Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Jagdtigers in combat?

Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by Ceraphix, Mar 23, 2008.

  1. FramerT

    FramerT Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    36
    That's funny. A StuG could only fire forward but I don't remember them being ran circles about by 'any other' tank.
     
  2. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    424
    Well think about it. 72 tons. Fixed gun. Not very manuverable is it :)? The Sherman, T-34 and other tanks are smaller and faster. Certainly in combat with the Soviets the Jagdtiger would be overwhelmed.
     
  3. Mibo

    Mibo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    13
    A StuG is a bit more agile then a 72ton jagdtiger. :D

    The "hunting Tiger" does look cool though, i just wonder why not build the turret (that doesnt rotate) the same way as in the jagdpanther so that the front is completely sloped, providing better protection. :confused:

    Maybe the positioning of the original turret is the reason?
     
  4. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    757
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The reason the Jadgtiger wasn't built the way a Jadgpanther was has to do with weight distribution. If the design was the same as the Jadgpanther then there would have been roughly an extra 25 tons of weight centered well forward on the vehicle making it very nose heavy.
    The worst thing in the design is the transmission and how it is to be removed for repair. In a Jadgtiger you have to remove the roof of the fighting compartment, then remove the gun, then remove the roof of the driver's compartment, then remove the seats and part of the controls there. At that point you can pull the transmission out through the driver's compartment roof hole.
    On a Tiger tank the turret could be rotated to avoid having to disassemble the gun and roof portion of the operation. This wasn't possible on a Jadgtiger. To make things worse, the transmission on a Jadgtiger was identical to that of the Tiger II. Its design was for a vehicle weighing nearly 10 tons less than the tank it was now on. Compounding this, it got used alot more in operations as the driver had to turn the vehicle to align the gun on targets.
    Good engineering and design are critically important in military vehicle design. An unreliable vehicle is just junk waiting to be captured.
     
  5. Ironcross

    Ironcross Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    24
    Why did they even put this poorly engineered vehicle into production?
     
  6. Joe

    Joe Ace

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,948
    Likes Received:
    124
    Another nail in coffin for the "Panzers R Better" argument there TA!
     
  7. FramerT

    FramerT Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    36

    I can't really answer that. Even if it were reliable, it was too little, too late in the war to help.
     
  8. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    He'd probably either shoot us with his revolvers, or beat us with his riding crop. :D
     
  9. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    Well I get ur guys' points and all, but I saw a few in a US newsreel footage from Paris in 1944, so I assumed there might be a few in ETO after D-Day.

    But yeah, its suicide either way.
     
  10. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    424
    Im not sure what you saw was a M3.The M3 was replaced by the M4 as soon as these were available, and none were used in the European theatre after May 1943. Certainly not as a MBT :). Maybe it was a M31 Tank Recovery Vehicle .

    "When it was eventually replaced by the M4 Sherman it went on to serve in Burma and the Pacific theatres, but a few were modified to carry search lights and became known as Canal Defence Light (CDL) Tanks in the European theatre of action. These had the turret replaced by spotlight. Some used to illuminate night crossings of Rhine and Elbe in 1945 and some of this variant were sent to Far East but never used."
     
  11. acker

    acker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    15
    After reading Another River, Another Town, a couple interesting things came up.

    -Allied Shermans could and did use HE shells to destroy the drive sprockets of fixed-gun TDs, which rendered the TDs in question harmless. They also could "circle-strafe" fixed-gun TDs at close quarters.

    -HE shells were used against Panthers and Tigers to damage the turret and/or key components.

    -Firing from a moving tank was hard, even in a Sherman. Firing from a moving fixed-gun TD was even harder.

    The author was the gunner of a 76mm Sherman and a Super Pershing. His information about tank-to-tank combat should be reliable. So, Stugs and other fixed-gun tanks definitely had a disadvantage when on the offensive, or in mobile combat.
     
  12. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    757
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The trick that always impressed me was Sherman crews using WP (white phosphorous) rounds on heavier German tanks as a first choice. These would first, blind the target upon impact by releasing a cloud of smoke. Second, the smoke was extremely acrid and usually got sucked into the ventilation system of the target tank choking the crew and temporarily rendering them unable to respond. This gave the Sherman crew a chance to either pump several more rounds into the target or, run before they got shot to pieces.
     
  13. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    The best AT weapon the Western Allies had was a B-25 Group over a marshalling yard. Battles are best won outside the battlefield so why bother with minor details such as gun penetration? Take the long view, think as a strategist, not a tactician.

    Such as the Russians later said their best AA weapon was a T-72 sitting in the middle of a USAFE runway :D (honest!)

    As for tanks running circles round others, there is in Battlefield.ru (right now it seems to be down) a report on a single T-34/85 smashing three (3) Kingtigers in a very lively battle, with the T-34 using its mobility against the KTs. Next time I come back to this thread I'll try again to find it.
     
  14. Ironcross

    Ironcross Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    24

    NO WAY. I don't believe you.
     
  15. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    "O ye of little faith" !! Calling Za Rodinu a liar :lol:

    Gds. Lt. Oskin, Hero of the SU, Lenin O.
    [​IMG]

    Read The Russian Battlefield - The Royal Opponent for more.


    WW2 Tanks

    WW2 Tank Aces

    (believe it or not, googling for Lt. Oskin has already brought up this very thread, so WW2F is already a reference :) )

    And...
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Ironcross

    Ironcross Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    24
    But Manstein said the Germans were superior to the Russians in every way but their number. Are you calling Von Manstein a liar?
     
  17. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    In a word: yes.

    Read his memoirs ("Lost Battles") with a critical eye. Manstein's attitude was "Like I told Hitler", but he always entered the Führer's Conferences full of his own ideas, and came out with Adolf's ideas in his head. Guderian was much more honest as a memoirist.

    This is the Tao of the Truth: Do not believe in everything you read in the internet, read books.

    v.M. had a very big axe to grind, I expect you not to believe propaganda at face value, or else I prefer to believe you were being sarcastic.
     
  18. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    424
     
  19. Ironcross

    Ironcross Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    24
    Yes, i was.
    I guess i am just too pro German to bring myself to accept the fact that the Russians won.....
    Germany needed more land..... WHY COULDN'T RUSSIA JUST GIVE SOME LAND TO GERMANY? All the sufferings of the German people, the casualties, all have been in vain.
    sorry
     
  20. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    Question:

    Is there any way that an infantryman with normal combat equipment could break open the hatch of a tank (like a Jagdtiger) that was lokced and throw grendes in the hatch? I remember seeing that from Saving Private Ryan and I found it highly doubtful that the German tank crew3 would simply leave thier hatch unlocked moving down an empty street with tall buldings on the sides (great opportunity for Grenades, snipers, and Molotov cocktails, as you saw in the film).
     

Share This Page