Don't be fooled about the Tiger

[lwd]

I wouldn't be too surprised at the lack of frontal penetrations. Just looking at wike at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II we find:

Only 492 units were produced: 1 in 1943, 379 in 1944, and 112 in 1945.

So less than 500 completed and some of those likely never were committed to combat. Given the combination of reliability problems, fuel shortages, and a distinct inclination by the allies not to try and take on Tigers head on it doesn't seem to surpriseing especially when you consider that not all incidents are going to be reported much less photographed.

[alecsandros]

About 400 Tiger 2s were delivered to panzer battallions by Apr 1945. They saw a great deal of fighting, especialy on the eastern front. In the west, only during the Battle of the Bulge were they present in any considerable numbers. They were shot at by a wide variety of weapons, under very diverse circumstances.

[lwd]

About 400 Tiger 2s were delivered to panzer battallions by Apr 1945. They saw a great deal of fighting, especialy on the eastern front. In the west, only during the Battle of the Bulge were they present in any considerable numbers. They were shot at by a wide variety of weapons, under very diverse circumstances.

Ok, So we have about 400 committed to combat. How many were lost due to mechanical failures or running out of fuel and destroyed by the crew? Then a quick check on the net showed a number of references to taking them out by flanking them so that cuts the number quite a bit more. Remember to have a picture of one with it's front glacias penetrated it has to have been targeted and penetrated by a weapon capable of doing so (not all that common on the battlefield) and someone has to take a picture of it (certainly not guaranteed. Given that the allies had already decided that the best way of taking out Tigers was to flank them and there relativly small numbers combined with their reliability and it's hardly surprising there aren't any such pictures.

[alecsandros]

If not pictures, at least some credible action report... I haven't seen one... yet

[lwd]

Why? Again there's a good chance it never happened. In they were defending a postion the Tigers in general would likely fire until their position became compromised and/or they were damaged by artillery or aircraft, that's if they even made it to the battle at which point they would retire or would be abandoned. Consider also that if they were in decent defences of positons then they would be hull down and thus their front glasis shouldn't be subject to attacking guns. While they were retiring the if they had a mechanicle breakdown they likely would be lost or ran out of gas they would have a fair chance of being lost and destroyed by their crew. If they were engaged during the withdrawl or stayed in their position too long it would likely be a flank shot that would do them in. If they were on offence mines could also be added to the mix and AT guns firing from flanking positions not to mention tank traps. There's a rather short list of weapons that can penetrate the front of a Tiger II and given the small numbers with which they were present I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were indeed no cases of the front glasis being pentrated in combat.

[alecsandros]

@Lwd, Madmike:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-ge ... -4193.html

It seems Delycros and others have already concluded on this 5 years ago

Lwd, you were right!
There are NO known glacis penetration of the Tiger2 during battles !

[lwd]

IMO the Tiger I and II had some significant short comings/flaws that significantly decreased their utility as weapons during the war. Their ability to resist contemporary AT weapons especially through their frontal arc was most emphatically not one of them. If I were to engage in a head to head slugging match with a Tiger II the only production tracked vehicle that I would want to be in would be a Jagd Tiger and I'm not sure I'd be all that happy about that.

[alecsandros]

ALL tanks have their shortcomings; it's just a matter of perspective.

[steffen19k]

Guys, here's the deal with tank combat:

A) Its NEVER EVER REMOTELY like "it was written on paper." For starters The Congress tried harder to get me killed with Rules of Engagement that were just so outrageously bad that only people who were there can appreciate it. Next, the M1 is, regardless of what anyone else says on the subject, a big, open country combat vehicle. Sure, it can fight in a city, but it's much, much better operating in open terrain.

B) See above.

C) Its better than being in the infantry.

I did that for two tours in Iraq. The two strongest and most vivid memories I have of it are that I'm alive and in once piece, and that each time, Haji knew we were coming home before we did.

The reason we knew we were going home is because the insurgents would graffiti "The tanks are leaving" all over the place, to let the insurgents know we were going home. I think that's one of the best compliments a combat system can ever have: When the enemy is all to happy to let you know they don't want to play with you.


Now with all that said...

I have to weigh the Tiger Twins in a very specific light. Some of this may seem obvious, basic, or even lame but a lot of it is necessary.


Pz 6 was originally supposed to weigh only 45 tons, but Hitler got involved, and made it 56. the Pz 7 was supposed to weigh about 50, but that got jacked up to almost 68 tons again because of Hitler. (And even if Hitler didn't get involved, I have to believe Ferdinand Porsche might have made it so anyways.)

"Whats your point, steffen?" I can hear some of you asking at this point. My point, boys and girls, if there are indeed girls who are geeking out on this stuff, is that the Tigers were overweight.

The Tigers were overweight because Hitler made his decision far too late in the process. That means it was too late to recalculate the suspension for increased weight, it was too late to repower the tank, or regear the transmission. Anything they did at that point was only going to end up in a vicious spiral of mechanical reliability issues.

However, that does NOT prevent the Tiger from being considered a mechanical marvel of the world. The Tiger held a lot of potential. The problem was the execution of the idea. If the Germans had had about 5 more years to truly refine the idea, I feel the King Tiger would have truly been worth the reputation that it so poorly reflected at the time of its inception and debut.

Much like the Bismarck, the Tiger and the battles it was forced to fight in were just at the wrong time.

So I agree, don't be fooled by the Tiger. But also don't be fooled by those who proclaim that a tank is summed up by "how it was in those days." There are a lot of better tank designs that were far less successful.

I've driven the M1A1, M1A2, and M1A2SEP. They are amazing tanks, but I've seen enough of them to consider them grossly flawed. As much as I would love to talk about their flaws, I unfortunately still have friends serving overseas, and I don't want my loose lips sinking their landships.

[alecsandros]

I've driven the M1A1, M1A2, and M1A2SEP. They are amazing tanks, but I've seen enough of them to consider them grossly flawed. As much as I would love to talk about their flaws, I unfortunately still have friends serving overseas, and I don't want my loose lips sinking their landships.

Still,
If you were to serve again in a tank, and to fight tank battles, would you prefer to be in an Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, T80, Merkava ... ?

[steffen19k]

Still,
If you were to serve again in a tank, and to fight tank battles, would you prefer to be in an Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, T80, Merkava ... ?

Besides being off topic for this particular thread, that's a loaded question, if I ever heard one.

To be fair, Im going to start a new topic line about it.