is page 136 in the link Fisherking provided), Tigers "destroyed by crew" could be due to several factors unrelated to reliability, such as fuel shortage or envelopment by the enemy.
    I suppose the value of such information reflects on the overall abilities of the Germans to keep their tanks in the field running...ie. logistical support, etc., and should not be used to point up specific strengths or weaknesses for individual tank types. Having said that, I do believe the support logistics for the Tigers was often very lacking, especially in terms of recovery vehicles. I had some pictures of German maintenance crews hooking multiple prime-movers, half-tracks, and tanks together in attempts to retrieve bogged down Tigers....can't seem to find them, though.......

    Such scenes probably were not confined to the German Army, but with tank weights in excess of 50 tonnes, and a shortage of Bergepanther recovery vehicles, they certainly had more than their share

    Another factor working against the Germans was the number of tanks available. Most times, they simply could not take the time to do proper maintenance....units would go straight into battle off a forced march, without rest or down time for repairs/refueling, etc. Doesn't do wonders for the daily operational tank numbers....
    High Plains Drifter

  12. #42

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    Both the Germans and the Allies estimated that it took 17 M4s to kill a Tiger.
    The myth states five M4s for one Tiger I, and that the short-barreled 75mm gun could only penetrate at point blank range from the rear. However, in actuality, it was effective against the sides out to 300 yards, according to Soviet firing tests. I did find one documented case of a Sherman successfully ambushing a Tiger I from the side (at close range): the 75mm projectile punched through the side armor into the engine compartment and ignited the fuel. The crew escaped but the tank was immolated.

    The M-36 carried the very same gun as the M-26.
    2000+ were built, and with T30E16 ammunition, which reached the front lines in January 1945, it could pierce the front glacis plate of the King Tiger out to 100 yards and the front of the turret out to 800 yards. Ordinary APC would pierce the sides and rear at typical combat ranges.

    The M-18 mounted a 76mm purpose built anti-tank gun, the same as the firefly.
    The M18 mounted the 76mm M1 gun, while the Firefly mounted the 17-pounder. The M1 had much poorer anti-armor performance, but the M18's agility and fast-turning turret gave it some advantages over the cumbersome German heavies. Late in the war, one M18 commander wrote in his unit records concerning the big Panzers that 'the enemy could be easily outmaneuvered and is highly susceptible to two-way attack ...' and that the weapon they feared most was the Pak 40 75mm antitank gun.

    The M-10 mounted a 3 inch (76mm) gun that was later fitted to the M4A3 but the tank destroyers had better AP ammunition not given to tank crews.
    The 3-inch was not used with the Shermans; the 76mm M1 developed from it was used instead. As for HVAP ammunition, it was issued to the Shermans as well, but anecdotally in limited quantities.

    ... as was the M-26, which was quickly replaced by first the M-46 and then the M-47. All of these were phased out by the late 1950s and replaced by the M-48, all having had a service life of under 5 years.
    The M46 and M47 were stopgap efforts, but the M48 was in service with U.S. forces into the Nineties.

  13. #43
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    First I hear anything that would be bad about it, except the costs. Saw one up close, what a monster. I can totally understand why they were feared so much.

  14. #44
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Like all of the German "acme tanks" of that conflict, the Tiger suffered from being a brilliant tactical tank but a poor strategic one. The t34-85 and the M4, will both inferior tactically, were significantly better strategically. Moreover, the Allied tanks tended to be better tactically in relation to their opponents than the German tanks were strategically in relation to their opponents. Had Germany not been on a largely defensive stance following the middle of 1943, the strategic shortcomings of the German AFV fleet would have been more apparent.

    Of course, had Germany been winning/moving forward, they would probably have further developed the more workable and strategically effective 3 and 4 chassis.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  15. #45
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Apparently there was also the problem that Germany did not mobilize until sometime in 1943 and didn't use production lines but workshop-style factories for tank production. Later on the lack of resources also resulted in a decline of steel quality, although some say due to the non-standardized prduction, quality also varied on earlier tanks.
    And then I heard that the US had 75% or so of the world's automobile-industry and simply converted most of that and other industries to building war machines...
    I suppose the lesson is that when you have a relatively small country and a regime that only pretends to care about efficiency while it drives away some of the best scientists and specialists with a horrible political agenda, you may get yourself into huge trouble, no matter how good your tanks are on paper.

    The Kingtiger was also not really built for the Ardennes, but to keep Russian tanks at bay in the steppes. And given the steel quality, maybe the armor was oversized on purpose to make up for the brittle steel a bit... The 150mm sloped upper glacis was certainly not fun for most allied tanks while the gun of the Kingtiger was rather dangerous itself. That it can be zergrushed or even killed by infantry is not surprising, that still happens even to the most modern MBTs after all. By the time the Pershing would have been fielded in larger numbers, it would have had to face the Maus however.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  16. #46

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    The Maus was a blind alley that would likely have been of little use in combat, due to its slow speed, mechanical fragility and difficulty in fording rivers. The Pershing, on the other hand, was a correct concept that evolved into the U.S. main battle tanks of the 1950s and 1960s.

    U.S. commanders had little interest in super-heavies, of which several were proposed by Ordnance, because they were skeptical about their ability to cross rivers and bridges.

  17. #47
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    U.S. commanders had little interest in super-heavies, of which several were proposed by Ordnance, because they were skeptical about their ability to cross rivers and bridges.
    Perhaps, but two bigger concerns, I think, were:

    US armored doctrine which stipulated that armored formations were not to engage in direct combat with enemy armor (that was to be left to the tank destroyers), and...

    More M4's could fit into cargo holds and onto LST's than the much bigger M26.
    High Plains Drifter

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  18. #48
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Not quite. Size had little to do with it.

    Production of the M-26 was delayed by Army Ground Forces Command. The head of that group was also the man that came up with Tankdestroyer doctrine, Lt Gen. Lesley McNair. McNair refused to build the M-26 because tanks should not be engaging tanks. It was taken over his head and in Dec 1943 Gen. Marshall ordered it produced. Still Ground Forces tried to delay or cancel it and slowed the process. It didn’t go into full production until Nov 44. It took a lot of effort to get the few already built to Europe by March 45.

    The US Army has always been the toughest enemy the American Armor Force has ever faced and not much has changed to this day.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  19. #49
    Member Member Marcvs julius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Nomad, Portugal
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by al Roumi View Post
    One myth you don't mention -and may or may not have affected the Tiger II, is cases of defective armour due to low grade steel. Part and parcel with the shortage of other strategic resources felt by Germany.
    yes that is also a good point.

    I like tank's a lot but you did not mencion the alied air superiority it destroid many german tanks and the tiger II, as any otlher tank of the time was vunerable to air atack.

  20. #50
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    Not quite. Size had little to do with it.

    Production of the M-26 was delayed by Army Ground Forces Command. The head of that group was also the man that came up with Tankdestroyer doctrine, Lt Gen. Lesley McNair. McNair refused to build the M-26 because tanks should not be engaging tanks. It was taken over his head and in Dec 1943 Gen. Marshall ordered it produced. Still Ground Forces tried to delay or cancel it and slowed the process. It didn’t go into full production until Nov 44. It took a lot of effort to get the few already built to Europe by March 45.

    The US Army has always been the toughest enemy the American Armor Force has ever faced and not much has changed to this day.
    The Chieftain refutes some myths about WW2 US armour in this video, among them the Pershing story. McNair did his best to simplify logistics by not approving projects unless commanders on the ground specifically requested it. The latter specifically stated they did not want the Pershing (the battlefield should not be a testing ground for untested tanks). Marshall overruled this and wanted to go ahead with it. McNair followed his boss's lead and pushed the Pershing through.

    Also, tanks were supposed to engage tanks as per doctrine. Tank destroyers were the equivalent of the triarii, the last line should an enemy attack break through. Normal tanks were the hastati and principes, doing all the heavy work as far as they were capable.

    Also also, Shermans were statistically actually above average in survivability, with Panthers somewhat behind and T-34s quite miserably behind. A look at his relevant Behind the Hatch series illustrates why, and why the Sherman was so popular with Soviet crews. The Sherman videos are late enough to include a specific "Oh bugger the tank is on fire" test, but you get to see him getting into a T-34, and also out of it.

  21. #51
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    The Sherman was the epitome of the medium strategic tank. It was reliable, relatively easy to maintain, had good strategic and decent tactical mobility, and its unit cost was considerably less than most of its peers. Was it tactically better? No, many exceeded it -- though it had its good qualities there and held up against most opposition reasonably. The Pz4 and Px5 opponents who faced it did outgun and out fight it...but not by enough to stop them. The T-34 was a good tank as well, but their manufacture was never smoothly done enough to be truly reliable. The Sovs just cranked them out, since they were expected to be wrecked in 6 weeks of combat use anyway, why be persnickety?
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  22. #52
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    The Sherman was the epitome of the medium strategic tank. It was reliable, relatively easy to maintain, had good strategic and decent tactical mobility, and its unit cost was considerably less than most of its peers. Was it tactically better? No, many exceeded it -- though it had its good qualities there and held up against most opposition reasonably. The Pz4 and Px5 opponents who faced it did outgun and out fight it...but not by enough to stop them. The T-34 was a good tank as well, but their manufacture was never smoothly done enough to be truly reliable. The Sovs just cranked them out, since they were expected to be wrecked in 6 weeks of combat use anyway, why be persnickety?
    In his videos the Chieftain also rants about the various features of the Sherman that rarely get discussed. Wet storage is pretty well known, but he also demonstrates how easy it is to get out of the tank (thus making it exceedingly surviveable compared with the Panther and T-34, especially the latter). Fires tended to happen because of cooked ammunition, not fuel in the engine, with this being true across all tanks. Cooked ammunition gave some warning of the fact that it was going to blow, so crew members had the chance to get out, if they could. The Sherman also had better integrated optics, making it more likely to get the first controlled shot when studies showed that it was the overwhelmingly decisive factor in determining the result of a tank engagement. The Sherman is also far roomier than the others, making it easier for the crew to operate. After watching his videos, it's easy to understand the previously inexplicable point that Soviet Tank Guards tended to prefer Shermans to T-34s. T-34s may be easy to produce and get into the battle and be serviceable in battle, but if you could take your pick, Shermans could do everything a T-34 could, and were far more comfortable and useable.

    Thinking of the Matildas, Valentines, Hurricanes and other stuff that Britain sent, it's hard to think of any British lend lease stuff that the Russians could have liked. They probably appreciated the tea.

  23. #53
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    In his videos the Chieftain also rants about the various features of the Sherman that rarely get discussed. Wet storage is pretty well known, but he also demonstrates how easy it is to get out of the tank (thus making it exceedingly surviveable compared with the Panther and T-34, especially the latter). Fires tended to happen because of cooked ammunition, not fuel in the engine, with this being true across all tanks. Cooked ammunition gave some warning of the fact that it was going to blow, so crew members had the chance to get out, if they could. The Sherman also had better integrated optics, making it more likely to get the first controlled shot when studies showed that it was the overwhelmingly decisive factor in determining the result of a tank engagement. The Sherman is also far roomier than the others, making it easier for the crew to operate. After watching his videos, it's easy to understand the previously inexplicable point that Soviet Tank Guards tended to prefer Shermans to T-34s. T-34s may be easy to produce and get into the battle and be serviceable in battle, but if you could take your pick, Shermans could do everything a T-34 could, and were far more comfortable and useable.

    Thinking of the Matildas, Valentines, Hurricanes and other stuff that Britain sent, it's hard to think of any British lend lease stuff that the Russians could have liked. They probably appreciated the tea.
    I loved his bit on the cross-country test Cromwell v Sherman. Day one, Cromwells rule, but by day 30, the crews were punch drunk from lack of sleep trying to keep up the maintenance needed while the Shermans were rolling on.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  24. #54
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    but by day 30, the crews were punch drunk from lack of sleep trying to keep up the maintenance needed while the Shermans were rolling on
    Things were much worse for Tiger I/II crews, as well as Panthers. The Soviets, after gaining a lot of experience fighting Tigers, incorporated the best strategy for fighting them....attack where they aren't and make them do forced marches and let breakdowns take their toll. At the start of Operation Bagration, they did just that and it was rare for more than a small handful of Tigers out of an entire battalion that got to the fighting.

    Fearsome when forced to take them head-on, but far easier to deal with when they had to do extended road marches.
    High Plains Drifter

  25. #55
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    Things were much worse for Tiger I/II crews, as well as Panthers. The Soviets, after gaining a lot of experience fighting Tigers, incorporated the best strategy for fighting them....attack where they aren't and make them do forced marches and let breakdowns take their toll. At the start of Operation Bagration, they did just that and it was rare for more than a small handful of Tigers out of an entire battalion that got to the fighting.

    Fearsome when forced to take them head-on, but far easier to deal with when they had to do extended road marches.
    True in the West as well. Where a Tiger or three were (even broken down immobile) located where they could NOT be flanked, things go ugly.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  26. #56
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    True in the West as well. Where a Tiger or three were (even broken down immobile) located where they could NOT be flanked, things go ugly.
    Not for the later Shermans though. The 76mm could match the 88mm in practice, and the uparmoured Sherman was, thanks to its slope, better armoured than the Tiger. And the late war Sherman, upgunned and uparmoured, retained most of the mobility and reliability of the earlier models. Plus, and this wasn't to be sniffed at, all versions of the M4 had stanadardised components that could be easily replaced by the masses of replacements that were shipped out.

    The Chieftain points out that much of the Sherman's reputation as deathtraps comes from Belton Cooper's book of the same name. While a primary source, he was somewhat biased by the fact that he was a tank mechanic, not a tank crewman, and thus only came into contact with Shermans that had been knocked out. Statistics kept by the various allied armour boards showed the Sherman to be highly effective (and even in the Korean war, preferred by some crewmen to the vaunted Pershings). Soviet accounts also show the Sherman to be the guardsman's tank of choice, even if their access to replacement parts may not be as free and easy ans those of the western Allies.

  27. #57
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    The 76mm could match the 88mm in practice
    Without dredging up test firing data, I don't believe this to be true. Only the 90mm carried by the M36 Jackson and the M26 Pershing could come close

    and the uparmoured Sherman was, thanks to its slope, better armoured than the Tiger
    Only true for the M4A3E2, the Sherman "Jumbo", though I would wonder what "better armoured than the Tiger" means. Only 250 M4's were converted to Jumbo's and the 76mm wasn't added until Feb 1945 (about 100 M4A3E2's getting them).

    And the late war Sherman, upgunned and uparmoured, retained most of the mobility and reliability of the earlier models.
    Only true for Sherman's with the HVSS suspension. The Panther consistently outmaneuvered the standard M4 on soft ground due to its' much wider tracks, which is why the HVSS was rushed to Europe in response to demands from tank crews.

    all versions of the M4 had stanadardised components that could be easily replaced by the masses of replacements that were shipped out
    One of the Sherman's strengths...excluding catastrophic damage, a damaged Sherman could be repaired relatively quickly.

    A very under-appreciated capability of the Sherman (even by its crews) was its' ability to fire accurately while on the move due to the onboard gyroscope. Most crews weren't trained to use it, so they didn't However, at least one M26 crew used it...the now famous incident in Cologne where an M26 from the 3rd AD holed a Panther three times while on the move before the Panther could traverse its' turret to fire on the Pershing. (lots of YouTube videos for this encounter which was filmed realtime). This one shows all the lead-up to the encounter with some pretty cool detail:

    http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html

    preferred by some crewmen to the vaunted Pershings
    Mainly due to the M26's tendency to break down in the rugged terrain of Korea with drive-train problems.

    Belton Cooper was right about one thing...if the M26 had been brought into production a year earlier (which it certainly could have), a lot of Allied tankmen wouldn't have lost their lives.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 09-05-2017 at 14:14.
    High Plains Drifter

  28. #58
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    Reluctant, the raw penetrating power of the 88 WAS more than that of the longer barreled 76s Pannonian is referencing. However, the 76 had a higher rate of fire, and the targeting systems and practices often gave the Sherman drivers a notch of time advantage over their German counterparts in getting off the first shot. The higher power 76 could usually punch through a Tiger's flat armor if it could come in at a relatively flat angle. Even though the 88 penned more, the 76 penned ENOUGH, and if it got the shot of first....

    As to better armor, he is referring to the slope of the Sherman's armor which give its thinner plating a much higher effective thickness than the slab sided Tigers. In addition to the uparmored Jumbo, there were more than a few field mods adding hull armor to the Sherman as well. I still think the Tiger had more effective armoring overall, but Pan is right that it wasn't quite as lopsided as legend suggests.

    Good points with which I agree on the other stuff noted
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  29. #59
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,483

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    The higher power 76 could usually punch through a Tiger's flat armor if it could come in at a relatively flat angle. Even though the 88 penned more, the 76 penned ENOUGH
    Flank shots only. The 76.2mm couldn't even penetrate the Panther's frontal armor at any range (except when using the rare HVAP), let alone either of the bigger Cats.

    Conclusion form the US 12 AG firing tests at Isigny in August of 1944 was that the APC of the 76mm (the most common type of AP ammunition available to Sherman's armed with the 76mm) was inferior to the APCBC of the British 17pdr or the 76mm HVAP because it had comparatively poor penetrating power.

    The best anti-armor round then available to US forces in any quantity, the M62, is rejected as unsatisfactory for use against heavy armor. Two more capable rounds, that are not available to US forces but perhaps could be in the future, the new 76mm HVAP and the British 17pdr APC, are accurate enough but can’t reliably penetrate a Panther. The one round that can reliably penetrate a Panther isn’t accurate enough.
    APC M62, w/BDF M66A1 will not penetrate front glacis slope plate at 200 yards. Will penetrate gun mantlet at 200 yards and penetrate sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank up to 1500 yards.
    At 200 yards That's suicide range, gentlemen.

    The above quoted information can be found here:

    https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chi...armour-part-1/

    Don't get me wrong...the Sherman was a good, versatile, medium tank that served the Allies well. But if the M26 had been the MBT that landed on the shores of Normandy, a lot of Allied crewmen might have made it home to kiss their wives and children (and the same for a lot less Germans).
    High Plains Drifter

  30. #60
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: In Defense of the German Tiger II Tank (Warning - Pic Heavy Post)

    When talking about the 76, note that American tanks encountered Tigers on only 3 occasions in 1944-45. Most encounters reported as Tigers were other tanks. Admittedly, some of them were Tiger 2s, but many of them were Pzkfw IVs or Panthers, as checking with German sources showed. And of those 3 occasions, only 2 could be described as combat situations, with the first resulting in the Sherman knocking out the Tiger, and the second resulting in the Tiger knocking out the Pershing.

    Also, statistically, rather more Panthers were destroyed by Shermans than the other way round. Whatever the merits of their gun and armour, the Sherman was more likely to get in the first controlled shot, which investigators concluded was overwhelmingly the best determinator of how an engagement was likely to end. Of course, as the Chieftain notes, it wasn't simply Shermans versus Panthers, but all the components of the US armed forces in Normandy versus the German armed forces, and the former was deadly, so perhaps other arms contributed substantially to the lopsided numbers of knocked out Panthers as well. The vaunted fighter bombers probably didn't account for many though.

    Member thankful for this post:



Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO