Tiger Kills and Losses

[minoru genda]

Hello, here are my 2 cents about the battle of Berlin.

Soviet casualty figures

81,116 KIA/MIA
280,251 WIA.
Total casualties: 361,367

1,997 tanks
2,108 artillery pieces/mortars
917 planes

That figures are given by the soviets so the actual numbers are probably higher. So we have about 2,000 tanks lost in and around Berlin.

About the Tiger that fought in the Reichstag. I don't think it is serious believe that a single tank can stop an enemy armored corps for three days. That story must have been a misinterpretation. Maybe yes, there was a Tiger there but it was NOT alone. There was German infantry around, panzerfaust, Flaks, etc. The battle for the Reichstag lasted for 3 days but that does not mean that a single Tiger stopped the Russians for 3 days.

The Germans tried to blow up the Moltke bridge over the river Spree but failed so the Russians crossed over. You can see the map below. A hidden Tiger might have been able cause some losses but not stop them. The big ZOO Flak tower also destroyed some Russian tanks. Did they have a clear view of the bridge and other side of the river from the ZOO flak tower?

Bye

[Byron Angel]

VeenenbergR,

IMHO, you should not waste any more of your time, good will and patience trying to conduct a rational discussion with mkenny.

Byron

I don't think personal attacks from anyone are a good thing. I understand you are frustrated, but probably so is mkenny.

I'm not an expert on this subject so I've been trying to follow this discussion objectively. I do have to admit some bias against claims of German equipment being "God like" and holding off several Army Groups ... it just sounds silly to me. If nothing else, there wouldn't be enough shells to stop several thousand tanks and 100,000 infantry even if each shell destroyed a tank and each machinegun bullet killed a soldier. It just seems rather improbable.

..... I appreciate your point. My irritation has nothing whatever to do with the topic, but with the distasteful, demeaning, insulting manner in which this gentleman pursues his arguments. This sort of behavior will make a shambles of this otherwise friendly and informative forum in very short order. I would very much hate to see that happen here.


Merry Christmas to one and all,

Byron

[Bgile]

Hello, here are my 2 cents about the battle of Berlin.

Thank you!

[lwd]

...5-6 Königstigers are able to shoot 500+ shells and each WAS capable to destroy a JS II with one shot.

Well just looking at Wiki it credits them with carrying 80 or 86 rounds depending on the model. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
So we're looking at 400-516 rounds. So 500+ is barely possible. Then of course there's a good chance that at least some of the rounds were HE which would bu unlikely to destroy a JS II with a one shot.

Even destroying 70 tanks is a reasonable result when firing 500 heavy shells by the famous high velocity long barrelled 88mm tankgun. If they destroyed the enemy each with 3 shells this yields 170 tanks and with 1 with 5 shells about 100 tanks.

Reasonable ? Perhaps but I wouldn't so state it. Possible certainly but not likely.

[lwd]

..... I appreciate your point. My irritation has nothing whatever to do with the topic, but with the distasteful, demeaning, insulting manner in which this gentleman pursues his arguments. This sort of behavior will make a shambles of this otherwise friendly and informative forum in very short order. I would very much hate to see that happen here.

He can be a bit abbrasive at times on the otherhand he has a pretty good grasp of the facts. He's also been responding to this type of hype for years on a number of different boards. Some people start becoming less charitable shall we say after dealing with the same or similar claims on a repeated basis where there is little or no evidence for the same. Not as bad as the flying saucer crew but ...

It should also be noted that what you object to is pretty much the standard on some boards.

[Byron Angel]

..... what you object to is pretty much the standard on some boards.

..... which is why I no longer participate in them. No insult intended, but it seems that my tolerance level for such bad behavior is lower than yours.


Merry Christmas to one and all,

Byron

[lwd]

..... what you object to is pretty much the standard on some boards.

..... which is why I no longer participate in them. No insult intended, but it seems that my tolerance level for such bad behavior is lower than yours.

That's possible. Or perhaps I'm just more irritated at those who make scarecly believeable claims and refuse to support them. It's one thing to be rude in a discussion where both sides are participating in good faith and trying to support thier arguments with facts and reason. That however is not the case here.

[VeenenbergR]

IWD. This weekend I will search through my books to collect facts that may support the idea that a few Königstigers indeed fullfilled their intended role and proved supremacy on the battlefield. The Bollersdorf case is one and can not rejected by citing Soviet sources which deny any German successes. The same is true for the Königstiger which was so successfull to deny an armored advance over the Königsplatz in Berlin. Yes this Tiger was not alone (there were infantry units around, their were several guns nearby (f.e. in the Kroll Opera building), but it was the only machine which could destroy heavy Soviet tanks from medium to long distance. The 12,8 cm ZOO Flak guns did not always have a free sight to the Soviet heavy armour since they were hidden by the walls of the Ministry of Interior (a building which was heavily damaged but also survived the heavy fighting in and around it). The Königstiger however had a clear sight towards any Soviet tank advances beyond the covering walls and German claims ran up to high scores.If these scores are true is another story. As said before the Königstiger was frequently withdrawn to resupply, take cover for counterbarrages and hard needed rest, because fighting was hard and psychologically extremely heavy.
One thing is interesting: no Soviet anti-tank weapons could be put in place to take out the Königstiger. It operated in a "secure zone", protected by other units around the Königsplatz, the built-up area there, rubble.

[Kyler]

While I don't condone the aggressive attitude of some recent posters, it is important to remember before making claims especially unusual or fantastic numbers during a battle is that you need to backup your information with sources. My college degree is in history, so I spent many days writing papers on all kinds of subjects of history. None of those papers would have been worth anything if they didn't have sources. I am not saying any posters information is wrong, though if you are going to post something make sure you can back your information up.

Also remember the topic that is being discussed happened during a world war from primarily two nations & two governments that do not exist anymore. There was and is A LOT of bad information put out or published during and after the war to mislead people for either positive or negative reasons. This especially true of the Nazi & Soviet propaganda machines. So always take those sources with a bit of grain salt and so some cases with a lot.

Just my 2 cents

[lwd]

IWD. This weekend I will search through my books to collect facts that may support the idea that a few Königstigers indeed fullfilled their intended role and proved supremacy on the battlefield.

Surely they on occasion fulfileed their intended role. Occasionally they may have allowed the German forces the edge that for a time at least rendered them supreme on a particular battlefield. That however is not what is being disputed.

The Bollersdorf case is one and can not rejected by citing Soviet sources which deny any German successes. The same is true for the Königstiger which was so successfull to deny an armored advance over the Königsplatz in Berlin.

I look forward to reading the details of these battles or the references where I can read them.

Yes this Tiger was not alone (there were infantry units around, their were several guns nearby (f.e. in the Kroll Opera building), but it was the only machine which could destroy heavy Soviet tanks from medium to long distance.

How many long distance shots does one get in a city like Berlin? What are you considering medium range?

The 12,8 cm ZOO Flak guns did not always have a free sight to the Soviet heavy armour since they were hidden by the walls of the Ministry of Interior (a building which was heavily damaged but also survived the heavy fighting in and around it). The Königstiger however had a clear sight towards any Soviet tank advances beyond the covering walls and German claims ran up to high scores.If these scores are true is another story. As said before the Königstiger was frequently withdrawn to resupply, take cover for counterbarrages and hard needed rest, because fighting was hard and psychologically extremely heavy.

So are you saying it defintily peformed as you indicated earlier or just that the Germans claimed it did?

One thing is interesting: no Soviet anti-tank weapons could be put in place to take out the Königstiger. It operated in a "secure zone", protected by other units around the Königsplatz, the built-up area there, rubble.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Line of sight and line of fire goes both ways afterall and the Soviets certainly had weapons that could take out a Tiger. Furthermore what held up the Soviet advance when the Tiger was being "frequently withdrawn"?

[Bgile]

Weren't there some documented cases of engagements between IS-IIs and KTs where both sides took losses and while the Germans came out ahead it wasn't all that lop sided?

[Kyler]

I did was quick search online looking for any reference for Royal Tigers & Berlin.

The only thing I can find so far (Only searching for 10 minutes) is a reference to painting depicting of a Royal Tiger that was sent to defend the Reichstag and reportly destroyed 30 T-34's on April 30th.

I will look for more info, cause these types of paintings are not always historical accurate so they are really not credidable sources

http://www.military-art.com/mall/more.php?ProdID=70

[Byron Angel]

I did was quick search online looking for any reference for Royal Tigers & Berlin.

The only thing I can find so far (Only searching for 10 minutes) is a reference to painting depicting of a Royal Tiger that was sent to defend the Reichstag and reportly destroyed 30 T-34's on April 30th.

I will look for more info, cause these types of paintings are not always historical accurate so they are really not credidable sources

http://www.military-art.com/mall/more.php?ProdID=70

Try this -

http://www.planetarmor.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1448


Byron

[mkenny]

mkenny. It is your statistics against the claims of the Tigers defending Bollersdorf...... who is right?

You have not posted a SINGLE account of this great victory. Thus your claims of it being 'me' v 'The Tigers' is completely bogus. You fall at the first hurdle.

5-6 Königstigers are able to shoot 500+ shells and each WAS capable to destroy a JS II with one shot.

Maybe-If the hit it. Are you claiming a Tiger got a hit with every shot AND that every hit was a destroyed tank?
Do you even know the ratio of fired rounds to claimed kills or are you just assuming super-panzer guns had super accuracy and never missed?

Even destroying 70 tanks is a reasonable result when firing 500 heavy shells by the famous high velocity long barrelled 88mm tankgun. If they destroyed the enemy each with 3 shells this yields 170 tanks and with 1 with 5 shells about 100 tanks.

There you go agian. You ASSUME that the '88' only needed 3 shots per hit. That is not even close to the ammo expenditure claimed for for the '88' flak batteries

The Bollersdorf results can not be reduced by citing only Soviet sources.

And you with no sources complain that The Soviet reports are no good!

You must be known that telling the truth was not the habbit of the Soviet Army..... even up to now.

I do know that the people who make these fantastic claims for the Uber-Panzers are the most gullible and ill informed people I have had to deal with. They complain that any contrary fact is suspect and yet fail to produce anything that remotely resembles a source.
I ask you again Where is the source for the claim a single TII held up a Soviet Tank Korps for 3 days.
Produce the evidence.

No I will not argue about the fantastic score of the Tiger that defended a well known part of Berlin, since you are very apt to minimize the German claims.

Wise move on your part. The last thing you need is to be tested by the evidence.

The big ZOO Flak tower also destroyed some Russian tanks. Did they have a clear view of the bridge and other side of the river from the ZOO flak tower?

Can anyone explian how a AA gun enclosed all around by a large concrete blast wall and on top of a tower several hundreds of feet in the air depress enough to hit a tank on the ground?

This sort of behavior will make a shambles of this otherwise friendly and informative forum in very short order. I would very much hate to see that happen here.

It may be friendly but on the subject we are dealing with here it is far from informative. Some very old and long disproved myths are being advanced as fact.

[Kyler]

Try this -

http://www.planetarmor.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1448

Byron

It is definitely an interesting read, it is as if it was personal narrative though there is not actual source of the information.
Did the article from the biography, an interview, or some other kind of source?