Tanks with most influence in the war...

The ONLY version that says Wittmann was hit outside the town is Taylor's. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to confirm this 'leap of faith' and it is because Taylor tries to fit the known photos to Dyas's version of meeting Wittmann head-on that he has to put Wittmann outside the town. Discard the Dyas version and everything else fits. There is plainly one 2nd kp. Tiger knocked out in the Rue Pasteur just where Wittmann said he was hit. The Dyas account is the problem and either he or Wittmann must were wrong. The only logical conclusion is that Dyas jumbled up the sequence of events. There was no 'fixed' system of crewing and the ranking officer could take any Tiger he wanted from a junior.
Finaly the evidence points towards Wittmann using number 212 at Villers.

 

Wittman never gives his position of where he was knocked out. He merely states that he was hit 'in the town on his way out'. His Tiger was supposedly hit in the sprocket(?) wheel by a 6pdr and disabled. The Tiger said to be Wittmann shows no damage to wheels or tracks. There is a 6pdr facing down the road and a report from Wittmans first Tiger which broke down from engine trouble that they saw two disabled Tigers at the road junction on the edge of the town. It is possible that one of these was Wittmanns.

I dont believe any of the accounts and merely look at all the accounts to see which is most likely. If you wish I will post up Wittmanns report and that of the other members of LAH 2nd Company from Patrick Agte's book 'Micheal Wittmann and the Tiger Commander of LAH'. This book disagrees with both the account of the action in an autobiography of Wittmann and to some extent with Taylors.

I dont totally agree with Taylors account but feel that an open mind should be kept on the issue. You dont think that one tiger is capable of taking on ten or twenty other tanks, that is your opinion, but then why did the Allies expect to lose seven Shermans or T-34's for one Tiger? There are also several other accounts on the Eastern front of Tigers taking on multiple enemy tanks.

Anyway let me know if you would like me to post these accounts, as I would be interested in your opinion.

RED

 

Wittmann's citation: 'His tank was hit and immobilized by a heavy enemy anti-tank gun (Firefly in reality) in the CENTRE of the town'.
Hit in the sprocket by a 6 pdr? says who and where?
There is a photo of the 2nd kp. Tiger in Villers (page 398, Agte). Whilst it is true that in the top photo the sprocket teeth are missing in an earlier photo of the same vehicle it plainly is still fitted (Taylor page 67, bottom right) This is 212 from 2nd kp. and is Wittmann's Tiger.
I hope the autobiography of Wittmann you are using is not Gary L Simpson's 'Tiger ace'. It is fiction.
There are two accounts of 'knocked out Tigers'. The first (Leo Enderle, page 321 Agte)is a Lehr Pz IV crewman and he is clearly talking about the Tigers hit INSIDE Villers.
The next version (Hans Burkhardt,Agte page 321/323)also a Lehr crewman, describes 2 Tigers OUTSIDE Villers 'at the edge of a forest'
There is no evidence of any use of the 6 pdr. gun mentioned by Taylor and indeed he himself has no evidence and says it is what he THINKS might have happened.
Whilst I have heard the 'lose 7/8/9/10 Shermans for one Tiger' tale many times I have never seen any documentation of it from 1944/45.

 

That is not what wittman says in his after action report.

 

Dont remember him stating it was a heavy anti-tank gun. Anyway I dont have the books with me.

Btw I had gathered Simpson work is incorrect as I previously stated.

Anyway I shall leave this thread to its original theme.

 

It's a pity I missed this thread! All your posts are very interesting actually!

I agree with Crazy's mention that the technologycal influence is also very important. Then the T-34, Panther and Tiger were very influential in that way! And of course, let's not forget about the Mark III. Dr Porsche's suspension used in this tank influentiated a lot of designs later! Look at the M-1 Abrahams nowadays, its suspension is based on those of the Mark III.

And I also agree that the most important psychological influence was the Tigers', both versions. But let's remember the T-34 too. Specially in 1941-1942 when the Germans had nothing to deal with it...

 

I would say T-34, but it can also be argued that the Panzer III was because without the help the Panzer III in Germany's initial advances, the T-34 might not have been needed.

 

The T-34 won the Eastern Front, that was it. Now, the Sherman was the mainstay of the Commonwealth, the main battle tank of the Pacific War, rearmed the French, was one of the spearheads of Bagration and beyond on the Eastern Front. While derided for its odd shape and some of its qualities, it was everywhere and anywhere the Axis was being fought and continued to soldier on right up to today as a battle tank (the Chileans are using ex-Israeli M52 Super Shermans as their MBT).
That's a record unmatched by any other WW 2 tank.

Now in terms of design, the Pz III is probably the most influential. Torsion bar suspension with medium sized road wheels. A five man crew layout with a very efficent turret design. For its time an excellent dual purpose armament with lots of machineguns to help. The T34 adds to this rear sprocket drive and sloped armor. But, the Pz III really remains the archetype of modern tanks.

 

Do you mean to say the T-34 development was a consequence of the PzIII onset in the East (visible from June '41 onwards)?

 

JagdTiger, so if the PzKpfw III was not used in Russia, the T34 would not have been produced?

From what I know, the T34 was already in production by the time the Germans invaded.
Though I could be wrong, as I have been many times...

 

No, I'm saying that the T 34 added a bit to the design and development of the modern MBT. But, the Pz III was there first. Certainly, the T34 added little to modern tank design in terms of suspension, tracks, crew layout, etc; just armor arrangement.

 

I know. Read my post again. With your speccies on this time

And yes, the T-34 track shoe design, with their long pitch and track transmission arrangement (teeth going inside sprocket) must have been quite a clunky ride.