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, 03:39 PM   #531
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

The testimony of the source quoted is clear it speaks about a very high rate of losses and quotes losses of more than 1300 tanks for a division.
This shows that the Shermns tanks were very vulnerable and that they are far from having the robustness the Tigers had.
Anyway, I don't see how we can argue the opposite and say that the Tiger is overestimated in relation to its fighting power which has nothing to do with that of a Sherman.
A little common sense is enough for that

The testimonies of Sherman's crews are also clear.
There are a lot of them in the posted videos.

You also quote numbers without any source to support what you say.
I don't think that's of any interest.
Sources?

Last edited by phil1904; March 6th, 2018 at 03:50 PM.
phil1904 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 6th, 2018, 03:54 PM   #532
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
The testimony of the source quoted is clear it speaks about a very high rate of losses and quotes losses of more than 1300 tanks for a division.
This shows that the Shermns tanks were very vulnerable and that they are far from having the robustness the Tigers had.
No. Again you do not understand the figures.

You conflate losses with casualties.

The figures are 'high' for Shermans because the 3rd AD had 260 tanks versus the Tiger Abteilung having 45 tanks.

The % rate is not that far apart.

The Tiger Unit with 45 tanks lost 99.
If we scale it up to match the M4s in 3rd AD then the Tiger losses would be 564 tanks.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 03:55 PM   #533
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
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'.
The British lost over 300 tanks during Operation Goodwood.
The Germans between 75 and 100 and part of these losses were due to air bombardment.
The sources have been cited in previous posts.
You say a lot of things without sources.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 04:04 PM   #534
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
The British lost over 300 tanks during Operation Goodwood.
No they did not. Whatever source your Google gave you it is wrong. The best and most detailed count of British losses for GOODWOOD can be found on page 230 of Napier's The Armoured Campaign In Normandy

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Armoured-Ca.../dp/0750962704

and that is 275 casualties over a 3 day period. Again I stress that 'casualty' is not the same as 'total loss'. The final total loss count would be c. 100-150


Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
The sources have been cited in previous posts.
You say a lot of things without sources.
You can say a lot of wrong things if your only reference is Google. I am afraid I will not be availing myself of any of these worthless online articles.
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 04:06 PM   #535

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,527

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
The testimony of the source quoted is clear it speaks about a very high rate of losses and quotes losses of more than 1300 tanks for a division.
This shows that the Shermns tanks were very vulnerable and that they are far from having the robustness the Tigers had.
Anyway, I don't see how we can argue the opposite and say that the Tiger is overestimated in relation to its fighting power which has nothing to do with that of a Sherman.
A little common sense is enough for that

The testimonies of Sherman's crews are also clear.
There are a lot of them in the posted videos.
And how can that be certain? American troops generally called EVERY German tank a Tiger, despite the fact that most of them were Panzer IVs. Saying that American tank crews claimed catastrophic losses inflicted on them by Tigers can be hard to pinpoint... as the Germans didn't build that many Tigers. In fact the Germans built less than 2000 Tiger Is. By comparison the US built around 50,000 Shermans of various models.

And while higher speed was a greater requirement for the Sherman's design, which meant that they didn't send as many Sherman Jumbo variants to Europe (which had armor THICKER than the Tiger's), that didn't mean Sherman was a bad tank... or that it was incapable of dealing with the Tiger I. Many early models couldn't do so easily, but then... they also had a low velocity gun that meant they had to get very close to penetrate the Tiger's heavy armor, a limitation the Tiger's long barreled 88 didn't require.

There is also the issue in what actually destroyed many of the Shermans in WW2. Many did take a lot of damage and many were lost, yes... but it's also been reported that particularly early on, many Shermans were also being overloaded with ammunition that was being stored around the fighting compartment to increase its rate of fire. So... it really isn't that the Sherman was being defeated by the vaunted Tiger's 88mm gun, but that the Sherman's crew was dumb and secondary detonations of all their extra ammo going off is what did it... It's why when you get to the Easy Eight variants and the Fireflies that came in later in the war that issues with the Shermans catching fire seemed to become less of an issue. They had a wet storage for their ammunition and they weren't packing as much of it around the fighting compartment... It'd thus be no surprise that the losses in Sherman tanks also went down around the same time...

And by the time of the Firefly and the Easy Eight began entering service, these Sherman variants DID have the ability to penetrate the Tiger's armor, and thus weren't having to close the distance as much as the early model Shermans did, which actually helped the Sherman's sloped armor deal with the Tiger's armament...

If it even WAS a Tiger's armament. As said before, many American troops often misidentified Panzer IVs as Tiger Is. And at first glance, that'd make sense as the two tanks HAD similarities...

Click the image to open in full size.
(Tiger I)

Click the image to open in full size.
(Panzer IV H)

Compare the two and you'll note the similarities... Both had boxy armor that looked similar to each other. Both had guns that looked very similar. The Tiger I had an obvious size difference, and we today with all our reference books can see the specific differences to tell the two apart... but then we aren't being confronted by a German tank and having to shoot back at it in short order. Many American tank crews DID have to shoot back quickly, and I'd doubt that men who were largely draftees were going to be experts with regards to identifying German armor under combat conditions... Which means you'd have a lot of Panzer IVs misidentified as Tiger Is.

And this only makes the comparison tougher when not every Sherman that engaged German tanks was a late model or was being operated in a way that would maximize the effectiveness of its own armor.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old March 6th, 2018, 04:09 PM   #536
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
No they did not. Whatever source your Google gave you it is wrong. The best and most detailed count of British losses for GOODWOOD can be found on page 230 of Napier's The Armoured Campaign In Normandy

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Armoured-Ca.../dp/0750962704

and that is 275 casualties over a 3 day period. Again I stress that 'casualty' is not the same as 'total loss'. The final total loss count would be c. 100-150




You can say a lot of wrong things if your only reference is Google. I am afraid I will not be availing myself of any of these worthless online articles.
Your references are nil an i quoted books too.
In Sidi Bouzid the losses were 45 Shermans, the Germans lost none of them.
Do these figures allow you to support your point of view?
Do the testimonies of Sherman tank crews allow you to?
You want to talk about Soviet tank losses on the Eastern Front?
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 04:12 PM   #537
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Sam-Nary
That is not the point.
The question is whether the Tiger tank is overestimated.
If you compare it to a Sherman, of course not.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 04:16 PM   #538
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Y
In Sidi Bouzid the losses were 45 Shermans............
And Panther losses at Arracourt were...................
mkenny is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 04:40 PM   #539
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

they were 200 German tanks for about 30 American tanks.

We're talking about the Tiger in comparison to the Sherman.
I have provided sources that show the testimonies of American crews who do not have great confidence in their Sherman in relation to the battles they have fought against a Tiger.
Now if you have sources that prove otherwise, mail them.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 05:10 PM   #540

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,527

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Sam-Nary
That is not the point.
The question is whether the Tiger tank is overestimated.
If you compare it to a Sherman, of course not.
But it IS overestimated...

People talk about the Tiger as though it was the most commonly faced German tank... This is false. That was the Panzer IV. And in fact the Allied crew reports on dealing with Tigers are not necessarily accurate due to misidentification of Panzer IVs.

People talk about the Tiger as though the Allies had no weapon that could damage it. This is false, as the British Seventeen Pounder gun and the high velocity 76mm gun for the Easy Eight could defeat the Tiger, and often did in the rare cases where they ran into Tigers.

People talk about the Tiger as though it was better protected than other tanks. This isn't true when one considers that the Sherman Jumbo had thicker armor than the Tiger I.

People talk about both tanks as though the Tiger I was only facing early models and that the Sherman was never updated. This is not true.

People talk about the Tiger I as though it was a war winning tank if not for Hitler... This is not true, as Germany's manufacturing methods were NEVER going to increase its production, regardless of Hitler's decision-making. Looking in detail at the production details between the Americans, Germans, and Soviets show that. The Soviets built 80,000 T-34s and the Americans built more than 50,000 Shermans. The Germans didn't even build 2,000 Tiger Is. It doesn't matter what Hitler's decisions. There is no way Germany was going to make up the difference unless they change their methodology to emphasize mass production over max quality and minute by minute updates based on military needs.

The Tiger I was a great tank, but it was not the unbeatable tank that that it has often been labeled as, and THAT is why it is overrated.
Sam-Nary is online now  
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.