German tanks

Fritz · 31-08-2006, 12:41 AM

Out of the german tanks, which was the most formidable? I have discussed this with my wife many times, and she always says "the grey tigers". I don;t know so much about the tanks, I try not to get too involved in learning about the sausage munching bosh, but is she right?

Kiwiwriter · 31-08-2006, 02:35 AM

Welcome aboard, you'll enjoy it here!

As for formidable German tanks...depends on what you're looking for. For offensive punch, the Tiger tank with its 88mm gun was "unsafe at any speed" to Allied tanks. On the other hand, it used up a lot of gas and couldn't handle narrow or weak bridges. The Panther was more maneuverable, but hard to maintain. The 1940 Blitzkrieg was achieved by the Panzer II, the Panzer III, and the Panzer 38. The Panzer IV was the mainstay of the German machine for a good chunk of the war. The Panzer IIIJ was the best in North Africa.

So pick 'em!

lancesergeant · 31-08-2006, 02:42 AM

I think if the Germans had got the reliability of the Panther sorted out, it would have eclipsed the Tiger. The Tiger was never going to be turned out in numbers that would have neutralised the opposition's numerical superiority, but it's effect on the battlefield was almost legendary. If one tank came near to the image of formidable it would be a safe bet that the Tiger would be top on a lot of lists.

panzerschmuck · 31-08-2006, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancesergeant

I think if the Germans had got the reliability of the Panther sorted out, it would have eclipsed the Tiger. The Tiger was never going to be turned out in numbers that would have neutralised the opposition's numerical superiority, but it's effect on the battlefield was almost legendary. If one tank came near to the image of formidable it would be a safe bet that the Tiger would be top on a lot of lists.

I think the Tiger would be the first tank to cross most people's mind because it was so difficult to knock out. But aside from its thick armor it had nothing on the Panther. The Panther was faster, more maneuverable, had a more powerful gun, larger radius of action and the later models were more mechanically reliable than the Tiger, if for no other reason than that the same size motor was hauling around ten fewer tons. I would have taken an army of Panther tanks over an army of Tigers (I or II) any day.

Gnomey · 31-08-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter

The Panzer IIIJ was the best in North Africa.

I wouldn't say so when both the Panzer IVF2 Special and Tiger served in North Africa both of which were superior to the Panzer IIIJ.

As for most powerful German tanks it would be the Tiger, King Tiger, Jagdpanther, Panther and the few Jagdtigers fielded (with 128mm guns).

MikB · 31-08-2006, 02:04 PM

I've always discounted the turretless types - they may have looked scary, but coordinating driver and gunner to bring a target within the limited gun traverse must've been a nightmare for their commanders.

Despite their excellent optics and all-round vision for the commanders, all the later turreted German tanks suffered from slow traverse compared to Allied types, and in towns or close country melees I think this gave them a really serious handicap - in spite of, or ultimately because of, their longer and generally more powerful guns.

Some of the Tiger's reputation is IMHO due to its blocky and uncompromising size and appearance. Its true battle value was almost always less clear in view of the huge effort required to bring it into action, its chronic unreliability once in, and its vulnerability to weapons such as PIAT and 6 pdr, which such a large and extravagant machine ought to've been able to shrug off.

Any tank is formidable in a situation where it can kill without being killed. But none on any side held that condition for any length of time.

Regards,
MikB

kfz · 31-08-2006, 02:28 PM

You where discussing German Tanks with the mrs?? I might try that.

In defence of the tiger.

The all up wet weight and width isnt that much different from modern vehicles so the standard universally quoted problems with size and weight cant be that much of a drawback. I would have thought the greatest restiction in size would be width for rail transport and rail trucks are exactly the same size as 60 years ago or maybe there is less reliance on rail transport now??

It interesting that that the best Allied tanks in the Pattern and Centurion where considorably bigger and heavier than there forbears and after the war where quickly downgraded to medium tanks.

The only weight issue for thre Tiger was with its own transmission and engine.

Not sure how effective the 6 pdr was, im sure I have some pics of the front of the first Tiger captured which was used for trials and found how completly ineffective the 6 pounder was. The less said about ther Piat the better.

von Poop · 31-08-2006, 03:48 PM

You may be forgetting that the Tiger needed a seperate set of tracks for rail transport to keep it within the loading gauge. These transport tracks also required the removal of the outer set of roadwheels. Fitting and refitting the 'combat' tracks was no minor job and could have to be done at both ends of a journey, major inconvenience when fast action is required. Also a comparison with modern logistical gear doesn't seem entirely reasonable, The Europe of the 1940's simply did not have the substantial transport arteries, heavy bridges etc. that it does today, there were very few vehicles capable of transporting a Tiger other than rail and these were exceptionally rare, if required to March long distances the other problems of wear and general mechanical unreliability were exacerbated. These problems are solved today by huge Oshkosh transporters and their ilk, the Germans did not have these vehicles and could only really rely with the Tiger on rail transport for long distances. The rail system was often understandably in a mess just when these monsters were most urgently required.

I have a feeling that while the MBT 'concept' that the Tiger embodied was sound there wasn't yet the military infastructure required to support the concept. This led to a variety of logistical nightmares that were never satisfactorily solved.

Very little kit of the time could penetrate the front Armour of a Tiger but the 6pdr, especially in it's later variants, was more than capable of doing execution from more oblique angles.

Cheers,
Adam

jagdtiger · 10-12-2006, 04:05 PM

How about the Maus. Biggest jerry tank of ww2.

But not as big as the ruski t35.

Herroberst · 11-12-2006, 07:15 AM

A Panther with a Kwk 88/71 or a Captured M26

31-08-2006, 12:41 AM	#1 (permalink)
Fritz Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 31	German tanks Out of the german tanks, which was the most formidable? I have discussed this with my wife many times, and she always says "the grey tigers". I don;t know so much about the tanks, I try not to get too involved in learning about the sausage munching bosh, but is she right?

31-08-2006, 02:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Newark, NJ, and Christchurch, NZ Posts: 2,431	Hi there! Welcome aboard, you'll enjoy it here! As for formidable German tanks...depends on what you're looking for. For offensive punch, the Tiger tank with its 88mm gun was "unsafe at any speed" to Allied tanks. On the other hand, it used up a lot of gas and couldn't handle narrow or weak bridges. The Panther was more maneuverable, but hard to maintain. The 1940 Blitzkrieg was achieved by the Panzer II, the Panzer III, and the Panzer 38. The Panzer IV was the mainstay of the German machine for a good chunk of the war. The Panzer IIIJ was the best in North Africa. So pick 'em! __________________ "My intensity is intense." -- Roger Clemens "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." -- Winston Churchill. "I am not a hero. The heroes are all dead. I am a survivor." -- Sgt. William Guarnere, Easy Company, 506th Parachute Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. Check out my little contributions to World War II history at my web pages: World War II Plus 55 or http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com

31-08-2006, 03:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
von Poop I Like Tanks Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perfidious Albion. Posts: 8,364	You may be forgetting that the Tiger needed a seperate set of tracks for rail transport to keep it within the loading gauge. These transport tracks also required the removal of the outer set of roadwheels. Fitting and refitting the 'combat' tracks was no minor job and could have to be done at both ends of a journey, major inconvenience when fast action is required. Also a comparison with modern logistical gear doesn't seem entirely reasonable, The Europe of the 1940's simply did not have the substantial transport arteries, heavy bridges etc. that it does today, there were very few vehicles capable of transporting a Tiger other than rail and these were exceptionally rare, if required to March long distances the other problems of wear and general mechanical unreliability were exacerbated. These problems are solved today by huge Oshkosh transporters and their ilk, the Germans did not have these vehicles and could only really rely with the Tiger on rail transport for long distances. The rail system was often understandably in a mess just when these monsters were most urgently required. I have a feeling that while the MBT 'concept' that the Tiger embodied was sound there wasn't yet the military infastructure required to support the concept. This led to a variety of logistical nightmares that were never satisfactorily solved. Very little kit of the time could penetrate the front Armour of a Tiger but the 6pdr, especially in it's later variants, was more than capable of doing execution from more oblique angles. Cheers, Adam Last edited by von Poop; 31-08-2006 at 07:07 PM. Reason: spelling

11-12-2006, 07:15 AM	#10 (permalink)
Herroberst Very Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the tree line Posts: 1,160	A Panther with a Kwk 88/71 or a Captured M26 __________________ Coir a glaive *Nemo me impune lacessit*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

31-08-2006, 02:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
lancesergeant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 778	I think if the Germans had got the reliability of the Panther sorted out, it would have eclipsed the Tiger. The Tiger was never going to be turned out in numbers that would have neutralised the opposition's numerical superiority, but it's effect on the battlefield was almost legendary. If one tank came near to the image of formidable it would be a safe bet that the Tiger would be top on a lot of lists.

31-08-2006, 02:04 PM	#6 (permalink)
MikB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 170	I've always discounted the turretless types - they may have looked scary, but coordinating driver and gunner to bring a target within the limited gun traverse must've been a nightmare for their commanders. Despite their excellent optics and all-round vision for the commanders, all the later turreted German tanks suffered from slow traverse compared to Allied types, and in towns or close country melees I think this gave them a really serious handicap - in spite of, or ultimately because of, their longer and generally more powerful guns. Some of the Tiger's reputation is IMHO due to its blocky and uncompromising size and appearance. Its true battle value was almost always less clear in view of the huge effort required to bring it into action, its chronic unreliability once in, and its vulnerability to weapons such as PIAT and 6 pdr, which such a large and extravagant machine ought to've been able to shrug off. Any tank is formidable in a situation where it can kill without being killed. But none on any side held that condition for any length of time. Regards, MikB

31-08-2006, 02:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
kfz Very Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Lancashire, UK Posts: 1,143	You where discussing German Tanks with the mrs?? I might try that. In defence of the tiger. The all up wet weight and width isnt that much different from modern vehicles so the standard universally quoted problems with size and weight cant be that much of a drawback. I would have thought the greatest restiction in size would be width for rail transport and rail trucks are exactly the same size as 60 years ago or maybe there is less reliance on rail transport now?? It interesting that that the best Allied tanks in the Pattern and Centurion where considorably bigger and heavier than there forbears and after the war where quickly downgraded to medium tanks. The only weight issue for thre Tiger was with its own transmission and engine. Not sure how effective the 6 pdr was, im sure I have some pics of the front of the first Tiger captured which was used for trials and found how completly ineffective the 6 pounder was. The less said about ther Piat the better.

10-12-2006, 04:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
jagdtiger Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4	How about the Maus. Biggest jerry tank of ww2. But not as big as the ruski t35.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
THE WAFFEN-SS: Divisional Service History, Brigade/Battalion Unit List + Unit Notes.	Christos	Axis Units	74	30-05-2008 11:42 PM
Heavy Bombers In Normandy	Dac	NW Europe	95	07-03-2008 08:06 PM
The Reich's Ex-leaders Explain Why They Were Beaten	spidge	General	11	10-11-2006 01:51 PM
The NIH in Italy - Part One- At War	Wise1	North Irish Horse	0	22-07-2006 01:15 AM
The Campaign in North Africa	Wise1	North Irish Horse	0	22-07-2006 12:57 AM