Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:33 am

For the great number of us, who really know which was the TANK of WWII, please follow the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_5c0mBXok

Let the others have their fantasies.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by RF » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:41 am

Would they let Jeremy Clarkson loose in one of these tanks?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

dougieo
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by dougieo » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:43 pm

RF wrote:Would they let Jeremy Clarkson loose in one of these tanks?
surely they would get the STIG to do a power lap in it!

after watching that vid it must have been so hard to hit anything on the move judging by how much the gun vibrates

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:42 am

I do believe that tanks must be compared against it´s similars as a battleship must be compared against another battleship. If someone here dare to compare a battleship with, let´s say, a battlecruiser or a heavy cruiser, it would not stand scrutiny.

So, if we compare tanks then we must put the Tiger vs. it´s homologues: Sherman, T-34 and the such. If we want to talk about tank killers then the Firefly is not comparable with a Tiger but with another tank hunter as, let´s say:

Jagdpanzer IV or
Jagdpanther
Jagdtiger
Nashorn
Panzerjager Tiger, much better known as Elefant.

So we are in a fair comparison of similar roles and characteristics.

If we do so, and separate the issues, then the Tiger is fooling nobody: is the king of the field.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:51 am

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by RF » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:57 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I do believe that tanks must be compared against it´s similars as a battleship must be compared against another battleship. If someone here dare to compare a battleship with, let´s say, a battlecruiser or a heavy cruiser, it would not stand scrutiny.
Such as Hood taking on Bismarck.......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:27 am

RF,

That´s a mistake on behalf of British warriors, not the Germans. The Germans were tackled, what do you expect them to do? Anyway, you also forgot to add something:

The British had one BB and two CA in their formattion when the Germans only had one CA. The odds were not only even but in favour of the allied unit.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7529
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by RF » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:36 pm

Strictly speaking Norfolk and Suffolk weren't part of the formation as they were outside firing range, but that is a academic point that has become rather off topic to the Tiger tank.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by lwd » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:52 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:... If we want to talk about tank killers then the Firefly is not comparable with a Tiger but with another tank hunter as, let´s say:

Jagdpanzer IV or
Jagdpanther
Jagdtiger
Nashorn
Panzerjager Tiger, much better known as Elefant.

So we are in a fair comparison of similar roles and characteristics. ...,
But they aren't. The Firefly was a turreted vehicle that was organizationally part of tank units. The German vehicles above were turretless vehicles that were usually in seperate AT units.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by Bgile » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:54 pm

I don't think the Tiger compares well with the JS-II. In fact, it's completely outclassed. In fact, I believe the German tankers were ordered not to engage them with King Tigers, either.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by lwd » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:55 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I do believe that tanks must be compared against it´s similars as a battleship must be compared against another battleship. If someone here dare to compare a battleship with, let´s say, a battlecruiser or a heavy cruiser, it would not stand scrutiny.
...
There is a difference between comparing with and comparing against. If you want to get an overall which BB is best you need to compare the various BBs in multiple roles not just vs each other. As for comparing various classes against each other it's happened regularly on this board in particular with the Alaskas but often with the Twins as well.

JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by JtD » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:14 pm

The Tiger compares well with the JSII. In their AT capabilities, it is definitely a close call.

As for comparing the Tiger to Shermans and T-34 as comparing them to their homologues. If you want to do that, compare the Sherman and the T-34 with the PzIV, which was the main German tank and also a medium one, whereas the the Tiger was a rare and also heavy tank design. This one could be compared to the KV-1, KV-2, IS-2 or some late West Allied models.
The Soviets also fielded towerless armor like the SU-85/100/152 tank destroyers, which would be the ones to compare the German turretless designs to.

Comparing a Tiger with a T-34/M4 is very much like comparing a BB with a CA, just because one side did not use BB's and CA's were their largest ships.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by Bgile » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:37 pm

JtD wrote:The Tiger compares well with the JSII. In their AT capabilities, it is definitely a close call.
I don't think it's close at all. Maybe close vs the King Tiger. This is from Wiki, but I've seen it elsewhere. It's a matter of combat record:

"One of the IS-2's most notable engagements took place during the fighting in August 1944 to establish a bridgehead across the river Vistula around the town of Sandomierz. This was the first time the IS-2 had come up against the Tiger II. During the engagement on August 13, the 71st Guards Independent Heavy Tank Regiment's eleven IS-2s blocked an attack by fourteen Tiger IIs of the 105th Heavy Panzer Regiment. An engagement at about 700 metres (770 yd) coupled with skilled tactical handling saw four Tiger IIs destroyed for the loss of three IS-2s and seven damaged."

I believe this engagement resulted in orders for Tiger II's to avoid engaging IS-IIs.

The regular Tiger wasn't even a close match.

dougieo
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by dougieo » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:32 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I do believe that tanks must be compared against it´s similars as a battleship must be compared against another battleship. If someone here dare to compare a battleship with, let´s say, a battlecruiser or a heavy cruiser, it would not stand scrutiny.

So, if we compare tanks then we must put the Tiger vs. it´s homologues: Sherman, T-34 and the such. If we want to talk about tank killers then the Firefly is not comparable with a Tiger but with another tank hunter as, let´s say:

Jagdpanzer IV or
Jagdpanther
Jagdtiger
Nashorn
Panzerjager Tiger, much better known as Elefant.

So we are in a fair comparison of similar roles and characteristics.

If we do so, and separate the issues, then the Tiger is fooling nobody: is the king of the field.

Best regards,
you just completely contradicted yourself in that post Karl, compare like for like.

Its great to see the tank running and is easy to see why they were feared, a very formidable tank.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger

Post by lwd » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:15 pm

Bgile wrote: ...eleven IS-2s blocked an attack by fourteen Tiger IIs of the 105th Heavy Panzer Regiment. An engagement at about 700 metres (770 yd) coupled with skilled tactical handling saw four Tiger IIs destroyed for the loss of three IS-2s and seven damaged."....
Let's see attacking at odds of 14:11 that's ~3:2 somewhat less than the 3:1 normally considered neccessary for success on the part of the attacker. Then they specifically mention skilled tactical handling on the part of the IS-2's and still the result is 4:3 losses. How many of the 7 damaged would have survived had the sides swapped places? This is hardly a ringing endorsement for the IS-2.

Post Reply