In Europe, the Tiger tank was called the Tiger by Yanks and Tommies. They respected them and feared them at the same time. The US Shermans couldn't really do anything to the Tigers unless the Shermans attacked from behind. Tiger tanks were sometimes called King, or the Royal Tank, just because it was the best thing out in the battlefield. By the way, did the Germans/Italians call the Tiger Tanks, pussy cats or did the Allies?
Originally posted by Danmark@May 20 2004, 12:36 AM Tiger tanks were sometimes called King, or the Royal Tank, just because it was the best thing out in the battlefield. No, sorry, the Tiger and king Tiger were not the same tank. Check out details here: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/profiles.htm
Tiger I & II tanks were definately some of the most advanced, best-designed and best tanks of WWII. They were, however, very heavy and sophisticated to be produced in sufficient quantities to make a real impact on the battlefield. And these tanks had a great deal of advantages over Allied designs. The Western Allies had a hard time fighting them, it wasn't only until the 'Fireflys' and 76mm guns arrived, that they couldn't be fought successfully. The western allies belived that 'the Germans had 2.000 Tiger tanks' in Normany, because they believed every German tank was a 'Tiger' —which portrays very well the psychological power of this huge tank—, but the fugure is exaggerated, there were not even 100 of them. 2.000 is even more than the the whole number of Tigers ever produced.
Originally posted by angie999+May 24 2004, 12:10 PM-->(angie999 @ May 24 2004, 12:10 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Danmark@May 20 2004, 12:36 AM Tiger tanks were sometimes called King, or the Royal Tank, just because it was the best thing out in the battlefield. No, sorry, the Tiger and king Tiger were not the same tank. [/b]I know that they are different tanks but to a field GI or to a tommie they were known as a kraut tank or a tiger tank, they didn't have time to be picky with names. Now if you were in a higher position of power or intelligence level then they called the tanks by there full military ID name.
Originally posted by Danmark@May 19 2004, 05:36 PM By the way, did the Germans/Italians call the Tiger Tanks, pussy cats or did the Allies? It was the Churchill crews who thought of the Tigers as pussycats - it was coming up against PzKpfw IVs, with their speedier rate of fire, that caused us more concern. Perhaps our confidence was due to the Regiment significantly helping to soundly defeat sPzAbt during our first time in battle at Hunt's Gap in Tunisiia. How effective was the defence of the approaches to Beja is emphasised in the records of Schwere Panzer Abteilungen which state that the sPzAbt.501 (Heavy Tank Battalion) lost so many tanks at Hunt's Gap that it ceased to be an effective fighting force. Of the nineteen Tigers that went into action only four survived. Of particular significance, two were put of action Churchill 6-pdrs (of 25th Army Tank Brigade's North Irish Horse) the first to so done by fire from a tank. That 6pdr AP shell could penetrate the Tiger's 102mm thick frontal armour was acknowledged by the Germans and confirmed in "25 Army Tank Brigade's Technical Intelligence Summary Number 1: PzKpfw VI Tiger." The remnants of 501 were attached to 504 which eventually moved to Italy where it was joined by 508 - the latter having 60% of its strength unable to negotiate the hill roads on its way to attack the Anzio bridge-head. The fact is that the Tiger in Africa and Italy (as the Panther) was out-matched by Churchills - even more so as the more efficient 6pdr AP ammo became available.
absolutely best thank of ww2 (better than any other allied tank) was Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B a.k.a. königstiger.
Originally posted by strangelove@Jun 1 2004, 10:48 PM absolutely best thank of ww2 (better than any other allied tank) was Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B a.k.a. königstiger. I would argue that it was not superior to the Russian IS series. Also, it was not superior to several allied tanks in the infantry support role, even if they did not match it in tank on tank situations. Certainly the M4 Sherman was not designed for tank on tank, so the standard 75mm gun was provided to give a good anti-personnel performance. The Tiger series also had two principal problems. First they were mechanically unreliable and prone to breakdown. Second, their size exceeded the rail loading gauge, which meant that they could not be transported by rail without extensive disassembly and reassembly, a problem for the German forces which used rail for long distance tank transportation.
Originally posted by angie999@Jun 3 2004, 12:07 PM I would argue that it was not superior to the Russian IS series. Also, it was not superior to several allied tanks in the infantry support role, even if they did not match it in tank on tank situations. Certainly the M4 Sherman was not designed for tank on tank, so the standard 75mm gun was provided to give a good anti-personnel performance. The Tiger series also had two principal problems. First they were mechanically unreliable and prone to breakdown. Second, their size exceeded the rail loading gauge, which meant that they could not be transported by rail without extensive disassembly and reassembly, a problem for the German forces which used rail for long distance tank transportation. tiger and königstiger had no problems with destroying allied tanks. same could not be said for allied tanks.
Friedrich H wrote: Tiger I & II tanks were definately some of the most advanced, best-designed and best tanks of WWII. I am sure that in your opinion they are,,,, I would like to point out the fact that the Tiger had no sloping armor.... Was so heavy that most bridges could not support it. Needed a separate set of tracks just to transport it. Consumed alot of petrol. Most of the Tiger II's lost were from mechanical breakdowns....But it did have sloping armor. Both types used gas, not diesel. Both tanks rate on armor and gun, but not on numbers produced, ease of maintenance or deployability. IS series was great....
The first King Tiger destroyed in Normandy was during the battle of Goodwood, the largest tank battle is western Europe. It was destroyed by being rammed by a normal Sherman, causing both crews to bail out, then a Firefly, being a Sherman with a 17 pounder gun on top from the same Troop was brought up to close range and the Tiger was shot in the rear, the most vulnerable place. I was at a ceremony a couple of years ago, where three of the crew of the Sherman met together and to commemorate the battle and their lost allies from the Guards Armoured Division. The commander of the Sherman was and probably is still an MP in Northern Ireland. I chatted to the driver who said he was scared stiff at the time, and after the crash could not get out the normal way as the tanks were locked together, when he did get out, he jumped to the side the German crew were hiding in the long grass, he stood up, saluted and ran around the tanks to join his own crew. The crew knew King Tigers were in the area, and had discussed what to do if they met one, no one had any better idea than to ram it, as they could not damage it in any other way, so that is why they took the action that they did. The only other way to destroy it was using aircraft firing rockets, who could damage its tracks. The King Tiger was a formidable tank, but was too heavy for soft ground, and the production speed was too slow. All tanks are vulnerable unless they have the support necessary to keep infantry and aircraft away. This King Tiger was supposed to have two ordinary Tigers backing it up, but they obviously failed to stop the Firefly getting in the killing blow.
In an earlier posting I included the following: "That 6pdr AP shell could penetrate the Tiger's 102mm thick frontal armour was acknowledged by the Germans and confirmed in "25 Army Tank Brigade's Technical Intelligence Summary Number 1: PzKpfw VI Tiger." The 25 ATB Summary is now on: http://web.archive.org/web/20110219182343/http://northirishhorse.net/documents/25thTB-Tiger.html http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/Docume...-6pdr-data.html Despite the arrival of the Churchill na 75 and later the Mark VII, neither the US or British 75mm AP was as effective as that of the 6-pdr. Throughout the Italian Campaign, in accordance the the Dawnay Doctrine, whenever it was expected that Panzers may be lurking, it was the Mark IIIs and IVs that led the way.
One of the large problems the Germans had was maintainence of all their tanks, not just the Tiger. The Germans never kept up the flow of spare and replacement parts for their vehicles, which, while being top design, were highly temperamental and required frequent maintenance. A number of German vehicles were found abandoned in retreats, due to mechanical breakdowns or lack of fuel. By the end of the war, the Luftwaffe used horsecarts to drag fighters from hangars to the flightline for take-off, to save fuel.
