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 9th, 2018, 07:59 AM   #591

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
I'd argue it was US artillery that dominated the battlefield on the Western Front, but heh, what do I know.
And that's why artillery is "The King Of Battle".
Lucius is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 9th, 2018, 09:44 AM   #592
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Poole. UK
Posts: 238

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
Part in bold, that's what it existed for, the Tiger wasn't meant to win the war, it was designed to do what previous German medium tanks could not, because before it Germany had no heavy tanks. German panzer army had no issues conducting combined arms, panzer, infantry, artillery, breakthroughs in Poland and France (though even that battle convinced the Germans they needed a heavy tank), but it in the USSR when the panzergruppe took horrifying losses attacking the Soviets who had strong AT weapons and lots of them and were tenaciously defending and counterattacking. So Barbarossa was what firmly convinced them to design and field a heavy tank designed to to be railheaded to the theater of operations, then to be used to spearhead mechanized attacks and create breakthroughs, where their armor would do better protecting them against standard AT field guns (76mm for the Soviets) that would easily kill a Panzer III, and while their main gun was strong enough to frontally defeat the T-34s and KV tanks and put a hurting on any field fortifications it would encounter, which the Panzer III was woefully insufficient. Defensively, they'd be used to blunt Red Army Tank Corps belonging to shock armies. Occasionally the heavy panzer battalions might be attached to reinforce a standard infantry corps but even that was rare, usually they'd be found attached to a panzer corps in a panzer army.

A heavy tank for an army is what a battleship is to a navy, its a tool with a very specific mission, it can do some things well, it is not good at other things, and its not designed to win the war, or to dominate anything.
Your words not mine which I have put in bold, looks a lot like dominating the battlefield to me.

Last edited by aghart; March 9th, 2018 at 10:10 AM.
aghart is online now  
Old March 9th, 2018, 10:20 AM   #593
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Poole. UK
Posts: 238

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
The Firefly was a natural progression-putting the largest possible AP weapon in a tank. It was not a specific anti-Tiger anti-Panther weapon. The Tiger was engaged in Tunisia and it was no more successful that the standard Pz IV. It made no impression as an Uber-tank. In Italy there is none of the hysteria that is churned out about Tigers in Normandy and there were more Tigers in Italy than there were in Normandy!
There was no inkling that post D-Day there would be a problem with the Panther. The Allies did not get one to test until an example from Kursk was sent to the UK and it arrived early 1944. The preliminary report on this single example was rushed out in May 1944. There was no advance warning about the Panther's armour and thus no rush to get the 17 pdr into a tank to counter it.
What is more a decision was made by both western Allies to stick with the 75mm in the M4 because it was the best HE thrower and that was considered far better for general tank actions than specialised hole-punchers.


By far the best Firefly reference is Mark Hayward's book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sherman-Fir.../dp/0953877728

The Firefly was not a natural progression, the natural progession was the next generation of tanks coming, which eventually resulted in the Comet tank entering service. The Sherman Firefly was a "stop gap" solution, hurriedly brought into service in time for Normandy. Brought into service with the one aim of being able to take out the Heavy German armour. Especially the over rated Tiger.
aghart is online now  
Old March 9th, 2018, 10:22 AM   #594
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,144

Quote:
Originally Posted by aghart View Post
Your words not mine which I have put in bold, looks a lot like dominating the battlefield to me.
If what I wrote looks like dominating the battlefield, you have low standards for the use of the word dominate. From Dominus, Latin for master or owner. To dominate means to be master of, owner of.

Was the Tiger master and owner of the battlefield? Not even close. Not only were there never enough of them to remotely master the battlefield, which encompassed thousands of miles of frontage, since weren't even 20 battalions of heavy tank battalions in the entire German arsenal, spread out over numerous fronts, throughout the entire war. And even when the Tiger battalions were present, did they master and own their specific portion of the battlefield? Not even close.
aggienation is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 11:08 AM   #595
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
If what I wrote looks like dominating the battlefield, you have low standards for the use of the word dominate. From Dominus, Latin for master or owner. To dominate means to be master of, owner of.

Was the Tiger master and owner of the battlefield? Not even close. Not only were there never ......
I'm sorry, but the ones who were there don't agree with you.
The Tiger was considered by allied soldiers to be "the boss"
Who to believe? You or them?
I have an opinion on this very point.

So another "inane" video, with "inane" testimonials from allied tankers and Germans.
Of course "inane" according to some
This video also talks about the hard fighting in Normandy.
In my opinion, it illustrates the difference between the prose that can be found on a history forum and the reality that the fighters lived in those days.

Last edited by phil1904; March 9th, 2018 at 11:15 AM.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 11:37 AM   #596
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 303

At 7:18 in the awful Hitler Channel video we have von Rosen 'boasting ' about some action where he says he simply shrugged off Sherman tanks hits on his turret.
In his case we can look at a specific example of him advancing to meet Allied Shermans and, when he recieved return fire, he retreated and ran to the rear.


Operation Goodwood July 18 1944.


Combat History Of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 ISBN 092199155X 2000.


Lt von Rosen ordered a change of positions forward in order to get a better field of fire. Rounding a small patch of woods, the company moved toward the southwest toward Cagny for a while, so as to then turn to the west toward Le Prieure. During that movement two sharp detonations came, one right after the other, and Feldwebel Schonrock’s tank immediately caught fire, penetrated by a round from the front. The same happened to Feldwebel Muller’s tank We rescued the wounded and brought them to the forward aid station at Maneville. Unteroffizier Matthes died there as a result of his severe burns. Shortly thereafter, at the battalion command post, Tiger 300 took a hit on the gun mantlet — probably a ricochet— that had no penetrating power. By order of Lt von Rosen, the 3/ 503 pulled back about 200 meters and took up a new position there. It was not possible to determine where the rounds had come from.


In a 1979 interview at Staff College Camberley von Rosen told Ian Daglish

"I broke off the move as I could not pinpoint the source of the fire and did not want to suffer any further losses"

Operation Goodwood. Ian Daglish. Pen and Sword 2004. page 140

Von Rosen never gave up looking for excuses to explain away his retreat and in 1966 (22 years after the incident in 1944) he decided that he was hit in error by a German 88 Flak Unit.
Yes that must be it, he retreated because his own side fired at him!
mkenny is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 11:55 AM   #597
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,144

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
I'm sorry, but the ones who were there don't agree with you.
The Tiger was considered by allied soldiers to be "the boss"
Who to believe? You or them?
I have an opinion on this very point.

So another "inane" video, with "inane" testimonials from allied tankers and Germans.
Of course "inane" according to some
This video also talks about the hard fighting in Normandy.
In my opinion, it illustrates the difference between the prose that can be found on a history forum and the reality that the fighters lived in those days.
You're going to wear out the effectiveness of your rolling eyes smilies if you're not careful.

'Considered by allied soldiers to be "the boss"' (which is not a term they would have used, so why put it in quotes?). Which allied soldiers? The very very limited number who actually encountered a Tiger in Normandy? Because there were barely any of them in the fight?

Tell us more about how they dominated the battlefield in Normandy, how how the three heavy tank battalions of Tigers (both types ) dominated against all others even though by the end they lost all of their armor in the battle and subsequent German rout. How does one lose all tanks and dominate anything? Tell us that please. A cherry picked quote without context isn't necessary, just tell us in your words how three up-to-strength heavy panzer battalions can enter a battle and end it with no tanks and 1/4 of personnel, and call it dominating the enemy?
aggienation is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 12:07 PM   #598

Corvidius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Crows nest
Posts: 1,700

What von Rosen says is not seriously contradicted by the excerpt from the book. To say the hits were of no consequence is not really different to saying that it had no penetrating power. It's just semantics to make it seem he is being contradictory. As for "ran to the rear", well, moving position 200 meters back is not "running to the rear". It is standard practice in tanks to change position after firing or being fired upon, it is called "jockeying". 200 meters is nothing and most certainly not "the rear". Let me reiterate, if you take fire and cannot see where the fire is coming from, then you move to another position.
Corvidius is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 12:14 PM   #599
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

mKenny
It is not a "awful Hitler Channel" and this style effect has no interest, especially since the speakers are mostly British and absolutely no Nazis.
It is not to say that the Tigers tanks won the war, it is to say that they were feared because they were the most powerful tanks of the battlefield.

There are many more testimonies than the one you mention.

Quote:
mKenny....
Von Rosen never gave up looking for excuses to explain away his retreat and in 1966 (22 years after the incident in 1944) he decided that he was hit in error by a German 88 Flak Unit.
Yes that must be it, he retreated because his own side fired at him!
On this point you should be more modest.
You had already affirmed this in your post 418 with a small variation denying the existence of the presence of 88 guns.
In Article 449, I showed you were wrong.
Quote:
About your post418. I didn't quite understand a couple of little things.
Quote:
Quote:
mkenny.....
The claimed 88s are the ones that only 1 single man claims were there, the account of Hans von Luck.

There is not a single scrap of evidence or any supporting account that mentions these 88s. The sum total of all the evidence that there were any Flak 88s (note Flak and not Pak) is the account of one single man, That is it. Nothing else.
phil1904
I don't understand what you mean.
The French sources clearly mention this and it's a source of the commune of Cagny.
I think they know their own history. Don't you?
Cagny en 1944 - Calvados - Bataille de Normandie
Translated by me:
Quote:
"On 6 June 1944, the commune of Cagny in Calvados was occupied by elements belonging to the second battalion of Panzergrenadier-Regiment 125 (21. Panzer-Division) commanded by Hauptmann Kuron. These units are reinforced by 88 mm cannon batteries of the Luftwaffen-Artillerie-Regiment 16 belonging to the 16. Feld-Division, the guns of the Panzerjäger-Abteilung 1039 and the Panzerjäger Abteilung 1053. These elements are placed under the responsibility of Major von Luck who commands the Panzergrenadier-Regiment 125: it is the Kampfgruppe (inter-armed battle group) von Luck.

On 18 July, the Allies launched Operation Goodwood to capture Caen: the offensive began with a massive bombardment that destroyed the vast majority of German positions. The municipality of Cagny is located in the area coded "M" by the Allied aviation industry. The air attack, one of the most important fighting in Western Europe, destroyed many German positions and deeply disrupted the line of defence: 650 tons of bombs were dropped on Sector "M". Only a few isolated units manage to avoid damage. Major von Luck, who returned from Paris after being hospitalized there for three days, attended the air raid and immediately sought to take stock of the elements that were still in a combat state. He was surprised to discover that a battery of four 88 mm anti-aircraft guns, an 88 mm Pak 43 anti-tank gun and a Panther tank had not been hit. He prepares them immediately for battle."
Quote:
Quote:
mKenny
In reality von Rosen led his Tigers forward and was struck by return fire. These losses so rattled him that he simply turned around and retreated.
Maybe, but the truth is, you're just speculating.
Again I don't understand. Sources mention these fratricidal shots.


Quote:
"At approximately 10:15, the 2nd Battalion Irish Guards of the Guards Armoured Division, is 2,000 metres from Cagny when four of its Sherman tanks are destroyed by 88 mm guns. The whole regiment is fixed until 4 p. m., then he receives the order to bypass the village by overflowing largely towards Emiéville but he also records direct blows by the 88 mm guns.............................................. .................................................. ..................... The engagement of the Luftwaffe artillerymen, little trained in the identification of terrestrial targets, is most certainly at the origin of fratricidal fire on two tanks Tiger Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503.

On the evening of 18 July, the 29th Armoured Brigade lost 126 tanks. On the night of 18-19 July, the British revised their targets downwards and set limited targets. The 2nd Battalion Irish Guards managed to capture Cagny during the day and the Germans reorganized themselves along a line linking Frénouville to Emiéville."
Here is another source in English that tells us about the group Von Rosen.
4 tanks against a battalion......
Emiéville en 1944 - Calvados - Bataille de Normandie
You see, I mail sources
A big diference between both of us.

You say a lot of things but you never or almost never provide a source.
Of course, I don't consider the two pictures of books that you have already posted and which, in your opinion, confirms what you say as a source confirming what you say.
No one can verify it because you don't quote from either book.

Apart from that you once quoted a book with its page and I think you also provided a readable source.
Only that during the thread. It's nothing compared to everything you've written.

Last edited by phil1904; March 9th, 2018 at 12:28 PM.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 12:24 PM   #600
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,698
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
aggienation
You're going to wear out the effectiveness of your rolling eyes smilies if you're not careful...


Quote:
aggienation
Tell us more about how they dominated the battlefield in Normandy...
All the testimonies I've already posted in multiple videos in this thread, say it much better than I would ever do.
Processes to call them "inane videos" are useless.
They are absolutely not "inane", they are testimonies.

Don't forget what I said to you about the difference between the prose on a history forum and the reality of combatants living on a battlefield at that time.
phil1904 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.