Tiger Kills and Losses

[Karl Heidenreich]

As I have stated many times before, American industrial strenght and military doctrine of the Land and Air Battle won the war at the European Theatre. The weapons that the US choosed to accomplish their victory were ideal to the task, being their medium tanks a pivotal force here. The Sherman could not have suited best in it's role. The sheer numbers of this tank over the european battlefields as the air cover given by the tactical air foces decimated any German effort to prevail on the battlefield.

However the Germans had, in their inventory, the Tiger tank which was, on a one to one basis, far superior in it's combat capabilities to any other allied tank, western or soviet. But the military doctrine Hitler imposed over his fighting units was at fault as was the weapon production policy of the nazis. The Tiger was clearly outnumbered and without the air cover the allies did have. Too little numbers of Tigers were built to make any real difference.

The allied victory has always been one of logistics, industrial strenght and common sense. Nazi Germany never had those strenghts and Hitler made sure that the German strenghts were never in their favour.

Having said that there is no doubt, according to existing historical records, that the usual outcome of a combat between Tiger tanks and allied tanks was a kill ratio that favoured the German side, despite the fact that the numerical superiority weighted more at the end.

Best regards

[alecsandros]

[mkenny]

The weapons that the US choosed to accomplish their victory were ideal to the task, being their medium tanks a pivotal force here. The Sherman could not have suited best in it's role. The sheer numbers of this tank over the european battlefields as the air cover given by the tactical air foces decimated any German effort to prevail on the battlefield.

'Sheer numbers'? Do you have any figures for the total of Shermans in service in France and Germany in 1944-45?

The allied victory has always been one of logistics, industrial strenght and common sense.

The Allied soldiers take much of the credit. They outfought the Germans at their own game.
Take just 4 examples.
Norrey en Bessin 9/6/44 7 Panthers destroyed by Shermans for no loss
Lingeveres, 14/6/44. 6 Panthers destroyed for the loss of 1 Sherman
Cheaux 27/6/44 6 Panthers destroyed for no loss
Cintheaux, 8/8/44 5 Tigers destroyed by Shermans.


In all the above this is not a simple claim as the knocked out German tanks are well photographed and documented.
It shows that an attacker was always at a disadvantage and the German tanks were equally vulnerable when going forward.

A document from 1944

Appendix 'E' to
21stArmy Group RAC
Liaison Letter No.2

Extract from a Report to HQ Second Army from Col.A.G.Cole, DD of A
(No. 20 WTSFF)


The extract is of tank actions near RUARAY between 27 Jun. and 1 Jul.

SHERMAN - 75 MM GUNS.


4. Lt. Fearn angaged a PANTHER side on with his 75mm and APC
It was moving about 12mph at 80 yds range and he brewed it up with
one hit through the vertical plate above the back bogie

He saw his Squadron Commander engage a Tiger ( previously
examined by us) on the road. At 120 yds the Tiger was head on.
The 75mm put 3 shots on it and the crew bailed out without firing.
He put in 3 more. The tank brewed up. Four shots had scooped on
front plates.One had taken a piece out of the lower edge of the mantlet
and gone into the tank through the roof,and one had ricocheted off the
track and up into the sponson.

At another Panther he fired 5 shots with HE. The enemy
made off without retaliation.


5. Sgt Dring started out south from FONTENOY LE PESNIL with
his 75mm and fell in with a MK IV which he shot through the drivors
visor. It brewed up and the crew baled out.

Next he fell in with a Tiger at 1000 yds. The Tiger fired whilst Dring
was traversing but missed. Dtring then pumped 5 shots in without further
retaliation. The last one hit the drivers periscope and the crew baled out.
(this tank is believed to have been recovered for shipment to the UK.)

Next he came on a Panther at the cross roads, This he got with one shot
with APC in front of sprocket and the crew baled out. Hit at normal and at
about 500yds range. It brewed up

Next he took on a Tiger at 1400 yds just outside Rauray. He fired 6
shots of which 4 hit and the last one brewed it up. Tp. Cmdr. thought he had
missed it and only hit the wall behind. Sjt. Dring's next shot brought the
sparks and the remark "You don't see a brick wall spark like that".
This tank has been seen and is much shot up. It now has one scoop in front
vertical plate, five penetrations in rear, four strikes with no penetrations in rear,
plus a scoop and one plate of engine hatch smashed

Finaly to the east of RAURAY he took on a MK IV at 1200 yds, fired two
HE ranging round and then one AP through the tracks, which went in and
finished it.

[lwd]

lwd:

There were cases of M-4's doing so and prevailing.

However those are the exemptions.

Perhaps.

If you follow up any website dedicated to WWII tank warfare you can see how evident the kill ratio goes in favor of German Tiger tanks.

So how about posting a couple that have well established values for these "kill ratios". I certainlly haven't seen any solid numbers for how many allied tanks were killed by Tigers in the west or conversely how many Tigers were lost to allied tanks for that matter.

[lwd]

... However the Germans had, in their inventory, the Tiger tank which was, on a one to one basis, far superior in it's combat capabilities to any other allied tank, western or soviet. ...

That's hardly clear, especially if you include things like mobility, RAM, and such as part of the "combat capabilities". However even if you don't it's not clear to me that the Tiger has any huge superiority over the IS series or the Pershing or Centurion.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Alecsandros,



Best regards,

[alecsandros]

Mkenny, as always,



It's trolls like you spreading deceit and pseudo-historical analysis that make the internet a worse place than in already is.
Your judgment is rudimentary, with no sight of perspective, insight or sanity.

Picking random econunters and showing them off like they were the norm is deceitfull. A correct analysis would present all of the relevant confrontations, along with the human, tactical, and logistical factors affecting the outcome. Why don't I see one coming from you .. ? oh, right, such an analysis, if it would be attainable, would prove that you're wrong..... Yeah... I see...

Also, asking Karl "Do you have any figures for the total of Shermans in service in France and Germany in 1944-45" does not help in removing the dubious label you painted all across yourself: what exactly don't you understand ?
Opening an argument like this one implies that you question the fact that Tiger tanks were notoriously outnumbered by Shermans, in all varieties. This makes me wonder about your sanity.

Finaly, your hipocrisy shows up again: just why, exactly, should we take your verbatim "action reports" as authentic and correct, whereas you consistently question the reports of German tank commanders.... ?

P.S.: Destroying tanks at 80 or 120y isn't that great. Why don't you take your files and see the ranges Tigers destroyed Shermans.. ? Oh, right, it would prove again that you are deceitfull... yes... EXACTLY..

[mkenny]

It's trolls like you spreading deceit and pseudo-historical analysis that make the internet a worse place than in already is.
Your judgment is rudimentary, with no sight of perspective, insight or sanity.

I take that as confirmation you do not refute the actions?

.

Picking random econunters and showing them off like they were the norm is deceitfull.

Not random at all. Just 4 examples off the top of my head. I could give others but until you start giving us documented examples of the reverse being true my case wins by default.

A correct analysis would present all of the relevant confrontations, along with the human, tactical, and logistical factors affecting the outcome. Why don't I see one coming from you ...

This is really srtange. You post claims that you can not validate. You make statements without the benefit of any corroboration and you have the nerve to criticise me for posting names, dates and numbers!

Also, asking Karl "Do you have any figures for the total of Shermans in service in France and Germany in 1944-45" does not help in removing the dubious label you painted all across yourself: what exactly don't you understand ?
Opening an argument like this one implies that you question the fact that Tiger tanks were notoriously outnumbered by Shermans, in all varieties. This makes me wonder about your sanity.

Really? I think if someone makes a claim about numbers then asking him to post the numbers is hardly 'insanity'. I think your concern is you know that KH can not provide the numbers and you are trying to protect him .
By selectively using numbers you can 'prove' anything. I mean who other than you two could get away with trying to claim 150 Tigers were the only German tanks fighting in Normandy and that all the Shermans only fought against them? Such ignorance!

Finaly, your hipocrisy shows up again: just why, exactly, should we take your verbatim "action reports" as authentic and correct, whereas you consistently question the reports of German tank commanders.... ?

Step carefully here. By now you should realise I can 100% document (with photos) every claim I made. If you are so confident that the facts are in error then state where you believe the mistake is. Show us you are not just miffed because you can not accept the reality of the situation.
A straight question. Are you saying the Tigers claimed by Sgt Dring in the report were not knocked out?
Yes or no?

P.S.: Destroying tanks at 80 or 120y isn't that great. Why don't you take your files and see the ranges Tigers destroyed Shermans.. ? Oh, right, it would prove again that you are deceitfull... yes... EXACTLY..

Then do something you have so far avoided. Give me an example of really long range shot in Normandy. Try and post some facts instead of your opinions.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Alex,

I am not going to continue any argument with mkenny. After all the posts erased from yesterday shamefull exchange it's clear that, giving any fuel to him goes to discredit myself and Jose has made clear that he will not tolerate this low profile "quarrel", because is not even an argument.

Out of respect for Jose, in the first place, the other forum members and myself I will restrain of any exchange with this guy in any form from now on. I will not risk to be banned just for him. You are right, by the way, in your comments and I recommend let this discussion to cool itself or die or let's put a padlock on it. This WWII forum cannot be used as long as this situation remains.

Regards,

[mkenny]

A wise move. Trying to pass off your opinion as fact has not served you well. It is clear that all you are doing is Googling any subject I bring up and then doing a cut-and-paste with any article that re-inforces your calumny.

[lwd]

... Picking random econunters and showing them off like they were the norm is deceitfull.

Actually if they were truly random encounters they would be very illuminating. As it is they are still a rather compelling counter argument to those who keep pointing to Wittman's exploits.

Finaly, your hipocrisy shows up again: just why, exactly, should we take your verbatim "action reports" as authentic and correct, whereas you consistently question the reports of German tank commanders.... ?

I believe he mentions that there is hard data (hardware that was available for inspection post battle and pictures) for the one he mentioned above. As for questioing the reports of German tank commanders most of what I've seen questioned were not after action reports at all.

P.S.: Destroying tanks at 80 or 120y isn't that great. Why don't you take your files and see the ranges Tigers destroyed Shermans.. ? Oh, right, it would prove again that you are deceitfull... yes... EXACTLY..

Nope. What it shows is that actions regularly took place at ranges where the armor was almost irrelevant. How important this is depends on such things as what the average engement range was and what the average kill range was. From what I've read in the west it was often at ranges where the Tigers were at risk. Consider that if at a particular range side A can penetrate 6" of steel and carrys 3" of armor. Side be can only penetrate 4" of armor and only has 2" of armor. Effectivly their weapons and armor are the same (neglecting P(H) and P(K|P)) each can kill the other at that range or less.

[Bgile]

I think an important advantage the M4 had in close quarters fighting was a turret traverse rate much higher than the Tiger. This could be decisive at point blank range.

[mkenny]

Let us compare the AAR with actual wrecks:

extract is of tank actions near RAURAY between 27 Jun. and 1 Jul.


4. Lt. Fearn angaged a PANTHER side on with his 75mm and APC
It was moving about 12mph at 80 yds range and he brewed it up with
one hit through the vertical plate above the back bogie

Here is a Panther wreck. Situated on the road from Fontenay Le Pesnel to Grainville Sur Odon (D178) near Rauray. At the junction where the D173a branches off to Cheux.



Below the one hit through the vertical plate above the back bogie is circled


So we have a Panther at the right location on the right date and with ahole in the right place. Confirmation!

[mkenny]

extract is of tank actions near RAURAY between 27 Jun. and 1 Jul.


5. Sgt Dring started out south from FONTENOY LE PESNIL with
his 75mm and fell in with a MK IV which he shot through the drivors
visor. It brewed up and the crew baled out.

Next he fell in with a Tiger at 1000 yds. The Tiger fired whilst Dring
was traversing but missed. Dring then pumped 5 shots in without further
retaliation. The last one hit the drivers periscope and the crew baled out.
(this tank is believed to have been recovered for shipment to the UK.)

Here is aTiger knocked out just outside Fontenoy Le Pesnel.





Now being driven by British soldiers. The cap badges confirm it is the same Regiment as Sgt Dring (Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry or SRY) The man seated holding the main gun has been positively identified (by Stuart Hills the author quoted below these pics) as the Commanding Officer of SRY.



This is probably Sgt Dring, the man who knocked it out.



Here you can see how the drivers visor has been blasted off.



and here it is back in England being used as a target.



There is a book written by Stuart Hills who was in the same Regiment as Dring. He describes it like this:

By Tank Into Normandy
pages 107/108

We paused a few minutes, wiped the sweat from our faces and
checked the machine-gun belts. As we moved on through the paddock,
Geoff Storey had to avoid about twenty dead cattle. We moved to the far
hedgerow and were just able to see Rauray in the distance. A wooded
area jutted out to our left, and suddenly Arthur spotted a Panzer Mark
IV. 'Enemy hornet,' I heard through the intercom. Remembering my
training at Lulworth, I ordered: 'Eleven o'clock. Two thousand five
hundred yards. Gunner, traverse left, steady, on. Enemy tank. Armour
piercing (AP). Fire when ready.' The first shot bounced once before hit-
ting the Panzer. There was a plume of blue smoke from its exhaust as it
lurched into reverse and stalled. It started to move again and a second
shot hit it as it disappeared into the wood. The shots would not have
penetrated but they might have damaged a track. This was my first
tank-to-tank engagement and it had not been as conclusive as I might
have wished.
Meanwhile A Squadron had begun moving up from Fontenay, the
plan being that they would come through us and thrust towards Rauray.
John Semken was Squadron Leader and he had already heard from C
Squadron that there were tanks about, so his gun loader put an AP shell
up the spout, just in case. As they cleared Fontenay, they were suddenly
confronted by an enormous tank coming round the bend in front. It
was hard to khow who was more surprised, but John shrieked, 'Fire,
it's a Hun', and they loosed off about ten rounds into the smoke. As
this cleared away, it was observed that the crew were baling out as small
flames came from inside the tank. It was a Tiger of 12th SS Panzer, the
first Tiger to be captured in Normandy, and made an impressive sight at
close quarters as both its size and the thickness of its armour became
apparent. Although the range had been only sixty yards, not one Sher-
man shell had penetrated that armour. The fire in the Tiger, we discov-
ered, had instead been caused by a shot hitting the side of the driver's
observation visor and showering white-hot splinters into the tank. The
driver had screamed that he had been hit and the commander had oblig-
ingly ordered his crew out.

That seems to be pretty conclusive evidence.

[mkenny]

The extract is of tank actions near RAURAY between 27 Jun. and 1 Jul


Next he took on a Tiger at 1400 yds just outside Rauray. He fired 6
shots of which 4 hit and the last one brewed it up. Tp. Cmdr. thought he had
missed it and only hit the wall behind. Sjt. Dring's next shot brought the
sparks and the remark "You don't see a brick wall spark like that".
This tank has been seen and is much shot up. It now has one scoop in front
vertical plate, five penetrations in rear, four strikes with no penetrations in rear,
plus a scoop and one plate of engine hatch smashed


Here is a Tiger that was knocked out somewhere near Cheux/Rauray on June 27th




It has one track broken and is burnt out. It also has a hit in the vertical front plate. It is just behind the headlight.