Tigers - were they worth it?

This is true. I believe I saw it in von Mellenthin's "Panzer Battles" but there was a tactic called der Glock(sp?) and it involved panzers in the shape of a bell with the Hvy tanks (Tigers) at the front, Med (MkIVs) on the flanks and light tanks and personnel carriers in the middle right behind the tigers. Thought was that the Tigers would punch a whole with the med tanks protecting the flanks and the light tanks and personnel carriers would speed through the hole and cause havoc behind the lines. At least this was the plan but they forgot how slow the Tigers were.

 

PzJgr is right - an offensive role was envisioned for the Tiger but, as so often happened, by the time it appeared on the battlefield circumstances had largely changed.

 

As it so happens with hindsight, we can see the how the latest weapons in the German arsenal were better suited for mobile defense. Imagine Tigers and even Ferdinands picking off Russian armour from afar and move back to stay out of range of the Soviet Guns. Even more so against Shermans. No need to close support weapons for the Ferdinands if all they did was pick off tanks and move back when needed.

But seems like the Germans came up with the tactics and forced the weapons into their roles even when it was obvious that they were not meeting expections, the Ferdinands for example. No machineguns.............geeez.

 

But even the Tigers began to appear absolete compared to the IS series.

 

IMO. The Tiger was more trouble than it was worth. It could'nt stay up with the lighter panzers on road trips. They had to scout ahead for bridges that could hold their weight.
Why not the PZ IV and/or StuGs with the good guns? Germany still has the 88 flak guns
for stand off fire power.

 

Something close and dear to my heart. STUGS!!!! But don't have the range as an 88'. Now, a Jagdpanther would do nicely but then again you have the taller shilohette. Did the Soviet IS tanks have the same problem with bridges as the Tigers?

 

Tiger I weighted 57 tons

IS-2 weighted 46 tons

T-34 less then 28 tons

 

well you could always look at the bios of the Sturgeschütze Abt./Batteries for more info. there 7.5cm was able to take out any Soviet armor their success's point this out, cheaper to build and were actually forming the two companies in many of the Panzer - Heer and W-SS Regiments in later 44-45

 

How extensive were the Tigers mechanical problems? Were they not solved by the time of Kursk for the most part?

Movement over long distances was a challenge for it and the fact that it was all but impossible to use normal bridges in Russia made it even harder to move around on short notice in an offensive operation. That is why I think it was not a good offensive weapon in comparison to say the T-34/85 whos gun was almost as powerful as the tiggers. The Panther was a much better choice for offence.

 

The mechanical troubles were never quite satisfactorily resolved really, the Engine remained fragile and somewhat underpowered and the running gear overstretched. The main problem was essentially that it was at the extreme end of what was possible in terms of vehicle weight and (German) technology never quite caught up with that weight, where it did it brought along much over-complexity.
There's a fascinating contemporary after action report called "who killed Mr Tiger" from the British in Italy & of c. a dozen dead tigers almost all were disabled by mechanical failure.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

The Tiger has one advantage the 88mm gun. The heavy frontal armour can be maneouvered around, and the tanks poor mobility and maintenance are serious setbacks. The Germans already had the powerful 88mm gun in use as an AT gun. So rather than wasting time and money (of witch the germans had little) on the design. Build AT guns for AT screens and then use cheaper, less maintenance demanding Mark IV tanks for the counter attack.

But then again a fuel crisis and a mauled Luftwaffe brings us back to the inevitable. Make peace you fool !!

 

The Russian Steppe is not exactly a mirror. It has folds, undulations, dips, recesses, slopes, etc. So the tactical horizon, that is the distance how far you can actually see up to the next visual obstacle, may be limited by any of the above, depending on location.

 

The Tiger maintenance crews were some un-sung heroes of WWII if you ask me. Having to use portable field gantrys to lift the turret off,just to do work on the transmission or drive train. Having to change the tracks from combat to transport every time Tigers needed to
be moved by rail.

 

But that is a good thing for the Defender. Plonk a Tiger behind a hill/in dip ect (exposing just the turret), when the T-34s come over the next hill, they explose themselves against the skyline, boom!

 

However, finding yourself on the Steppes, as a defender, when your intention was conquest, is a very bad thing indeed.
Tactical advantages can never overcome strategic catastrophe... which perhaps is the essential essence of the Tiger story.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Ah yes-never thought of that. I'm more of a tactician than a strategist.
Well, I suppose you could plonk an IS-2 or whatever behind a hill and fire at the Tigers!

And if where arguing about the Russian Steppe having long sight distances/low sight distances, i might add that the Arid Desert of north Africa being perfect Tiger country. If there where a few more of them, that is.

 

But then your tactical horizon will be much shorter and for that a decent AT gun (PaK40) will do, therefore a waste of a Tiger.

Preferably a gun on tracks, such as a Marder or similar to get out of there pronto when Ivan brings in the mortars.

 

The arid desert of africa is arid desert in some places only. Look at actual photos and tell me about the wadis, the tells, the ridges... Why was Halfaya Pass called Hellfire pass etc.

Do you guys by any chance belong to the Flat Earth society?

 

Alright Mr. Perfection.
In SOME places of the Arid North African Desert, it was perfect Tiger country, If there where more of them.
Regarding the Wadis, they weren't just bad Tiger county, the where bad everything county! Even a camel would sink...
Oh yes, I have seen the North African Desert, and in some places, there is not even a rock for miles around

I think it's time for me to leave this thread now, It's becoming a loosing battle.

PS. The earth is not round, It is really flat! I've been to the edge and seen it. Quite precarious if you ask me!

 

Interesting thing about the Western desert fighting though. It was very much a testing ground for the wartime generation of armour, as it proved near impossible to surprise anyone in the wide open spaces where much of the fighting took place, (wadis or whatever, it seems it was still most often possible to see a daytime attack coming long before it was in range, and thus turn to face it) therefore 'first clash' was most often head on & it had an effect on armour design for the rest of the war. The Desert focus on frontal armour led to a fixation by Axis and to a lesser extent Allied designers that this was always the crucial area so side and rear could be compromised rather heavily whenever weight was an issue.
This skewed desert lesson seems to have continued to dominate with designers failing to accept that in most other theatres the first contact could and did come from any direction.

...
but that has comparatively little to do with Tigers, so I'll get my coat.

Cheers,
Adam.