German tanks

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: German tanks

Post by alecsandros »

@Wadinga,

History may be boring for some. And they try to rewrite it...

The examples you gave are minute details of a 3-years war in which Tiger tanks were engaged.

There are reputed authors that have closely monitored all Tiger battallions engagements and results, and the majority of operations were offensive ones (counter-attacks, attacking enemy strongpoints, full-scale tank battles in the open fields, etc).

I would advise looking into the deployment and operations of Tiger battallions during Winter Storm, 3rd battle of Kharkhov, Zitadelle and battle for Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket. Operations Goodwood and Charnwood on the western front wouldn't hurt either.

Cheers,
Alex
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: German tanks

Post by wadinga »

Alecsandros,

If those examples aren't enough have some more.....

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers.htm
T

The article shows various formations Tigers could adopt in open ground when on the attack but continues:
“Evidently, the tactical directives were modified in light of experience, and particularly when it became clear that far from being 'especially suitable for pursuit', the Tiger was actually at its best in an ambush position, picking off incoming enemy tanks at long range with its superior gun.”

And
“sPzAbt 508 was formed in August of 1943, from personnel from PzRgt. 8, and later, more men from PzAbt 190. Issued with 45 Tigers between December 1943 and January 1944, the 508th was ordered to Italy to attack the Allied bridgehead at Anzio. Unloaded at a railhead 200 km from the bridgehead, about 60 per cent of the Tigers suffered mechanical failures negotiating the narrow, sharply curved mountain roads.” 60% breakdowns on presumably new machines when asked to drive a mere 200 kms on roads i.e. not even across country. Vorsprung Durch Technik - A troop of Trabants might have done better. :lol:


“In January of 1945, the battalion was sent to Hungary, and assigned to IV SS PzKorps. It arrived on 15 January 1945, just in time to take part in the third offensive toward Budapest. The German offensive started on January 18th, and this attack is a rare example of an entire, fully-equipped heavy tank battalion, operating under its own commander, and attacking to accomplish the mission for which it was doctrinally intended. In other operations, elements of other battalions were used to create breakthroughs, but were only deployed piecemeal, with separate companies being attached to different divisions. Still, other battalions were employed in a breakthrough role, but were not at, or usually anywhere near, their authorized combat strength of 45 Tigers. It must have been an impressive sight as 45 King Tigers started the mission (WILBECK, Christopher W., op cit).
The battalion successfully penetrated the first echelons of the Soviet defenses during this day's operations. There was no intact bridge capable of holding the Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.B, however, so the German attack continued without sPzAbt.509 for the next few days.”
So the King Tigers were too portly to move forward in the advance and had to sit the “dance” out :D

Also from Weapons and the Fighting Tactics of the Waffen SS by Dr S Hart & Dr R Hart (Sandhurst lecturer and Ohio Univ Lecturer) describing the deployment of 52 King Tigers in Peiper's Ardennes offensive. " The ponderous mobility of the King Tiger was particularly unsuited to such a mission in this terrain. Consequently, Peiper led his battle group with a mixed force of the more mobile Panzer IV and V tanks, placing the King Tigers at the rear with instructions for them to keep up with the spearhead as best they could. They soon fell well behind. Indeed, 10 King Tigers caught up with Peiper's spearhead tanks only after the battle group's advance had faltered beyond Stoumont on 20 December 1944." What happened to the other 42 mighty mobile fortresses.
Too slow to keep up with the Blitzkrieg, not too much use in an offensive.

These 10 were abandoned to Allied advance when they ran out of fuel/ broke down.

Their summary on Tiger II: "The tank's enormous weight and ravenous fuel consumption rendered it a slow and immobile vehicle, a drawback exacerbated by mechanical unreliability. Thus the King Tiger performed best when used in a static fire-support role."

The bottom line opinion is the German Army's of 1943-45. A Tiger took twice the resources and twice the time to build, but they built 3 times as many Panthers as Tiger I and Tiger II together.

Why? Well, no need to rewrite history.

Simples (!) The Panther was the best German tank of WWII.

All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: German tanks

Post by alecsandros »

Hi Wadinga,
I have no objections to make to your comment above. The Tigers had many drawbacks, especialy the Tiger 2, which did not serve enough to allow its problems to be sorted out. Only in Jan-Mar 1945 had most of the initial problems been resolved, and even then not entirely. For example, the 1000 hp+ Maybach engine was still in prototype phase in Mar 1945, and, AFAIK, was never installed on Tigers. The Tiger 1 went through a similar teething phase, from Aug 1942 up to Fev-Mar 1943. From then on, the proportion of tanks in mentenance due to mechanical problems decreases very much, in favor of tanks in mentenance due to battle damage.
And yes, they did cost a lot to build and mantain.

They were, however, very powerfull units on the battlefield, and they made a lasting impression on pretty much all the enemies they faced. There are numerous offensive operations, in which the armored spearheads represented by Tiger battallions played crucial roles in battles. Winter Storm, 3rd battle of Kharkhov, battles for lake Ladoga, battle of Collombelle, and many others, are nice examples of Tiger effectiveness on the battlefield...
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: German tanks

Post by RF »

wadinga wrote:
“In January of 1945, the battalion was sent to Hungary, and assigned to IV SS PzKorps. It arrived on 15 January 1945, just in time to take part in the third offensive toward Budapest. The German offensive started on January 18th, and this attack is a rare example of an entire, fully-equipped heavy tank battalion, operating under its own commander, and attacking to accomplish the mission for which it was doctrinally intended.
Could I interject here, with a question.

Virtually all of the WW2 authorities I have seen, particulary the German ones, seem to be clear in the view that all operations of the Heer by the start of 1945 were under the direct order of Fuhrer HQ, right down to the minutest detail of operations; that commanders could not move anything battalion size and larger without Hitlers' express approval. This evolved to stop local commanders from withdrawing forces wihout authorisation in obedience to Hitlers' dictum of ''no retreat, not one millimetre.''

How was the commander here able to excercise his command function and achieve his mission? The complaint given to Fuhrer control was that it robbed the panzers and panzer grenadiers of their true mobility, because their positioning was directed by Hitler himself. Or was it by this time that Hitlers' absolute control of operations was starting to breakdown as total defeat loomed - and the commander operated on his own initiative?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
steffen19k
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:31 pm

Re: German tanks

Post by steffen19k »

How was the commander here able to excercise his command function and achieve his mission? The complaint given to Fuhrer control was that it robbed the panzers and panzer grenadiers of their true mobility, because their positioning was directed by Hitler himself. Or was it by this time that Hitlers' absolute control of operations was starting to breakdown as total defeat loomed - and the commander operated on his own initiative?
This is one of those classic "should soldiers obey orders to the iota?" questions.

To be honest, I can only surmise what was running through the heads of the officers and men of the tank units, but I am reasonably sure that it was something to the effect of "They aren't here to enforce their orders. They can eat their hearts out" and proceeded to do what they viewed as tactically sound. Nothing is more demoralizing than a battlestaff that issues orders from the safety of miles away, whose decisions were made based on days old reports from the field.

Even in this day and age, with satellite capability to send data in real time, the fact that the people in charge tend to make their command decisions without actually being present on the battlefield is a sore point amongst the "thin red line."

At least thats my deductions based on the information available.
Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again. Here is everything I know about life: The only certainties are death and taxes.
The enemy of freedom are those who proclaim only they can uphold it.
Post Reply