Success with the Tiger?

[Boche]

The most frustrating thing I saw during that Panther game was: A ShermanIII hit one of my Panther's frontal armor. Ricochet, no damage. But: my tank's crew didn't feel too safe and decided to reverse to safety - straight into map's exit zone! Bye bye Panther :( Next turn the tank had disappeared.

ps. I think in my case also the main gun damage was done by Fireflies

I LOLED! sorry but that was just too funny.

[sburke]

@ dpabrams: It wouldn't have made sense to choose to replace the Tiger I with the Panther anyway, since the Tiger I already had a replacement being designed - namely, the Tiger II... The only real question was whether or not a heavy tank was needed at all. If they considered that heavy tanks were useful, it made sense to design a better heavy tank rather than replacing it with a medium tank.

Interesting point. As the Tiger was considered to be an assault "breakthrough" weapon, after Kursk was that really useful anymore? Granted they were still the bad ass of the battlefield, but was it really going to have as much influence in that role as opposed to focusing production on Panthers. If the logistical train and strategic movement became that much more complicated one starts to wonder if the net effect wasn't really more detrimental than the tactical impact would warrant. A decent example is the relative lack of impact in the Ardennes.

[Dave85]

For the cost, 3 Panthers are better than 2 Tiger I's. Look, I know we read the books and watched the movies and we all love the nostalgia but in reality if the German's had made Panther's instead of slab sided, slow Tiger's...............Ok, they still would have lost the war. But I digress. Seriously, Tunisia was fun and all, and that summer on the steps in 43' was groovy and that time Michael had a go at the Brit's at Viller's was peachy and all but in retrospect, I would have rather had a Panther.

I have done a few QB's against AI where I have a veteran company+ of shermans, about half 75mm and half 76mm's against enemy forces composed entirely of either tigers or panthers, usually also around company strength. I generally have far greater success against the tigers, sometimes destroying 15+ for the loss of less than 5 sherms.

With the 76mm I seem to be able to inflict a fair amount of mischeif against the frontal armour of tigers from hull down positions while I send more tanks around both flanks for the kill. I also seem to survive more direct hits from the 88 than the panthers gun.

[Vark]

A decent example is the relative lack of impact in the Ardennes.

I would question whether they had any impact, by that I mean 501 did not influence the outcome of the operation. There was nothing they accomplished that Panthers could not have done, Peiper thought them a burden, so he relegated them to the rear units. Here they struggled against the terrain, limited road network and poor reliability, achieving a less than impressive kill ratio. As Rolf Ehrhardt put it, “Our trump card had failed when we needed it most.”

[Vark]

I also seem to survive more direct hits from the 88 than the panthers gun.

Something wrong with the game if Shermans are surviving direct 88mm hits, surely?

[Glukx Ouglouk]

I don't think the Germans could have developed a better heavy tank as far as the Allies were concerned. It was monumentally heavy, thus barring it from all but the heaviest bridges and could only move long distances by a rail system that was constantly being interdicted. Due to the weight and compromises in design it regularly broke down and was almost impossible to recover and used huge quantities of precious materials to build, and even more precious petrol, to move (12 Gallons to the mile IIRC).

Since we were talking of the Tiger I, the Germans did field a better heaby tank - namely, the Tiger II...

Interesting point. As the Tiger was considered to be an assault "breakthrough" weapon, after Kursk was that really useful anymore? Granted they were still the bad ass of the battlefield, but was it really going to have as much influence in that role as opposed to focusing production on Panthers. If the logistical train and strategic movement became that much more complicated one starts to wonder if the net effect wasn't really more detrimental than the tactical impact would warrant. A decent example is the relative lack of impact in the Ardennes.

Regarding the Ardennes offensive, I think Germany no longer had the forces and the logistics to manage a successful, large scale offensive anyway - regardless of the equipment or tactics they used. Anyway, I do agree that heavy tanks were mainly breakthrough weapons and of relatively little use (for their cost) once the Germans no longer had any hope of retaking the initiative - my point simply was to avoid the confusion between a specific tank model (Tiger I) and the concept behind it (heavy tank).

[Vark]

@ dpabrams: It wouldn't have made sense to choose to replace the Tiger I with the Panther anyway, since the Tiger I already had a replacement being designed - namely, the Tiger II... The only real question was whether or not a heavy tank was needed at all. If they considered that heavy tanks were useful, it made sense to design a better heavy tank rather than replacing it with a medium tank.

Sorry, thought this meant you were refering to The Tiger II as the "better heavy tank", not just, design the Tiger 1 better, (how I wonder). I do still dispute the "better" epithet for the Tiger II, as it was more a breakdown weapon than breakthrough! I don't also agree with your separation of "specific model of tank" and "concept behind it", as the Tigers form was as a direct result of its function, which is why the Germans regarded the Panther as a medium tank. What is truly amazing though, is the Germans at Kursk sometimes used the Panther in the same breakthrough, heavy role as the Tiger and did the same at the Korsun Pocket battles and the results were inevitable. If I know what is ahead of me and my flanks are clear then Panther, if I'm unsure about my flank security then Tiger is the 'better" option.

[JonS]

What is truly amazing though, is the Germans at Kursk sometimes used the Panther in the same breakthrough, heavy role as the Tiger and did the same at the Korsun Pocket battles and the results were inevitable.

That's the problem with having niche systems for niche doctrinal approaches. It’s nice in theory, but usually the real world doesn’t let you play the way you’d like to. The Tiger was envisaged as a breakthrough tank, but by the time it came into service the Germans weren’t doing much in the way of breakthroughs (and, anyway, the whole idea of the Tiger seems somewhat antithetical to ‘Blitzkrieg’/manoeuvre warfare), and when they did they didn’t usually have time to wait around for a battalion of Tigers to show up first. Happily for the Germans the Tiger did make for an outstanding pillbox, and a reasonable general purpose tank, so they got used in a lot of ways they weren’t really doctrinally correct. Besides, it’s not like the Germans had so many tanks sitting around that they could afford to have battalions of Tigers just sitting around doing nothing, waiting for some big breakthrough offensive in which to star.

The same kind of thing still happens. Highly specialised units get ‘misused’ all the time. The Royal Marine Commandos and the Paras, and even the Royal Armoured Corps, are pulling stints in Helmand as if they were regular Line infantry. ‘Generation Kill’ is another example. Most of what those guys got up to wasn’t really consistent with their nominal Force Recon role.

[Vark]

It's not just that they are misused, their deployment is necessary because there is a critical shortage of actual fighting troops in the Britsh Army and worryingly, due to misuse of these soldiers, a large number of junior officers are leaving. The politicians often get the blame for the situation but it's was the army who convinced the politicians to deploy in Helmand, seeing it as a way to repair their reputation, post Basra.

Don't also forget, as well as a breakthrough role, the Tiger was meant to support the medium tanks, which in effect meant rushing around to act as fire brigades, simply because there were not enough medium tanks, thanks to production on the...Tiger....ooops.

Surely the Jagdtiger gets the award for mobile pillbox? I sometimes wonder what they were thinking about with the Tiger II's and Jagdtigers.

"Ach, doctrinally it makes no sense, but in the future, Japanese companies will make models of them and they will look soooo amazing, with their ambush schemes, all spotty and stripey. Even better people will wargame with these little miniatures, sometimes as small as two cm, and make rules up that ignore all their bad features and focus on their thick armour and massive guns. A whole generation will fight battles where we triumph, then we will see who 'won' the war!

Now fetch me the plans for the Maus and E100"

[JonS]

a critical shortage of actual fighting troops

Right. Which is exactly the problem the Germans had with their tanks (even aside from excessive resources being diverted into producing Tigers)

the rest of your post : rofl

[Humbug]

"Ach, doctrinally it makes no sense, but in the future, Japanese companies will make models of them and they will look soooo amazing, with their ambush schemes, all spotty and stripey. Even better people will wargame with these little miniatures, sometimes as small as two cm, and make rules up that ignore all their bad features and focus on their thick armour and massive guns. A whole generation will fight battles where we triumph, then we will see who 'won' the war!

Now fetch me the plans for the Maus and E100"

It's funny because it's true.

[LukeFF]

"One hour of Tiger operation requires ten hours of maintenance."

-Alfred Rubbel, Tiger commander, 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion

[Bradley Dick]

"One hour of Tiger operation requires ten hours of maintenance."

-Alfred Rubbel, Tiger commander, 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion

That's very similar to what they say about the M1 these days and it does just fine.

[sburke]

That's very similar to what they say about the M1 these days and it does just fine.

Makes a difference when you can logistically support that effort.

[JonS]

"One hour of Tiger operation requires ten hours of maintenance."

-Alfred Rubbel, Tiger commander, 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion

I wonder how that scales.

Presumably, with a crew of 5, the maintenenace could be cut out in about 2 elapsed hours. But for long road marches i wonder if they needed two elapsed hours maint for every hour travelled, or if after the first hour the maint reqs went up only gradually (until catastrophic failure, like a broken drivetrain/engine fire/broken suspension, any of which would consume a significant amount of maintenance hours).

Take, for example, the move up of 101 SS sPzAbt. IIRC, they drove from Paris, and knowing how the military tends to conduct convoys I'd hazard that they drove for about 60 mins, and then rested for 10-20 mins. Presumably some preventative maint was conducted at every halt, but nothing too involved. Then a more extensive period of maint would be conducted at the end of the day's march. Presumably more than 2 hours, but probably not 2 x the number of hours travelled?

On the other hand, when 101 did move up, a large number did fall out, leaving Wittman with just a small handful for his Villers bocage escapade. All the rest were undergoing various amounts of amount.

[Vark]

I wonder how that scales.

Wonder also if it includes time for maintenance after combat, not just road movement, which is then extrapolated to come to the 1:10 ratio. The Tiger theoretically had an excellent kill/loss ratio but many, after these battles needed substantial work on them afterwards.

[MattMulder]

The broken gun thing happens quite often anyway. Out of 6 Shermans I had 2 broken guns and another got evacuated quickly. When the crew changed their pants and got back into it, they realized it took a few hits and...had his gun disabled too...tragic

[Bigduke6]

That's very similar to what they say about the M1 these days and it does just fine.

You sure about that? How many infantrymen on the ground or local tribesmen bought to support your cause could you get, for the price of an M1 delivered and kept operational in theater?

Plus there is the negative morale factor, once the bad guys figure out a way to deal with your ueber tanks (they always do) then your dead ueber tank becomes the poster child for "the technologically rich are losing" propaganda. No problem if the bad guys quit quickly of course, but in a longer war a tank like an M1 in some ways is a public relations disasters driving around looking for a place to happen.

[Bradley Dick]

Makes a difference when you can logistically support that effort.

Yeah, there is a noticeable difference in the motor pool of a well supplied unit and a barely supplied unit. I can't even imagine what it would be like to fight a mobile war where you're not getting any of what you need. Abandoning a depot full of parts and supplies would be painful.

[Bradley Dick]

You sure about that? How many infantrymen on the ground or local tribesmen bought to support your cause could you get, for the price of an M1 delivered and kept operational in theater?

Plus there is the negative morale factor, once the bad guys figure out a way to deal with your ueber tanks (they always do) then your dead ueber tank becomes the poster child for "the technologically rich are losing" propaganda. No problem if the bad guys quit quickly of course, but in a longer war a tank like an M1 in some ways is a public relations disasters driving around looking for a place to happen.

Yeah, but when you need an M1 all those infantry and local tribesmen won't do.

[Vark]

Big Duke, the negative morale factor that also worked against the Tiger, was the impact its loss made to supporting troops. The Germans made such a fuss about the uberness of the Tiger that when it had to retreat or was destroyed the supporting infantry often took a big morale hit, their reasoning being if the mighty Tiger is going away, or burning, then something really bhaaaad is lurking out there.

It also means that when your opponent destroys one it gives them an even bigger morale boost, not for nothing the Russian headline, during the later stages of Kursk, was the "Tigers are burning". The IDF suffered this in 2006, only a small percentage of Merkavas were knocked out but their loss/perceived loss was a big morale hit to supporting forces. Reminds me of the classic line from corporal Hicks, in Aliens

" What do you mean, "They" cut the power"? How could they cut the power, man? They're animals"

[MattMulder]

the + side of an Abrams instead of a militia-tribe is the following : no one will kidnap its wife or children to force it into surrendering weapons or letting al Qaida hang around some place. An Abrams cuts the crap out of them

Heavy Tanks are like good football players. Everyone wants to get them when they are in the vicinity so they can be seen being knocked out by a better adversary.

[Bradley Dick]

You know who takes the biggest morale hit when these uber tanks go down? The tankers. I've seen cocky 19K's afraid to leave the wire after learning that an amazing tank isn't an invincible tank.

[MattMulder]

Something wrong with the game if Shermans are surviving direct 88mm hits, surely?

yep, usually 88s at the very least render my crew totally crazy and panicked at the first hit. The second takes out half of them out of the tank with the blast radius

[Vanir Ausf B]

I just noticed the Tiger has better off-road and turning ratings than the Panther. I suppose that explains its higher cost in CMBN.