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 March 6th, 2018, 06:26 AM   #481
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Being "overrated" does not make it bad. The Tiger I was an excellent tank, but like all vehicles it had weaknesses that the allies overcame.
exactly---that's what I've been trying to say...I totally agree
Buckshot Roberts is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 6th, 2018, 07:14 AM   #482
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Being "overrated" does not make it bad. The Tiger I was an excellent tank, but like all vehicles it had weaknesses that the allies overcame.
The problem with the Tiger I is that its a heavy tank and its commonly compared to medium or light tanks, which is like comparing a battleship with a cruiser or destroyer in a "head to head" fight. Sure, it was a decent heavy tank, but it wasn't excellent. In the 1942 campaigning season where it first saw limited use, it was the best heavy tank on the battlefield because its only competitor was the KV-1/2. But it was not better than other Soviet heavy tanks, like the IS-2 (1943), which was easily the best heavy tank of the war of all the participants (gun, armor, mechanical reliability, simplicity of design and production). Even the T-34-85 was a match for them, especially considering total numbers.

The Tiger I armor design was antiquated, almost no sloped armor, meaning it was thicker than it needed to be, heavier, which put additional stress on its powertrain and transmission that couldn't properly support it, and made it a fuel hog for a country who even early in the war had major fuel problems. Its L /56 gun wasn't even the one they wanted to put in it (L/71 ended up in the Tiger B, which was an even worse tank). Its track width was poor, especially bad considering it was designed for the Eastern Front, it should have had wider treads for better flotation. It had good sights, plenty of room on the inside, good AP ammo, and that's about the best thing that can be said about it.

If war was a heavy panzer battalion being transported by rail directly to the fight, offloading and making a very short movement to the battle site, shooting across the Steppe at max effective range and destroying medium tanks frontally before the enemy could even get a shot off, then the Tiger I was a great tank. But that is not what war was like, which is why the Tiger I was not an excellent heavy tank, let alone tank in general.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 07:17 AM   #483
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: here
Posts: 172

''what's your military background''? this is an attack?!?
if this is an attack than a lot of questions are....
good calls on the Tiger tanks
Buckshot Roberts is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 07:30 AM   #484
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 285

Link to first-hand accounts Battle experiences: Kiwis in combating German Tiger I tanks in Northern Italy in 10 images
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 07:47 AM   #485
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckshot Roberts View Post
''what's your military background''? this is an attack?!?
if this is an attack than a lot of questions are....
good calls on the Tiger tanks
So now you're making fun of a mod? I'm sure your stay on historum will be long and fruitful.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 07:56 AM   #486

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,428

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Being "overrated" does not make it bad. The Tiger I was an excellent tank, but like all vehicles it had weaknesses that the allies overcame.
Exactly! Tank for tank, with a good crew, when operational it was quite the terror against both the Soviets and Allies. Indeed, when it hit its full glory in Kursk, the Soviet commanders immediately began researching countermeasures, including revamping their T34 with the 85mm gun. They had refused to make major revisions, as it would disrupt production, and only the Tiger/Panther appearance in quantity made them go to that step. Even to the end of the war its armor and weaponry were still formidable, even compared to the Panther and King Tiger models.

Indeed, IIRC (and I may be) but part of the Centurion's specifications were that it be able to be an equivalent counter to the Tiger.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 07:59 AM   #487

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,428

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckshot Roberts View Post
''what's your military background''? this is an attack?!?
if this is an attack than a lot of questions are....
good calls on the Tiger tanks
While I may disagree with you, you might calm a little as I value your posts and don't want to see the mods have to BANE you.

Now to your topic, how would you compare the tiger to the SU 100, which was a direct countermeasure for the big cats?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 08:20 AM   #488

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,744

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
While I may disagree with you, you might calm a little as I value your posts and don't want to see the mods have to BANE you.

Now to your topic, how would you compare the tiger to the SU 100, which was a direct countermeasure for the big cats?
Tiger is a tank, SU 100 was not. Tiger tank when it was sent to combat in 1942 it was decent and great tank. The tank was sent to battlefield without completely solving problems. Tiger tank being a heavy tank cant be compared to SU 100 tank destroyer or M4 Sherman Medium tank. Germans could field a heavy tank in 1942 with a rotating turret and allies could field only medium tanks with rotating turrets. A heavy tank cant be compared to a medium tank.
SSDD is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 08:36 AM   #489
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Exactly! Tank for tank, with a good crew, when operational it was quite the terror against both the Soviets and Allies. Indeed, when it hit its full glory in Kursk, the Soviet commanders immediately began researching countermeasures, including revamping their T34 with the 85mm gun. They had refused to make major revisions, as it would disrupt production, and only the Tiger/Panther appearance in quantity made them go to that step. Even to the end of the war its armor and weaponry were still formidable, even compared to the Panther and King Tiger models.

Indeed, IIRC (and I may be) but part of the Centurion's specifications were that it be able to be an equivalent counter to the Tiger.
T-34 made numerous modifications to the T-34 before they reacted with the T-34-85. Most of the mods had to do with making production easier, something the Germans didn't bother doing, ever really. The Soviets didn't need to build heavier tanks or bigger guns until a reason to do so forced them to (which is how arms races happen).

Germany invaded Soviet Union with substandard tanks, only one of four Panzergruppe/army had majority Panzer III, the rest were primarily Panzer II and even captured Czech tanks. They were expecting to find nothing but light tanks because they were going off outdated and faulty intel, not realizing that Red Army were already fielding limited number of T-34 and KV tanks, which generally immune to any German frontal tank fire.

The Germans reacted by increasing number of panzerjaeger with heavier guns (tank destroyers) to support infantry, building the Tiger I to lead panzer army breakthroughs (which Panzer III and IV couldn't properly do previously against Soviet defenses), also upgunning the Panzer IV with a long barrel 75mm gun and attempting to standardize that as the medium tank (though not successful, the Panzer III was still the most common). At this point there was general parity between USSR and Germany.

After Kursk, when the Panther medium tank showed up, and despite its horrific mechanical reliability, it scared the Soviets into upgunning the T-34s and looking into their own heavier tanks.

The only counter to those Red Army tanks were heavier German tank destroyers and the King Tiger/Tiger B.

The Soviet response to those were the SU-100, the SU-152 "Animal Killer", the IS-series heavy tanks, which there was no German counterpart.

But the mainstay tank was still the T-34-85, the workhorse tank of the Soviet Union, to which the Germans had no real equal, because both the long barreled Panzer IV and Panther were poor medium tanks.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 08:37 AM   #490
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Tiger is a tank, SU 100 was not. Tiger tank when it was sent to combat in 1942 it was decent and great tank. The tank was sent to battlefield without completely solving problems. Tiger tank being a heavy tank cant be compared to SU 100 tank destroyer or M4 Sherman Medium tank. Germans could field a heavy tank in 1942 with a rotating turret and allies could field only medium tanks with rotating turrets. A heavy tank cant be compared to a medium tank.
Western Allies, yes, had no heavy tank. Eastern Allies, no, the KV-1/2 were heavy tanks. Just not as heavy as the Tiger, which really re-defined the class, but at the time, in 41-42, and considering the German/Czech tanks they faced, they were definitely heavy tanks.
aggienation 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.