I remain unconvinced, quoting lines from a “B” movie is hardly evidence of any manner of superiority having been possessed by the Tiger I. I stick by my previous post as to its being pedestrian engineering. Piling on more armor, and sticking a larger gun on something does not make it superior, it makes it just another challenge to overcome, (and overcome it was. ) Same goes for the Panther,Despite its being more enlightened in design than the Tiger, all it really had going for it was a heavy Glassis, and a long barreled gun. Other than that, it was not in possession of anything that gave it extra lives on the battlefield. In truth, both those vehicles were invested with design flaws that only served to increase the effectiveness of the sabotage done by the slave labor who assembled their various component parts.
“Tiger-angst” existed mainly because the Allies were on the offensive and were often forced to drive their AFV’s into exposed positions whereas the Germans were going to maximize their waning forces. The truth is that the Western Allies suffered a kill deficit of no more than about two allied tanks/AFV’s destroyed for every panzer/TD. Any force attacking without benefit of cover, such as the British in the more wide open planes around Caen, were going to suffer higher casualties against a competent, experienced and well trained foe. But the British Firefly version of the Sherman was just as “feared” by the panzerwaffe as evidenced by their tactics of focusing on destroying them first when identified.
During the Battle of the Bulge, the tables were flipped a bit and although the Americans suffered heavy losses of armor, they also inflicted them. There are numerous accounts of relatively modest 76mm antitank guns wreaking havoc on panzer formations and one account of a crossfire where a U.S. Army tank destroyer unit managed to destroy three Tigers in short order along with numerous other AFV’s and wheeled vehicles. They held up the advance for hours before being overwhelmed. The GI’s also made good use of their 90mm guns around Bastogne and the M-36 “Slugger” also was “feared” by panzer crews. Also, I think it’s been mentioned here, but German tank destroyers/assault guns like the Stug destroyed more Allied tanks than the actual panzers did…
Tiger loses simply to mobility issues.
They could not develop sufficient automotives capable of making them move very far, fast, or reliably.
Their weight was another issue.
I have a good friend who was in the 504th in the war.
He likes to tell stories and is not given to lies or embellishments.
His eyes do get big when he mentions “Tiger Royals.”
Fine, but when I asked, he did say he never personally saw one.
I think most of us, me included, do not appreiate what a tank’s role actually is, nor are qualified to judge them.
I think they had many purposes and tank to tank was not an initial one.
There were only less than 500 Tiger Royals made. And many of them suffered from poor quality armor that would crack and spall IIRC…
They also had serious deficiencies in their drivelines, in particular the transmission/steering arrangement. The fact that this very heavy vehicle was powered by the same 690 hp gasoline engine that was used on the Panther, and Tiger I vehicles. And had similar, and not minor troubles with seals leaking. This was not helped by the fact that the engine being much too small for this tank, had to run at higher speeds to produce enough power. The higher engine revs meant higher operating temps that shortened useful engine life.
About the only thing the Germany did right with this vehicle was abandon the absurd interleaved suspension system used in the Panther. This part is just my opinion, but had Germany been able to keep the Panther, and Tiger II (King, Royal etc.) in proper development, they would have been good tanks. This would also have them showing up in the field no sooner than the Centurion, and M-26-E2*, so all of that work would have in the end, yielded little benefit to Germany.
- the E2 version of the M-26 was to have a much improved driveline, but the designers went on a spending spree, and it then also had a new gun, and several other improvements, so they decided to call it the M-46 which would have delayed its appearance until well after the War.
Ah, I think you’ll find it was the Porsche Tiger design [per 'Ferdinand/Elephant] that did not feature the interleaved suspension [ which was superior in a purely technical, if not totally operational sense].
The late Panthers shared the Tiger B/II ‘resilient’ type wheels of non-dished appearance.
The Movie quip was to show how far the Tiger-angst penetrated into popular culture, [ & K.H’s. a ‘B’ movie?, doubt it].
& true that, with the ‘negative waves’…
The tankers who got to check out the captured Tiger were under no illusions about what they would be facing…
& were not too happy about being so out-matched/expendable…
This is something that had a positive outcome for post-war Western armour… taking up where the Tiger left off…
I was speaking of the Tiger II, which did not have interleaved road wheels, They did overlap, but would at least not present such a prodigious undertaking when one had to be changed, or in heavy mud which could slow the vehicle even further. While the Tiger II has some interesting points to it, it was undone by its own makers. It proved to be an utter joke. No one copied the Tigers, there was nothing of value to be gained from them aside from the knowledge that they were a terrible idea best left in the dust. Kelly’s Heroes although at the higher end, was still a “B” movie. (No negative waves, just fact )
None of the poor bloody Sherman crews facing down a Tiger B were laughing too merrily at the prospect…
& ‘over-lapping/interleaved’ surely amounts to pretty much the same scheme, with the same pros & cons…
If a movie has an an A-list star, & is well supplied with current character actors & up & coming talent, too,
well, that would kinda take it a notch up from a ‘B’ listing… quirky, anachronistic, war movie or no…
Sorry J.A.W., but no sale on your opinions concerning the Tigers I or II. and certainly none on the movie. While it may have been entertaining, it would be stretching it like spandex to give it an A. I would place it in the same pot with “What did you do in the War Daddy?”
It should be remembered that in the majority of cases, it wasn’t Tiger .vs. Sherman, it was Landser .vs. Sherman. Deficient as the Sherman’s armour may ave been (arguable - I personally think most of the problems related to ammunition stowage), a shirt and tin hat are much less protective.
1944 armoured vehicle production:
[b]Germany:[/b]
Panzer II 151
Panzer 38(t) 2,356
Panzer III 4,752
Panzer IV 6,625
Panzer V Panther 4,003
Panzer VI H Tiger I 641
Panzer VI B Tiger II 428
Total 18,956
[b]Japan[/b]
Around 300 of all types.
Tota Axis ~19,300
[b]USA[/b]
M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage 1,963
M22 Locust 150
M24 Chaffee 1,930
M18 Hellcat 1,695
M4 Sherman (75mm) 3,504
M4 Sherman (76mm) 7,135
M4 Sherman (105mm) 2,286
M36 Tank Destroyer 1,400
M7 Priest 1,164
M26 Pershing 40
Total 20,357
[b]United Kingdom[/b]
Harry Hopkins 58
Comet 143
Challenger 145
Cromwell 1,935
Cavalier 166
Centaur 757
Crusader 773
Churchill 1,851
Valentine 876
Archer 353
Total 7,057
[b]Soviet Union[/b]
SU-76 7,155
SU-85 1,300
SU-100 500
SU-122 493
ISU122/152 2,510
T-34 3,500
T-34/85 10,449
IS-2 2,252
Total 28,159
Total Allies: 55,573
All numbers are Wiki for consistency and laziness, except the British numbers which come from here and the Japanese from here.
The obvious conclusion here is that even if the Tigers outgunned their counterparts (not at all clear when looking at the heavier Soviet vehicles), they were grossly outnumbered and even as late as 1944 the most common German tank was the Panzer IV, arguably as inferior to the Sherman or T-34/85 as the Sherman was to the Tiger.
Since the views of those who were there & did have to take on Tigers, [as crew or to defeat them]
must hold more weight than ‘opinions’ given here, I’ll dig out some quotes from veterans…
& maybe a cogent quote or 2 from an official contemporary technical appraisal report.
Interestingly, one remark about the Panzer Mk IV that was along the lines of it being fairly thinly armoured, which meant that a solid shot might go right through & out the other side, harming only that in its trajectory path, whereas a Panther might let one in the side [but not out] - to rattle around mashing things up…
The other factor was the cohesive team within the vehicle & with the combined arms panzer battle group, which meant that even
‘out-dated’ Mk IVs & out-matched self propelled guns could outfight ostensibly superior T34s, Shermans & etc…
It was your “view” that the Tiger I was the genesis of present day MBT’s. That is all I am responding to. I disagreed, and you then shifted your “view” to tactical employment of the tiger I as its reason for its (never proven) success . You seem to distract from premise to premise in order to continue your disingenuous game playing. While you are more than welcome to believe what you like, that welcome does not extend to clogging the boards with Troll grade distractions, and flights of fancy.
Park a Tiger B next to a Matilda II & a modern MBT, ie a Challenger…
Ask 1, ‘Blind Freddy’, 2, a Tank soldier, 3, a keen schoolboy, & 4, a military technology historian…
to check them out…& answer…
"Which 2 vehicles clearly have the most in common? "
Any room for dispute there?
Bloody-well self evident, really…
Still not impressed J.A.W. While some truths may be self evident, your suppositions are not.
Self-evidently in everything except size, the Tiger and the Matilda II…
There were only about 90 Tigers in all of Normandy, how many Allied tankers do you think actually encountered them? The American forces in the hedgerow section probably feared ambushes by mortar, panzerfaust, or AT gun far more than they feared Tigers. Unless you were a tank destroyer crewman, whom probably feared elevated snipers the most…
The landsers also had “Char B” fear, it didn’t stop them from destroying those encountered after some initial French successes in places like Stonne…
More like they were fighting a defensive battle against advancing armies where even relatively thinly armored AFV’s can be deployed in ambush positions to maximize their killing potential against an exposed enemy advancing on the horizon with little cover. As previously stated, an Allied tanker was far more likely to meet his end from a German tank destroyer like a Stug than from a Tiger…
Using you self same argument
Park a WW1 Mk IV next to a Vickers Med Mk II, next to a Panzer III, next to a Crusader and a Challenger (choice here of three, will let you work out which one) and ask what looks most like the modern MBT.
Ok then, a couple of published references…
From ‘Tiger Tanks at War’ by M.Green & J.D. Brown…
p.82, The Tiger did what?
…“their primary mission was to destroy enemy tanks.
In doing so, they were undeniably successful.
The kill ratio of heavy tank battalions - when measured against Tigers lost in direct combat,
is an impressive 12.2:1.”
p.19, excerpt from official allied report,
…“the Tiger is outstandingly well armed & protected”
This is what the current MBT is built to be too…
Whereas…
From ‘Tank Men’ by Robert Kershaw, on the Tiger, P. 299-302,
He writes, “The human consequences of pitting mass inferior tanks against superior German technology seems to have been readily accepted.”