Tiger Tiger...?

The German armored forces saw it the same way. The Tiger was seen on the Eastern Front as the only tank with a real chance of surviving mass attacks, while the Panther was praised for its terrain capability and accurate gun.
But somewhere in the depths of my archives there is a report that in reality there was a wish for larger quantities of a 32-ton tank.
Something like a Super Mk IV

But I just don't have the time or leisure to sift through 8,000 pages to find the exact wording

 

It was by design.
The experiences of the eastern front have been evaluated very precisely and countless ballistic tests have been undertaken.
Franz Kosar has published a fairly comprehensive elaboration on this in connection with anti-tank weapons

 

Above reports and the one below are all from the Final Historial Report of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle & Weapons Section, US Army Ordnance Corps

Found this report, does not shed any light on the “Tiger obsolete” comment, just just gives some “raw numbers” of AFV losses to German and US Forces ONLY.

I’m still looking to see if their is any US report that backs up the original report at the start of the thread about evaluation of Tiger Tanks versus US manufactured tanks

I did find a report that I found that the US Army Groups are complaining about LACK of replacement tanks “in theater” and their were NO replacement stocks in the US…….the reason (In this report) that the LEND-LEASE agreement with the British included that the US would maintain BRITISH replacement stocks at 137% of their need at all times, so the majority of their production (or a great deal) was going to the British (and Canadian & Allied units)……hence fewer tanks available for US front line units……….but its a soldier’s right to “gripe”, even if your a 3 or 4 star General in charge of an Army Group

 

I would take "obsolete" in this instance as simply to mean "out of production".

 

What amazes me the most is that if the Tiger was such a great example of tank design and development, why wasn't it copied after the war as the Panther undoubtedly was?

And why did we see the Mark IV soldier on in other armies . There don't seem to be any examples of the King Tiger design living on after the end of WW2 either.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong please, but why did Soviet designs postwar look very much like their JS series rather than any German design?

 

Who exactly copied the Panther?

The Tiger was just too much tank for the gun it carried around. The same is IMO true for the Panther, which had severe weaknesses in design.

The Chieftain's Hatch: French Panthers

All the best

Andreas

 

The most important late war and post war tanks were all designed to beat the Panther.

It therefore had the most influence on tank design of any WW2 tank.

And the Germans for their Leopard series used concepts introduced by the Panther.

I certainly don't know of anything approaching " Tiger Fever" when it comes to Allied tank crews talking about the Panther. And that's what is so mystifying. The Panther had the most influence on late war and post war design concepts, but demonstrably failed to have the same psychological impact as the Tiger series, then or now.

You have to be a BUFF to realise that the Panther was in fact the most influential design of the later period and post war, and of itself, was a response to the most influential design of the early to mid war period itself.

And that tank was none other than the T34

Both Panther and Tigers were built in response to it. But the Tigers seemed to have a psychological effect that the Panther did not, even though post war design was strangely UNINFLUENCED by the Tiger at all.

But people just can't and won't stop talking about the Tiger. It has a mystique about it that is still present to this day, even though it's influence on tank design was minimal or nothing.

STRANGE

 

Maybe the psychology of the Tiger revolves around the psychology of the 88 mm gun for its main Armament?

The 88mm Flak piece was probably the only piece of artillery of any kind to have a "reputation", with the only possible exception to that being the British 25 pounder field gun.

But the 25 certainly wasn't multi role like the "magic" 88. EVERY Allied soldier knew the distinctive sound of an 88 in the direct fire mode, and as a Flak piece there weren't to many pieces of artillery that could match it.

So...

Maybe the "mystique" associated with the Tiger came from the reputation that the 88mm gun undoubtedly had.

Am I correct in assuming this? What do the buffs here feel about this?

 

Oh yes.

I forgot about the influence of the 105mm American artillery piece. But the 105 was not dual purpose like the 88mm, so really, even though it lasted much longer in service, dual purpose weapons were the main influence postwar, and that was an influence from the 88.

Do you guys and girls agree with that?

 

I think it was mainly the psychological effect.

The 88 mm had an enormous punch.
Fun fact: In German, rasant = fast. It derives from rasanz, which in ballistics describes the straight trajectory of a projectile with high velocity. This technical term found its colloquial entry through the often propagandistically emphasised performance of the 8.8 gun.

The performance of the 8.8 was known early in the war. When a heavily armoured Leviathan with such a mammoth gun appeared, it almost certainly caused a ferasome reputation: one's own shells seem to bounce off it ineffectively, while its gun effortlessly took out one's own tanks with one hit - and often at impressive distances.

In fact, the basic design of the Tiger was a maximally pumped-up Mk IV. While the Panther was developed as a direct response to the T-34, the Tiger was based on the idea of an offensive breakthrough tank. After the sobering experiences of the Eastern Front, it was clear that such a vehicle would have to digest an enormous amount of damage in order to be successful.
Managed wisely from a tactical point of view, these expectations were more than fulfilled ;

translation:
This tiger received in the southern section in 6 hours
227 hits anti-tank rifle
14 hits 5.2 cm and
11 hits 7.62 cm
none went through

Rollers and connectors were shot
2 swing arms no longer worked
several AT gun hits were right on the tracks
hit 3 mines
and still drove 60km under its own power

One can assume that many crews had already heard hair-raising stories about this tank before they encountered one themselves. And if they survived such an engagement, their stories added to the legend - after all, they had survived against a Tiger! Even better, when they killed this fearsome predator, wich made them to praised heroes.

In the end, it can be assumed that the vast majority of veterans at that time never had to deal directly with a tiger themselves*, but knew the stories about it. And as it is with stories when they are interesting.......
*My grandfather spent four years with the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front and only saw a Tiger in action once.

 

I believe this picture, which he took I believe, was the only time my grandfather saw one.

All the best

Andreas

 

Is there any wartime evidence that Tigerphobia was an actual thing? It just appears Tiger was the generic name given to any German tank, just as Spandau's refer to both MG34 and 42's.

There was a report on tank casualties that stated a full 50% were caused by 88mm's. This was because 88's were the generic name for German AT guns. This is plainly false given the plethora of 75mm guns compared with 88mm's.

https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Ballistics/Term/ORO-T-117_Allied_Tank_Casualties_WW2.pdf

 

There's this scene in Fury where the firing by 7.5cm pak was commented as 8.8 by the main actor
The question in this context is whether this was deliberately built into the script.

 

I don't think I've ever read or heard an allied soldier who fought in Europe describe a shelling he endured to be delivered by anything other than '88s'. They don't always mention a specific piece but when they do, it was an 88.

I don't imagine it was true but that's what they all seem to say.

 

I don't think this was the case with the Centurion at all. I've never seen the Panther mentioned with any regard to it in any of the official development paperwork, and I've certainly never seen it described as a "Panther beater". I do however think that the Panther had the right formula for what a main battle tank should be, and which the British and Americans arrived at themselves a year or so later, so it was pioneering if not strictly speaking influential.

Actual tigers (I mean the animals) are more impressive and recognisable than panthers. The association in the mind (tiger = big killer) is made more readily and more firmly.

 

Pzkpfw IVs with turret schurzen were interpreted in some intelligence circles as being disguised as Tigers. I think that idea came from the Italian front but I can't remember where I've seen it.

On the flip side, even the sticky, cautious, battle-weary, etc. gunners of the Desert Rats' anti-tank regiment seemed quite keen to go out of their way to hunt them down - the trophy trumped the terror.

 

Size matters.

The Panther and both Tigers are huge compared to their opponents. Whether that's a good thing, or not, is an interesting topic.

 

This is a very valid point from our intrepid Poopster.

Fast turret traverse was a significant battlefield advantage in a meeting engagement, especially when your opponent approaches you from a flank or rear.

The Tiger had a turret traverse that was SLOW, making its response to anything not coming from its frontal arc questionable as to whether the Tiger could get the first shot in...

And as any student or buff of armoured warfare will tell you, whoever got the first shot in generally had the upper hand of the engagement.

And first shot was largely a factor of turret traverse speed, to which the Tiger was at a major disadvantage