An interesting tale of Tiger and being depressed

[dieseltaylor]

From NZ

This slogging match lasted all afternoon. Second-Lieutenant Harry Hodge's 7 Troop, coming forward through the smoke of the burning tanks to reinforce the badly-hit 5 and 8 Troops, joined battle with the Tiger, which moved from its cemetery down the gully to B Squadron's right, and was stopped in a maize field as it tried to climb the opposite hill to Route 2. It was not easy to bring the guns to bear on it–in the end only Corporal Bruce Johnstone's9 tank, with Trooper ‘Squat’ Warren10 on the gun, was able to shoot with any chance of success, firing from the shelter of a tall clump of bushes. The other crews of 7 Troop took ammunition from their tanks to keep up Johnstone's supply. Johnstone writes of the action:

We used H.E. shells to observe our bursts & then continued to use AP & APHE…. We had to knock the tops off some very tall trees in the gully for us to see our target eventually…. We could see the AP bouncing from his hide.

Luckily the Tiger, being now on the far slope of the gully and stern on to its assailant, couldn't elevate its gun to return the fire. It was a rare opportunity.

While this was going on, the Villa Bonazza and its plantations, which were still full of Germans, were taking a battering from the artillery. As the afternoon wore on the fire from the villa faltered, and by evening the place was empty. Jerry had apparently had enough and had retired from the field.

The Tiger was left dead in the maize field, a pathetic derelict, damaged beyond repair and finally blown up by its crew. Nobody realised this till next morning. It was cause for celebration in 18 Regiment, for this was 2 NZ Division's first Tiger. The tankies swarmed over it, admiring it and the persistent gunnery that had wounded it to death. Its fame went far and wide, spread through the Division by a bold NZEF Times reporter who wrote:

Even in death she is the biggest and most lethal-looking tank any of us has ever seen. The broad tracks are broken and scarred by three armour-piercing shells. It was not these that put her out of action. The tracks are not entirely cut and the bogies are undamaged…. Apart from several shells which hit and almost page 510 penetrated the armour belt, and several more which cut great gouges in the turret, there is the one which pierced two inches of steel, tore off the engine cover, and ricochetted back to damage the engine itself. This is the shell which finally made the Germans decide that it was time to leave.

I thought this interesting for a number of resaons.

[Medex]

Why did the Germans blow up their big tanks. Would the allies actually use them if they captured them intact?

[JonS]

Among other things, it's an excellent example of the wisdom of not implementing elevation limits in CM.

The proposed 'fix' for AI units finding themselves unable to shoot at a target due to elevation limits was something like "reverse 20m". What does 'reverse' mean in this context for an AI controlled Tiger - backwards towards the Sherman, or forwards away from it?

Edit: the URL for Diesel's source is:

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-18Ba-c35.html

The whole book is available here:

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-18Ba.html

The whole series of books is available here:

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/subject-000004.html

[JonS]

Why did the Germans blow up their big tanks. Would the allies actually use them if they captured them intact?

To some degree. All sides made use of captured equipment, both officially and unofficially.

But there's also a lot of technical intelligence that can be gained from captured equipment in operational order.

[Vark]

It is also a very useful device for revisionist historians, who can claim, factually, that the uber kitty was not knocked out by allied action but disabled by its own crew. This logical approach allows hugely inflated kill ratios and a belief the Germans really had a chance.

[winkelried]

Why did the Germans blow up their big tanks. Would the allies actually use them if they captured them intact?

there was no policy on getting German equipment in service on the Western front - only individual vehicles were used (just as a Panther in the 4th Battalion of 6th Coldstream Guards) with one exception: the escadron autonome Besnier of the FFI (1er Groupement Mobile de Reconnaissance des Forces Françaises de l'Interieur). This company sized task force was used in the siege of St. Nazaire. The French scavenged the Normandy battlefield in late 44 / early 45 to get the following in operational condition (including spares):

• 1 Tiger I (originally s.SS.Pz.Abt. 101, called Bretagne later Colmar)
  
• 2 Panther (1 Ausf G with an A turret called Dauphiné, and one Ausf A, )
  
• 11 Panzer IV (Ile de France, Poitou, Normandie, Flandres, Vendee, Anjou, Alsace)
  
• 1 Marder I
  
• 1 Jagdpanzer IV L/70
  
• 2 StuG III Ausf G
  
• 1 Panzerwerfer 42 (St. Nazaire) without ammo - used as ammo carrier
  
• 2 Sd.Kfz. 251 Ausf D
  
• 1 Sd.Kfz. 7 with 20mm Flak
  
• 4 Pak 40
  
• 3 Spähwagen 204(f) - former Panhard 178 - one with a 5cm ATG.
  
• 2 Sd.Kfz. 10 as recovery vehicles (one with a crane)
  
• 4 Opel Blitz and 4 other trucks with spares
  
• 1 Schwimmwagen, 1 Kübelwagen, 1 Horch, 1 Kettenkrad
  
• 2 81mm mortars
  

There is also word about a Tiger II - but I haven't seen photographic evidence (yet).

[dieseltaylor]

Winkelried

Do you have access to the French report on Le Panther [ I think dated 1947] derived from their experience in running them as part of the post-war armee.?

[dieseltaylor]

Jon S.

If I recall correctly I was suggesting special rules for buildings so that tanks immediately adjacent do not shoot the top stories. And therefore should move backwards. Other people may have other ideas but I am happy that tank to buildings is a different level coding problem from tank to tank.

BTW clicking on the hyperlinks in the quote I provided works very well in opening the source.

[winkelried]

Winkelried

Do you have access to the French report on Le Panther [ I think dated 1947] derived from their experience in running them as part of the post-war armee.?

don't have the report sorry. the french army used the panther between '47 and '52 - so the report would have preceded deployment. as i understand the testing was done by the DGA - the french procurement organisation - as part of the process to field the tank (please correct me). btw the gun seems to have been the basis for the gun of the AMX-13.

[hoolaman]

Among other things, it's an excellent example of the wisdom of not implementing elevation limits in CM.

The proposed 'fix' for AI units finding themselves unable to shoot at a target due to elevation limits was something like "reverse 20m". What does 'reverse' mean in this context for an AI controlled Tiger - backwards towards the Sherman, or forwards away from it?

Wisdom? Sure we can put it in the "not so simple" category, but the CM version of this engagement would give a totally anti-historical outcome.

I'd much rather the Tiger do something stupid to bring fire on the enemy than to just do nothing but still win.

[JonS]

Sure we can put it in the "not so simple" category ... I'd much rather the Tiger do something stupid

And that's where the wisdom lies. Significant additional complexity to fix outlier cases leading to stupid outcomes is a result only you would be happy with.

And, actually, dollars to donuts you'd be complaining about that too.

[Karabekian]

But there's also a lot of technical intelligence that can be gained from captured equipment in operational order.

Most likely this. A captured tank can be used to familiarize your own troops with it.

A Tiger II (amongst others) were repaired and brought all the way to the USA, so they did have some value.

A very nice read this was.

[Kat Johnston]

The proposed 'fix' for AI units finding themselves unable to shoot at a target due to elevation limits was something like "reverse 20m". What does 'reverse' mean in this context for an AI controlled Tiger - backwards towards the Sherman, or forwards away from it?

A proposed fix, which would in some cases allow the unit to get a shot (potentially satisfactory), as opposed to what would presently happen if correct elevation limits were included - the unit would be unable to fire where it cannot aim (not ideal) - and as opposed to what would presently happen without elevation limits modelled - the unit is able to hit where it cannot aim (also not ideal.)

*shrugs*

[JonS]

John, I understand what the proposed fix is meant to do. The problem is that it needs to work in a wide variety of situations. Sometimes 'reverse 20m' would work. But there are at least as many situations when it'd make the situation worse, and at least as many more when neither 'reverse 20m' nor 'advance 20m' would work. As has been pointed out before, overall not having elevation limits leads to better outcomes more often.

It is well recognised to "more often" != "always"

[wolf66]

It is also a very useful device for revisionist historians, who can claim, factually, that the uber kitty was not knocked out by allied action but disabled by its own crew. This logical approach allows hugely inflated kill ratios and a belief the Germans really had a chance.

Be thankful the Germans attacked Russia or else you would have been starved on your little island of superiority .....

[JonS]

.... aaaaand here's one of them now

[Vark]

Be thankful the Germans attacked Russia or else you would have been starved on your little island of superiority .....

That island thing really bugs you still eh? Why the venom, why not attack my admittedly non-reverential arguments instead of spouting spurious tosh?

I'd say demolition charges were sensible at the opening stages of the war but hubristic afterwards, when you are demonstrably losing. Who wants another badly put together, unreliable piece of junk after you have captured the first one and found it to be far less than an uber weapon. A demolition charge will not stop a determined enemy from getting your newest piece of kit, but it does send a psychological message that the enemy really desire your tank because it is so much better. What radically different equipment did a 1944 Tiger have over the model captured in 43? Why were Pz IV's in 44 given demolition charges? The Allies had more than enough weapons by then to deal with a 30's vintage tank.

[Vanir Ausf B]

but it does send a psychological message that the enemy really desire your tank because it is so much better.

Although Allied soldiers seemed to generally prefer their own kit to what the Germans had, when it came to tanks they probably did wish they could trade.

[Vark]

I can understand the rationale for demolishing tanks if the Allies had companies of captured armour, not the odd one or two. Yes, have an auto destruct if the equipment is rare and or allows a force multiplying effect (Enigma, first airborne radar sets, etc) but not tanks, certainly not tanks well past their prime, as most German armour was by 44. As for defining better tank, that is an argument sealed in a box, due to its destructive and futile nature, that this Pandora will not open!

[Praetori]

I can understand the rationale for demolishing tanks if the Allies had companies of captured armour, not the odd one or two. Yes, have an auto destruct if the equipment is rare and or allows a force multiplying effect (Enigma, first airborne radar sets, etc) but not tanks, certainly not tanks well past their prime, as most German armour was by 44. As for defining better tank, that is an argument sealed in a box, due to its destructive and futile nature, that this Pandora will not open!

SOP is responsible for a lot of stupid actions in war.

Then again it's still stupid to leave vehicles for the enemy to use for ruses and such (proven time and again on the eastern front on both sides).

http://www.wio.ru/tank/capt/capt.htm

[LukeFF]

When I deployed to Iraq, we were told to throw a hand grenade in the engine compartment of our hummers and supply trucks if we had to abandon them on a convoy march. It's just one of those things militaries have pretty much always done.