|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jun 27, 2014 19:23:57 GMT -6
Which was the better tank, all factors considered? My money goes on the Tiger hands down, but I've heard it argued both ways. In a one-on-one confrontation on the battlefield, the Sherman was nearly always a dead duck as soon as the Tiger could swing its 88mm around and fire, yet there is some merit to the argument that quantity has a quality all its own. We build nearly 50,000 Shermans, but the Germans only produced about 1300 Tiger tanks. Not only was the Sherman out-gunned in terms of penetration power with it's 88mm high-velocity cannon versus the Sherman's puny 75mm, the Sherman was a gasoline powered tank whereas the Tiger used diesel. Those who rode the Shermans had a nickname for them: The Ronson . . . because they would light up every time. stirthepot
Opinions? Comments?
|
|
|
Post by Alpo on Jun 27, 2014 19:40:13 GMT -6
That can't be right.
In Kelly's Heroes, the Tiger was leaking gasoline. grin2
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jun 28, 2014 12:33:21 GMT -6
That can't be right. In Kelly's Heroes, the Tiger was leaking gasoline. grin2 As you suggest, the Tiger was indeed gasoline powered, Alpo. I always thought it had a diesel engine, but that was not the case as I just learned. It ran on a Maybach designed gasoline engine producing some 700 HP. What kept it from being a "Ronson" when hit was the thick armor it carried. None of the Allied tank cannons could penetrate it except at fairly close range and from the rear, whereas the 88mm high-velocity cannon of the Tiger could penetrate a Sherman's armor easily at over 2,000 yards.
|
|
|
Post by Alpo on Jun 28, 2014 12:51:13 GMT -6
I always thought it was diesel, too. I was jabbing at the movie, which had screwed up (imagine that - a movie getting something wrong).
So the flick was right? Gasoline? Wow.
Still, they had US snipers using Mosins, and they put, based on an ingot size of 400 troy ounces, and an amount of 14,000 bars, 204 tons of gold in the back of a flatbed truck and then loaded ten or so men in it and drove off for Switzerland.
|
|
|
Post by red14 on Jun 28, 2014 14:19:04 GMT -6
Which was the better tank, all factors considered? My money goes on the Tiger hands down, but I've heard it argued both ways. In a one-on-one confrontation on the battlefield, the Sherman was nearly always a dead duck as soon as the Tiger could swing its 88mm around and fire, yet there is some merit to the argument that quantity has a quality all its own. We build nearly 50,000 Shermans, but the Germans only produced about 1300 Tiger tanks. Not only was the Sherman out-gunned in terms of penetration power with it's 88mm high-velocity cannon versus the Sherman's puny 75mm, the Sherman was a gasoline powered tank whereas the Tiger used diesel. Those who rode the Shermans had a nickname for them: The Ronson . . . because they would light up every time. stirthepot Opinions? Comments? Tank for tank, the Tiger was better. For that matter, Germany produced several tanks (along with Russia) better than the Shermans. But, 25 little guys will beat 2 big guys all the time. c0507 Positive vibes, man. c0510
|
|
|
Post by Alpo on Jun 28, 2014 15:01:13 GMT -6
Always with those negative wave, Moriarty.
|
|
|
Post by 1shot1k_Admin on Jun 29, 2014 15:49:22 GMT -6
Which was the better tank, all factors considered? My money goes on the Tiger hands down, but I've heard it argued both ways. In a one-on-one confrontation on the battlefield, the Sherman was nearly always a dead duck as soon as the Tiger could swing its 88mm around and fire, yet there is some merit to the argument that quantity has a quality all its own. We build nearly 50,000 Shermans, but the Germans only produced about 1300 Tiger tanks. Not only was the Sherman out-gunned in terms of penetration power with it's 88mm high-velocity cannon versus the Sherman's puny 75mm, the Sherman was a gasoline powered tank whereas the Tiger used diesel. Those who rode the Shermans had a nickname for them: The Ronson . . . because they would light up every time. stirthepot Opinions? Comments? All you say is true history....quantity (plus intel and tactics and fuel ) win out... However....the ONLY time a 75mm is "puny" is yes...when a 76 or bigger is used....
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jun 29, 2014 20:49:17 GMT -6
Which was the better tank, all factors considered? My money goes on the Tiger hands down, but I've heard it argued both ways. In a one-on-one confrontation on the battlefield, the Sherman was nearly always a dead duck as soon as the Tiger could swing its 88mm around and fire, yet there is some merit to the argument that quantity has a quality all its own. We build nearly 50,000 Shermans, but the Germans only produced about 1300 Tiger tanks. Not only was the Sherman out-gunned in terms of penetration power with it's 88mm high-velocity cannon versus the Sherman's puny 75mm, the Sherman was a gasoline powered tank whereas the Tiger used diesel. Those who rode the Shermans had a nickname for them: The Ronson . . . because they would light up every time. stirthepot Opinions? Comments? All you say is true history....quantity (plus intel and tactics and fuel ) win out... However....the ONLY time a 75mm is "puny" is yes...when a 76 or bigger is used.... That depends, my friend, on the intended application of the weapon. A 5" gun on a destroyer firing at another destroyer or shore emplacement is a formidable weapon, but against a battleship it would be futile and suicidal. The 75mm main gun of a Sherman against the armor and hitting power of a Tiger was equally futile and suicidal. Later in the war the Americans did come out with a somewhat better weapon, but by that time thousands of Shermans had been lost and countless crewmen killed in confrontations with the Tiger and Super Tiger. Fortunately for us, the Germans could never build enough of them them to matter in the end. Even the famous Russian T-34--a much better tank than the Sherman--was no match for the Tiger in a one-on-one confrontation, as the Russians found out quite well at the Battle of Kursk. The Russians lost far more tanks in that battle than the Germans, but they had a lot more they could afford to lose than the Germans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 4:55:22 GMT -6
M4 Sherman wins.....
Its been a while since I read my Russian front books, but I remember some comments about the Tiger that were not so good.
The Tiger had many problems the Russian, American and British tanks did not. It was rushed into service without proper trials, and apparently broke down often. Troops were not well supplied with parts either, making field repair and maintenance difficult. The wheel design, unlike most of the allies tanks, inc the T34 was one with overlapping wheels, requiring a long and difficult replacement job when damaged. Having to remove heavy wheels to get to damaged ones. The Tiger also suffered tactically from its size and weight. Being unable to negotiate many bridges and roads.
There is no doubt it was a formidable weapon, and out gunned most on the battlefield in range and potency. Fortunately they were over-engineered, difficult to produce and supply with parts. There simply weren't enough of them, and they had other limitations I referred too. For those reasons I do not rate them above the Sherman, despite their superiority in firepower and protection. Their other failings meant the Germans would have perhaps been better off producing more Panthers.
One final thought, air power soon swung in the allies favour, both on the eastern and western front. The Tiger was just as vulnerable to air launched rockets and bombs as any tank, and thats a point. The Germans sacrificed a great deal to manufacture and field the Tiger. Was the advantage worth it when a Typhoon with air to ground rockets could as easily disable it in one pass, as any tank.
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 2, 2014 10:45:19 GMT -6
M4 Sherman wins..... Its been a while since I read my Russian front books, but I remember some comments about the Tiger that were not so good. The Tiger had many problems the Russian, American and British tanks did not. It was rushed into service without proper trials, and apparently broke down often. Troops were not well supplied with parts either, making field repair and maintenance difficult. The wheel design, unlike most of the allies tanks, inc the T34 was one with overlapping wheels, requiring a long and difficult replacement job when damaged. Having to remove heavy wheels to get to damaged ones. The Tiger also suffered tactically from its size and weight. Being unable to negotiate many bridges and roads. There is no doubt it was a formidable weapon, and out gunned most on the battlefield in range and potency. Fortunately they were over-engineered, difficult to produce and supply with parts. There simply weren't enough of them, and they had other limitations I referred too. For those reasons I do not rate them above the Sherman, despite their superiority in firepower and protection. Their other failings meant the Germans would have perhaps been better off producing more Panthers. One final thought, air power soon swung in the allies favour, both on the eastern and western front. The Tiger was just as vulnerable to air launched rockets and bombs as any tank, and thats a point. The Germans sacrificed a great deal to manufacture and field the Tiger. Was the advantage worth it when a Typhoon with air to ground rockets could as easily disable it in one pass, as any tank. All you said above is true, Tranter. The biggest problem with the Tigers was they broke down too often. They were marvels of engineering, and when they worked, they worked very well indeed, but they were also extremely complex machines and very difficult, if not impossible, to repair in the field unless specialized equipment and highly trained technicians were readily available. The Tiger was also a very large and heavy tank, which made it difficult to maneuver on the narrow roads and forested areas so common in Europe at the time. Yet conceding all of that, when it came to head to head confrontations against the Shermans or T-34s, the Tiger nearly always ate them for lunch, often several of them. rolleyes2 The short-barreled 75mm gun of the the Sherman simply could not penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger tank, nor even the side or rear armor unless the range was very close. Later in the war, the US did mount a long-barreled, high-velocity 75mm on some of the Shermans which did a fairly good job of penetrating up to about 1,000 yards. Unfortunately, the 88mm of the Tiger could penetrate a Sherman's armor at 3,000 yards! grin2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 4:48:54 GMT -6
Pistol, your final point is true, non the less, the effectiveness of a weapon, or any equipment goes beyond its drawings specs. In actual use in the field they often failed. What use the range and penetration of the 88mm gun when the turret is jammed, or engine fails? In ideal conditions the Tiger could take on several Shermans, and still win.They often proved that. Ideal conditions in war however are rare.
German thinking is interesting. It actually seems fairly simple, a bigger gun, with more range and thick armour to protect the crew and keep the tank in the fight. Facing one must have been scary indeed. I remember a TV documentary where a British tank veteran talked of catching one out at short range from concealment. He was in a Sherman. He said they fired and he watched the shell bounce off the Tiger! The tigers turret turned towards them and thinking that was it for them he reversed quickly into a ditch. He clearly survived, but I suspect only just.
|
|
|
Post by Alpo on Jul 3, 2014 5:47:11 GMT -6
Back to Kelly's Heroes. They said, in the flick, that the only place a Sherman could do damage to a Tiger was in the back.
Is that true, or just movie?
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 3, 2014 12:43:15 GMT -6
Back to Kelly's Heroes. They said, in the flick, that the only place a Sherman could do damage to a Tiger was in the back. Is that true, or just movie? It's pretty much true, Alpo. Armor can't be maximum everywhere on any armored vehicle, else it would become too heavy to move under its own power. As with most tanks, armor was thinnest on the Tiger at the rear of the tank where it was least likely to take a hit, only about an inch or so. It was also thinned out some on the top of the tank, which helps explain why air-to-ground rocket fire from fighter-bombers often blew them into the next universe. The flanks were well armored, though not as much as the frontal portion of the tank, but--and this is a big "butt", if you'll pardon the pun--if the tracks were hit just right, they could be blown off or at least damaged, which effectively immobilized the tank. One other vulnerability of the Tiger was the narrow gap between the turret and the main body of the tank. If a shell, even a puny 75mm, could be placed right into that gap, even on the heavily armored frontal aspect, at reasonable range, it was curtains for the Tiger. It usually blew the turret completely off the tank. That rarely happened though, because the shot was so difficult to make accurately. Finally, one advantage the Sherman did have over the Tiger was the fact that it had an electrically powered turret traverse, whereas the Tiger's turret had to be hand cranked by the gunner, which was much slower. Still, when all is said and done, the firepower of the Tiger was so enormously greater than the Sherman's, and the Tiger was so much better armored, that in the vast majority of confrontations, the Sherman ended up with an 88mm hole that penetrated straight through the tank, usually killing most of the crew with spawl, and/or setting fire to the fuel and ammo. If the hit came close to the intersection between the turret and the main body of the tank, the Sherman's turret could usually be found upside down several yards from the rest of the tank, along with the body parts of the tank commander.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 6:07:15 GMT -6
Armour or not, one achilles heel of any tank were the tracks and wheels. I seem to remember replacing damaged tracks on the Tiger was also much harder than on other tanks. The overlapping wheel design already mentioned another.
Maybe three Tigers could take on twenty Shermans, assuming they dont break down and can drive where they need too. Again I have to come down on the side of the Sherman as a war winning weapon.
By way of an example lets look at the fine small arms, the MG34 and MP40. Out in the freezing Russian winter they jammed, parts seized to each other. The Russians came along with guns like the PPsh 41 and 43. Much loser tolerances, less parts, less well finished and very reliable.
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 6, 2014 9:04:34 GMT -6
Exactly so, Tranter. The Tiger tank, and the later versions of it, were intricately designed and finely engineered machines with very close machine tolerances. On paper, the Tiger held all the advantages, and when they worked properly, they did indeed hold all the advantages in any sort of slugging match. The trouble was, designs on paper don't always equate to actual performance under practical field conditions. It's an application of the old law of unintended consequences. Over engineering means greater need for maintenance and the requirement for more time and more specialized technicians to do the maintaining, not to mention a logistics train to supply the necessary replacement parts and fuel. On the Steppes of Russia, at 30 below zero, or in the Ardennes Forest of France operating under a strict timetable, that wasn't always possible. A breakdown often meant simply abandonment of a repairable tank.
|
|