Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

[JamesGDB]

I am going out on a limb here in my use of an example. So if you want to blow it off, I completely understand

I frequently play "Red Orchestra" & it's modification "Darkest Hour" Both are WW2 infantry & tank online battle simulations. "Red Orchestra" being Soviets v Germans, and "Darkest Hour" British & Americans v Germans. Both games are not as accurate as say a “Jane’s” game, but are mostly accurate for the period.

I have been playing the game for over 5 years now, and time and time again a smart & knowledgeable player, knowing their positions, tactics, and vehicle have decimated an opposing team in online play single handily. My personal best is 29 tanks & 1 halftrack destroyed in a span of 10 minutes using a Tiger I vs. a mix of M10's and M4's. In my case, I used cover from high ground overlooking the allies approach into the map in addition to the Tiger's armor, superior fire power at long range, and superior optics to stop their attack in its tracks.

Wittman & his crew used their excellent tactical and command skills, with a superior tank, and knowledge of the area to surprise and repulse a superior force of vehicles and tanks. They were also very brave to pull off that kind of attack by themselves at first.
If Wittman was alive today, it would be enjoyable to have him play a game like “Darkest Hour.” He would probably mop the floor of the opposing force.

Thats excellent.. I still play CMBB and CMAK. (Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin) and (Combat Mission Afrika Korps) I actually tried to re-create Villers Bocage and the surrounding area, using satelite maps, elevation charts, old map roads etc. Played my scenario about 10 times... and only 4 times was my Tiger ever knocked out... It was fun. I will admit the only time the Tiger was knocked out was in close quarters in the town... Side Hull Penetrations.. or tracked knocked off.

[madmike]

hi everyone, As to the Tiger tank as one of the best tanks going around at that time, I dont think anyone would disagree that the Tiger(tiger 1 and the tiger 2,king tiger) was probably the technologically most advance tanks of WWII, but unreliable like the panther, both had very powerful guns(panther long 75mm, tiger 88mm), both had good optics, both had good armour,(tiger much heavier armour), both beat the crap out of British and US tanks at that time. Soviet tank numbers( and on average better tanks than the western allies),seem to have done better against the German pather/tiger tanks.the M-4 sherman had little chance (it's little 75mm gun) head on with a panther, let alone against a tiger, it would have been terrifying if the Germans could have produced reliable panthers and tigers in large numbers like the soviets, It would have been so much harder and bloodier to defeat the nazis if they had 20 times the panther and tiger tanks (and the fuel) to fight with.

[RF]

It would have been so much harder and bloodier to defeat the nazis if they had 20 times the panther and tiger tanks (and the fuel) to fight with.

Not necessarily. More likely the nazies would have gone up a mushroom cloud instead of the Japs.

[alecsandros]

I don't think they would have surrendered, even if Berlin got the A-bomb. They would have kept fighting.

And anyway, I think it would have been MUCH more difficult for teh allies to conquer Germany if the nazis would have had as many panthers as the russians had T-34s.

[lwd]

... I dont think anyone would disagree that the Tiger(tiger 1 and the tiger 2,king tiger) was probably the technologically most advance tanks of WWII,

Why do you think so? How are you defining "technologically advanced". Note for instance that the Tiger didn't have a stabalized gun system or an IR sight, or wet storage.

but unreliable like the panther, both had very powerful guns(panther long 75mm, tiger 88mm), both had good optics, both had good armour,(tiger much heavier armour), both beat the crap out of British and US tanks at that time.

There's a book called When Odds Were Even that you should consider reading.

Soviet tank numbers( and on average better tanks than the western allies)

For some deffinitions of "better". Note that there's a book about the use of the Sherman by the Soviets that is very complimentary of said vehicle.

....the M-4 sherman had little chance (it's little 75mm gun) head on with a panther

Yet US and British forces did well against the Germans. Perhaps that's because tanks do more than fight other tanks especially the best of the other sides tanks head on.

, let alone against a tiger, it would have been terrifying if the Germans could have produced reliable panthers and tigers in large numbers like the soviets, It would have been so much harder and bloodier to defeat the nazis if they had 20 times the panther and tiger tanks (and the fuel) to fight with.

The Germans had large reserves of tanks and a fair amount of fuel when the war eneded. It's not clear how more tanks sitting at factories or fuel at the refineries is going to help them much.

[lwd]

I don't think they would have surrendered, even if Berlin got the A-bomb. They would have kept fighting. ....

I suspect a lot of that would depend on whether or not they resulted in taking Adoph out of the picture. The German military and nation for that matter didn't seem all that set on suicide.

[mkenny]

hi everyone, As to the Tiger tank as one of the best tanks going around at that time, I dont think anyone would disagree that the Tiger(tiger 1 and the tiger 2,king tiger) was probably the technologically most advance tanks of WWII, but unreliable like the panther, both had very powerful guns(panther long 75mm, tiger 88mm), both had good optics, both had good armour,(tiger much heavier armour), both beat the crap out of British and US tanks at that time.

Like at Lingeveres, Norry-en Bessin and Cintheaux?

[RF]

I don't think they would have surrendered, even if Berlin got the A-bomb. They would have kept fighting.
.

Only until they got vapourised.

Actually I doubt whether it would have come to that as Wehrmacht units were surrendering wholesale before Hitler commited suicide - expressly contrary to his orders of course, but once he started to lose his grip he had no real further control. Evidence is provided by the surrender of German forces in northern Italy for example.

[RF]

And anyway, I think it would have been MUCH more difficult for teh allies to conquer Germany if the nazis would have had as many panthers as the russians had T-34s.

I'm not so sure. The Allies had airpower and could obliterate all the industry and transport infrastructure. It would take longer, but the end result would be the same.

In fact it might have turned out better for Churchill, Montgomery and Patton - the mass of this extra German armour would have been deployed against the Soviets, and would have held them up from invading Germany. Giving time for the western Allies to strike through the Siegfried Line and take the Ruhr, while Allied forces in Italy cross into Austria. I could envisage Berlin being taken by the western Allies, along with Bratislava and possibly Budapest.... The Iron Curtain could have been left substantially further East.

[RF]

And anyway, I think it would have been MUCH more difficult for teh allies to conquer Germany if the nazis would have had as many panthers as the russians had T-34s.

Also consider how the Germans used them in a war of defence - if they used the Guderian concept of mobility and concentration then this is a valid point. But if deployed to the Hitlerian doctrine of stand fast, absolutely no retreat and defend every position - then no chance. Just look at who was in command....

[madmike]

hi lwd, please let me explain my comment on the tech of the panther and tiger tanks, ok BETTER GUN, BETTER ARMOUR, BETTER OPTICS. BIGGEST DOWN SIDE VERY UNRELIABLE ENGINES (WHY petrol and not diesel). ok my comment on the M-4 was not meant to say they were not good (workhorse) tanks in there own right but that they (M-4) WERE out matched buy the Panther and tigers, as were nearly all allied tanks at that time.
and lwd could you post the allied tanks that were fitted with stabilized gun systems and or IR systems in 1944-45, please.
now my comment on 20 times the panthers and tigers and fuel to fight with, if you multiply the number of Panther and tiger tanks in operational use (NOT SITTING IN FACTORIES), then the GERMANS are on a par in numbers with the allies, BUT BETTER TANKS, Was'nt fuel a problem for the Germans at the battle of the Bulge, and lwd, what do you think would have happened at the battle of Kursk, if the germans showed up with 20 times the Panther and tiger tanks? I would really like to hear your thoughts, ok your comment on how well the US AND BRITISH,(what about the Soviets) forces did against the Germans. I would agree they did bloody well indeed,AND I THANK GOD FOR THEIR COURAGE AND SACRIFICE, but remove allied air power(put the allies and germans on par with each other in the air) and multiply the number of Panther and tiger tanks by 20 then the allies are in for a lot longer fight, i still think the allies would win, BUT THE COST in lives would have been MUCH MUCH HIGHER,

lwd did the M-26 and tiger ever go head to head?

[mkenny]

20 times the number of Tigers and Panthers?
800 in Normandy x 20 = 16000. At a stroke you give Germany twice as many tanks as the Allies

[madmike]

Allied air power was one of the major factors in their fight with the Nazis, and how many fronts the German were fighting on, and a multitude of of other factors and mistakes the Germans made, and of course we cant forget Hitlers command of German forces, Having a nutter in charge, was in my humble opinion, WAS the biggest single handicap the Germans had. THE professional German officers were capable men, HITLER had little understanding (really none at all) on how to use his forces to their best effect.

just a thought, and i would love to hear what everyone thinks on how things might have gone in 1944-45 if Erwin Rommel was in charge instead of Hitler.

and Mkenny you are right, 20 times is to many, how about even numbers with the allies (British, US and Soviet) on all fronts, How do you think things would have gone then. Lets say the Germans have a mix of 3 to 1 Panther, tiger mix, thats something like 6000 panthers and 2000 tigers operational , for use against the Normandy landings, sounds abit like a allied generals worst nightmare.

[RF]

just a thought, and i would love to hear what everyone thinks on how things might have gone in 1944-45 if Erwin Rommel was in charge instead of Hitler.

Quite clearly the nazies would be booted out and replaced by the leaders of the Bomb Plot conspirators, and Rommel would have sought a negotiated ceasefire to stop the war. The only sane solution really.

[lwd]

...they (M-4) WERE out matched buy the Panther and tigers, as were nearly all allied tanks at that time.

On a one for one basis perhaps but they weren't fighting one on one.

and lwd could you post the allied tanks that were fitted with stabilized gun systems and or IR systems in 1944-45, please.

The Sherman had a stabilized gunn I think from introduction except for the 105mm armed version. As for IR you were saying the Tiger was superior technologically. Experimental versions of the Panther had IR systems.