Naval History Forums

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.

Would they let Jeremy Clarkson loose in one of these tanks?

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

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,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujqSxIe- ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IFEux4N ... re=related

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.......

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.