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, 09:04 AM   #491
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,747
Blog Entries: 1

As a reflection on the Tiger.
THE LEGEND OF THE TIGER TANK - The Tiger Collection

I don't think I have anything to add on this, so sorry to cut and paste it.

Quote:
"It is a fighting machine that has gained almost mythical status, being the one tank that almost all Museum visitors recognise. Today, only six Tiger tanks remain, and Tiger 131 is the only one of those that has been fully restored to running condition.As a result the Tiger is arguably the Museum’s most famous exhibit; drawing visitors from the across the world "


Quote:
"Tank Museum Historian David Fletcher believes it is because legend rather than hard facts have coloured our perception of the Tiger and the impact it had during World War Two."
Quote:
"But all legends are rooted in fact. David said; “There is no doubt that the Tiger I was a formidable weapon. The 88mm gun was very effective and extremely accurate while the armour was proof against most contemporary anti-tank guns at anything but the closest range. Every contemporary Allied tank was vulnerable to the Tiger I at 2,000 metres; in contrast most Allied tanks had to close to within a few hundred meters to stand any chance of damaging the Tiger.”
Quote:
“The British 17pdr gun was placed in a small number of Sherman Tanks (to create the Sherman Firefly) before D-Day,” said David, “But by this point, the Tiger had already gained an important psychological dominance of the battlefield. British crews were all too aware of the inferiority of their tanks when faced with Tigers, and this certainly had an impact on the performance of inexperienced tank crews, who were perhaps all too eager to assume every German tank they encountered was a Tiger, and think it wise to back off.”
Another source :
https://books.google.fr/books?id=Xy6...allied&f=false

Quote:
The Germans calls thes tanks the Tiger Ausf B, or Tiger II's. It was the allies that referred to them as king Tigers


Tiger vs Sherman.jpg

I read in this thread, a lot of praise about the Sherman when it was compared to the Tiger.
This practice was used to challenge the real effectiveness of the Tiger.
I find that this is a biased and unjustified criticism.
The Sherman tank is not considered good by everyone, its weaknesses against the Tiger and Panther have been criticized.
Tank Busting ? Blowing Up the Myth of the Mighty M4 Sherman ? MilitaryHistoryNow.com

Quote:
“The Battle of the Bulge exposed deficiencies in the M4 so glaringly obvious, what became known as the Sherman Tank Scandal would be splashed across front pages all over the Allied world.”


Quote:
"According to British historian Sir Max Hastings, “no single Allied failure had more important consequences on the European battlefield than the lack of tanks with adequate punch and protection.” The Sherman, he added, was one of the Allies’ “greatest failures.”
How could American and British industries produce a host of superb aircraft, an astonishing variety of radar equipment, the proximity fuse, the DUKW, the jeep, yet still ask their armies to join battle against the Wehrmacht equipped with a range of tanks utterly inferior in armour and killing power?"
Quote:
"The distinguished American historian Dr. Russell Weigley* made a similar argument.
“Perhaps the most questionable element in American ground fighting power was the American tank,” he wrote. “[The Sherman] was inferior to the German Panther as well as to the heavier Tiger in always every respect save endurance, including armament and defensive armour.”
phil1904 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:12 AM   #492
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
]
The British 17pdr gun was placed in a small number of Sherman Tanks (to create the Sherman Firefly) before D-Day,” said David,
There were more Firefly tanks in Normandy than Tiger tanks.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:19 AM   #493

SSDD's Avatar
Aryaputra
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: India
Posts: 3,846

One thing sure, Americans learnt a lot from WW2 on tank. US doctrine was to use tanks for infantry support and let tank destroyers engage tanks. But it resulted in heavy tank losses. That is why after WW2 Americans redefined their tank ideology and began to make Patton series tanks which were almost on per with Soviet tanks.

But it does not say highly about Sherman tanks.
SSDD is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:19 AM   #494
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,386

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
As a reflection on the Tiger.
THE LEGEND OF THE TIGER TANK - The Tiger Collection

I don't think I have anything to add on this, so sorry to cut and paste it.









Another source :
https://books.google.fr/books?id=Xy6...allied&f=false



Attachment 11791

I read in this thread, a lot of praise about the Sherman when it was compared to the Tiger.
This practice was used to challenge the real effectiveness of the Tiger.
I find that this is a biased and unjustified criticism.
The Sherman tank is not considered good by everyone, its weaknesses against the Tiger and Panther have been criticized.
Tank Busting ? Blowing Up the Myth of the Mighty M4 Sherman ? MilitaryHistoryNow.com




Click the image to open in full size.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:23 AM   #495
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post




Read the reviews of his book

https://www.amazon.com/product-revie...pe=all_reviews

The author has a victim complex and actually sued the US Government saying it discriminated against veterans because he did not get a position he applied for. His book is his Masters Thesis that was refused a grade with these comments as:

"agonizing" and that DeJohn must suffer from "Alzheimer’s disease." DeJohn sounds like a "crackpot," that his arguments are "absurd," that the thesis read like "a comic book for 5-year olds," that it was "amateurish," that it was "exaggerated melodrama," "juvenile melodrama," and "juvenile rhetoric," "monotonous agony," "juvenile argumentation," a "hissy fit in print."

That Thesis became the book!

As you may gather I came across this 'Author' online some years back.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:26 AM   #496
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,747
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
There were more Firefly tanks in Normandy than Tiger tanks.
Yes, but it still represented a small number of sherman compared to the total production of these tanks.
That is what the author of this sentence means.

The testimonies of the fighters who complain about the weakness of their Sherman and the human life it has cost are not "crackpots".
This source is very interesting, I recommend reading it, the Tiger is mentioned there.

Last edited by phil1904; March 6th, 2018 at 09:29 AM.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:30 AM   #497
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
You forgot to include the title. 'Tank Terror. A Collection Of Model WW2 German Tanks In Colour'.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:33 AM   #498
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,386

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
One thing sure, Americans learnt a lot from WW2 on tank. US doctrine was to use tanks for infantry support and let tank destroyers engage tanks. But it resulted in heavy tank losses. That is why after WW2 Americans redefined their tank ideology and began to make Patton series tanks which were almost on per with Soviet tanks.

But it does not say highly about Sherman tanks.
There were two doctrinal uses of tanks for the US Army. One was in Armored Divisions, which were fully mechanized combined arms exploitation forces (which is how the Germans ONLY did it), not designed to hit hard points but designed to exploit breakthroughs made by infantry. The second use was in separate tank battalions assigned to infantry, to support them as they attacked (similar to how French only did it, and how Red Army did it only in '41).

For exploitation, the medium tank was great. It had sufficient armament and weaponry for most of what was encountered on the battlefield (not tanks), and its superior mobility and reliability are what really made it great, because a Sherman armored division could make road marches of hundreds of miles, like Third Army shifting during the Battle of the Bulge, and show up with nearly all of its tanks in working order, where as a German unit had to rely on trains because of breakdown threat.

For infantry support a heavier armored tank would have been better, like the M4 Sherman assault tank/Jumbo, or the late '44 ad hoc versions made by welding on armor from disabled tanks, friendly and enemy. But there is a price with that. One, Europe has rivers, crossing them means having a tank not so overly heavy they can't make it across existing civilian bridges, or those thrown up for standard US Army vehicles. They're harder to support with fuel. To ship across the Atlantic two Shermans could be used for every one Pershing (which was still unreliable and had not had the bugs worked out yet).

As it was, when a Sherman was lost it usually meant 4 out of 5 were still fit for duty, one crewman on average being a casualty, who would then be shortly issued a new tank (usually a better variant than the one they'd previously used). Because the Sherman was easier to make, easier to transport, easier to operate.

For infantry divisions on the defense, specifically designed to stop a German panzergruppe attack, was the Tank Destroyer battalion, which enough were made to usually assign one battalion to each infantry division on the line. Doctrinally, these were supposed to be staged with corps reserves and then released to form a second defensive line when the first had been breached. Realistically, because the US Army was rarely on the defensive, since we'd removed the German ability to stay mobile because we were better at combined arms than they were, we ended up using the tank destroyers offensively, largely to support infantry on the attack, which is what they weren't designed for, especially towed variety which did poorly. Its popular in the age of pop culture history to crap on the US Army tank destroyer doctrine, forgetting that German infantry regiments, divisions, and corps all had various companies and battalions of panzerjaegar organically assigned to them to do exactly what the US Army tank destroyer organization and doctrine called for.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:34 AM   #499
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Yes, but it still represented a small number of sherman compared to the total production of these tanks.
That is what the author of this sentence means.
Tiger only fought in the Commonwealth Sector of Normandy. 1 in every 4 Shermans became a Firefly. Wherever there were Shermans there were Fireflys.

Wittmann met one in Villers Bocage and it knocked him out. He met one again on Aug 8 ................
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 09:36 AM   #500
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,386

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Yes, but it still represented a small number of sherman compared to the total production of these tanks.
That is what the author of this sentence means.

The testimonies of the fighters who complain about the weakness of their Sherman and the human life it has cost are not "crackpots".
This source is very interesting, I recommend reading it, the Tiger is mentioned there.
Shermans had better crew survivability than any other tank in WW2. Fact. Not only did later models have wet storage, but they were far easier to climb out of. On average, and this was verified by S. Zaloga through intensive analytical research of US and British forces with the Sherman, losing a tank meant only one out of five crewmen was rendered unfit for further duties. Losing a tank that didn't brew up (roughly 60% of them didn't catch on fire) meant the remaining crew would get a new tank in a day or two (better supply and access), and the disabled tank would be recovered, fixed, and be back in service in the matter of weeks.

Just to add, the biggest problem with the Sherman was it was encountering superior German AT weaponry, the only thing they actually excelled at. Not just main gun on tanks or panzerjaegar, but also 75-88mm PaK field guns, and infantry panzerfaust/schreck. These were all designed and capable of destroying the heaviest of Red Army heavy tanks. If the US Army had invaded Normandy and crossing into Germany with tanks of the sort it was issued in the 50s they'd still have been very vulnerable to German 44-45 armament. Simply put, there didn't exist any tank in WW2 that would have had very much more increased survivability in typical combat ranges (0-1,000 meters, rarely longer) of the ETO.

Last edited by aggienation; March 6th, 2018 at 10:17 AM.
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.