Best heavy tank of WW2?

RSS
Email

Author	Comment
Getz		#81	[-]
Posts: 317 (10-Dec-2007 04:04:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What exactly does Wittmann dieing a couple of week later have to do with Villiers-Bocage? Whenever anyone mentions Villiers-Bocage someone feels the need to point out the Wittmann died a couple of weeks later. Thousands of soldiers died every day throughout WWII and some of them were highly decorated war heroes, but mentioning that Wittmann would die in a couple of weeks time in a separate action doesn't in anyway alter the fact that he handed our arses to us in a sling at Villiers-Bocage... Incidentally, Clarence, I've had a nose though my sources and have found no reference to the Germans issuing a "do not engage" order with regard to the IS-2 - which is not entirely surprising as (however well armoured it was) it was not immune to the long 75 and 88mm tank guns meaning that any of the Big Cats (and even a late Pz IV if it caught one in an unfavourable position) could engage an IS-2 with a reasonable chance of success.
ickysdad		#82	[-]
Posts: 2892 (10-Dec-2007 08:54:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Be awful careful in putting too much stock into tales like "a single Tiger I knocking out 30 British tanks" . Most allied tanks were knocked out by PanzerFaust's, anti-tank guns and SP's. At the battle of Arracourt the M4 /75mm met and bested Panthers even though thier numbers were even and there was no interference from air. It wasn't always a case of superior numbers when Allied armored forces outfought German ones. One tank company became very adept at knocking out Panthere,s Tiger I's and Tiger II's with thier 75mm armed Shermans simply by using the unorthodox instead of using AP rounds they would use white phosporous if the gas being drawn in through the German tank's air intakes didn't drive it's crew out of the vehicle it at least blinded them long enough for the Shermans to manuver around and get them from the flanks. One interesting tidbit is that there isn't one documented case of the Tiger II's glacis plate being penetrated during the war though it's turret front armor was penetrated a few times. Also according to Charles Baily's ' Faint Praise" even the 17pdr wasn't the Tiger/Panther killer that legend has made it out to be.
crmn		#83	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 28 (10-Dec-2007 09:20:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What exactly does Wittmann dieing a couple of week later have to do with Villiers-Bocage? You mean the fact that the Nazi b*****d was brewed up in one of them Tigers that everyone says were so hard to kill is irrelevant? I beg to differ. The point was that Tigers were so dominant that single examples could and did kill entire squadrons of Allied mediums. Wittmann's fate shows that this wasn't always the case, if it ever was. As Ickysdad points out, the big cats could, on occasion at least, be bested by even numbers of well handled Shermans. doesn't in anyway alter the fact that he handed our arses to us in a sling at Villiers-Bocage... If by "he" you mean "Wittmann and a heavy tank company" then, no it doesn't.
CliffS		#84	[-]
Posts: 405 (10-Dec-2007 14:38:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	crmn wrote: In mid-June 1944, a British 1st Army column of armour - mainly Cromwells with 75mm main armament - was destroyed by a single Tiger I. That sounds like Villiers-Bocage on 13 June 1944 where SS-Hauptsturmführer Michael Wittmann is said to have done just that. About thirty British AFV's, including twelve medium tanks and three artillery OP tanks were destroyed over several hours by the Germans for the loss of six Tigers (three of which were later recovered including one that had a track danmaged by a 6 pounder gun) and five Mark IV's. Note that Wittmann himself died a few weeks later, most probably from a Firefly's 17 pounder. I believe the Brit column was an armoured reconnaissance force which pushed ahead of the main body, came to a village and subsequently did everything wrong. They failed to secure a perimeter; dismounted without organising all-round defence; and attempted individual, uncoordinated counter-attacks when attacked. The survivors straggled back to the pre-planned "Brigade Box" defensive position, after a British artillery unit had engaged the pursuing Germans with 25-pounders over open sights - delaying them long enough for the Brits to finally shake out the cobwebs & organise a defence which finally defeated Wittmann's attack. This action says more about the logistical positions of the two sides (and the courage of the 5 RHA gunners), than the quality of their armaments. Cheers, Cliff. P.S: I checked for figures on tanks destroyed by aircraft in WWII. The only stats available are Russian figures for the Ilyushin-2 Stormovik - equipped with 40mm cannon - which, if true, would be miraculous. As it is, they are merely incredible.
Getz		#85	[-]
Posts: 318 (10-Dec-2007 15:25:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	crmn wrote: What exactly does Wittmann dieing a couple of week later have to do with Villiers-Bocage? You mean the fact that the Nazi b*****d was brewed up in one of them Tigers that everyone says were so hard to kill is irrelevant? I beg to differ. The point was that Tigers were so dominant that single examples could and did kill entire squadrons of Allied mediums. Wittmann's fate shows that this wasn't always the case, if it ever was. As Ickysdad points out, the big cats could, on occasion at least, be bested by even numbers of well handled Shermans. doesn't in anyway alter the fact that he handed our arses to us in a sling at Villiers-Bocage... If by "he" you mean "Wittmann and a heavy tank company" then, no it doesn't. Seeing as it is customary to give the credit for a successful action to the commanding officer, and that he was in charge of the Heavy Tank Company (or at least the element of it involved in the action) - then yes, by "He" I do mean "Wittman and a Heavy tank Company." And I agree that Wittmann was an unsavoury character, and not a man that I admire very much at all. However, I do get sick of people constantly banging on about how he died whenever anyone attempts to discuss pretty much anything he did in Normandy. And it is irrelevent because it has nothing to do with the action at Villiers-Bocage, which was what was being discussed at the time. I don't remember anyone ever claiming that the Tiger was invicible so pointing out the Wittman died in one is about as relevant as mentioning Marseille got shot down in a 109 in a discussion about the Battle of Britain. Last Edited By: Getz 11-Dec-2007 01:11:10. Edited 1 times.
crmn		#86	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 30 (10-Dec-2007 19:35:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Seeing as it is customary to give the credit for a successful officer to the commanding officer On the other hand, it isn't usual to claim that an officer commanding won a battle single handed which was the case in this thread, as it often is when discussing Villiers-Bocage. And it is irrelevent because it has nothing to do with the action at Villiers-Bocage, which was what was being discussed at the time. In fact, what was being discussed was how single Tigers won battles against divisional sized Allied formations with Wittmann's alleged exploit being an example. That his death was very probably from a Sherman Firefly is thus relevant to this thread as I said. I don't remember anyone ever claiming that the Tiger was invicible Nor do I, which is why I made no claim that it was said. Marseille got shot down in a 109 Are people claiming that the Bf-109 was so superior that single Meserschmitts often shot down entire squadrons of Spitfires in a day?
kenBB48		#87	[-]
Posts: 44 (11-Dec-2007 08:48:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The emergance of the IS-2 in the east was an shock to the germans, Von Manteuffel wrote ' It was an shock to find that, although my tigers begain to hit them at 2200m, our shells (sic) did not penterate them untill we crossed to half that distance. But I was able to counter thier technical superiority by maneuver and mobility in makeing the best use of ground cover.'It is also said that the russian 122mm gun was not very accerate out past 1200m due to ranging and spotting difficulties. Even then the 122mm could just penetrate the tiger I's front armor at 2000ms, while the SU-100 could do it at 1500m. And on the tables in 'Tank vs Tank' it show at 30% normal impact that the tiger II was Imune to JS-2 fire up to 200m and could penetrate the JS-2 at 1200ms so it dose give the german a little space. I think in reality that the main reson the the german army did as well as it did was because of its experanced commanders and use of what equipment it had. The Tiger I, Tiger II and the Panther where all good tank designs admittly a little hard to mass produce and if Hitler would have stayed out of the designers and tank comanders way they may have been better. No tank is invicible it is the combination of design, crew training and experance and command an control that makes it seem that way. If you don't beleve that look at early WW-II bilizkreig and the first gulf war. Last Edited By: kenBB48 13-Dec-2007 12:00:23. Edited 1 times.
Getz		#88	[-]
Posts: 331 (18-Dec-2007 18:37:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	On the subject of single German heavies destroying disproportionate numbers of Allied tanks, George Fourty describes a single Jagdtiger destroying a column of US armour in his book "German Tanks of WWII." Apparently he saw the aftermath as an Officer serving in Germany in the immediate post war period. Apparently the Jagdtiger destroyed "dozens" of Shermans before itself being immobilsed and abandoned after an air attack
crmn		#89	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 33 (18-Dec-2007 20:07:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Another version of that same action I've seen noted that the single Jagdtiger was accompanied by several other assault guns and tanks.
ickysdad		#90	[-]
Posts: 2896 (19-Dec-2007 07:36:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	crmn wrote: Another version of that same action I've seen noted that the single Jagdtiger was accompanied by several other assault guns and tanks. That's what I'm getting at . Stephen Zaloga amongst others have researched episodes like that and it seems that at first anyways the Jagd Tiger or Tiger I or Tiger II were given the credit for all the damge but post war analysis of such showed that often it was assault guns/anti-tank guns (both well concealed) or panzerfaust's that did the vast majority of the damage.
USS Clarence E Walsh		#91	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 110 (25-Dec-2007 20:05:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	First off Getz, the situation you showed, if you took the time to do more research, is a situation that was rare at best, and a situation that was far from applicable only to german tanks. For example in June 1941 a single KV tank held up the entire sixth panzer DIVISION for two days! So please don't mistake single theatrical looking situations for the norm. The jadgtiger was a terrible, barely mobile vehicle, that guzzled gas, broke down often, and on a good day could manage 8 mph. It's engine was also so underpowered it had to be run at full power just to turn the tank, something it had to do often owing to it's turret less design. Despite all the scarey strories about the tiger II it's immense logistical requirements and superlative unreliability kept it from being brought to bear very often. A good tank on the battlefield is worth much morethan a great tank that's in the shop. Finally one must also remember the vast superiority of the IS-II as a HE firing assualt gun, it's HE shells carrying vastly more explosive than the Tiger II's, and it actually ended up that more high explosive shells were fired by IS's than armor piercing. Last Edited By: USS Clarence E Walsh 25-Dec-2007 20:07:51. Edited 1 times.
kenBB48		#92	[-]
Posts: 62 (27-Dec-2007 09:32:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I would have to disagree with you on your facts about the jagtiger. In "The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles, General Editor Christopher F. Foss, Thunder Bay Press 2002." "Jadgtiger max speed (road) 23.6 mph " also "By the end of WWII, the distruction of the German transport infrastructure and lack of fuel for the Jadgtiger's thirsty 700hp engine, ment that the survivors ended up as little more than static blockhouses unable to move." It mentions nothing about it beeing broken down or overly slow yes, it was under powerd but not so that it could not move. from what I have read in this and other books is that the tiger tank and it's variants had it's teething problems but most of them where captured when they ran out of fuel. In the same book it mentions the fight with the 6th panzer division but it was an KV-II that held the crossroads at the bridgheads across the Dubbiss River near Leningrad, for one day.
Getz		#93	[-]
Posts: 332 (29-Dec-2007 14:57:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	USS Clarence E Walsh wrote: First off Getz, the situation you showed, if you took the time to do more research, is a situation that was rare at best, and a situation that was far from applicable only to german tanks. For example in June 1941 a single KV tank held up the entire sixth panzer DIVISION for two days! So please don't mistake single theatrical looking situations for the norm. The jadgtiger was a terrible, barely mobile vehicle, that guzzled gas, broke down often, and on a good day could manage 8 mph. It's engine was also so underpowered it had to be run at full power just to turn the tank, something it had to do often owing to it's turret less design. Despite all the scarey strories about the tiger II it's immense logistical requirements and superlative unreliability kept it from being brought to bear very often. A good tank on the battlefield is worth much morethan a great tank that's in the shop. Finally one must also remember the vast superiority of the IS-II as a HE firing assualt gun, it's HE shells carrying vastly more explosive than the Tiger II's, and it actually ended up that more high explosive shells were fired by IS's than armor piercing. We've had this discussion before haven't we. You were wrong then and you're still wrong now. The difference in weight between a Tiger II and Jagdtiger was about a ton, and had little impact on the vehicles fuel consumption, speed or drivetrain reliablity (or lack of it) - although you make the entirely correct point that a Jagdtiger had to work it's drive train harder in due to it's lake of 360 traverse. As I have no desire to repeat myself, I shall refer you back to my various rebuttals with regard to Tiger II battlefield mobility a handful of pages ago. As to the example I cited, I mentioned it only as an interesting curio in with reference to someone elses post. I am well aware that it was not the norm and would prefer it if you did not take my comments out of context as the basis of a strawman attack.
ickysdad	Hey guys..	#94	[-]
Posts: 2904 (30-Dec-2007 07:04:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	one source I have state the Tiger II & Jagd Tiger had about the same speed and that the JagdTiger had a "practical road speed of about 10-11 MPH" could this be because maybe that low speed was the maximum sustained speed? What was the ground pressure of the Tiger II and JagdTiger ? Wouldn't this impact the mobility of these 2 AFV's as compared to other AFV's? Size can also limit "strategic mobility" by restricting the bridges a tank can cross .
kenBB48		#95	[-]
Posts: 67 (30-Dec-2007 22:50:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	According to "The Illustrated Directory of Tanks, David Miller,Salamander Books 2000." the ground pressure of the Tiger II was 15.2lb/in sq. for the Jagdtiger I can't find right now I will look in some more of my books and see. KW

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Best heavy tank of WW2?

Quick Reply