That is not a ‘source’.
I want details of the 25:1 kill rate in Tunisia. A specific example where we can see multiple referenced kills by these Tigers. Is it seriously suggested that these 30 Tigers destroyed 750 Allied tanks?
You do know how many Allied tanks were lost in Tunisia don’t you?
Here is a clue. US losses were just over 150 Shermans.
.
I dont think is a website so detailed like that book.
If you going to start here with bad attitude forgot it man. :rolleyes:
The shermans were not the only allied Tanks present in the the Tunision front…you dont know that ??? 
As I said just forgot it, it dont really worth my time to discuss with you.
Never seen such an unbiased and wellinformed synopsis to the unbelievably complex matter that is called WW2. :roll:
Hmm, have you ever heard of Michael Wittmann in Villers Bocage? And German claims happened to be pretty precise in WW2. When it comes to tank warfare the most important part is the crew and the other crews in your company. It is nearly impossible to judge the combat effectiveness of a tank from mere kill statistics, especially in WW2. The Tiger was a superb weapon plattform for its time and much better armed and armored than the sherman, so if you would put them 1 on 1 over and over again the shermans would die over and over again until the tiger has no ammunition left. It had however some serious drawbacks, where the sherman excelled it by far, for example weight:power ratio and general reliability. These were partially designflaws and partially due to the overall bad supply situation.
Now another thing. I don’t know the book Panzerknacker is referring to, but usually books that have actually been published have MUCH more credibility than any internet “source”, especially if it happens to be a scientific study.
Then just give me the page in the book that confirms the 25:1 ratio…
The shermans were not the only allied Tanks present in the the Tunision front…you dont know that ???
And the Tiger was not the only German tank in Tunisia.
As I said just forgot it, it dont really worth my time to discuss with you.
This is because there is not a shred of evidence for the silly claim of 25:1 kill ratios.
The same old story. Stories about huge kill ratios are quoted extensively but as soon as you ask for evidence it all falls apart.
Yes I have. Can you give me the number of tanks he destroyed.
The number of German tanks lost and the total of British tanks lost?
The numbers may suprise you.
And German claims happened to be pretty precise in WW2.
Great. Give me the evidence that shows the ‘precise’ nature of the confirmation procedure.
It is nearly impossible to judge the combat effectiveness of a tank from mere kill statistics, especially in WW2
So why keep going on about a (false) high kill ratios?
Now another thing. I don’t know the book Panzerknacker is referring to, but usually books that have actually been published have MUCH more credibility than any internet “source”, especially if it happens to be a scientific study.
Are your saying that my figures are suspect? … I see unsourced claims about Tiger kills. I post the actual Normandy figures for Allied losses (if you dispute them then show they are wrong) and it PROVES there was no such thing as an overall 5:1 Sherman ratio for the Tiger or any other German tank.
Allied tanks were also exposed as they were on the offensive (mostly). These were the findings of the US Army after the War while investigating the difficulties that the Sherman had in facing the panzers of the Wehrmacht…
I’d like to know what the kill ratio of Allied to German tanks was, say, during the Battle of the Bulge?
And spread thinly throughout the front, or cutoff as they were too far forward in Belgium. And without radios, any coherent strategy, or organization for modern armoured warfare. And most, although capable and good machines, suffered from at least one Achilles Heal of a flaw (such as the French commander had too many duties in most types, often having to fire the gun while leading his crew).
French tanks crews were simply not trained to fight tank vs. tank duels, and I believe there was only one bonafide French armoured division…
the german army had 155,678 casualties invading France, no walk in the park. The superior Armor was defeted by better german tactics and a fantastic liason with the Luftwaffe.
All true -but-
But the German tanks faced almost no air opposition and the French war planning was abysmal, with the exception of a last ditch Weygand (essentially “defense in depth”) plan that may well have saved the day if the French Army hadn’t almost completely been spent, with most of its heavy weapons and reserves gone, by the time of its inception and crippled by an inexcusable shortage of anti-tank guns as they had been throughout the battle…
And that is also a reason of the Big german defeats of 1944, the Luftwaffe was very weak compared with the early years.
And so was everything else.
Although production rose, the whole system was falling apart…
There is no such thing as a ‘kill ratio’. This is an invention of those who believe that German tanks are unbeatable.
What we do have is an overall toal of tanks lost. The problem is that all the combatants used different start dates and so a side by side comparison is not possible. German records are also quite patchy and there are gaps.
But try these threads
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11051&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=844711&sid=f4f363678cdd3309a8a2a919f27378c5
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=81359&highlight=pziv
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=965826&highlight=#965826
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=123000&highlight=
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=73840
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=124380&highlight=
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=79201&highlight=pziv
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=730986&highlight=#730986
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18753&highlight=
That should keep you busy for a while…I never said it would be easy!
At 0900 Wittmann’s Tiger attacked. A few minutes later, in the direction of Caen, he destroyed three tanks; a Sherman Firefly and a Cromwell tank on the right and another tank on the left, proceeding to Villers without pause and attacking the lightly armoured vehicles of The Rifle Brigade. During this engagement, he destroyed nine half-track vehicles, four Carden Loyd Carriers, two other carriers, and two 6-pounder anti-tank guns, then destroyed three Stuart light tanks and one half-track vehicle. Entering Villers-Bocage alone, he destroyed three of the four Cromwells in position at the top of the Lemonnier farm.
He followed Clémenceau Street where his tank destroyed two Sherman command tanks of the 5th Royal Horse Artillery before knocking out another scout car and half-track. As Wittmann arrived at the Jeanne d’Arc square, he ended up opposite the Sherman Firefly of Sergeant Lockwood of “B” Squadron. The Firefly, whose 17-pounder was the only Allied main tank gun capable of defeating the frontal armour of a Tiger in most circumstances, fired four shells at Wittman. One hit the hull of the Tiger, which returned fire and knocked down a section of wall on the Sherman. Wittmann then made a half-turn, his tank lightly damaged, and returned down Clémenceau Street. A surviving Cromwell tank, commanded by Captain Dyas, opened fire with its 75mm gun hitting Wittmann’s Tiger twice without effect. Returning fire, Wittmann’s tank put the Cromwell out of action with one shot.
As Wittmann proceeded on the road leaving Villers-Bocage, his left track was hit by a 6-pdr shell, forcing him to stop on the street in front of the Huet-Godefroy store. Wittman engaged targets in range. Thinking that the Tiger might be salvaged and repaired later, Wittmann and crew abandoned the tank without destroying it, leaving the area on foot but without weapons.
I admit, this is from a Wikipedia article (shame on me), but I am definatly to lazy to translate and type information from books.
I don’t know your sources, nor do I know Panzerknackers, I merely said
Books > Internetsources.
The kill ratios or whatever are really not my concern, cause these statistics prove nothing. The circumstances in battle vary so much, that they simply cannot be compiled to a statistic that has any value besides stating in the end how many were killed on each side. But if you asked me, in what machine I’d like to sit in a pure tank engagement of hmm 2 tiger vs. 8 sherman let’s say in kursk, I’d know my answer. And I would even grant you a funeral with full military honor if you’d choose the shermans.
What precisely is the point of the discussion anyways?
The tanks developed by a large margin on all sides during the war, so did antitank weapons. No tank was or is invincible, but to state, that a tank of nearly 60 ton was not much more powerful than a tank of half that weight is just stupid. They were not even in the same class, the Tiger was originally intended as heavy assault tank against fortified positions, while the sherman was supposed to be infantery support.
True. But the SS and Wehrmacht also never took Bastonge, despite surrounding it and using armoured assets to pound away and attempt several unsuccessful assaults.
Some of this was due to American tanks and tank killers laying in ambush, some was due to the rare uses by the Western Allies of 90mm anti-aircraft guns in a ground anti-tank role like the much vaunted German 88mm, and some was due to the US infantry simply killing off German assault troops leaving the panzers with no support…
I always wondered, why the allies didn’t do that much more often. The british had known the devastating effect of the 88 against tanks since 1940 and especially since Rommel used it even more in africa.
So then how did Wittmann deal with the 6 Cromwells at Pt. 213. These tanks were at least half a mile from his start position and completely out of sight of his Tiger. Why is he credited with tanks he did not even see?
By the way the Cromwells at Pt 213 were set alight by the crews. As every Tiger destroyed by the crew is never allowed to be claimed as a kill why does it not work in reverse?
You still seem to be hung up on the X:Y thing, however.
Wrong way round again. I only post when I hear the silly claims about 5:1 kill ratios, later rising to an absurd 25:1 ratio. Why do you not say those who post this fiction are ‘hung up on the X:Y thing’
And what do you want to prove with the pictures?
It actually looks like the tank was abandoned, there are some dents in the hull and frontal armor, but I can’t see a penetration.
Yes it was abandoned. The crew ran head on into a couple of Shermans. The Shermans fired and caused a small fire in the Tiger. The crew fled leaving the Tiger intact. The Sherman crews drove it back and it ended up as a range target in the UK. It is Tiger ‘114’ from sSS PzAbt 101.
Pity.
I started a thread on this very subject. The speculation of James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi, in their book “Dirty Little Secrets of WWII” is that the Allies were obsessed with ‘classes’ of weapons such as light, medium, and heavy: tanks, machine guns, artillery, etc. This was indicative of a very inflexible thinking typical of the respective pre-war armies --which contrasts sharply with the German experience which was one of desperation in trying to rebuild the Wehrmacht, defending a surrounded country with a 100,000 man army, and having to conduct research in accordance with loopholes afforded by the Versailles Treaty, which as you know severally restricted the German military, almost ironically allowing them to forge a new kind of warfare based on the theories of others’…
BTW, it is interesting to note that the US Army finally figured out that the M-3 90mm would make a great tank cannon (the L-50 90mm).
What 6 Cromwells? I never mentioned them. They might have been attacked from others later in the engagement. I never said other germans didn’t fight that day. Btw, I would allow a tank crew (axis or allied, doesn’t matter) to claim a victory, if an opponent leaves and destroys his equipment in their surroundings, because they obviously made something right, as the other one thought a fight is futile. That would count the Tiger 114 as a kill for the shermans.
They are hung up as well, as you must’ve realized I said such statistics prove nothing. Nevertheless would the tiger have achieved such 1:25 or probably much more in continuous 1:1 western style encounters, which never happen in a war.
The only serious approach you can do when comparing tanks is to know their technical abilities, like armor thickness and armor penetration capabilities, hit probability etc. for the main armament and estimate / calculate how they would work in most combat scenarios.
And if you would do that with sherman vs. tiger I think it is very well possible, that your end result would be something like: we will need a 5:1 superiority of shermans to achieve a tactical victory, where we hopefully kill some, against a group of tigers.
See, the Crew is the most important part for a tank. A more brave or more stupid crew, whatever fits, might have stayed in the tiger and the shermans might have had some trouble. Nevertheless a single tank is an absolute no go, for everyone who knows a little about tank warfare. Today a platoon is the smallest tactical unit in which tanks are being used, afaik.
Is the book actually worth its money? I wondered, cause the reviews seem to differ pretty much
I wouldn’t bother. I read it, then gave it to my Brüder. As stated, most of the stuff is rehashed and already known by most WWII buffs, though there are some interesting facts presented.
Actually, their first book, “Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You’re Not Supposed to Know” is quite interesting, if very dated (late Cold War era stuff)…
You can look through a bit of it here.
Penetration tables for the Kwk 36.
Against the russian armor 1944-45.
claimed victories and operational losses, Eastern Front, 1943.
Source: “Tiger 1 heavy tank 1942-45” H.L. Doyle, T. Jentz. Osprey New Vanguard.
You said
These were not all casualities on the Allied side in Villers Bocage that day. I don’t know if or to what extent the combat report is true, neither do you, but to the best of my knowledge it actually was wittmann and his crew, who made those kills as they indeed entered the town alone
The total of kills claimed for Wittmann and used as the total in his award citation is the total of EVERY BRITISH TANK knocked out. He alone is said to have destroyed them. I simply ask how can you destroy tanks you never saw.
The absolute maximum number of tanks that Wittmann MIGHT have hit is 10. There was another Tiger (possibly two) firing down the road Wittmann used so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty who destroyed what and when. Remember the award citation was a propoganda weapon and it was inflated beyond all credibility
A start at least. Note the word ‘claim’. Now after you apply the routine 50% reduction you might just start to getting a bit nearer the truth.
