PzJr :

No doubt though the Sturmgeschutz was an excellent weapon also. Lying in ambush they scored quite heavily from 43 through the end of the war. Wonderful low profile and agile. Sure having a turret would have helped, but oh was it a good defensive gun.
Yes, the Tigers were definately needed. I think of the 503 SS schwereabteilung in the Ost front in 1945 finishing up in Berlin, and with so few numbers being able to take on the Soviets best in the Stalin tank, time and time again.

Erich B.

Hi, Evans
I agree the king tiger also is my favourite tank. And it is difficult to say wether or not to make panthers instead of this killermachine. Because this vehicle (not the tiger 1) outclassed the panther almost copletely. So it think the germans should have switched to de panther as soon as possible (as their main battle tank) and should have built a large number of tiger II tanks when the became available. Although the tiger one was an excelent vehicle I think it should only have been built as long there were no other options

Welcome aboard Wittmann!

I think that if you analyse the whole german AFV program as it was, no one tank was worth it. This is because they simply had way too many different designs. If the germans had focused on say, three or four basic designs, with the Tiger models at the top end of that line, they could have produced almost double the vehicles due to streamlining of the production process.

As well, repair and maintenance would have been easier, because of the greater number of spares available. This would have been especially important on the battlefield!

However, as a basic design, we all know, (as did allied tank crews), that Tiger was deadly. There was no tank even close to it's capabilities for over two years!! To create such a distinct and lengthy tactical advantage at a time when technology was advancing no quickly was incredible, but it was also necessary for the survival of the german forces. Germany could not outproduce her enemies, she would have to go to war with a qualitative advantage over the Allies' quantitative edge. The Tiger tank was a huge part of that qualitative edge Germany would need to be succesful.

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Dear PzJge: O.U.C.H!!!-not me. I want to someday sire 1-2 rugrats of my own so I can have someone to pass my militaria down to.

Did I ever mention that I have a nice photo of a squad of German soldiers climbing onto a Stug III? I don't remember if I had ever sent a copy or scan of it to Otto or not?

Hello Wittmann and thanks. We do know a good tank when we see one, don't we?

Very well said Otto and I agree. The Germans had so many tank designs but it was based on the situations they encountered. I don't think they could afford to quit producing certain models of tanks because they had many different roles.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Yes, they had different designs probably because of cost and implemented strategies accordingly. I forget the name of it but it was something 'glock'. A bell shape formation with Tigers in front to punch through, MKIVs at the sides and MKIIIs in the center behind the Tigers for speed once the hole was created. No such thing as an all purpose tank.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Dear PzJgr: Another name for that formation for the "head" was Panzerschwehrpunkt ~OR~ Armored spearpoint. ~~OR~~ something similar to that. I have a book (In storage) ((Of course)) that mentions a name of something like that and it was an unfamiliar name for me.

[img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I am familiar with the schwerplunkt. It was invented by Guderian was it not? I thought this was the name of the strategy where you focus the attack at one point and once breaking through, the mobile truppen flow through the hole. Perhaps I am confusing the two but there was another that made use of the different types of Pzkw.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

OK I'm going to clear a few things up here, I hope I don't come off as a presumptuous prick!

Schwerpunkt is a term first used by the German military theorist Von Clausewitz, in his book On War. The closest english meaning for the term is "center of gravity". It is the idea of focusing one's military efforts against the enemy's "center of gravity" to decisively defeat your enemy. The closest essense of the word I can think of is: "a strike to the solar plexus". At any rate, the concept of Blitzkrieg warfare draws heavily on von Clausewitz's "schwerpunkt", but the two are not related in any other manner than this.

The armored wedge formations you were reffering to:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzJgr:
Yes, they had different designs probably because of cost and implemented strategies accordingly. I forget the name of it but it was something 'glock'. A bell shape formation with Tigers in front to punch through, MKIVs at the sides and MKIIIs in the center behind the Tigers for speed once the hole was created. No such thing as an all purpose tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

were standard paractice for German Panzer division in an attack. However, their composition were of neccesity, not by design. Simply put, there was no German term for combining a wide array of different tanks in an attack. It was onl;y developed to maximise the tanks forces they did have. The Germans simply didn't have enough heavy tanks to outfit entire divisions, so the heavies went in front, and the lighter ones went on the flanks. It would be any Panzer commander's dream to have a whole divisionion of Tigers and Panthers only!

The satement about the universal tank. The sherman, essentially America's only tank, did great in it's roll beacause there were so damn many! But even the US needed a few different designs to pick up slack where the Shermans left off. But, If I had to choose between what the Germans had, (high variety and low numbers), and what the US had, (low variety and high numbers), I pick the US route every time.

Lastly, just to clear things up, I'll quote myself here:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Otto:
If the germans had focused on say, three or four basic designs, with the Tiger models at the top end of that line, they could have produced almost double the vehicles due to streamlining of the production process.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I said that Tigers would have been the top of a few effective designs, not the only tank in the Army.

[ 30 May 2001: Message edited by: Otto ]

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Very well said, but the only thing I have ever heard of Schwehrpunkt meaning is: Spearpoint. Not disagreeing with you or saying you or PzJgr are wrong, in fact I probably am.

For PzJgr: you are correct, the Schwehrpunkt (spearpoint) in an attack is THE focal point for a breakthrough. A Schwehrpunkt is a wedgelike attack. Its also like a fist, to punch your was through and to let your forces pour through so they can reek havoc in the rear of the enemy forces.

Now as for my understanding for Schwehrpunkt, I first saw this word used by an auther about 20 years ago, and it was used in the context of what I mentioned up above.

I had never known who actually "coined" the term-or when and I do thank you for that also Otto.

I suppose though, that the auther I refer to could have been wrong in his interpretation of that meaning.

When I get all of my things from storage, I will see if I can find that book and will give you the title. If I remember correctly, I think the auther WAS mistaken in that I think he said something to the tune of Hitler either reinventing that term, or maybe he just liked to use it alot.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Carl, I am by no means an authority on von Clauswitz's scherpunkt concept, but I did study it at length in University. He used the term similar to describe what I refered to before, a key area of power. Military strategists after him have used the term to describe, very accurately, the goals and aims of a Blitzkrieg attack. Such an attack does in fact embody exactly what schwerpunkt means.

The fact is, that at the time when von Clausewitz developed his theories, tanks and aircraft had not been invented yet. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Ah haaaa, Well many thanks for this info on it, I will try to "wrinkle" it. This then proves that the author I am talking about did kinda mis-use the term. What he used it as was his "Armored Fist" the "main thrust" but his usage of the word was not fully described. I would like to know more about von Clausiwitz (spelling?) I do know one of his sayings though, and forgive me if its not complete but: He said: "War is a continuing means for peace, by other means" or something to that effect. I wonder if he is the European equivilent to the Chinese Sun Tsu?

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

The term I was referring to earlier is "panzerglocke". It was used by F.W.von Mellenthin in his book Panzer Battles.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Dear PzJgr; do me a favor and please explain that term as I have never heard of it before. What contexe was it used in? You definately have my curiosity piqued.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

The term was used to describe a certain tactic using the different types of pzkws. Heavy tanks in the lead, medium tanks on the sides and light tanks in the center right behind the heavy tanks. This formed a 'bell' which is why it was called the panzer glocke. The heavy tanks broke through the line, the medium tanks provide protection from infantry and antitank guns and the light tanks would fan out from behind the heavys and cause havoc to the enemy's communications behind the lines.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Dear PzJgr: Many thanks for such a quick answer. You know--that tactic makes alot of sence. I've seen wedge and box formations which had armor at a similar disposition.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

This would work since they were limited on hvy tanks and had more of the pzkw IVs. It should have worked.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Hi Evans, you were talking about the sherman's knickname ronson. I think you already now why the brittish called it that way. But there was a joke about the vehicle. Just like the slogan of the ronson in that time said: It lights the first time. (And so were the shermans).
I don't know what was first the joke or the name, do you?

Hello Wittmann, how's Bobby? --Sorry, I had to toss you that one today.

Unfortunately, too many Shermans bacems Ronsons and Zippos. I recently saw a good documentary on the Discovery Channel? which was about ww2 tanks in combat and they showed several Sherman Cigarrette lighters, and a few German tabks without turrets.

AH had WE had the Tigers........... The Germans would have never stood a chance....

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Were the Tigers worth it? Definately not!
The main battle tank of the Third Reich throughout the war was the Mark IV. Superior in design to either British and American designs, it could (just about) hold its own against the T34. Both the Mark V and Mark VI were introduced to battle the Russian tank. However, as America was to prove, concentrating on a tried and tested design and producing them in overwhelming numbers was the way to go. Both the Tiger and Panther were notoriously unreliable and difficult to manufacture. They diverted attention away from production of the Mark IV much to the detriment of the German war effort. They were also difficult to transport and handle in restricted battlefields because of their size and weight. No amount of aces like Whitman could make up for the loss in numbers of actual tanks that the German desperately needed. As with the Luftwaffe, quantity (Germany's only real hope) was sacrificed for quality.

I have to agree with you on the unreliability factors that Tiger tanks had, but had they only made use of one design of Tiger, such as the Jagdtiger, and mass produced those...well, it would make for more interesting history, to say the least.

Still, you do have to give credit to the Tiger tanks, they were THE most feard of all German tanks--heh heh, just ask any Tommy ot G.I. what they thought of them.

Then ask them their opinion of the German 88, and i imagine you will hear some VERY colorful replies.

One of my uncles who was with the 101st at Bastogne, was one who saw tigers in action and also endured bombardments from 88s. I asked him a few things years ago and do not recall much now. He admitted to being terrified of Tigers, as he was manning a fieldpiece, when it was knocked out of action by fire from a Tiger tank, and his crew was killed and he was wounded.

Well, he crawled and slithered accross the ice and snow, to where some of the backup units were. The German tank was being fired on by different caliber of US Artillery, and was being hit.

Well, the tank was driving in his direction, and he thought they were intentionally trying to crush him. It turned out that the tank had been penetrated by a roung from either a 105 mm Howitzer, or a roung fired from a 155 mm Longtom. The German tank crew were all very dead, and the dead drivers feet, was still able to keep enough pressure against the driving pedals thus keeping the tank ion motion.

Well, the tank stopped either because it hit a large pile of debris, or a shellhole, which caused enough jolting to knock the dear drivers feet from the pedals. My uncle told me that THAT, was his scariest moment.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

My father manned an anti-tank gun in the Western Desert in 1942 and was captured at Gazala. The tank he was up against was the MarkIV and, as he told me, at 50 yards the shells simply bounced off. He was eventually able to knock them out at 25 feet! He could clearly see the drivers eyes through driving slit. Admitedly he was using a two-pounder (which he described as a pea-shooter) but, even so, described the German tank as "bloody frightening". Fortunatley he never came up against a Tiger or Panther, but was able to inspect them in Germany after being released by the Americans. These he described as "even more bloody frightening".
I doubt is the Jagdpanther would have been a good idea to concentrate on. It was essentially an assault gun or tank destroyer and was produced only because it was easier to build than a turreted model. It could only be aimed by turning the hull and was, therefore, very vulnerable. If you ever go to the Imperial War Museum in London they have one there, complete with holes from anti-tank fire!

Chris Ray.