German tanks

[alecsandros]

Hi Mike,
Certainly the war would have been much tougher, had the Germans managed to produce more Tigers...
As it was anyway, the PzV and VI were formidable opponents, not likely to be taken out without making a lot of damage.
My impression is that weight of numbers in the east and air supremacy in the west led to the fall of the panzerdivisions...

[lwd]

....The German and Soviets thought that tanks would fight each other were as the western allies thought of tanks more in the infantry support role.

That's not quite right. The western allies realised that tanks would be fighting tanks but did't see that as the primary role, it's not clear the Soviets did either or for that matter the prewar or early war Germans.

... a small point here the US were offered the 17lber AT gun for the shermans but refused as they wanted a US gun .

Again not quite right. The British never had the numbers to offer the US more than a few samples of 17lbers and the US already had the 90mm in production so it simply didn't make sense to adopt the 17lber.

the firefly could not face off one Vs one with a panther or tiger and expect to win thats why the fireflies were deployed in teams of 3,,,atleast 1 firefly was expected to be killed per engagement,giving the other two the chance to kill panther/tiger.

There were cases were regular Sherman's faced off with the cats and came out ahead. I'd like to see some documentation of the above.

... if you consider the kill ratios panther and tiger tanks had, ...

Well you have to look at some of the reasons for those high kill ratios. Being on the defence was one but in the case of the Tigers giveing them to skilled veterans was surely an important part. Would they have had enough of them to crew that many tanks?

[Thorsten Wahl]

If the US -army choose to use a more capable Anti tank weapon earlier like the 90 mm M82 APC they would probably save some losses.

90 mm M82 fire effect table.jpg (63.55 KiB) Viewed 2133 times

even this projectile seems very capable its performance is somwhat less then the 88 mm Panzergranate 39-43 (approx 10mm at the same speed) at 800m/s. At velocities above 800 m/s the performance of the M82 seem to fall back. the reason seem to be found in a better "heilbleiben"abiltiy of the german projectile

[alecsandros]

the firefly could not face off one Vs one with a panther or tiger and expect to win thats why the fireflies were deployed in teams of 3,,,atleast 1 firefly was expected to be killed per engagement,giving the other two the chance to kill panther/tiger.

There were cases were regular Sherman's faced off with the cats and came out ahead. I'd like to see some documentation of the above.

There's a great book called "British armor in Normandy campaign 1944". It contains very detailed and documented information about "the above". I have it in e-book format; I can send it to you if you'd like.

... if you consider the kill ratios panther and tiger tanks had, ...

Well you have to look at some of the reasons for those high kill ratios. Being on the defence was one but in the case of the Tigers giveing them to skilled veterans was surely an important part. Would they have had enough of them to crew that many tanks?[/quote]

Tigers were not, usualy, on the defense. They were used as spearheads for counterattacks...

[lwd]

the firefly could not face off one Vs one with a panther or tiger and expect to win thats why the fireflies were deployed in teams of 3,,,atleast 1 firefly was expected to be killed per engagement,giving the other two the chance to kill panther/tiger.

There were cases were regular Sherman's faced off with the cats and came out ahead. I'd like to see some documentation of the above.

There's a great book called "British armor in Normandy campaign 1944". It contains very detailed and documented information about "the above". I have it in e-book format; I can send it to you if you'd like.

I may take you up on that but I'll see if I can find a paper copy at a reasonable price first. I'm not much on e-books (yet starting to look closely at ereaders).

... Being on the defence was one but in the case of the Tigers giveing them to skilled veterans was surely an important part. Would they have had enough of them to crew that many tanks?

Tigers were not, usualy, on the defense. They were used as spearheads for counterattacks...

Counter attacks are defensive operations on at least some level. Certainly by the time Tigers saw much use the Germans were on the defensive. That said they were admitedly used in some pretty high profile offenses (Kursk and the Battle of the Bulge for example).

[RF]

But both of those offensives were counter attack operations.....

[lwd]

But both of those offensives were counter attack operations.....

That's kind of a matter of semantics. Certainly at Kursk the Soviets were expecting an attack and had been digging in and improving defences for some considerable time. Rather a different propositon for counter attacking a force that is either moving forward or just stopped. The Bulge could perhaps go either way. Certainly the US units in the area were not on the offensive at the time but neither had they established much in the way of a defensive position.

[RF]

The ''Wacht am Rhein'' offensive was conceived in October 1944 in response to the Allied advances into Belguim and Holland, particulary after the failure of ''Market Garden'' to achieve all its bridge crossings. That is the context of it being a counter-attack; the ''Nordwind'' offensive in Alsace that followed it was in direct response to the French taking Strasbourg and was perhaps more blatently a counter-attack because the response was more immediate than the delayed responses that were the Bulge and Kursk operations.

[wadinga]

Enough with the Vorsprung Durch Teknik already!

The heavy armour and weaponry of the Tiger 1 meant that interleaved road wheels and wide tracks had to be used to distribute its 55 ton weight (almost twice that of a Sherman). Frozen mud or debris could easily jam between these immobilising the tank, and requiring the removal of many components before the jam could be cleared. The early Maybach 645hp engine was not powerful enough so a 700hp unit was substituted but this still only gave a maximum of 23mph for a pretty slow spearhead, and constant full power running often caused breakdowns, with a maximum 75 mile range (567 ltrs) even on the highway and much less across country.

Whereas the 45 ton Panther did quite well with this same power unit, the King Tiger tipping the scales at nearly 70 tons was seriously underpowered. Even with 865 litres of gasoline the range was only about the same as the Tiger I.

These mechanical limitations often led to Tigers being used in a defensive manner, with all the benefits that fighting from prepared positions bestows. However, if sufficiently outnumbered they can be outflanked, cut off and destroyed piecmeal. Given the huge weight disparity, Shermans can go many places inaccessible to Tigers.

50,000 Shermans were built, less than 6,000 Panthers, 1350 Tiger I and only 485 King Tigers (Roger Ford "The World's Great Tanks".)

All the best

wadinga

[RF]

50,000 Shermans were built, less than 6,000 Panthers, 1350 Tiger I and only 485 King Tigers (Roger Ford "The World's Great Tanks".)
wadinga

Which shows which country had the best war economy and the best organised.

[alecsandros]

These mechanical limitations often led to Tigers being used in a defensive manner, with all the benefits that fighting from prepared positions bestows. However, if sufficiently outnumbered they can be outflanked, cut off and destroyed piecmeal. Given the huge weight disparity, Shermans can go many places inaccessible to Tigers.

Please give examples of Tigers "used in defensive positions". The books concerning Tigers which I have at home paint a very different picture. Only a few % of Tigers were used as you say.

Also, some examples of Tigers "destroyed piecemeal" would be very instructive. My impression is that only a few % of Tigers were destroyed by enemy armor attacks. More than 50% were destroyed by their own crews; many trapped and lost in minefields, bogged down in ravines, on broken bridges... From Schneider's "Tigers in combat" I would estimate at 40% the total number of Tigers lost to enemy weapons in the east, and about 50% in the west. The vast majority of Tigers were lost in offensive operations.

[RF]

If I may interject here I think there can be a problem of semantics - many offensive actions are a defence, there is the saying that attack is the best form of defence.... What exactly is a defensive position as opposed to a counter-attacking one?
I find the comment about the proportion of Tigers lost because they got stuck or otherwise immobilised more illuminating. This tends to be a phenomena incurred by an army in retreat. In 1940 during ''Sichelschnitt'' the French started off with more heavy tanks than the Germans, but because the Germans were advancing the French simply lost a lot of tanks because they were immobilised on the battlefield and because they couldn't be quickly repaired they were abandoned/destroyed by their crews. I believe that a number of French tanks were repaired by the Germans and later used on the Russian Front...

[alecsandros]

If I may interject here I think there can be a problem of semantics - many offensive actions are a defence, there is the saying that attack is the best form of defence.... What exactly is a defensive position as opposed to a counter-attacking one?

It can be seen that way to, but usualy I think about dug-in tanks, or camouflaged tanks waiting to ambush the enemy. This was many times used in Normandy and Italy with Panther tanks... But very rarely with Tigers, from what I've read at least.
We should wait to see Wadinga's reply though...

I find the comment about the proportion of Tigers lost because they got stuck or otherwise immobilised more illuminating. This tends to be a phenomena incurred by an army in retreat.

Many were lost as you say, during forced-marches, trying to retreat. Many others, however, were blown up by their crews after failed offensive attempts, when their track-damaged or ground-immobilised tank could no longer be recuperated for fear of enemy presence. I don't know how many Tigers were self-destroyed after various offensives... But it appears they were quite numerous, allthough perhaps not as numerous as the ones self-destroyed during various withdrawal operations.

[19kilo]

I believe that a number of French tanks were repaired by the Germans and later used on the Russian Front...[/quote]
Very good point. However, most of the captured stocks of French tanks were not used in a frontline role as they did not conform to German operational concepts. In other words, the one man turret was just too much of a handicap. They were quite useful in occupation duties and opperations against partisans. Many of the Hotchkiss light tanks were also rebuilt as panzerjagers.

[wadinga]

All,

I notice that in several threads running to many pages, cogent arguments by well informed posters seek to debunk the UberPanzer’s biggest fans’ reverence for this particular attempt at Aryan engineering supremacy. I doubt that anything I might add will be effective. But still....

During the period of service of the two Tiger models German forces were retreating almost continuously. If you are facing east at El Alamein and you finish in Cape Bon, Tunisia you are on the defensive. If you start facing east in Kursk and finish in Berlin you are on the defensive. If you are facing west in Normandy and end up east of the Rhine you are on the defensive. Mechanical unreliability in the face of enemy advance is a total loss as surely as a penetration.

Iron Fist by Bryan Perrett describes the debut of the Tiger in the Eastern Front campaign in 1943 thus: “Instead of leaving the village the two Tigers (from Heavy Tank Battalion 503) took up well camouflaged positions and made full use of their longer range. Within a short time they knocked out 16 T-34s which were sitting in open terrain and, when the others turned about, the Tigers pursued the fleeing Russians and destroyed a further 18 more tanks.”
He also describes the Russian Front career of Count Hyazinth Strachwitz von Gross-Zauche und Camminetz nicknamed the Panzergraf. An incident on the defensive in Tigers after Kursk is related “During the early hours of the morning eighty or so T34s trundled onto the killing ground, convinced by the silence that the Germans had abandoned the village that was their objective. Strachwitz let his own target close in to within 40 yds before blowing its turret off with his first round. Within minutes 36 of the Soviet tanks had been reduced to burning wrecks”

Later, near Stalingrad he personally led 4 Tigers into concealed positions from which they claimed 105 enemy tanks for no loss by firing into their rears as they passed. His quartet survived intact. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1_in_action.htm Later in the Panzergraf’s career Heavy Tank Battalion 503 using 34 Tigers (and 47 Panthers) defensively near Vinnitsa destroyed 267 tanks for the loss of 1 Tiger and 4 Panthers.
These defensive actions certainly help bump up the Tiger’s kill to loss ratio and over-inflate its reputation.
http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerflorence/index.html describes Tigers used defensively in the Battle of Florence and the measures necessary to winkle them out.
Perrett describes an incident in the Italian campaign on the Gothic Line, “The Tiger was firing from an almost unassailable position. It had squeezed between two buildings and was protected in front by a wall which was apparently five to ten yards in front of the tank. Below the wall the ground fell away very sharply and the only target the Tiger presented was the gun barrel and the very top of the turret, which was visible over the wall.” One Churchill and four Shermans were written off in combat against this defensively located Tiger, which having held up the advance for two days was withdrawn before it could be destroyed.

This site http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/uitbraak/bocage2aeng.htm has a brilliant overview with then and now photos of the Villers-Bocage action. The Panzer Ace site http://www.panzerace.net/english/pz_bio.asp?page=7 accepts the latest explanation that the semi-deified Wittman himself was killed by a three 75mm Sherman and one Firefly team that destroyed his three Tigers without loss. He was advancing in the open and they were in a defensive camouflaged position. Anthony Beevor’s excellent “D-Day” endorses this description.

This site http://www.alanhamby.com/history.shtml has a comprehensive account of the type and its history without drifting off into myth-making. The inevitable flaws are exposed as well as the superlatives.

Good piece of kit but not infallible.

All the Best
wadinga