Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:14 AM   #21

Belloc's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: USA
Posts: 5,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
Ye, I think there were about 6,000 Panthers and just over 1,300 Tigers. I think the Pz IV was about 8,000, but not sure if that includes all the variants.
Yeah I read around 10,000 or so Pz IVs overall.
Belloc is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:18 AM   #22
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by WITSEND View Post
The original design for the Panther was for a front mounted transmission. Due to shortages the early models used the Tigers rear mounted unit which caused most of the problems. Once this practice ceased so did the problems.
The tranny was only one of many faults in the design. Panther always had trouble with their gear boxes, turrets and also fires. The point is made that the Germans possessed other, cheaper, options that would have been as effective or more effective .
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:20 AM   #23
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by WITSEND View Post
The Tigers big advantage like a lot of German Tanks lay in the Turret with probably the best overall gun of the war and excellent optics. The Germans maintained this lead in Gunnery and optics throughout the war and to a large extent still do.
I agree, the German guns and sights were the best points of all their tank designs.
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:21 AM   #24
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Far From Home
Posts: 698

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloc View Post
Modified Panzer IVs probably would've been sufficient to sustain the German war effort, or even upgrade the Panzer III design too.

I sometimes wonder why they didn't upgrade the Panzer III design too. Does anybody know?
Chassis was used to build instead huge numbers of tank destroyers. More bang for money this way.

Sturmgeschutz III/IV
Raskolnik is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:24 AM   #25
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 View Post
I think the tiger was a break from German strategy. Perhaps necessary. But i feel it was just too much. The panther i think Is vastly superior.
Initially , yes, but by 1944, the Tiger had all of its bugs worked out and performed very well.
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:24 AM   #26
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raskolnik View Post
Chassis was used to build instead huge numbers of tank destroyers. More bang for money this way.

Sturmgeschutz III/IV
Absolutely right. You beat me to the punch. LOL
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:26 AM   #27

Isoroku295's Avatar
Priapus
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: In the Past
Posts: 8,392

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 View Post
Amen. Me and my friend like to joke about the first bomber pilot that sees one. "I'm getting a medal for this one!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob100 View Post
Initially , yes, but by 1944, the Tiger had all of its bugs worked out and performed very well.
It was a target to smaller faster tanks. It couldn't be produced fast enough to even remotely counter that disadvantage. It's about balance and that tank had little of it.
Isoroku295 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:27 AM   #28
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Sweden
Posts: 718

The problem with the Tiger tank is that while it could work somewhat as a defensive weapon its mechanical problems and size made it difficult to go on the offensive, especially in areas with lots of obstacles. Panthers and Tigers could do well enough in the east where they could bring their superior guns and optics to bear but in the west this became less successful as the terrain often meant encounters took place at much shorter distances anyway (where tanks with inferior guns would be able to penetrate effectively). There are statistics out there that show that Shermans had a surprisingly good KDR against Panthers, even scoring favourable KDRs (Steven Zaloga’s Panther vs Sherman, Battle of the Bulge 1944) because the most important factor was not who had the best gun but who got to shoot first. That is why most tank losses typically where due to anti-tank guns not other tanks.

The Tiger tank certainly was a marvel in certain respects but it was also hampered by several weaknesses. Its funny how so many "fancy" German weapons are used when talking about great weaponry in WW2 yet the German weapon that killed most Allied soldiers was not the Tiger or the Me 262 but the MG 34 and MG 42. So yeah overall I'd say the Tiger is overrated - at least by the German übermensch-fanboys who think it was invincible.

Last edited by Bares; August 31st, 2015 at 10:30 AM.
Bares is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:29 AM   #29
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raskolnik View Post
Chassis was used to build instead huge numbers of tank destroyers. More bang for money this way.

Sturmgeschutz III/IV
Also the "Hornisse/Nashorn vehicles.
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:34 AM   #30
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bares View Post
The problem with the Tiger tank is that while it could work somewhat as a defensive weapon its mechanical problems and size made it difficult to go on the offensive, especially in areas with lots of obstacles. Panthers and Tigers could do well enough in the east where they could bring their superior guns and optics to bear but in the west this became less successful as the terrain often meant encounters took place at much shorter distances anyway (where tanks with inferior guns would be able to penetrate effectively). There are statistics out there that show that Shermans had a surprisingly good KDR against Panthers, even scoring favourable KDRs (Steven Zaloga’s Panther vs Sherman, Battle of the Bulge 1944) because the most important factor was not who had the best gun but who got to shoot first. That is why most tank losses typically where due to anti-tank guns not other tanks.

The Tiger tank certainly was a marvel in certain respects but it was also hampered by several weaknesses. Its funny how so many "fancy" German weapons are used when talking about great weaponry in WW2 yet the German weapon that killed most Allied soldiers was not the Tiger or the Me 262 but the MG 34 and MG 42. So yeah overall I'd say the Tiger is overrated - at least by the German übermensch-fanboys who think it was invincible.
My uncle was in tank Destroyers, and he was always worried more by Assault guns firing from ambush, and mortar fire than by Panthers or Tigers, which he could always avoid, or drive around, for a flank or rear shot.
Bob100 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated, tank, tiger



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 09:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 02:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.