Question about historical rarity of Tiger and other tanks

[Guy w/gun]

When I play QBs against the AI, I try for a pretty historically reasonable selection of units. I judge this by what I've gleaned from this board and what little I've read.

The Tiger I is by far my favorite German tank. Mainly because it looks powerful and also because of the whole mystic around it. I enjoy using them and fighting them!

So, how common would it be for the allies to meet a Tiger or two in a battle within the time period of CMBO? How about a Panther? What about the other common QB picks (Mk IV, Hetzer, StuG, etc.)?

[gunnergoz]

Better put on your favorite helmet, Guy w/gun, because you'll probably be bombarded with tank stats momentarily by our resident data experts...(runs for bunker where his own favorite data sources are stowed.)

[Guy w/gun]

*secures helmet*

Jawohl! Helmet secure!

[grunto2]

Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

When I play QBs against the AI, I try for a pretty historically reasonable selection of units. I judge this by what I've gleaned from this board and what little I've read.

The Tiger I is by far my favorite German tank. Mainly because it looks powerful and also because of the whole mystic around it. I enjoy using them and fighting them!

So, how common would it be for the allies to meet a Tiger or two in a battle within the time period of CMBO? How about a Panther? What about the other common QB picks (Mk IV, Hetzer, StuG, etc.)?

panthers were much more common, almost to the level of panzer IVs.

the tiger was more rare, and was usually found in groups, as they were allocated to heavy tank battalions; if memory serves, most of these heavy tank battalions were in the ss while only a couple were found in units such as panzer lehr or grossdeutschland, respectively.

i'm with you though; the tiger 1 is my favorite german tank; there is something about the 'boxy look' and the boom of the 88.

still in cmbo the tigers are at a disadvantage because of the way the tank turning is modelled. also the turret turns at and 'average' speed when in real life it was apparently dependent upon the rpms of the main engine.

in cmbo the best german tank is the panther.

..except against air attacks; the tigers seem to do really well there.

in any event it's something else to see 75mm sherman guns bouncing off of the side armor of the tiger; the tiger has the panther beat there.

andy

[Guy w/gun]

Panthers more common? Are you sure? I could have sworn that while both were rare, the Tiger was more common.

As to the weaknesses of the Tiger I, I don't care! I've had to many Panthers lost to allied soldiers throwing rocks and broken glass at their sides ! But seriously, I'd use Tigers over Panthers in CMBO if I had a choice. They just fit my style better I guess.

Ahem...anyway...back on topic. Anyone else want to comment on the rarity of Tigers, Panthers, MkIV, StuG, etc?

[grunto2]

Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Panthers more common? Are you sure

yes, panthers were much more common, almost to the level of panzer IVs (something like 52 panzer IVs for every 48 panthers).

there were something like 5,000 panthers built, and just over 1000 tigers.

the tiger first saw action in 1942... it was a heavy tank design started before the germans had contacted the russian t-34. the panther was an attempt at outdoing the t-34.

that's why the tiger has 'boxy' armor... because when it was designed, they hadn't thought about sloped armor yet. again, once they met the t-34 in action, they started considering sloped armor, and the panther was born.

i'm still with you though; i like the tiger better; 88mm is better against infantry, 88mm still good against almost all allied armor; box shape is 'cool-looking'; holds up against air attacks well; better against side shots.

apparently there was this thing that the tiger crews could 'do;' they could turn the tank in place. apparently shermans didn't do that in real life, but they do in cmbo; that combined with the slow turret speed make the tiger slightly sub-optimal in cmbo compared to its real-life performance.

i still pick them over panthers whenever i design a scenario.... 'let's see... the tank support must be coming from an independent heavy battalion, and not one of the division's organic tank battalions (panthers and panzer IVs).' that's the excuse i use when designing scenarios anyway.

i have this one called, 'putot' where 10 tigers can contribute a lot of mayhem to the overall battle.

andy

[Thunderbird Inf Plt Ldr]

Sorry, but Panthers were NOT as common as Mark IV's. Look at field unit stregnth reports, not TO&E tables, for the actual numbers in the fight.

"Movin' On" 1/279 Inf.

[Abbott]

Here are the numbers I have found on the Tiger I and MK V model G.

Production commenced in August of 1942, deliveries ceased in June of 1944. Henschel produced 1354 Tiger I’s in this period.

3,740 MK V G's were produced during 1944.I am looking for the Mk V production numbers of the other models and years.

Ref. DR S. Hart & DR R. Hart. German Tanks of WWII ISBN 1-86227-033-3

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Guy w/gun]

Thanks for the responses so far. While the production numbers are interesting, I'm more concerened with the actual chance to encounter a Tiger/Panther/Mk IV. I didn't think that low production figures nessesarily had to mean low chance of encounter.

What was the concentration of these various tanks in the time period and locals of CMBO?

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-21-2001).]

[X-00]

As an aside. In QBs against a human with purchase your own forces you'll never meet the most common turreted tank the Germans fielded. The humble Mk-IV.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The Panther is definitely more common, by about a factor of 5 in overall numbers. The Germans made 1350 Tiger Is in WW II, used a few of them in Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy, and lots of them on the Russian front. There were a few of Tiger units in Normandy, with in total around 125 vehicles.

There are also a few around Arnhem in Operation Market-Garden, in the Aachen-Hurtgen area, and a few companies roving as "fire brigades" to seal off penetrations elsewhere along the line. We are talking <50 in each of those cases.

In the counterattacks Dec-44 and Jan-45 in the Ardennes and Alsace, there were a number of Tigers again, but most of them actually Tiger IIs by then. Perhaps 60 Tiger Is in Ardennes and <50 in Alsace, if that many. Jadgtigers were also used in Alsace, ~35 of them.

I hope this helps.

[JoePrivate]

From 'Steel Inferno', the Panzer operational strength of 12thSS HJ and 1stSS LAH on the given dates, approximately.

July 25 - LAH

1st SS PzBn - 31 Panthers

2nd SS PzBn - 41 MkIVs

1st SS Stug Bn - 32 Stugs

July 28 - LAH

1st SS PzBn - 33 Panthers

2nd SS PzBn - 30 MkIVs

1st SS Stug Bn - 22 Stugs

July 31 - LAH

1st SS PzBn - controlled by KG Wunche

2nd SS PzBn - 60 MkIVs

1st SS Stug Bn - 29 Stugs

July 31 - KG Wunche(HJ)

61 Panthers(incl. 1st SS PzBn LAH)

4-17 MkIVs

101st Hvy PzBn - 19 Tigers

July 31 - KG Meyer(HJ)

22-39 MkIVs

27 JgPzIVs

August 7 - KG Meyer(HJ)

39 MkIVs

8 Tigers

27 JgPzIVs

August 8-9 - KG Wunche(HJ)

39 Panthers

13 Tigers

August 14 - HJ

7-15 Panthers

17 MkIVs

11 Tigers

10 JgPzIVs

By no means representative of the German Army but interesting nonetheless, hope that helps.

[Michael Dorosh]

Double post.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were Panthers not considered "medium" tanks and found in standard panzer regiments, whereas Tigers were considered "heavies" and placed in special sPz abteilungen?

This would tend to affect how rarely they were seen on the battlefield. I thought that only special units like Grossdeutschland had organic Tigers. What about Panzer Vs in regular Army units?

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 03-21-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To answer the rest of your question, I can give some back o' envelope dice rolls to give a sense of how common various things would be.

The Allies were fighting German infantry formations (say 1-4, vs. 5-6 Panzer). Infantry would rarely have AFV support, perhaps 1/6 of the time. And it would then usually be StuGs, mebe 1/6 Jdgpanzer, 1/6 Hezter or Marder, 4/6 StuG.

When fighting Panzer divisions, they would hit armor most of the time, perhaps 5/6. (The rest would be Pz Gdr infantry, recon light armor, "mech", etc).

If you want an idea of the frequency of the types when fighting Panzer division AFVs, you might roll 2d6 -

2-3 StuGs

4 Jdg Pzs

5-7 Pz IVs

8-10 Panthers

11-12 Tigers

Sometimes the types for the German Panzer divisions would be mixed, but above the platoon level. Meaning, usually 4 of a type (or 3 for StuGs/Jgdpz). So, if you've already bought 4 of an item, you can roll again for the next platoon, provide you are going to buy 4 of that type too.

I hope this helps.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Great data Joe Private. Fits my sense of things pretty well too.

Be careful, though, if you mention a number, someone might run screaming from the forum in stark terror at the violation of the metaphysical uncertainty of all things.

Most of the heavies were indeed in independent battalions. Most of those battalions were also in the east. See my previous post for the exceptions.

[SenorBeef]

Sometimes the types for the German Panzer divisions would be mixed, but above the platoon level. Meaning, usually 4 of a type (or 3 for StuGs/Jgdpz). So, if you've already bought 4 of an item, you can roll again for the next platoon, provide you are going to buy 4 of that type too.

I hope this helps.

This was something I was curious about - is it fairly unrealistic to have one or two tanks in a QB, or did they almost invariably operate in entire platoons or above? Low numbers can be historically justified by losses, or only commanding a 'slice' of a larger battle, although, since platoons would stick together, that wouldn't hold well. Is having 2 panthers, and maybe a hetzer, a fairly unrealistic force? Or by that time, were germans just dishing out armored support where they could?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Be careful, though, if you mention a number, someone might run screaming from the forum in stark terror at the violation of the metaphysical uncertainty of all things.

Jason, you were felt (not in any way proven)to be in error by a consensus of posters in another thread, which doesn't make you any more right or wrong, but you haven't acknowledged either the possibility of error on your part nor the apologies offered you.

If you can't see your way clear to at least acknowledge any of those things, or to apologize for your own inappropriate language/behaviour, that is certainly your prerogative, but please at least have the courtesy to avoid pouting about it in every other thread you post in.

Your use of numbers here seems fine by my standards, if anyone objects, we will do you the courtesy of telling you. You needn't fear anyone retreating or fleeing based solely on what you have to say, so I guess your conscience is free to post as you will.

Big of me, huh?

[Guy w/gun]

Thanks Jason. Ok. What is the ratio of AFVs to the number of Pz. Grenadiers? If I had a Pz. Gren Company, how many (on avg) AFVs would I be alloted to roll for?

[Lorak]

Guy,

My feeling would be little or no AFV's.

You might have a couple stugs as infantry support. Maybe a couple half-tracks as transport. But more than likely plain old trucks. You'd have been lucky to even get trucks.

Lorak

[Guy w/gun]

Ok. Nevermind about the Pz. Grenadiers. I realized I must be playing really unhistorically. It doesn't really bother me, but since we are on the topic...

How the hell do you get a historically correct combined arms set up with the Germans??? How do I get a historically correct set up of AFVs and inf?

[grunto2]

Originally posted by SenorBeef:

...Is having 2 panthers, and maybe a hetzer, a fairly unrealistic force? Or by that time, were germans just dishing out armored support where they could?

my impression is that the german ground forces were fairly 'ad hoc' or 'improvisational' toward the end of the war.

i usally try to keep the tigers with the ss infantry, and use panthers and panzer ivs with regular army.

with fallschirmjagers i will buy stugs.

these are just general rules i use when designing scenarios. i figure tigers are my favorite, so when designing a normandy scenario i'll use ss motorized infantry with tigers.

even though they were in the ss' divisional armored battalions i save the panthers and panzer ivs for 21st panzer division or panzer lehr scenarios or whatever.

anyway, given the stories of the often ad hoc nature of the german units, i would say that any combination of vehicles is not out of the question.

ok, here's a question? how about jagdpanthers? i'll start another thread.

andy

[Atlas]

Source:Encyclopedia of World War II

Figures are for entire war.

Pz I : @ 3,000

Pz II : @ 3,580

Pz III: 5,644

Pz IV : 9,000

Pz V : 4,814 (Panther)

Pz VI : 1,350 (Tiger)

KT : 484

Other Assault Guns: 12,000

---------------------------

Total: @27,872

Note: Pz IV = Pz IVC - Pz IVJ

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The mix of tanks to infantry in German Heer Panzer forces would generally be about 2 platoons of tanks to 1 company of infantry. Pretty tank heavy in other words. Sometimes it would be only 1 platoon of tanks, and sometimes you'd have a company of each, even more tank-heavy. In the SS formations, it could be somewhat more infantry heavy, but the same ballpark. (They had 2 extra infantry battalions per division, but also larger tank platoons).

I've given examples of realistic German force mixes before, in any cares to search for them. The suppliment to the basic tank and infantry platoons came in the form of "heavy weapons", meaning gun-armed halftracks, flakwagens, on defense PAK and FLAK, infantry guns, mortars and HMGs.

The German infantry on the defense would use lots of such heavy weapons, plus minefields, to suppliment the infantry. Like, 2-4x75mm PAK or 88mm FLAK, 2-4x20mm FLAK, 1-2x75mm Inf-Gun, 2x81mm mortar, 10 AP minefields. Instead of tanks, you see, these seperated and dug in guns would do the long range shooting. Earth and sandbags as armor plate.

Occasionally they might have 2-3 Marders, StuGs, or Hetzers, as mobile AT guns in effect, or halftracks mounting 75mm infantry guns (SPW-251/9) - but the towed guns were much more common on the defense. In addition, they'd have the infantry company or more, and 81mm support, sometimes additional artillery too. Anything up to, and including, 150mm caliber.

When attacking, the same tri-part force structure (direct fire hvy wpns-infantry-artillery), but now StuGs are the heavy weapons component. A few 81mm mortars or HMGs, carried on the StuGs or on trucks, might suppliment the infantry. But mostly, the StuGs do everything the assorted guns did on defense. The StuGs would be in groups fo 3 or 4, occasionally 1-2 added StuH-105mm in addition. Heavier artillery support, 105mm, 120mm, 150mm. More infantry, and 1/3-4 of them slightly better quality than the rest. (E.g. buy a company of regulars, add 1 platoon of vets). One of the added platoons might be Fusilier (that's the "foot" scouts) or pioneer (the engineers).

The armor forces are different in that the tanks are meant to carry more of the burden. More of the weapons are self-propelled. Instead of ~4 infantry platoons, 1 StuG platoon, and supporting artillery, it'd be more like 2 tank platoons, 2 infantry platoons, and 1 "platoon" of the "extras".

What would the extras be? Armored recon, in might be 2-3 armored cars, Lnyx, or gun-armed halftracks (total), plus a platoon of Pz Gdrs in halftracks. Or it might be an armored Pioneer platoon. Or it might be a 37mm Flakwagen and 2 SPW-251/9 75mm infantry gun halftracks. Or a pair of Marders, or self-propelled guns used for direct fire (Hummels E.g.).

Can you use tanks in smaller groups, in pairs? Sure. But avoid single vehicles, unless they are in the "other junk" category. (Like a flakwagen, or a flame-halftrack). The only common mix of AFVs at the CM scale of things, would be sometimes a platoon or pair of Panthers and another platoon of Pz IVs. Otherwise, have just one "main", "heavy" type, and mix it with lighter, special purpose stuff.

A thing to understand here is that the Pz Gdrs do not want to fight a mostly infantry engagement, with the tanks just supporting them. They will if they have to, but it is not the way they want things to go. They want the tanks to break the enemy. They keep enemy infantry away from the tanks, and scout for them. After the enemy is broken up, they can finish off the pockets of resistence left, sure.

It is not an infantry assault with tank support. It is more like a tank assault, with infantry protection. And the tanks don't assault by running right up to things, but by getting close enough to see them and then blowing the crap out of them. Then they crawl close enough to see the next one.

I hope this is helpful.

[This message has been edited by jasoncawley@ameritech.net (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Guy w/gun]

Thank you again Jason. Very helpful!