Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/9/2004 2:00:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 2:04:54 PM EST by vito113]
Just got some pictures back from my visit to the Tank Museum at Bovington, England.
Now we all know how big a Sherman is… not very, but those WWII Tankers were going up against German Tigers like this one, now I knew Tigers were BIG, but this is the first one I've seen in the flesh, LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THIS THING!! and check out that gun! The lady in the photo is 5' 8" for reference.

All I can say is anyone who would square up to this thing in a Sherman was very, very brave.




Andy
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:03:10 PM EST
OOOOOOOOOOO Tiger!!
IS that the Tiger they have been restoring the last few years?

Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:04:22 PM EST
Check out "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. This guy's job was to recover knocked out Shermans and try to make them serviceable again. He was an ordnance officer of some type in WW2 in the European theater. Very insightful.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:06:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 2:07:31 PM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By dpmmn:
OOOOOOOOOOO Tiger!!
IS that the Tiger they have been restoring the last few years?




No, they have two, the other one is a Tiger I, fully restored and running. They take it out to play in the Summer, hope to get some pics.

Andy
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:06:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 2:09:07 PM EST by eodtech2000]
Poor guys who had to go to battle with a farking undergunned, underarmored, highly flammable hunk of shit!

That Tiger looks of the King Tiger varity with an upgraded 88mm Cannon. A damn Sherman couldn't even penetrate it from the front!




The Tiger II was armed with the very accurate 88mm KwK 43 L71 tank gun. This 88mm gun, 71 calibers long (6.3m or 21 feet), had a maximum effective range of 10km (6.2 miles). The Tiger II was initially equipped with a binocular Turmzielfernrohr (TZF) 9b/1 sighting telescope and later with the monocular TZF 9d sighting telescope. The gun could be elevated to a maximum of 17 degrees and depressed to a maximum of 8 degrees. The rounds for the 88mm gun weighed almost 20kg (44 pounds) each, which resulted in a relatively slow rate of fire. The powerful 88mm gun was able to knock out Sherman, Cromwell and T-34/85 tanks at a range of 3,500 meters (2.2 miles), far beyond the range of enemy guns. In addition, Tiger II was equipped with turret mounted Nahverteidigungswaffe (90mm NbK 39 close-in defense weapon). The crew was protected by thick sloping armor that made it a hard target, and only a few weapons were actually able to destroy it at even close range. There are no records or photographs to prove that the Tiger II's frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat. Its side armor was easier to penetrate by existing Allied armor (e.g. Sherman Firefly, T-34/85, JS-II).
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:06:50 PM EST
Sherman tanks never really had much of a chance. The way they won mostly against the German tanks was by trying to out number them.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:12:42 PM EST
If you like German tanks of WWII, here is a good site on them www.achtungpanzer.com/profiles.htm
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:14:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 2:15:17 PM EST by Tanker06]
This is a "King Tiger", PzKpfwVIb (ISTR), with a Henschel turret (most had a different turret, referred to as a "Porsche" turret,
which was a sloped, flat faced turret. (This turret had a bit of a problem with the mantle creating a shelltrap.)(The turret variety may
be reversed, I can't remember, but the flat-faced turret was the more common encountered.)

The Tiger I is the one that was restored here very recently. (I can't find the URL right now to it.) This restored one is the one
that you see pictured in a lot of history books as the first Tiger captured by the Allies. ISTR that it was captured in Tunisia.

The Tiger I had an 88mm L/56, while this Tiger II had a 88mm L/71.

The Germans also had an AT gun variant of the L/71, usually the Pak43 version is seen.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:16:48 PM EST
Full house of German Armor


Panzer Mk4


Tiger I , this is the restored and running one.


Panther

Andy
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:17:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 2:28:36 PM EST by Retched_Rick]
My father in law was infantry in ww2 with the 30th id. He said that sherman crews would abandon their tanks at the sight of a tiger. he said he couldn't blame them. the tankers would ask the infantry to go up and try and knock them out.

the response would be you have the tank.

edited to say that he calls the tiger 2 "tiger royal" and that they really didn.t knock many out. most tigers he saw were knocked out by air power.

what they did do was to go on the upper floor of a house and as the tiger drove by they would dump gasoline on the tank and then throw some kind of explosive device on the tank. the tankers thinking they were on fire would bail and be gunned down as they exited.



Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:22:14 PM EST
Yeah, they were big and powerful...but, they broke down ALOT.

You would be fortunate to run 100 miles without some type of malfunction in a King Tiger. The Sherman, however, was fast and very reliable. I still wouldn't want to see one of those Tiger's barrel pointed my way.

Remember Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heros?
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:25:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tanker06:
This is a "King Tiger", PzKpfwVIb (ISTR), with a Henschel turret (most had a different turret, referred to as a "Porsche" turret,
which was a sloped, flat faced turret. (This turret had a bit of a problem with the mantle creating a shelltrap.)(The turret variety may
be reversed, I can't remember, but the flat-faced turret was the more common encountered.)

The Tiger I is the one that was restored here very recently. (I can't find the URL right now to it.) This restored one is the one
that you see pictured in a lot of history books as the first Tiger captured by the Allies. ISTR that it was captured in Tunisia.

The Tiger I had an 88mm L/56, while this Tiger II had a 88mm L/71.

The Germans also had an AT gun variant of the L/71, usually the Pak43 version is seen.



Dude!
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:30:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 2:35:38 PM EST by Noname]
More info on pic#3 (Tiger I #131)

www.tiger-tank.com/


Killer pic's Andy!

A good book to look for is...

TIGER TANKS
by Michael Green
Motorbooks International
1995
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:34:21 PM EST

Hitler put a lot of faith in his new King Tigers making the difference during the Battle of the Bulge. If the Wehrmacht had had enough of them, and enough fuel to drive them, and anything approaching air supremacy, they may have reached the port of Antwerp and extended the war by a few months.

The original Tiger One is my favorite. I used to spend hours crawling around the one they used to have at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. That particular one was sent to the museum in Munster, Germany, about 12 years ago for a total restoration.

Panzer Out
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:41:06 PM EST
The top pic Tiger II has a Porsche turret that has a shot trap below the mantlet. Henschel redesigned the turret that also decreased the frontal area.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:45:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Duffy:
The top pic Tiger II has a Porsche turret that has a shot trap below the mantlet. Henschel redesigned the turret that also decreased the frontal area.


Duffy, sounds right. I couldn't remember which was which, name-wise. Thanks!
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:57:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tanker06:
This is a "King Tiger", PzKpfwVIb (ISTR), with a Henschel turret (most had a different turret, referred to as a "Porsche" turret,
which was a sloped, flat faced turret. (This turret had a bit of a problem with the mantle creating a shelltrap.)(The turret variety may
be reversed, I can't remember, but the flat-faced turret was the more common encountered.)




The Henschel turret is the one that went into production tanks. Interesting side note is that many think Porsche designed the "Porsche" turret when in fact Krupp designed both types.

I have an article in which the Russians did live fire armour penetration tests on a King Tiger in late 1944. Thier findings were that the King Tiger's armour was inferior to the Tigers and Panthers. They have photos that show the turret being penetrated with a 88 as well as 76mm armour piercing round with the 88mm round going completely through the turret. Their theory is that due to decreased sources of molybdenum later production Tigers and Panthers got less of it while the King Tiger had none. The Germans were to have replaced molybdenum with vanadium which the article feels makes the armour less malleable and more prone to secondary fragmentation. I am not sure what to make of the article as I have yet to come across another source to back it up.

Their overall finding stated:
"The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking through the armor and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.

Shortcomings:
The chassis is complex and is not durable.
The steering mechanism is complex and expensive.
The side running gear is extremely unreliable.
The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks.
The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located.
The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower."
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:58:23 PM EST
lol I didn't read all the posts, I didn't know you had commented on the turret I love armored fighting vehicles, especially German WWII tanks because their thinking was way ahead of everyone else.
You guys ought to get this book Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII


Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:00:02 PM EST
Atencio, I also remember reading something about that the Tiger II's armor was brittle, the Panther's was thinner but stood up better to solid shots.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:01:26 PM EST
Has anyone seen the History Channel show on this subject and the huge difference it made when the Pershings showed up. Freaking awesome. The Tigers and Panthers were running from the Pershing.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:01:39 PM EST
Those are some great pics!
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:07:27 PM EST
If anyone is interested, I've got the scan of the "Tiger-Fibel" (tiger primer), sort of an illustrated field manual sitting on my harddrive.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:07:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 3:26:45 PM EST by Duffy]
Well I wouldn't say the Tigers and Panthers were running away from them, only that Pershings stood on almost equal grounds with Tigers. Panthers and Tigers had no problems penetrating the frontal armor of the most heavily armored Russian tanks, the Pershing's armor was better shaped and of a good thickness (Max. 102mm, Min. 13mm) than Shermans, but the 88mm canon would have no problem dealing with it head on, the 90mm M3 gun was inferior to the 88mm.
For comparison, the Tiger II's armor was 180mm Max, 25mm Min. Its 88mm can penetrate (all at 30 degrees) 203mm at 100 meters, 185mm at 500 meters, 165mm at 1000 meters, 148 at 1500 meters, and 132mm at 2000 meters. It can still decisively engage and outshoot the M26 while remaining impervious to return fire at long distances.
It's eerie the same thing happened at the Gulf War, Abrams was killing tanks the T72 couldn't reach or see, but were they able to see and shoot at the Abrams their armament was outmatched by the Abram's armor.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:07:35 PM EST
US Army philosophy during WW2 was that Shermans were infantry support weapons only. If the need to battle Panthers and Tigers arose, M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers were to be used.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:13:18 PM EST
That's right, DnPRK, tactically, one shouldn't try to pit similar forces against each other. You use tanks against infantry, Jabo's against tanks, fighters against bombers, U-boats against merchants etc.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:23:54 PM EST
About 1350 Tiger I's, and 450 Tiger II's were built.
6,000 Panthers were built.

50,000 Shermans were built, and 50,000 T-34's were built.

Shermans were for infantry support. Tank Destroyers were for fighting tanks.

Part of what made Tigers so deadly was their crews were the best.

Tigers also wouldn't show up alone the would have screen of MK-IV's and possibily MK-III's.

Germans tanks ruled wherever they were because of thier tactics, and their support from other combat forces.

We beat them by destroying the parts trucks, fuel truck, and shops.

German infantry were also incredible tank killers. I beleive they had badges for 5, 10, 20 and 50 kills. That frees up a lot of tanks that would otherwise be needed to support infantry.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:31:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
About 1350 Tiger I's, and 450 Tiger II's were built.
6,000 Panthers were built.

50,000 Shermans were built, and 50,000 T-34's were built.

Shermans were for infantry support. Tank Destroyers were for fighting tanks.

Part of what made Tigers so deadly was their crews were the best.

Tigers also wouldn't show up alone the would have screen of MK-IV's and possibily MK-III's.

Germans tanks ruled wherever they were because of thier tactics, and their support from other combat forces.

We beat them by destroying the parts trucks, fuel truck, and shops.

German infantry were also incredible tank killers. I beleive they had badges for 5, 10, 20 and 50 kills. That frees up a lot of tanks that would otherwise be needed to support infantry.



Just curious about the Tank Destroyers.

I understand the theory, but weren't the TDs much more lightly armored than a tank? What type of gun did ours have? Was it a standoff type of deal where they stayed out of range of the Tigers, etc and pumped shells at them?
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:51:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 4:03:46 PM EST by Duffy]
The M10 has the 3 inch gun I believe, a naval gun. Their supposed advantage was their speed (the M10 had the max. thickness of 37mm), and indeed they were very fast. They were supposed to shoot and scoot, but because they looked so much like tanks they were often used in that role, with predictable results. Speed is not armor, never was. The Brit's battle cruisers had proved that in WWI: large but lightly armored ships with battleship class armament, they suffered a great deal when they were squaring off with battleships. Likewise, their intended role wasn't to go toe to toe with battleships but were used like a battleship.
The Israelis got the right idea: tactical speed instead of mechanical speed. They rightly figured the crew would be much more aggressive and effective when they felt (and were) better protected under fire. The first generation of post WWII western tanks went back to the bad old ways of arm chair warriors designing tanks for tankers, forgetting all the lessons learned in the war. The AMX30, Leopold I were all lightly armored with powerful and sophisticated armament. Only the Russians strove to up armor their tanks.

The Germans' tank destroyers were better armored and armed, they were often based on existing chasis, sans the turret, thus making them very low and harder to spot. They had limited main gun traverse, ya pretty much had to aim the vehicle at a target. Shooting on the move was almost out of question, but then before stablized gun was introduced (with the M3 light and medium tanks) that wasn't all that effective anyway.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:58:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 4:03:28 PM EST by Atencio]
We had I believe the M-10 and M-18 which had 76mm guns and the M-36 which was basically a M-10 with a 90mm gun. Tank destroyers are really just defensive weapons and ideally should be placed in a fortfied fixed position. The Germans and Russians used this principle better by making theirs with lower profiles to make them easier to conceal. A lot of early tank destroyers were obsolete tanks that were modified to accept a larger gun. Some like the Jagdpanthers/tigers and SU-85 were very well armoured.

edit: I did not know the 90mm was originally a naval gun Duffy, interesting.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:00:43 PM EST
Stupid question but, what (if any) modern armies do you think Nazi Germany could defeat today?

Aside from being raped by air power and laser guided bombs, who do you think they could still make a strong showing against? Saddam's Iraq? All those countries that lack real armored units of any kind (much less armored divisions)? Much of the former Soviet Bloc?
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:07:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By crazyquik:
Stupid question but, what (if any) modern armies do you think Nazi Germany could defeat today?

Aside from being raped by air power and laser guided bombs, who do you think they could still make a strong showing against? Saddam's Iraq? All those countries that lack real armored units of any kind (much less armored divisions)? Much of the former Soviet Bloc?



With their technology? probably very few. Modern armies have better small arms weapons. Even a 50's era tank would probably be far superior to what the Germans had. Aircraft, helo's, RPGs, communications, logistical supply movement, etc are all much better now. Only possible help the Nazi's might have would be greater numbers and better leadership/troops.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:21:35 PM EST
Yeah, huge numbers compared to many modern armies, better leadership.

I mean with thier numbers and pretty decent armor I'd think they'd stand a chance, of course a couple guys with modern shoulder fired anti tank round/RPG would probably eff them up too.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:28:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 4:29:10 PM EST by OLY-M4gery]

Originally Posted By Atencio:
We had I believe the M-10 and M-18 which had 76mm guns and the M-36 which was basically a M-10 with a 90mm gun. Tank destroyers are really just defensive weapons and ideally should be placed in a fortfied fixed position. The Germans and Russians used this principle better by making theirs with lower profiles to make them easier to conceal. A lot of early tank destroyers were obsolete tanks that were modified to accept a larger gun. Some like the Jagdpanthers/tigers and SU-85 were very well armoured.

edit: I did not know the 90mm was originally a naval gun Duffy, interesting.



3 in would be 76.2 mm.

US tanks had 75mm and 76mm guns. 75 were low velocity, made to fire a variety of ammo. 76 mm were higher velocity and much more suitable for AT.

90mm were originally AAA guns.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:52:45 PM EST
There is no record of a 75MM Sherman ever penetrating the frontal armor of a Tiger at ANY range.

My dad was in a jeep the day the Battle of The Bulge started. He was headed down the road when he was suddenly confronted a whole lof of G.I.s going the other way in a big hurry. He asked what was going on. "Damn Germans are comin' ", one of them told him. About that time he saw a Tiger tank come out of the woods. He said it was a damn scary sight and he took off the other way.

The way we won over the Germans was guts, numbers and logistics. They clearly had better, if somewhat less reliable, armor. They certainly didn't lack guts.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 4:56:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By DnPRK:
US Army philosophy during WW2 was that Shermans were infantry support weapons only. If the need to battle Panthers and Tigers arose, M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers were to be used.



While its true that was the U.S. Army's "philosophy", it had nothing to do with reality.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 5:09:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
About 1350 Tiger I's, and 450 Tiger II's were built.
6,000 Panthers were built.

50,000 Shermans were built, and 50,000 T-34's were built.

Shermans were for infantry support. Tank Destroyers were for fighting tanks.

Part of what made Tigers so deadly was their crews were the best.

Tigers also wouldn't show up alone the would have screen of MK-IV's and possibily MK-III's.

Germans tanks ruled wherever they were because of thier tactics, and their support from other combat forces.

We beat them by destroying the parts trucks, fuel truck, and shops.

German infantry were also incredible tank killers. I beleive they had badges for 5, 10, 20 and 50 kills. That frees up a lot of tanks that would otherwise be needed to support infantry.



Just curious about the Tank Destroyers.

I understand the theory, but weren't the TDs much more lightly armored than a tank? What type of gun did ours have? Was it a standoff type of deal where they stayed out of range of the Tigers, etc and pumped shells at them?




WWII US Army doctrine used tanks for what the M-2 Bradley is used for today: mobile infantry support. The Sherman was to be used to breach enemy infantry lines & destroy fortified positions, not fight other tanks.

The 'Tank Destroyer' was the Army's answer to enemy tanks. It was basically designed to fight with speed & an absurdly large main gun, and kill the enemy tank before armor would be needed.

Modern equivalent would be a host of ATGM-carrier vehicles (such as some ex-Sov APC variants), and the M-3 Bradley (which carries no troops, IIRC)...

The Germans, by contrast, designed their armor for tank vs tank combat, in the modern sense of things.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 5:11:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By DnPRK:
US Army philosophy during WW2 was that Shermans were infantry support weapons only. If the need to battle Panthers and Tigers arose, M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers were to be used.



While its true that was the U.S. Army's "philosophy", it had nothing to do with reality.



But it had plenty to do with the reality of tank design.

The Sherm wasn't designed to fight other tanks, even if it was deployed for this function.

Same deal with the 'Tank Destroyers', which were used as tanks instead of ambush vehicles...
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 5:54:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By DOW:
Check out "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. This guy's job was to recover knocked out Shermans and try to make them serviceable again. He was an ordnance officer of some type in WW2 in the European theater. Very insightful.




I have read the book. Very good! I seem to remember that he thought our Shermans and Pershings were not very good tanks. Compaired to the Germans.


Vulcan94
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 6:12:00 PM EST
They're good tanks in their own right, of the 3 ingredients of a good tank: firepower, armor, and mobility, the Sherman had little. It was reliable, its turret could be traversed faster, and it was not as complicated as the German tanks. Ther M26 did much better, but its armor and firepower still couldn't match its German counterpart.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 6:34:03 PM EST
The Shermans stood up pretty well to older Mark IV's and the earlier Panzers.

I sure wouldn't want to fight Tigers, Panthers, or T-34's in a Sherman.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 6:41:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 6:43:07 PM EST by Lockedon]
This comes to mind:

It was just before dawn
One miserable morning in black 'forty four.
When the forward commander
Was told to sit tight
When he asked that his men be withdrawn.
And the Generals gave thanks
As the other ranks held back
The enemy tanks for a while.
And the Anzio bridgehead
Was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives.

And old King George
Sent Mother a note
When he heard that father was gone.
It was, I recall,
In the form of a scroll,
With gold leaf and all.
And I found it one day
In a drawer of old photographs, hidden away.
And my eyes still grow damp to remember
His Majesty signed
With his own rubber stamp.

It was dark all around.
There was frost in the ground
When the tigers broke free.
And no one survived
From the Royal Fusiliers Company C.
They were all left behind,
Most of them dead,
The rest of them dying.
And that's how the High Command
Took my daddy from me.

Link Posted: 5/9/2004 6:42:12 PM EST
US doctrine was for tank destroyers to engage tanks and Shermans to support the infantry and conduct armored exploitation, but that doctrine didn't work out very well. Well, the armored exploitation part was OK but they found themselves at a severe disadvantage when they came up against German armor.

The Sherman would have been a great tank in 1940 and an adequate tank in 1942. By 1944 armored vehicle technology and tactics had left it behind. The US made a deliberate decision to continue producing Shermans on a mass basis rather than attempt to change production lines for a better tank. They chose quantity over quality in order to outfit all the divisions being raised.

The first time a Pershing came up against a Tiger the Pershing got knocked out. The Tiger then had a mechanical malfunction and was lost.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 8:28:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
About 1350 Tiger I's, and 450 Tiger II's were built.
6,000 Panthers were built.

50,000 Shermans were built, and 50,000 T-34's were built.

Shermans were for infantry support. Tank Destroyers were for fighting tanks.

Part of what made Tigers so deadly was their crews were the best.

Tigers also wouldn't show up alone the would have screen of MK-IV's and possibily MK-III's.

Germans tanks ruled wherever they were because of thier tactics, and their support from other combat forces.

We beat them by destroying the parts trucks, fuel truck, and shops.

German infantry were also incredible tank killers. I beleive they had badges for 5, 10, 20 and 50 kills. That frees up a lot of tanks that would otherwise be needed to support infantry.



The ideal tactic for German armour was to have tigers in the spearhead flanked next by Panthers, then Panzer 4's and 3's followed on the outside by Sturmgeschutz's.

I don't think overall the Sherman was a bad tank. In the Pacific and Africa it was an excellent tank for the situation. The problem was in Europe the well armoured German tanks were most often placed in defensive positions. They were able to draw the Shermans in to them and with the poor policy the U.S. had in regards to the use of tank destroyers, poor response times and lack of sufficient numbers meant the Shermans were sitting ducks to the heavy panzers.

Rather than trying to push out the Pershing tank I think the U.S. would have been much better off had they not just added the 90mm to all Sherman tanks. If you look at the British Fireflys, they packed a punch and were very worrisome to the German tankers.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 8:41:41 PM EST
Tigers were used, generally, in independent heavy tank battalions. I don't think that Panthers were ever used in those battalions. But Mk-IV's, Mk-III's and STuG's or other similar vehicles would be.

Panthers were much faster than Tigers, and as such got used differently. If Tigers and Panthers were grouped, the Panthers wouldn't be able to use their speed, or would leave the Tigers behind.

The Shermans had serious, obvious shortcomings toward the end of the war. The tank was just to tall. It's armor wasn't adequete. The Pershings had more firepower, armor, and were faster than Shremans. They were also supposed to be the basis for several vehicles, SP gun, enginer vehicle, recovery vehicle etc.

The Army was fighting the tactical theory of tank v. tank warfare until almost the end of the war. Heavy tanks were definitely not an item the US Army leadership wanted. Actual tankers had different ideas.
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 8:47:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 9:44:53 PM EST by Atencio]

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Tigers were used, generally, in independent heavy tank battalions. I don't think that Panthers were ever used in those battalions. But Mk-IV's, Mk-III's and STuG's or other similar vehicles would be.



Yeah, you are probably right about that. I was probably thinking of Kursk. At Kursk, the well supplied SS panzer divisions used a v-shaped design as described which they felt was ideal.


edit: I found a reference to what I was thinking of:

"When the Tigers were forced to operate indepndently, with other tanks in support, the wedge formation was preferred, with a single Tiger at the head of the wedge and medium tanks (PzKpfw III, IV or Vs) forming around it."
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 10:27:56 PM EST
The Panther was one of the most beautiful machines from that war IMHO.

If you want to read how insane brave American Sherman crews were in WWII, read "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. The were not in their favor.
Top Top