The Tiger..Pointless to produce??

[jbertles]

Interestingly enough, it was probably Western heavies which first spurred on the development of the Tiger.

German heavy tank development was very modest during 1937-38, and by the end of '38 there were two prototypes, the DW1 (Breakthrough Tank) and VK3001, neither of which was finally produced - the Army stayed with the PZIV.

However, during the May '40 blitzkrieg the German Army was dismayed by the few Allied tanks that they encountered - Matildas and Char 1Bs - and they stepped up the heavy tank program by Spring '41.

By Summer '41 the Wehrmacht subsequently encountered T34s and KV1s which outclassed the PzIV, and at that point development was revved up for what would become Panthers and Tigers.

But these efforts were delayed by arguments over the armament. Hitler wanted a modifed 88, whereas the "Weapons Department" (?) wanted taper-bore 6cm or 7cm guns.

That is why both Porsche and Henschel received orders for prototypes called VK4501 (P) and VK4501 (H). Eventually the (H) prototypes performed better than the Porsches, but not until after Porsche had partially completed 90 units. The Henschel version went into production as the Tiger, and the 90 Porsche chassis were modified to become the Elefant.

[K_Tiger]

Man-for-man the Germans had BETTER be doing more damage, since they had 400,000 troops facing 2+ million. And they were on the defensive in favorable terrain much of the time. But at the end of the day, everyone in Germany speaks English now, not the other way around

Nice try, and whats your second language, french?? Muahahaa...

Bastables@

I think it isnt fair and IMO not possible to campare the fighting capabilitys from groundtroops in a statistical way, you did.

Those guys who where frozen to dead in front of Moskow are in your statistic but the most werent killed true ennemy inf., or the Kompanie of Russians who start an Human Wave on some Mg positions, no one can say, they fighted worser, we can only blame the leadership for it. Stalingrad, every kid could kill any "elite" Soldier in Streetfighting, it doesnt tell us how good they performed.

If we think about, that 60% of cassualitis were inflicted by Mortars and Artillery, so the side with the most of this armament is better or...?

Let them rest, even the vets arent pleased about such statistics.

[jbertles]

Sorry to double-post, but here is some info on a prototype US heavy circa '42 - the M6 and derivatives:

M6

Eventually the Army was not happy with the M6, which it considered "too heavy, under-gunned, poorly shaped, and requiring improvements to the transmission."

There were bunches of other discontinued prototypes for US med and heavy tanks, most leading the way toward the M26 by doing away with HVSS suspension in favor of torsion bar (as in M26) and upgunning to 76, 90 or even 105mm guns.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Bastables@

I think it isnt fair and IMO not possible to campare the fighting capabilitys from groundtroops in a statistical way, you did.

Those guys who where frozen to dead in front of Moskow are in your statistic but the most werent killed true ennemy inf., or the Kompanie of Russians who start an Human Wave on some Mg positions, no one can say, they fighted worser, we can only blame the leadership for it. Stalingrad, every kid could kill any "elite" Soldier in Streetfighting, it doesnt tell us how good they performed.

If we think about, that 60% of cassualitis were inflicted by Mortars and Artillery, so the side with the most of this armament is better or...?

Let them rest, even the vets arent pleased about such statistics.[/QB]

Why not? The New Zealand army and many others "war-game," an idea popularised by von Moltke the elder. These War games (Janus/tacops etc) are statistical treatments and are a direct outgrowth of modern forms of war, why should they not be applied to historical campaigns to see if the system work?

Industrialised war is statistics, which was the whole pathos thing about WWI, that the world had changed. Although von Moltke had been carrying out industrialised war since the later part of the 19-century leading the way to a unified Germany and a weakened Austria.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Lack of Sherman level reliability did not stop the Germans marching through France/Austria/ Soviet Union nor the Soviet Union doing the same with their unreliable vehs.

Cough cough... Now now... They did not exactly advance through those countries with Panthers, over-armoured Mk. IV specials and Tigers, now did they? It appears that lack of reliability did play a role in getting them to Moscow though, judging from what I read about losses to the Panzergroups in summer 1941, due to wear and tear.

Interesting aside (why not?) - when 12.PD conducted a road march from near Smolensk to near Leningrad (800km) they did not lose a single tank on the march - these being 38(t) and early (i.e. light-weight) Mk. IV.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

Lack of Sherman level reliability did not stop the Germans marching through France/Austria/ Soviet Union nor the Soviet Union doing the same with their unreliable vehs.

Cough cough... Now now... They did not exactly advance through those countries with Panthers, over-armoured Mk. IV specials and Tigers, now did they? It appears that lack of reliability did play a role in getting them to Moscow though, judging from what I read about losses to the Panzergroups in summer 1941, due to wear and tear.

Interesting aside (why not?) - when 12.PD conducted a road march from near Smolensk to near Leningrad (800km) they did not lose a single tank on the march - these being 38(t) and early (i.e. light-weight) Mk. IV.</font>

[Lumbergh]

Bastables:

Ok, uncle! You win about the defensive terrain, all things held equal. Of course, if we look at it in detail I think we'd find that every situation is indeed unique, and we can't apply any "rule" as to who is going to incur more casualties. We could try, but it would still be approximate.

But since you are so fond of statistics, I think we should focus on the real issue, that is, if the force ratio in the west was allied:german 5:1, what was the casualty ratio?? Working from a purely theoretic perspective, since that is the only one I have, if each side packs this manpower into the same area, the germans should be able to take out a significantly higher number of people, man for man.

Since you have the groggish references, please enlighten me. I think we'll find casualty ratios much, much closer to unity than 1:5. Again, however, I am afraid such conclusions still don't tell us much of anything useful. A bit like claiming someone is the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world.

Edited: Oh, and I just realized, it would be even better if we had comparisons of manpower/casualties over a given spatial area, since I highly doubt that in fact spread over the western front every German faced 5 allied soldiers.

[ December 23, 2002, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bastables:

The Panzers and the cruisers of the 41/42 African theatres had horrid reliability and still managed to careen around taking pot shots at each other after march’s. Again having or as the case not having reliable AFV is not really that much of an issue when other armies undertake similar deep penetrations san reliable AFV.

Sorry, the last point does not really make sense (all that Caipirinha with ParaJochen last night is still clouding my brain). Are you saying that it is relative reliability that counts?

Regarding the original point - the division was probably very positively surprised about the fact they had no Panzer fall out off the march, which is why they mention it in the history. How many straight 800km road marches were there in the desert? How many 38(t) were in the desert (don't think there were any)? Maybe those were just very reliable little buggers, compared to the II, III and IV? Especially later with the uparmouring on the III and IV, that can't have done the engines any good.

Again, I am still not quite clear what the early war tanks have to do with the comparative reliability of the Tiger and the Sherman in 1944? I fully accept that you know more about it than I do, so if you could find the time to explain, I would like to hear the reasoning.

[ichadwick]

Whatever happened to the last 'supertanks' the Reich was working on? Wasn't there a gigantic Maus (Mouse) in prototype? If I recall my reading correctly , the turret and gun were used in the battle for Berlin. The tank was so large none of the remaining bridges could hold it.

Ian

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tigrii:

Also, you could ship 2 Shermans in the same space as 1 cat, as well as the sherman being more mechanicaly reliable and faster, with a faster turret and better MGs. They got really nasty with 105s and Flamethrowers!

Panthers were faster cross country due to better suspension.]

As K'tiger alludes to the Sherman turret was not much faster than the Panther,

Sherman 15 sec 360 deg

Panther ausf D 15 sec 360 deg

Panther ausf A/G 17 sec 360 deg

Plus it's more survivable and has a much better AP gun and greater accuracy.

Lack of Sherman level reliability did not stop the Germans marching through France/Austria/ Soviet Union nor the Soviet Union doing the same with their unreliable vehs.</font>

[jbertles]

Whatever happened to the last 'supertanks' the Reich was working on? Wasn't there a

gigantic Maus (Mouse) in prototype? If I recall my reading correctly , the turret and gun

were used in the battle for Berlin. The tank was so large none of the remaining bridges

could hold it.

According to MY books, both vehicles were conducting trials at the Kummersdorf training area, but were destroyed by the Germans before the Sovs took the area.

A few quick stats:

Armament: 150cm KwK 44 L/38 w/ coax 7.5cm KwK L/36.5 (!!)

Weight: 185 tons (that's 3 jagdtigers worth)

Road speed: 12.5 mph

Armor: 240mm front, 200mm side

My feeling is that they didn't learn from their Elefants at Kursk.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

qb]

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

-> Bastables

1)Panther's turret rotation was dependend upon

engine work- 2500 rpm -17 seconds, 1000rpm - 92 seconds!

2)Sherman was good enough, for a very long time better tank was not designed because - with air superiority - there was no good sufficient reason to.

3)War is not won by inflicting casualties, but by achieving operational objectives.

4)Towards the end of the war German economy was more and more devasted, lack of metals and fuel was crippling German forces.Contrary for US -one Sherman destroyed was a reason to build several new ones. While german economy was ruined, US economy contributed greatly from the war.

regards[/QB]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Lumbergh:

Bastables:

But since you are so fond of statistics, I think we should focus on the real issue, that is, if the force ratio in the west was allied:german 5:1, what was the casualty ratio?? Working from a purely theoretic perspective, since that is the only one I have, if each side packs this manpower into the same area, the germans should be able to take out a significantly higher number of people, man for man.

.

I'm still interested in this statement that if the Germans in Normandy are out numbered and out gunned that it logically follows the Germans will inflict more casualties. Since the total casulties (due to overruns and prisinors) ended up being almost one for one this is a staggering theoritcal position to hold.

The Germans lost 23,019 KIA, 67,060 WIA, 198,616 MIA, 210,000 total casualties during 2.5 months spread across 37 divisions. Result 2,300 per month per division.

USA 20,838 KIA, 94,881 WIA, 10,128 MIA, 125,672 total casualties spread across 23 US divisions. Result 3000 per month per division.

Including spatial calculations, did not help the statistics in Italy or during the Bulge.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

The Panzers and the cruisers of the 41/42 African theatres had horrid reliability and still managed to careen around taking pot shots at each other after march’s. Again having or as the case not having reliable AFV is not really that much of an issue when other armies undertake similar deep penetrations san reliable AFV.

Sorry, the last point does not really make sense (all that Caipirinha with ParaJochen last night is still clouding my brain). Are you saying that it is relative reliability that counts?

Regarding the original point - the division was probably very positively surprised about the fact they had no Panzer fall out off the march, which is why they mention it in the history. How many straight 800km road marches were there in the desert? How many 38(t) were in the desert (don't think there were any)? Maybe those were just very reliable little buggers, compared to the II, III and IV? Especially later with the uparmouring on the III and IV, that can't have done the engines any good.

Again, I am still not quite clear what the early war tanks have to do with the comparative reliability of the Tiger and the Sherman in 1944? I fully accept that you know more about it than I do, so if you could find the time to explain, I would like to hear the reasoning.</font>

[Tuomas Seijavuori]

Interesting reading, thanks guys.

I started thinking this: when will we get a game in which the player can make decisions like this? Give new tank specifications (speed, fp, dp front/sides/rear) to designers, review the prototypes and their production costs, get information about production line conversion times, that kind of thing. The virtual engineers would come up with different solutions each time you'd play it. Certain combinations of speed, fp and dp(s) would carry familiar, hard coded names - others would be fictional. You would decide which one goes to production.

I'm throwing the ball to Hubert and the other game designers frequenting this board. You don't even have to mention me in the credits - I just want to play the thing.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Bastables:

[QBAll part of insuring that you can kill more of the enemy on the field of battle. You know von Moltke they chap that singlehandedly created the “Prussian/German” way of war.

No pooh Sherlock? For a way of war it hasn't actually done them any real, practical good down the years has it?

Well I suppose attracting all that Marshall Plan aid to rebuild their shattered nation was a bit of a coup.

Just goes to show that you can insure anything provided you can pay the premiums.

[rexford]

Originally posted by KG ThorsHammer:

My question to CMBB owners is "do you think the Tiger is more historically accurate in CMBO, in terms of protection and effectiveness?"

Tiger in CMBB does better against 75mm Sherman APCBC cause the 75mm L40 APCBC penetration stats have been brought down to account for lower nose hardness, bigger HE burster and other factors. CMBO Shermans with 75mm APCBC are much too effective against Tiger side armor.

Effectiveness of penetrating rounds in CMBB is also closer to reality. Not all penetrations that barely get through do much of anything. 76.2mm penetration of Elefant side at Kursk did nothing.

Tiger is really a mobile fortress when it arrives on Eastern Front, send one out to meet 20 or 40 T34 and it blows them away even if they surround Tiger. That 82mm side armor is just too much. Try that with Panther and that 40mm to 45mm side plating.

Russian ammo for T34 may be more variable in quality than game shows, CMBB appears to use Russian firing trial figures that represent best performance. T34 fired BR-350A and BR-350B APBC blunt nose ammo, 350A is very much less effective than 350B.

When Tiger meets bunches of T34 they know that that 88 is going to effectively reduce their numbers in a short period, and they are afraid to close to 500m or less where their 76.2mm is effective (Russian tankers term closing within 500m as suicide against Tigers). Tiger fights after Stalingrad loss when Germans need psychological lift, and tank delivers.

Russians feel that Tiger and IS-2 are equal in terms of fighting effectiveness, probably due to accuracy of 88 and its optics, plus a higher rate of fire than IS-2 (6 rounds a minute versus 1.5 to 2 for 122mm). CMBB also gives Tiger 88 the optical bonus it deserves.

Tiger was an important tank and filled a need that PzKpfw IVF2, G or H could not fill.

[rexford]

There is a report on the Russian Battlefield forum site at http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=116312&messageid=1040650225

that is worth reading in regard to Tiger II superiority over T34. Shows what can be done when overwhelming advantages are allowed to function free of Allied fighter-bombers and artillery fire.

Three Tiger II knock out 41 T34 with German losses limited to gun damage.

[rexford]

The Russian feeling that Tiger E was equal to IS-2 is kind of interesting and may deserve a bit more discussion.

IS-2 122mm AP is going to penetrate the Tiger E mantlet armor out to 1200m, and then it will fail against the mantlet but still be able to blow through any part of the front hull out to 1500m.

Problem is low rate of fire for 122mm and ability to hit things. 6 to 7 rounds per minute for Tiger E with 10 kg projectile, 1.5 to 2 shots per minute for average 122mm crew due to 25 kg projectile that comes in two parts (weight of total round would be much greater than projectile due to casing and propellant).

Tiger guidance indicates that 88mm HE could be used to blind IS-2 tanks after range is zeroed in by hitting turret, which would allow one of Tiger group to aim for turret.

Tiger 88mm with APCR can penetrate IS-2 front lower hull at 1250m, and the turret front/mantlet at 2500m with a 30 degree vertical angle. Tiger gun is going to be more accurate, Tiger crews expected to estimate range within 10% of actual (average for Americans and British is 25%, probably higher for some Russians).

Firing APCBC, Tiger penetrates IS-2 mantlet/turret front out to 1000m with a 30 degree vertical angle, but cannot defeat the front lower hull armor.

Tiger E 88L56 is one of the most accurate guns of WW II in terms of low round-to-round scatter, 122mm is good but not quite up to 88L56 standards.

Of course, 122mm HE could blow apart the welds on a Tiger just by hitting it, since it did that against Panthers. The impact shock from 122mm HE must have been devastating to crew members inside a target tank.

If most tank combat takes place within 1200m, Tiger and IS-2 are pretty closely matched.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Determinant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

[QBAll part of insuring that you can kill more of the enemy on the field of battle. You know von Moltke they chap that singlehandedly created the “Prussian/German” way of war.

No pooh Sherlock? For a way of war it hasn't actually done them any real, practical good down the years has it?

Well I suppose attracting all that Marshall Plan aid to rebuild their shattered nation was a bit of a coup.

Just goes to show that you can insure anything provided you can pay the premiums.</font>

[K_Tiger]

But since you are so fond of statistics, I think we should focus on the real issue, that is, if the force ratio in the west was allied:german 5:1, what was the casualty ratio?? Working from a purely theoretic perspective, since that is the only one I have, if each side packs this manpower into the same area, the germans should be able to take out a significantly higher number of people, man for man

Is my english so bad, or is this above one of the funny`st things i read here??

You mean the more guns are pointed at you, you have the chance to kill more ennemys?? not to mention the bigger guns.

[KG ThorsHammer]

Does anyone know what the hell we (the US) was thinking when we designed the Sherman? Did we have any concept of the threat posed by German tanks? I just find it strange that the US which always seemed to place more emphasis on men then material would take such a Russian view of it's tanks. Expecting to have to use 5 Shermans to engage one Panther and expecting to lose 3 to 4 of the Shermans in the process.[/QB]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But since you are so fond of statistics, I think we should focus on the real issue, that is, if the force ratio in the west was allied:german 5:1, what was the casualty ratio?? Working from a purely theoretic perspective, since that is the only one I have, if each side packs this manpower into the same area, the germans should be able to take out a significantly higher number of people, man for man

Is my english so bad, or is this above one of the funny`st things i read here??

You mean the more guns are pointed at you, you have the chance to kill more ennemys?? not to mention the bigger guns.</font>

[K_Tiger]

Hi Rexford,

and thanks again for your informative posting. There is something from interest for me but i didnt understand it. What means "estimate range within 10% of actual" whats this actual??

[rexford]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Hi Rexford,

and thanks again for your informative posting. There is something from interest for me but i didnt understand it. What means "estimate range within 10% of actual" whats this actual??

German Tiger crews were expected to estimate target range within 10% of actual. If target is at 1000m, range estimates are expected to be from 900m to 1100m.

Average British crews would look at a tank at 1000m and estimate ranges from 750m to 1250m.

Picture it this way, you see a car and have to estimate the range. The more you practice and the better your instincts the closer you will be. Tiger crews were expected to attain very high accuracy in their estimates.

I have stood in the streets of Albany New York and estimated the range to cars and poles, and then found the actual distance using a laser range finder. My average estimate error was 25%, just like the typical Allied gunner.

The smaller the range estimation error, the higher the percentage of first round shots that hit the target if everything else is the same. Given the good ballistics of the Tiger gun and superior optics, a Tiger tank would have a higher accuracy than a 75mm Sherman, 76mm Sherman or T34 with 76.2mm.

The Panther 75mm would be more accurate than the Tiger 88mm due to a higher muzzle velocity and flatter trajectory. The flatter the trajectory the less impact when range estimation errors are made.