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, 12:30 PM   #521
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,144

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
One among others since 3 pages
I know
I read Zaloga, the spelling is good
steven Zaloga is clear about this:
https://books.google.fr/books?id=Quv...ampion&f=false

So your source for the best tank of WW2, before you edited the crap out of it, starts out this way:

"What was the best tank of World War II? This book argues that there was no single 'best tanks in World War II'"

aggienation is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 6th, 2018, 12:36 PM   #522
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
So your source for the best tank of WW2, before you edited the crap out of it, starts out this way:

"What was the best tank of World War II? This book argues that there was no single 'best tanks in World War II'"

One more sarcasm from 3 pages
A lot of insults, orders and sarcasms.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 12:39 PM   #523
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post


The Tiger has a clear superiority in armor, firepower.
The Sherman has a superiority in mobility. When this asset cannot be played in areas that do not allow maneuvering (Normandy for example), it is a carnage:

https://archives.library.illinois.ed...man-tanks-ww2/

Very poorly referenced hatchet job. Uses Belton Cooper.
The US had 15 Armoured Divisions in WW2.
In terms of losses 1 division had considerably more losses than the other 14. If you rank losses 1 to 15th then more medium losses than the last 7 in the list.
The same medium losses as no 2 & 3 combined.
More medium losses than 3,4 & 5 combined.

Now if you were doing a hatchet job and needed an extreme example of losses that you could then try and pass off as 'normal' which Armored Division loss-numbers would you keep using?
Why not the US 3rd Armoured Division-which is the outlier.

This example (which is plucked from the pages of Belton Cooper's Death Traps) is always used and it is never explained how much those numbers are out of kilter with the average losses. It is not an accident we always are hearing about the 3rd Armored Division numbers.

What is the point in burying this thread in an avalanche of poorly referenced and sourced random 'Tiger' Googles. I am embarrassed at how bad some of them them are and that you do not seem to know how bad they are.

Last edited by mkenny; March 6th, 2018 at 12:46 PM.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 12:45 PM   #524
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,144

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
One more sarcasm from 3 pages
A lot of insults, orders and sarcasms.
What happened to violence? Toning down the rhetoric?

I'm allowed to use , its no different than LOL, which is what any historian does when you post some of the stuff you do. You post history channel documentaries that are known to be garbage, you post quotes to defend your hypothesis of a best tank and the source states first emphatically that there was no best tank, which utterly discounts what you're attempting to try to do.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 02:10 PM   #525

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 16,295

You guys need to understand that Historum is a message board, not a chat room.

There is entirely too much use of the second person pronoun.

My advice would be to address the subject of the thread and stop making ad hominum remarks.
Lucius is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 02:33 PM   #526
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Now we will resume the normal course of a history forum.
Sorry, but I'm posting again article #520, because the thread became unreadable.

Quote:
zincwarrior
Zaloga (bad spelling I am sure) is a very authoritative source on WW2 tanks and tank guns.
I know
I read Zaloga, the spelling is good
steven Zaloga is clear about this:
https://books.google.fr/books?id=Quv...ampion&f=false

Quote:
"What was the best tank of World War II? This book argues that there was no single 'best tanks in World War II'. While the Tiger may have been the best in the summer 1943...
What makes a tank great? The most obvious is the holy trinity of tank design: armor, fire power, mobility."


The Tiger has a clear superiority in armor, firepower.
The Sherman has a superiority in mobility. When this asset cannot be played in areas that do not allow maneuvering (Normandy for example), it is a carnage:

https://archives.library.illinois.ed...man-tanks-ww2/

Quote:
“The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent.”
I think the argument to try to show that the Shermans tanks didn't have any serious weaknesses compared to the Tigers is a nonsense.
Indeed, pretending to show that there were a lot of tanks destroyed, but it wasn't serious is wobbly.
Having fewer tanks destroyed is even better and it doesn't say that the Sherman was better than the Tiger.
Actually it says the contrary.

In the Battle of the Bulge the Shermans can't use their mobility either.

Shermans vs Tigers: Tank Wars at the Battle of the Bulge | The National Interest Blog

Quote:
"Allies Outgunned, Outmaneuvered

As their British and Canadian allies had already learned, the GIs and their officers soon came to respect the resolute fighting qualities of their enemy. They discovered, with considerable chagrin, that although they possessed a greater abundance of weapons, some of these were decidedly inferior to those of the Germans."
Quote:
"The most powerful tank of World War II, a single 67-ton Tiger II could hold up a dozen Sherman tanks, and often did. Known variously as the Tiger B, King Tiger, and Royal Tiger, the Tiger II carried a crew of five, had a 600-horsepower engine and a maximum speed of 21.74 miles an hour, and boasted a cruising range of 105.57 miles.

It could knock out with ease any Allied tank at considerable range, and its armor was so thick (1.58 inches to 7.09 inches) that few British or American weapons could destroy it. Fortunately for the Allies, production of the Tiger II behemoths was constantly disrupted by Anglo-American bombing raids and shortages of raw materials, so only 489 of them had entered service by the time the war ended."


However, it is true that when the Shermans could use their mobility, they were able to win great victories against the German tanks.

One more book of Zaloga
https://books.google.fr/books?id=et8...Zaloga&f=false

And a picture of the most fearsome tank on the Western Front
Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by phil1904; March 6th, 2018 at 02:47 PM.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 02:38 PM   #527
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post

The Tiger has a clear superiority in armor, firepower.
The Sherman has a superiority in mobility. When this asset cannot be played in areas that do not allow maneuvering (Normandy for example), it is a carnage:

https://archives.library.illinois.ed...man-tanks-ww2/

Wrong. The author of the poorly researched article mentions 3rd Armored Division.
This Division never saw a Tiger in Normandy. Thus there was no 'carnage' caused to this Division by any Tiger.
Also the 250% turnover rate given for 3rd AD is not far off the 220% turnover rate for sPz Abt 503 (a Tiger Unit) for the same period. This counting only written off tanks for both Units.

Last edited by mkenny; March 6th, 2018 at 02:55 PM.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 03:16 PM   #528
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
Wrong. The author of the poorly researched article mentions 3rd Armored Division.
This Division never saw a Tiger in Normandy. Thus there was no 'carnage' caused to this Division by any Tiger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Ar...s)#Into_battle

The fact that you claim this source is not well documented is of no interest.
It is only a personal appreciation that is not credible.

Anyway this source mentions that it has suffered significant losses in Normandy

Quote:
"The division "spearheaded" the US First Army through Normandy, taking part in a number of engagements, notably including the Battle of Saint Lô, where it suffered significant casualties. After facing heavy fighting in the hedgerows, and developing methods to overcome the vast thickets of brush and earth that constrained its mobility, the unit broke out at Marigny, alongside the 1st Infantry Division, and swung south to Mayenne. The engineers and maintenance crews took the large I-Beam Invasion barriers from the beaches at Normandy and used the beams to weld large crossing rams on the front of the Sherman tanks. They would then hit the hedgerows at high speed, bursting through them without exposing the vulnerable underbellies of the tanks. Until this happened, they could not get across the hedgerows."


Moreover, there is a testimony confirming that the 3rd armoured suffered 580% losses during its engagement in Europe in a source that I posted in article #526.
Whether these losses are in Normandy or elsewhere, they are huge.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 03:29 PM   #529
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Moreover, there is a testimony confirming that the 3rd armoured suffered 580% losses during its engagement in Europe in a source that I posted in article #526.
Whether these losses are in Normandy or elsewhere, they are huge.
And you know this because you have figures for many Units and can compare them?


Anyway you do not understand what the numbers mean. 580% is the casualty rate. The total loss rate was 250% (we are not using precise figures but near enough)
The total loss rate for the Tiger Unit I gave was 220%.
It seems when it comes to written off tanks then there was not that much between a Tiger and a M4.

We can not compare the German/US casualty rate because there are no figures for the German casualties but they will not be much different from the US rate.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 03:37 PM   #530
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post

Moreover, there is a testimony confirming that the 3rd armoured suffered 580% losses during its engagement in Europe in a source that I posted in article #526.
The losses for all but one of the 15 US Armored Divisions in NWE are known with some precision. They are not secret. You can also find a loss-count by fortnight, Unit, Campaign & Army Group. I have them all. They are by no stretch of the imagination anything approaching 'carnage'.
mkenny 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.