Warships, naval battles, technology, weapons, navies of all eras, modeling, etc.
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/
Not quite. You forget that the combat results have a number of confounding factors. For instance Tigers were usually crewed by veteran and often veterans who had distinguished themselves, then it was fighting on the defensive for a good part of the war. It's not at all clear for instance if the Soviets had had Tigers and the Germans IS2s & IS3s that the Germans might have done as well.Karl Heidenreich wrote:... is very clear that in their mission of destroying enemy tanks the Tiger I reigned supreme over any other armoured vehicle. In the worst of cases they performed in a 1:2 kill ratio in their favor, at the very least. No other tank had that kill ratio.
Well I wouldn't refer to other tanks as "armored cars" and I've read a number of accounts when fully operational Tigers were defeated by other tanks so it's clear that other tanks could "match it". While it's clear that an operational Tiger in a one on one match had an edge over most other tanks that wasn't enough to guarantee it a win nor is it IMO a particularly good yard stick to use in evaluating tanks.Given building "simplicity", or driving easiness or less complicated maintenance of other armoured cars, when a Tiger was fully operational no other tank could match it. The most "efficient" tank could be regarded as the T 34 but it will work only in superior advantage against the Tigers.
...
Was that one of the links above?Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd,
Please read US Army major Christopher Willbeck's essay
I'm aware of their kill ratios what you seem to be missing is that the kill ratios are not purely a function or even primarily a function of the quality of the vehicle.and then the Tiger battalion kill ratios. That's has to be sufficient answer.
Of course, we already know that the german tank crews, and german soldiers in general, were better than whatever the western allies put together in numerical superiority in order to beat them. It was the combination. Anyway it will do you good to read Maj. Willbeck's thesis and the links posted above.I'm aware of their kill ratios what you seem to be missing is that the kill ratios are not purely a function or even primarily a function of the quality of the vehicle.
Sorry to hear that.Karl Heidenreich wrote:Because of a promise I made this is the last post on this behalf.
Not really.All the previous ones made a case by themselves.
Do we? That's not as clear as you seem to thing.Of course, we already know that the german tank crews, and german soldiers in general, were better than whatever the western allies put together in numerical superiority in order to beat them.I'm aware of their kill ratios what you seem to be missing is that the kill ratios are not purely a function or even primarily a function of the quality of the vehicle.
Which one? The one I thought most likely lead nowhere.Anyway it will do you good to read Maj. Willbeck's thesis and the links posted above.
....
This has been already been answered in the following kill ratio list, because it is a kill ratio of EVERYTHING the Tigers dealth with, specially the T 34 as with Shermans, Cromwells, Churchills, Pershings or Fireflies (this last which could have been MODIFIED to have a better gun but still lack of the armor the TIger had).It would be interesting to know the kill ratio of Tiger I vs Sherman Firefly.
Or Tiger I vs Pershing.
UNITm Losses Kills Kill Ratio
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501 120 450 3.75
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 107 1,400 13.08
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503 252 1,700 6.75
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 504 109 250 2.29
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 505 126 900 7.14
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 506 179 400 2.23
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 507 104 600 5.77
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508 78 100 1.28
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 509 120 500 4.17
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 510 65 200 3.08
13./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland 6 100 16.67 Of course this was the best non Waffen SS division of WWII
III./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland 98 500 5.10
13./SS-Panzerregiment 1 42 400 9.52
8./SS-Panzerregiment 2 31 250 8.06
9./SS-Panzerregiment 3 56 500 8.93
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (501) 107 500 4.67
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 102 (502) 76 600 7.89
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (503) 39 500 12.82
Total 1,715 9,850 5.74
As a comparison, this chart shows AFV losses, all causes, by year on the Eastern Front:
Year German Losses Russian Losses Kill/Loss Ratio
1941 2,758 20,500 7.43
1942 2,648 15,000 5.66
1943 6,362 22,400 3.52
1944 6,434 16,900 2.63
1945 7,382 8,700 1.18
Total 25,584 83,500 3.26
... for example, a casual reading of Allied accounts during the Battle of the Bulge would indicate that at least half of the German tanks employed there were Tigers. Actually no more than 136 Tigers were involved...
... For example the Soviet propaganda claimed that 700 Tigers were destroyed during the Battle of Kursk. This number is five times more than the actual number engaged in the fighting...
- USA Army Major Christopher Willbeck, BS University of Nebraska, NBA Webster Univesity
But of course it hasn't. There is a huge difference bettween the kill ratios of two specific tanks and a tank and all opposing tanks. And it's hardly nonsense to say that it would be interesting to know.Karl Heidenreich wrote:I missed this nonsense:This has been already been answered in the following kill ratio list, because it is a kill ratio of EVERYTHING the Tigers dealth with, specially the T 34 as with Shermans, Cromwells, Churchills, Pershings or Fireflies (this last which could have been MODIFIED to have a better gun but still lack of the armor the TIger had).It would be interesting to know the kill ratio of Tiger I vs Sherman Firefly.
Or Tiger I vs Pershing.
Why would it be more confounded than what killed Tiger Is?lwd wrote: Now I will agree in the case of the Tiger 1 vs Pershing the numbers are going to be so low that they will be statistically of little import.
As for the Firefly's vs Tigers that one is likely to be very confounded as in many cases it will not be clear what killed Firefly's.
For a number of reasons.Bgile wrote:Why would it be more confounded than what killed Tiger Is?lwd wrote: .... As for the Firefly's vs Tigers that one is likely to be very confounded as in many cases it will not be clear what killed Firefly's.
At longer ranges the accuracy of the 17lber seems to have fallen off rather sharply. Depending on ammo type I think you are correct but it also depends on what you consider practical range. In the East I've read of kills at over 2 km where in the west the average engagement range was well under 1 km. Apples and oranges I know but we probably need to be a bit more precise to answer that question well.I may be wrong, but can't the 17 pounder kill Tiger Is at any practical range?