Kingtiger at the tank museum

[Quatermass]

The Royal Military college of Science at Shrivenham's Tiger II on show at the Tank Museums 'Tankfest' a couple of years back.

We all the know the details of the German Tiger B, but perhaps this would be a good place to debate the relative merits of German and Allied tanks and guns?

Quatermass

 

[Merlin]

Nice photos. It is interesting to compare the tiger 1 & 2 in the first photograph.

...debate the relative merits of German and Allied tanks and guns?

I don't think there's much debate; Taken individually the German tanks were better. It seems to be the only thing Historians can agree on. I've talked to veterans that said they wouldn't go up against a Tiger unless they had at least six Shermans (some said ten), and even then expected massive casualties. I am of the opinion that when it comes to armour, the Allies were just playing catch-up for the whole war.

 

[RichardB]

Hi Q, Merlin
I personally think it would be a welcome discussion, at least from my selfish point of view!...
...Of course, as you and I have already discussed (and agreed) the problem aways then becomes weeding accurate data from, inaccurate, from myth to propoganda. ....and then add in the theatre of operation from the open plains of Russia to the dense bocage of Normandy.....its always going to lead to fun disagreement.

As for the lovely Shrivenham Tiger II, I think I must have been stood next to you several times taking pictures that day, as I have all the same shots. ....here's a nice one of the three big cats next to each other...not a sight you see very often.

How about 5cm Kwk/Pak vs 6PDR OQF to kick things off.
Rich

 

[Quatermass]

Hi Merlin, thanks for the reply.

Let me play devils advocate, German heavy tanks were excellent in defence but poor in attack being heavy, fuel thirsty and suffering mechanical problems on long approach marches. Its difficult to imagine Tigers taking an effective part in the massive Blitzkrieg during operation Barbarossa in 1941 or that the pursuit of army group B in France could have been achieved if the Allies were equipped with Tigers rather than Shermans and Cromwells.
Its all a matter of the right vehicle for the right job, defensively they excelled, and from 1943 thats what Germany was doing, but does that make them better than T-34s or Shermans?

I dont know but Id be interested in what others think.

Richard, I had you in mind when I started the thread, I love a bit of a healthy debate!
Perhaps we need a separate discussion/debate section?
Not only can members chew the fat on various subjects, each can be illustrated with pictures.

I think this could be a interesting addition to the forum, any other views?

Quatermass

 

[Merlin]

It is nice to get other takes on the matter. My opinions are skewed to reflect ETO information, as that is what I am most familiar with.

When the "Lightning War" was underway, the Germans had armoured cars and lighter tanks to speed through Europe. When it switched to a defensive war they had the Tigers to stand fast. They had all the right tools for the job while the Allies had a headache. With the exception of a mechanic, I've never spoken with an Allied veteran that was happy with his Sherman. The few German veterans I have interviewed seemed to like the Allied tanks quite a bit; They were easy prey.

The reliability issue is a good point. The most powerful tank in the world isn't much use if it can't make it to the battle. However, the battle was politely coming to the Germans. If a tank was beyond repair then it became an effective 88 emplacement.

 

[Quatermass]

I’ve always found it interesting that the first German tank built after the war was the leapard, much closer in design philosophy to the Sherman than to the Tiger. At the same time the British were designing the Chieftain, much more a Tiger than a Sherman!

It seems each side drew different conclusions from the war, the Germans that it was firepower and mobility that was needed and the British that it was firepower and protection. Interesting that both nations felt that there opponent had got it right in WW2!

Quatermass

 

[RichardB]

I welcome the discussion of a comparison between individual AFV's from various era's, but can we really draw conclusions w/o taking into accounts relative quantities built. For example, If we compare a Tiger and a Sherman, you might say that 4 Shermans were a match for one Tiger in ETO, however, 40 times the qty were built during the WW2 era, so surely some kind of weighting needs to be taken into account??

Secondly, taking this further and also picking up a point already raised, did the German's really start designing expensive, complex, heavy weight, vehicles just to go on the defensive, or did they think that this was the future in terms of tank design despite the seeming departure from blitzkreig tactics?

What do you think chaps?
Rich

 

[Maxrobot]

The Americans had to consider logistics in that a heavy tank would take up the shipping space of three Shermans crossing the Atlantic. Also Allied Tank Destroyers were tasked with meeting other tanks head-on. In reality, in Europe, Allied tanks spent most of their time supporting infantry as mobile artillery. Tank to tank encounters were memorable but not that often (not on a daily basis.)
Also because of the track design and the use of rubber bushings, the Sherman could get 500 miles out of a set of tracks while the Germans managed 100 miles.
I would be interested if anyone knows if all the stuff piled on the front of tanks affected the penetration of shells. Also it seems to me that most photos of knocked out tanks had holes in the tank's sides. Only a few photos show tanks with holes in the front armor. This would indicate mobility or ambushing was key to taking out a tank

 

[Rrickoshae]

just to correct the opening bid - it wasn't Shrivenham's Kingtiger, it belonged to the Tank Museum and was on long term loan. It has now been returned to its proper home in Dorset! Dave

 

[jayteepee_1999]

Is that Bovington?

 

[Rrickoshae]

hi JTP, yes. Following an unfortunate event which resulted in the RMCS selling a running Mk3 that belonged to Bovington, the museum used the excuse of having all the tigers together to retrieve their King Tiger. What they forgot to mention to RMCS was that it was going to stay in Dorset! The above is not for general consumption as it is still a sensitive issue and not least because the museum do not wish to put the current owner in an awkward position as he bought it in good faith and has, I understand, been 'a good friend' of the museum over the years. I believe the Mk3 was sold for 250K - which for a runner is a bargain! Dave

 

[BruceV8]

Ive always found it interesting that the first German tank built after the war was the leapard, much closer in design philosophy to the Sherman than to the Tiger. At the same time the British were designing the Chieftain, much more a Tiger than a Sherman!

It seems each side drew different conclusions from the war, the Germans that it was firepower and mobility that was needed and the British that it was firepower and protection. Interesting that both nations felt that there opponent had got it right in WW2!

Quatermass

This is very much the thought that I had. IMO the post-war Germans (and the French and, to a much lesser extent, the Americans) were barking up the wrong tree, as NATO was expected to fight a defensive battle in Europe that woud have favoured a 'Tiger' over a 'Sherman' or perhaps a 'T34'. The opposition were expected to be direct descendants of the T-34s, after all.

It is interesting to note that the one country with extensive successful experience of armoured warfare in both offence and defence is Israel. They had a mix of Centurions (a 'Tiger'), M48s and M60s (descendants of M26 Pattons, developed to fight real Tigers, but lighter - perhaps more a 'Panther') and of course Shermans ('Shermans'!). Their opponents had T-34s, T-54/55s and T-62s as well as Pzkpfw IV (Syria 1967). When Israel developed its own tank, the Merkava, they placed crew protection first, then firepower then mobility. Definitely a 'Tiger'. The reason they developed it in the first place is that they wanted Chieftans but the Labour government of the day wouldn't sell them any.

As it turned out with the advent of modern 1200 - 1500 bhp tank engines we can pretty much have our cake and eat it. Challenger 1 & 2, Abrams etc would be pretty much 'Super Tigers'. Leopard 2 might be one also, but its interesting to see that the Germans have had to continually up armour them - and thats just for the Tank vs Tank battle, not the counter IED armour that British & US vehicles now carry. So they started off with a 'Sherman' and ended up with a 'Tiger' anyway

 

[skull181]

I went to Bovington Late last year and they had all four Tigers on display. Tiger 1, two King Tigers and the JagdTiger (which is huge).

I just wish they could get one of the King Tigers working....

Here's a picture of me sitting on a Panther in Holland. :top:

 

[beihan62]

Hi Quatermass,Thanks for the suggestion regarding a discussion about tanks,it has always puzzled me as to why tanks were built with armour that was not sloped from the early days,most of us can remember as young kids skipping stones over water,and later on bouncing airgun pellets off stones to make the whine like in the western films,with stones the lower the angle the further the stone skipped,the same with pellets,so why did they design tanks with vertical armour,with the T34 sloped armour was used,this was not a new discovery it was an old well known fact that was used to some advantage by the Russian tank manufacturers,it seems as if most tank arsenals were slow in taking advantage of this relatively well known fact,and as mentioned before,something that has puzzled me for years,the addition of track links etc added to the glacis and turrets of tanks,would this "extra"armour be effective in stopping/slowing a round from penetrating the tank,
Don,