Tiger Kills and Losses

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by lwd » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:21 pm

VeenenbergR wrote:...The Tigers lost in WWII: most (66%) because of Allied air and artillery fire (West); ....
Whenever I've seen an attempt to actually count the lossed due to airpower of tanks in general or Tigers in particular it doesn't seem to contribute very much, at least if you only consider direct losses. It's also worth noteing that in the West German tanks were well down on the list of what was killing Shermans as well.

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:54 pm

VeenenbergR wrote: The Tigers which were actually destroyed (and became o totall loss) was < 10% of all losses.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. So wrong that I ask you to show the numbers that allow such an error to be even considered as fact.
VeenenbergR wrote:Remarkably the success of the Tigers changed in the very last weeks of the war during the battle of Berlin: in the rubbled city or in the open fields outside the city itself only a handfull of Königstigers managed to kill or stop litterary "hundreds" of heavy enemy tanks. Before the Reichstag one single Kingtiger stopped a whole Russian tankcorps for 3 days, then it went West to be abandoned near Potsdam. The Soviets lost 2000 tanks inside Berlin and at least 1000 tanks outside the city.
How can anyone claim that a single tank can hold up a Tank Corps? The Berlin claims are simply ludicrous.

VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by VeenenbergR » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:32 pm

Mkenny. You can now cry out "wrong"(x 3) but I took most statistics from Thomas Jentz (USA) and he is THE authority on German Armour and particularly the Tiger tank. Other war account are derived from Wolfgang Schneider (Ger) and he has also written a lot about the different Tiger batalions. Jentz has written an awfull correct account on losses and each of his tables shows by which causes Tigers were left on the battlefield.

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:51 pm

I have seen the CLAIMS by Jentz and Schneider. However I asked for the studies that show that only 10% of Tigers were lost in combat. For Normandy Villers Bocage and 8/8/44 alone account for 8% of the Tigers lost to gunfire.
Do you have any studies that show a 10% combat loss?
How is Jentz an 'authority' on combat actions?
Jentz has written an awfull correct account on losses and each of his tables shows by which causes Tigers were left on the battlefield
I think you mean Schneider (repeated by Willbeck) however even Schneider's figures show considerably more than 10% lost in direct combat.
I can never understand why an Army running for it's life and throwing away perfectly good tanks being held up as an example of 'superiority'. Why did they not fight with these invulnerable Tiger tanks instead of running away?

Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:57 pm

mkenny wrote: How can anyone claim that a single tank can hold up a Tank Corps? The Berlin claims are simply ludicrous.

..... The fact that an individual cannot imagine a given claim to be true does not make it untrue. IMO your above comment and your follow-on response impugning the integrity of Jentz's research reveal your bias.


Byron

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:02 pm

Byron Angel wrote: ..... The fact that an individual cannot imagine a given claim to be true does not make it untrue.
Wrong way round. The claim is that indivdual Tigers each knocked out 50+ Russian tanks and held up several Soviet Tank REGIMENTS .
This sort of claim needs some form of verification. There is none.
However I am willing to go along for now. What evidence is there that these fantastic scores were even a possibility.
Please list the sources.
Byron Angel wrote:IMO your above comment and your follow-on response impugning the integrity of Jentz's research reveal your bias.
You might have a case if you could provide said 'research' by Jentz. So far all I have seen are unsourced claims.
Do you have the evidence and can you post it?

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Kyler » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:18 pm

mkenny wrote:
Byron Angel wrote: ..... The fact that an individual cannot imagine a given claim to be true does not make it untrue.
Wrong way round. The claim is that indivdual Tigers each knocked out 50+ Russian tanks and held up several Soviet Tank REGIMENTS .
This sort of claim needs some form of verification. There is none.
However I am willing to go along for now. What evidence is there that these fantastic scores were even a possibility.
Please list the sources.
I have not read a ton of sources; Antony Beevor's excellent book about the Fall of Berlin, details no such incident in the entire book. If such an event had occurred I am sure Beevor would have mentioned it. I don't doubt there was unusual events like a single Tiger suppressing a whole Soviet advance of a squad or formation of tanks. Unless proof can be provided of a factual source of the unusual event, I doubt it ever happened, or something like it did happen but a the story was exaggerated by the dying Nazi party before the war ended.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:34 am

mkenny wrote: Wrong way round. The claim is that indivdual Tigers each knocked out 50+ Russian tanks and held up several Soviet Tank REGIMENTS . This sort of claim needs some form of verification. There is none. However I am willing to go along for now. What evidence is there that these fantastic scores were even a possibility. Please list the sources.

..... Sorry mkenny, but it is your goodself who has things wrong way round. I'm talking logic, not Tiger tanks. It is perfectly fine to express skepticism of a claim and demand corroborating proof, but it holds no water to dismiss the claim as "ludicrous" based on NO proof.

You might have a case if you could provide said 'research' by Jentz. So far all I have seen are unsourced claims.
Do you have the evidence and can you post it?

..... I'm at a loss to understand your criticism of Jentz. Jentz's works are the product of his research. If you are interested to know what sources he consulted, read the introductions to his books where it is cited for the benefit of the reader. Do you think the Jentz makes his material up?

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:45 am

Byron Angel wrote: Sorry mkenny, but it is your goodself who has things wrong way round. I'm talking logic, not Tiger tanks. It is perfectly fine to express skepticism of a claim and demand corroborating proof, but it holds no water to dismiss the claim as "ludicrous" based on NO proof.
It is ludicrous to believe a single tank, in any setting, can hold up several Soviet Tank Regiments.
It is even more ludicrous to believe a single tank, in an environment crawling with Soviet Infantry and heavy Artillery, can hold up SEVERAL Soviet Tank Regiments.
Such a tank would be scrap metal soon after giving it's position away.

Extraordinary claims need extrodinary proof. So far we have had a lot of talk but NOT A SINGLE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE.
Pretty much the norm in all these Uber-Panzer fantasies
See how much effort is expended defending the 'claims' rather than finding a valid source!
Byron Angel wrote:. I'm at a loss to understand your criticism of Jentz. Jentz's works are the product of his research. If you are interested to know what sources he consulted, read the introductions to his books where it is cited for the benefit of the reader. Do you think the Jentz makes his material up?
I asked you to post the Jentz claims. You have avoided doing so. Any reason?
I have all of the Jentz works and I can not find anything resembling the claims you defend. Nice try but instead of hiding behind Jentz provide a source.

Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:52 am

mkenny wrote:
Byron Angel wrote: Sorry mkenny, but it is your goodself who has things wrong way round. I'm talking logic, not Tiger tanks. It is perfectly fine to express skepticism of a claim and demand corroborating proof, but it holds no water to dismiss the claim as "ludicrous" based on NO proof.
It is ludicrous to believe a single tank, in any setting, can hold up several Soviet Tank Regiments.
It is even more ludicrous to believe a single tank, in an environment crawling with Soviet Infantry and heavy Artillery, can hold up SEVERAL Soviet Tank Regiments.
Such a tank would be scrap metal soon after giving it's position away.

Extraordinary claims need extrodinary proof. So far we have had a lot of talk but NOT A SINGLE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE.
Pretty much the norm in all these Uber-Panzer fantasies
See how much effort is expended defending the 'claims' rather than finding a valid source!
Byron Angel wrote:. I'm at a loss to understand your criticism of Jentz. Jentz's works are the product of his research. If you are interested to know what sources he consulted, read the introductions to his books where it is cited for the benefit of the reader. Do you think the Jentz makes his material up?
I asked you to post the Jentz claims. You have avoided doing so. Any reason?
I have all of the Jentz works and I can not find anything resembling the claims you defend. Nice try but instead of hiding behind Jentz provide a source.

..... You need to calm down. I repeat: "I'm talking logic, not Tiger tanks". My point has nothing to do with whether or not a Tiger tank in Berlin single-handedly stopped a tank corps. My point, once again, is that, while it is perfectly reasonable to express all due skepticism as to the veracity of the claim and point out a lack of supporting evidence, the claim itself cannot be labelled as DISPROVEN solely on the grounds of your own personal skepticism.




Byron

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny » Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:51 am

Byron Angel wrote:My point, once again, is that, while it is perfectly reasonable to express all due skepticism as to the veracity of the claim and point out a lack of supporting evidence, the claim itself cannot be labelled as DISPROVEN solely on the grounds of your own personal skepticism.
Cart before the horse.
1) said tale of superhuman heroism and Soviet incompetance has yet to be sourced in a single valid reference.
2) You can not DISPROVE something that has yet to be PROVED.

It is up to the gullible to source their fantasy rather than my having to show it did not happen . At least that is how it works in all other fields. Perhaps late war tales of the Uber-Panzers are exempt from the normal standards of proof?
The slack-jawed admirer latches on to these flights of fancy (because they want to believe) without feeling the need to having a scrap of proof to back it all up.

Are there any other obscure points you wish to discuss in order to avoid showing this Jentz 'reference' you mentioned earlier?
Byron Angel wrote:If you are interested to know what sources he consulted, read the introductions to his books where it is cited for the benefit of the reader. Do you think the Jentz makes his material up?
So far no one has produced the Jentz reference that shows:

Remarkably the success of the Tigers changed in the very last weeks of the war during the battle of Berlin: in the rubbled city or in the open fields outside the city itself only a handfull of Königstigers managed to kill or stop litterary "hundreds" of heavy enemy tanks. Before the Reichstag one single Kingtiger stopped a whole Russian tankcorps for 3 days

I say it again, absolute bunk.

VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by VeenenbergR » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:14 am

Mckenny. I will research forthe proper sources. This lone Tiger was able to stop an assault of an entire corps for 3 days because there was no room for the Russians to maneuver. One bridge and piles of rubble limited their possibilities. This Tiger could also concentrate its fire on lead tanks. The Tiger was heavily shelled and had to dug or retreat several times, but emerged also in time to interfere......
The same scores ware obtained east of Berlin where 2x3 Tigers shot up 150-200 Stalins (of which a certain number could be repaired). Im this role the Königstiger was in its element. In the West I am sure the Alleid airforce would not allow for such prolonged defenses.

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

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Bgile » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:27 am

The Russians had an Air Force also. How exactly is a fighter supposed to destroy a KT? You have to hit it directly with a rocket, which is very inaccurate, right? Or drop a large bomb on it, which is also very inaccurate. They didn't have A-10's with GAU-8 cannon or maverick missiles. I would think infantry could close and put mines on it though.

Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:07 pm

mkenny wrote: You can not DISPROVE something that has yet to be PROVED.

..... You apparently do not understand the difference between PROVEN, UNPROVEN, and DISPROVEN claims.


Byron

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:48 pm

Byron Angel wrote:You apparently do not understand the difference between PROVEN, UNPROVEN, and DISPROVEN claims.
Forgive me but this 'point' is just not important to me. The Tiger claim is the one I am really after. I leave the field to you.


VeenenbergR wrote:. This lone Tiger was able to stop an assault of an entire corps for 3 days because there was no room for the Russians to maneuver. One bridge and piles of rubble limited their possibilities. This Tiger could also concentrate its fire on lead tanks. The Tiger was heavily shelled and had to dug or retreat several times, but emerged also in time to interfere......
I have read extensively in this area and I have never heard such detail before. It simply is too far fetched to be true.

VeenenbergR wrote:. The same scores ware obtained east of Berlin where 2x3 Tigers shot up 150-200 Stalins (of which a certain number could be repaired). Im this role the Königstiger was in its element. In the West I am sure the Alleid airforce would not allow for such prolonged defenses.
I have heard this one before. It is claimed that 200 Soviet tanks all milled about in panic when taken under fire by 3 TII's. It is not claimed they were all IS II's (even the originators of this fairy tale knew that was a bit too much) and most were T 34's. It seems the Uber Tiger II's never got any return fire and never missed as each shot was a kill. I find it incredible that anyone could believe it to be true.
I have a table of 1st, 2nd and 3rd GTA losses for 16/4/45 to 9/5/45 and the above mentioned super Tigers appear to have destroyed a full third of their losses for this period(sarcasm!)

Post Reply