You're forgetting about the Sherman Firefly.VeenenbergR wrote:Don't be fooled about the Tiger. Tigers were able to kill almost any enemy tank in 1 or 2 shots at distances up to 1000 meters. Shermans needed to come much closer to do harm to a Tiger. Mostly they were only able to knock out Tigers from the side or rear. This happened in city fight or when ambushing Tigers which showed their sides. This is what practice on battlefields showed. 2000 Tigers were able to kill about 10.000 enemy tanks (books of Schneider, Jentz) and about 20.000 vehicles, PAK, guns and other AFV. Of those 2000 Tigers only about 1000 ever were able to fire their gun on a target. The other half never got a chance to get into action at all. So Tigers were traded off in a 1 to 10 ratio: some Tigers only had a few kills were others had dozens or a multiple of dozens. One of the most succesfull Tigers was near the Reichstag in the last days of april 1945 and scored over 100 Soviet tanks and AG (5% of all Soviet tank losses in Berlin). Most succesfull bn's were 502nd and 503rd.
Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Don't be fooled about the Tiger
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
For every Sherman Firefly the Germans had their own Tank Killers that make any US armour obsolete. An example is the Jagdpanzer IV or the famous Jagdpanther (a superb design that makes the Firefly look like... a firefly) , the most incredible Jagdtiger based upon a Tiger chasis (can you image the looks of such a terrible weapon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdtiger
Then there we can find the Nashorn: some kind of a beast. And the famous Panzerjager Tiger, much better known as Elefant.
Any of them could have a Firefly for breakfast. Even the ruskies had much better tank hunters and killers.
Best regards,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdtiger
Then there we can find the Nashorn: some kind of a beast. And the famous Panzerjager Tiger, much better known as Elefant.
Any of them could have a Firefly for breakfast. Even the ruskies had much better tank hunters and killers.
Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
US armor was far from obsolete. The US 90mm gun and the 105 firing HEAT could punch a hole in pretty much any German armor and I don't see people saying they were obsolete. As for killing Tigers the US didn't have to do it that often. Indeed they left a lot of that to the Germans themselves. Note all the Tigers that were abandoned and sometimes destroyed by the Germans.
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Karl thinks I'm to biased toward American stuff. Geeze Karl ... read some of your own posts.
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Look up "Archer" and "Achilles".Karl Heidenreich wrote:For every Sherman Firefly the Germans had their own Tank Killers that make any US armour obsolete. An example is the Jagdpanzer IV or the famous Jagdpanther (a superb design that makes the Firefly look like... a firefly) , the most incredible Jagdtiger based upon a Tiger chasis (can you image the looks of such a terrible weapon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdtiger
Then there we can find the Nashorn: some kind of a beast. And the famous Panzerjager Tiger, much better known as Elefant.
Any of them could have a Firefly for breakfast. Even the ruskies had much better tank hunters and killers.
Best regards,
German 37mm ATG versus 2pdr ATG = 2pdr superior
German 50mm ATG versus 6pdr ATG = 6 pdr superior
German 75mm L48 ATG versus 6pdr ATG with APDS = 6 pdr superior
German 75mmL70/88mm L56 ATG versus 17 pdr = 17pdr superior
17 pdr with APDS = best AP penetration of all during WW2.
UK/Cdn AP technology was superior.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Show me the money. Besides not only the gun, but the overall vehicle must taken into account, as in a battleship. The Germans were the best in tank building matched only by the russians. Remember that Russia was the field for the tank combats in a way the western front never was.German 37mm ATG versus 2pdr ATG = 2pdr superior
German 50mm ATG versus 6pdr ATG = 6 pdr superior
German 75mm L48 ATG versus 6pdr ATG with APDS = 6 pdr superior
German 75mmL70/88mm L56 ATG versus 17 pdr = 17pdr superior
17 pdr with APDS = best AP penetration of all during WW2.
The western allies later gather everything Germanm after the war, to build their own tanks, which changed a lot. An nowaday M-1 Abrams looks much more like a WWII German tank than a Sherman. Or the frenchies whose tanks are modernized Panthers...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
And the Germans owed much of their later designs PZKWs V to VII to Russian designs which had been pinched from the 1928 Christie. Full Circle?
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
I believe the German's owed the origin of their shaped charge infantry antitank weapons to the US Bazooka, right? They took the US weapon and improved it a lot. Then the Russians took the German weapons and developed the RPG.
Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Well, as far as the Panzerschreck went, yes. But the Germans had been fielding shape charge grenades and shells for several years before they ever saw a Bazooka, so in that context no. The idea that an explosive could etch metal plate stemmed from the 1880s Monroe effect, although the first application specifically against armour was not until 1940 when Germans storming the Belgian forts used shaped charges to neutralize the gun turrets. There is some debate about who was the first to field shaped charges, and the two main contenders are Britain and Germany who both had them by 1939, but it seems the Germans were the first to actually use them in combat and by 1940 quite a few German field guns had been issued shape charge muntions.believe the German's owed the origin of their shaped charge infantry antitank weapons to the US Bazooka, right?
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Whether or not the Panzershreck was an improvement over the Bazooka is a matter of debate. While it had more penetration than the 2.36" bazooka it also required special protective gear and was bigger and clumsier. The US 3" bazooka was probably better all round and was produced in some numbers near the end of the war it just wasn't fielded as the US didn't see the need. The Panzerfaust on the other hand is easier to consider a supperior AT weapon. I think it was a little shorter ranged and may not have been as accurate but it's ease of use and the fact that almost anyone or everyone could carry and use it was a major advantage. By the way the Bazooka used a AT rifle grenade as it's warhead.Bgile wrote:I believe the German's owed the origin of their shaped charge infantry antitank weapons to the US Bazooka, right? They took the US weapon and improved it a lot. ....
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
- Location: Vinkeveen
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Let us say that weapons are ONE, but tactics are even more important. The best tanks are useless when they are caught in an encirclement, are out of supply, can not be maintained properly or lack trained crews, or lack air support.
The Germans late in the war had proper training, superb weapons, enormous fighting spirit, but......often suffered from bad supply, were often encircled, were often terrorised from the sky, were carpet bombed, were shelled day and night, had to retreat through awfull terrain, were demoralized by endless retreats, were attacked constantly, suffered from no replacements, were led by a bad strategy to hold ground at all costs (and sure those costs were heavy!!).
No doubt even the best army in the world could not stand this ordeal for very long.
They (the "Landser") bravely fought on because surrender mostly meant to be shot on the spot, a death march or starving in a camp somewhere. Ok many even survived this.
The Germans late in the war had proper training, superb weapons, enormous fighting spirit, but......often suffered from bad supply, were often encircled, were often terrorised from the sky, were carpet bombed, were shelled day and night, had to retreat through awfull terrain, were demoralized by endless retreats, were attacked constantly, suffered from no replacements, were led by a bad strategy to hold ground at all costs (and sure those costs were heavy!!).
No doubt even the best army in the world could not stand this ordeal for very long.
They (the "Landser") bravely fought on because surrender mostly meant to be shot on the spot, a death march or starving in a camp somewhere. Ok many even survived this.
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
As a general comment on the Tiger I believe that most military experts do regard the Tiger as the best tank of WW2.
I would not be fooled about the Tiger - had the Germans developed it earlier and manufactured it in greater numbers the outcome of WW2 might have been different.
I would not be fooled about the Tiger - had the Germans developed it earlier and manufactured it in greater numbers the outcome of WW2 might have been different.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
If the US had developed the M26 earlier and made it in greater numbers, the outcome of WW2 might have been ... well, no, it wouldn't have.RF wrote:As a general comment on the Tiger I believe that most military experts do regard the Tiger as the best tank of WW2.
I would not be fooled about the Tiger - had the Germans developed it earlier and manufactured it in greater numbers the outcome of WW2 might have been different.
If the Russians had developed the IS-II earlier and made it in greater numbers, the outcome of WW2 might have ... oops again.
If the British had developed the Centurian earlier and ... oops.
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Yes - but I think that my comment over the Tiger being developed a little earlier and produced in greater numbers is more realistic than the other developments you mention. Otherwise we could upgrade to what if, for example, the Roman Empire had developed nuclear weapons and deployed them at Tutorburg....or the British using Dreadnought battleships to blockade and win in the American Revolutionary War, or any other military fantasy. It is after all only conjecture.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Don't be fooled about the Tiger
Why do you think producing the Tiger earlier would be more reasonable than my suggestions? Are you assuming that the Allies made no production mistakes they could have changed and only Germany could have done better?