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, 09:38 AM   #31

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 8,072

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
I don't know, I always had the impression it was somewhat slower due to the big weight and all. But the Russian ones were faster, because of a better suspension, weren't they?
The suspension would effect it only on certain terrain. For example, the official top sped of the Warrior IFV is faster than the Challenger II tank both on and off roads. But they used to fly past us on rough terrain.

The Tigers speed, depending on your source, was in the high 20's mph. The Sherman mid to high 20's, T-34 low 30's. But speed is not of high importance, its difficult to hit anything while moving at 30mph.

If your engine and suspension are designed to cope with the weight, then you have no problem, most tanks today are around the same if not heavier than the Tiger.
Bish is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 31st, 2015, 09:39 AM   #32
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  
Old August 31st, 2015, 09:52 AM   #33

Davidius's Avatar
Varlet
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Pillium
Posts: 4,865

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
Are you sure about that. I would have said the Pz IV was the most produced.
It was. over 8500 (all variants) built in WW2, only exceeded by the StgIII (10,000) in terms of production.

If anyone needs to know if the Tiger is overrated then they should ask the allied tankers who went up against them. The Tiger had a truly fearsome reputation and just the rumour of their presence on the battlefield made commanders re-evaluate their plans.

It is al very well to wield the mighty sword of hindsight and rattle on about mechanical reliability, production costs and weight but any AFV that can make the enemy soil themselves just by showing up deserves some respect.
Davidius is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 09:59 AM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 3,309

Frankly, the tanks just didn't matter.

Not at all.

For every "problem" you can cite for the Tiger, I can cite 3 for the sherman.
And yet the flimsy Shermans pushed the German divisions right across the map.


German high command tried to make superior armor because they KNEW they had inferior production. Making smaller and simpler tanks would NOT have resulted in their fielding a significant number of additional tanks… So their ONLY available counter to allied numbers was to try for thicker armor and heavier guns- to try and make their inescapably inferior numbers compensate in pure kill ratio.

And that's not a bad strategy- if they were dealing with a country like Britain or France who's productive capacity was only marginally greater than Germany's.

But it reflected a really vapid underestimation of how LARGE the US was… and how vast were the US's supplies of raw materials and productive capacity.

Once more- any well informed accountant could have predicted Germany's loss… the minute the US agreed to supply the allies.
And to a large extent, it was Hitler's extremist idiocy that prevented Germany surrendering the minute that allied advantage was demonstrated ( as Germany did when they did an economic analysis of the US joining WWI )

Every weapon system fielded in the war had its strengths and its shortcomings.

What it came down to was Numbers, and Logistics
The Soviets were losing too, right up until US aid kicked in and they suddenly had the materials and transports to improve their productivity and delivery.


In that sense- it wouldn't have mattered how great any weapon Germany made was. If it wasn't an A-bomb- it couldn't have made any difference against allied productivity.
sculptingman is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:06 AM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 3,309

PS- The Soviets didn't win because of the T-34. They won because the US gave them 350,000 dodge trucks… and everything that those trucks could carry. From iron ore- to food to feed their factory workers in mid winter, To the petrol and shells those trucks delivered to the front to fuel those T-34s.


Today- super sophisticated laser guided munitions make a big difference- as long as you are using them against folks who are using 1970s weapons technology.

But in WWII- the differences between the "best" tank or plane, and the worst were simply not nearly large enough to make any difference in the face of one side having productive capacity two orders of magnitude greater than the other.
sculptingman is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:12 AM   #36

Fire_Raven's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Oregon
Posts: 2,776

The Tiger deserves much of the respect it earned on the battlefield (good gun,good optics,good armor making it a terror to take head on but could be not much better then anyother tank when taken from side and rear) but I believe it is overrated by many nowadays by some that only see it's advantages and ignore it's problems.
But I also believe the T-34 and the Sherman are also overrated with both being good for what they were designed for but given mythical proportions after the war.
Fire_Raven is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:15 AM   #37

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,612

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob100 View Post
I believe that the Tiger 2 was overrated and un-necessary, as was the Panther. The MKIV and Tiger 1 were fully capable of answering all of Germany's armor needs, and had most of the bugs worked out of them. In combination with the Assault guns, all of which could be built or altered with existing technology, cheaper and more efficiently. The Tiger 2 and Panther were unpardonable wastes of money and dwindling resources.
T34s were superior to MIVs, T34/85s even more so. Panther was just overengineered for what it was-a typical German failing at the time (looks over at BMV 'and maybe still'). If you stay with MIV's you are playing the allies' game, and that assumes the allies didn't keep upgrading.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:17 AM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 3,309

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire_Raven View Post
The Tiger deserves much of the respect it earned on the battlefield (good gun,good optics,good armor making it a terror to take head on but could be not much better then anyother tank when taken from side and rear) but I believe it is overrated by many nowadays by some that only see it's advantages and ignore it's problems.
But I also believe the T-34 and the Sherman are also overrated with both being good for what they were designed for but given mythical proportions after the war.
Really? I have NEVER seen anyone overate the Sherman.

Mostly I see grudging acknowledgements that it pretty much stank.

Who has ever thought the Sherman was a great tank?
sculptingman is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:17 AM   #39
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: michigan
Posts: 402

Quote:
Originally Posted by sculptingman View Post
Frankly, the tanks just didn't matter.

Not at all.

For every "problem" you can cite for the Tiger, I can cite 3 for the sherman.
And yet the flimsy Shermans pushed the German divisions right across the map.


German high command tried to make superior armor because they KNEW they had inferior production. Making smaller and simpler tanks would NOT have resulted in their fielding a significant number of additional tanks… So their ONLY available counter to allied numbers was to try for thicker armor and heavier guns- to try and make their inescapably inferior numbers compensate in pure kill ratio.

And that's not a bad strategy- if they were dealing with a country like Britain or France who's productive capacity was only marginally greater than Germany's.

But it reflected a really vapid underestimation of how LARGE the US was… and how vast were the US's supplies of raw materials and productive capacity.

Once more- any well informed accountant could have predicted Germany's loss… the minute the US agreed to supply the allies.
And to a large extent, it was Hitler's extremist idiocy that prevented Germany surrendering the minute that allied advantage was demonstrated ( as Germany did when they did an economic analysis of the US joining WWI )

Every weapon system fielded in the war had its strengths and its shortcomings.

What it came down to was Numbers, and Logistics
The Soviets were losing too, right up until US aid kicked in and they suddenly had the materials and transports to improve their productivity and delivery.


In that sense- it wouldn't have mattered how great any weapon Germany made was. If it wasn't an A-bomb- it couldn't have made any difference against allied productivity.
This is very true, but outside the parameters of this question. Most people realize exactly what you are saying, but this is more in the way of a technical question, not a political one.
Bob100 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2015, 10:18 AM   #40

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,724

German armor gets treated like it operated in a vacuum when in reality it didn't. Plus, the Soviets designed monster tanks of their own but those tanks don't quite have all the fanboyism about them that the German ones do.
Underlankers 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 08:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 01:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.