Tiger

Point well made. Anti tank guns are effective when hidden but offer no protection when being fired upon. I'm surprised the talk got this far. The idea of more anti tank guns and no Tigers is a non starter in my view.

 

I believe, that Tigers is a sense was one of the best tanks of the war. But however, heavy tanks do not do the job in late war. As shown on the Western Front, the Germans produced approxmately 20, 000 tanks while the Americans can produce a staggering 85,000 tanks. Now, Hitler believed that super weapons could change the tide of the war... but as history told us that it could not be done.

The Tigers were good, but it doesn't mean that they are going to win the war for Germany. Sometimes, quantitiy could overwhelm quality.

 

Superior weapons can win a war, but too many fronts can lose it.

 

Imagine if 10,000 Tigers were produced instead of just 1,850!! If 1,850 Tigers could account for 10,000 Allied and Soviet tanks then 10,000 Tigers could have accounted for 100,000 going by the same ratio.

What about if they managed to produce 20,000 Tigers (still a fraction of the T34s and Shermans built)!!??There's no way we would have gotten anywhere near to the German border.

 

Tigers are very effective but in WWII they cannot be mass produced.

Hitler was a dummas. To say the least about him.

 

Just more Tigers can't stop the entire tide of the war. It's about how you use them, when and where and against who. For example, a few Tigers in the ruins of Stalingrad or Kharkov would have been just as vulnerable as the PanzerIIIs they actually had. No good there. And if these monsters are organized in their heavy armour brigades like they were, but then in the thousands, they'd still have to be efficiently deployed, and you wouldn't do that too quickly if you faced but light enemy armour.

In short the Tiger would have made stuff easier for the Germans if they came in numbers, but it wouldn probably not have saved them in all situations, and therefore wuldn't have saved them at all.

Remember the fuel needed for those tanks - it wasn't there. Remember the aircraft fire they'd draw - air cover wasn't there. Remember the troops needed to man and maintain the complicated machines - they weren't there...

 

Was it Stalin who said,"Quantity has a quality all its' own"?

 

Quote:

"If 1,850 Tigers could account for 10,000 Allied and Soviet tanks then 10,000 Tigers could have accounted for 100,000 going by the same ratio"

The 10,000 kills are based on Schneider who in turn uses raw crew claims. In Russia it was practise to simply half these claims when compiling tables. The 10:1 is almost certainly a myth.

Schneider also makes it seem most Tigers were not combat losses. Again highly suspect.
Around Rauray in the last week of June 1944 2 Tigers were captured intact when the crews ran off and abandonned them. It thus could be claimed they were not combat kills!

 

Scheider seems to be right about most things. :lol:

 

What have you got that contradicts this? Just your 'opinion'.

 

Again, what do you base this on. Most Tiger losses were NOT through combat. What sources do you have which contradict this? Schneider gives dates, units and locations for almost all Tiger losses. They actually tally up nicely with other sources on Tigers such as individual unit histories which have nothing to do with Schneider. I have cross referenced a lot and it tallys very well.

Let's see what you actually have. Give us more details and references for your views please. No point in saying such and such is not true if you have nothing to back it up.

Schneider's works are the most detailed accounts of Tigers in combat (on the whole and covering each unit) ever researched. Nothing else comes even remotely close. Other authors go into more detail regarding individual units. Together we have a clear picture of the Tigers in combat. Perhaps you know more? I would assume so seeing as you have these doubts.

 

does not matter how many tigers were or could be produced it was mainly allied air power that destroyed tigers, more tigers produced would have been more targets for the allied and russian airforces to shoot at!

it was air power that won the war not numbers of tanks produced.

 

Very few Tigers were actually destroyed by allied air power. Certainly not a geat percentage. Even in Normandy losses through air power were not much. Check out my thread on Tigers in Normandy. I give dates and the reason for combat loss.

 

Quote:

"Schneider gives dates, units and locations for almost all Tiger losses. They actually tally up nicely with other sources on Tigers such as individual unit histories which have nothing to do with Schneider. I have cross referenced a lot and it tallys very well"

Well you have the cart before the horse. Schneider agrees with these histories because he uses them to get his numbers.

For example the SS 101 entry in TICII is based entirely on Agte's book on Wittmann. All the errors in Agte are repeated by Shneider. The Villers Bocage entry as well is a complete lift from Daniel Taylor's book on Villers, mistakes and all.

Most Tigers not combat kills? Well I think a Tiger knocked out and recovered, taken back for repair then abandonned because it cant be repaired (for whatever reason) IS a combat kill.

Rather than tell me I must prove the 10:1 ratio give me examples where it was routine. Are you saying the 126 Tiger 1's in Normandy bagged 1260 Allied tanks?

Over reliance on a single source can be dangerous.

 

There are many sources I got the info from. Are you also saying that the work of Lochman/von Rosen/Rubbel is also false?

Normandy is not the major Tiger theatre of WW2 so get away from that idea. I only posted that thread about Normandy because somebody asked. In my personal opinion the western front was of little overal importance in the history of Tiger tanks. If you read some other threads you will see that I pointed out that Italian Tigers for example had a much lower kill ratio. This seems to be because Italy was not great Tiger country and tank v tank engagements with Tigers were not as prolific as other theatres. However as with elsewhere even in Italy most Tiger losses were also self sabotage. Some Tigers were blown up just because they ran out of fuel.

The high kill ratio the Tigers had was averaged out particularly due to the good tank country on the eastern front and the fact that throughout 1943 and a lot of 1944 the Tiger I was highly superior to any Soviet tank until the IS-2 came into service. This was a good year and a half of constant armoured engagements. The T34/76 was the tank most often on the receiving end of the Tiger's 88 during this period. It's not surprising the Tiger racked up enormous scores. There wasn't much the T34 could do against the Tiger in good tank country and much of Russia and the Ukraine was good tank country as was eastern Poland and Romania/Hungary etc. Once the King Tiger entered the phray and Tiger Is became fewer and fewer the King Tiger then had this superiority.

In short, no not every Tiger tank or unit had a ten to one kill ratio. Some theatres of operation were less than ten to one (like Italy and Normandy) while some were higher than ten to one.

Individual high scoring gunners and commanders like Witmann, Carius, Egge, Knispel etc etc further brought the average up.

 

edit

 

Im surprised people cant figure that out themselves.

When someone says 10:1 kill ratio then for some unknown reason people automaticly start to think that every single TigerI knocked out 10 tanks before being knocked out itself. :roll:

All the best, KBO

 

Exactly KBO. Nowhere have I ever said that each and every Tiger managed to knock out ten enemy tanks. There were Tigers that knocked out NO enemy tanks. However a great many Tiger crews racked up very big and even enormous scores (this wasn't rare in the least) and this brought up the average. Most Tiger action in WW2 was on the eastern front. Talk of Normandy blah blah blah is overblown and not indicative of where this tank played it's greatest role.

Too many people are preoccupied with the western front and place too much importance on it.

 

Quote:

" Some theatres of operation were less than ten to one (like Italy and Normandy) while some were higher than ten to one."

And this could have nothing to do with the fact we have Allied records from The West that simply show this '10:1 ratio was not the norm?


Quote:

" Are you also saying that the work of Lochman/von Rosen/Rubbel is also false? "

Never said any such thing so don't even try to discredit me that way.
nor did I say Schneider was 'false'.
What I say is all RAW CLAIMS are wrong-everybody overclaimed.
In Russia, standard practice was to half the crew claims when collating loss claims.
Now you tell me which of these references you use say 'Heinz knocked out 6 enemy tanks today so using the overclaim rule we award him 3"
You simply have no idea how these claims are made up do you?
It amazes me when we read of these high kills but no one seems to check even if Allied losses were that big.
On the Russian front there were not enough tanks made by the Soviets to allow for these ratios and at the end of the war the Russians still had 25000 tanks left.

I will try very hard to remember:


"When someone says 10:1 kill ratio then for some unknown reason people automaticly start to think that every single TigerI knocked out 10 tanks before being knocked out itself. "

I am such a fool!

 

Ohhhhhh do I detect yet another one who can't accept the fact that much German armour was superior? I'm beginning to think so. It amazes me, it really does. I wish people would put aside their national prejudices and just accept what is an established fact. Geez, I'm English and my relatives served in WW2 but I have no trouble whatsoever in accepting some truths.

It's clear that you should probably study the geography of Europe and the vital factor this plays in the role of tank v tank warfare, particularly when superior tanks are engaging inferior ones (as in Tiger I v T34/76). Italy and Normandy are a world away from the terrain and geography of Southern Russia, Ukraine etc etc. Enemy air power is also a vital factor.

You have to read more clearly also. Where do I claim a ten to one kill ratio was the 'norm'?

Even if you dispute the circa ten to one kill ratio you have to admit that Tiger tanks took an exceedingly heavy toll of enemy armour. Many times more than vice versa. Even if we half it to bring it down to five to one just for your sake that is still a very big difference. :lol: