Tiger Tiger...?

Well, I'll grant you, it is a comic book, but I don't see the Justice League anywhere...

 

Plus a wicked and mnemonic name.

 

It's the Darth Vader of tanks.

 

I'm not convinced the Tiger was what its current image is. I simply believe the Tiger was a catch all for all German tanks, like the 'Spandau' or 'Schmeiser'.

A fair few moons ago, when I went on my many trips to the Tank Museum, a certain David Fletcher was a curator there, perhaps had just become the librarian. He simply said that British tankers, when faced with any foe 'SIMPLY GOT ON WITH IT'. The capitals were his exact words. There was no time when their opponent made them more 'sticky' than they otherwise would be, that I can find. Certainly, during The Great Swan, their is no evidence, that having any particular opponent, caused them to specifically slow them down. Lack of fuel did.

What slowed the W Allies down was their levels of supplies. Certainly, the British thought that WW2 in Europe would end in June 45, as per some of the Cabinet Papers in the National Archives. OTOH, one of the same set of Cabinet Papers, dated 4th October 1944, thought the war would end by April 45 (Hypothesis C). Whichever might be more factually correct, it's clear that Tigers were irrelevant.

 

Hi Nick,

I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean to say that you think the name "Tiger" was 'just' a generic name used for all German tanks? I mean, the name originated with the Germans and 'Konigstiger' (sp) for the Tiger II.

By and large, yes, level of supplies was definitely a/the controlling factor of the rate of advance. I don't think anyone could say that at any particular point in time that "the enemy Tiger tanks held up the advance of the army" or anything like that. On the other hand the density of German anti-tank guns or mounted on AFVs - was certainly a factor in Normandy and certainly affected e.g. Goodwood.

On the other hand, I'm not sure there were any Tiger tanks operational in the time and place of the "Great Swan", as opposed to having been knocked out or abandoned due to lack of fuel by the Germans. The German army was too disorganized for that to have really mattered.

On the third hand, however, I found an actual comment in an anti-tank war diary of "Mark VI fever" (or something like "17 pounder - Mark VI fever") among the tankers in war diaries in September 1944 in Italy. This was in the context of anti-tank SPs being provided to support the advance. 93rd Anti-Tank Regiment had just acquired a few 17-pounder Valentines (Archers) on trial - this was a few weeks before any 17-pounder M10s arrived in theatre. These Archers were pressed into immediate support for offensive operations, and when their commander wanted to withdraw the vehicles for much-needed maintenance there was an uproar over withdrawing the only 17-pounder self-propelled guns in the front line.

So I think that does show a high level of concern about dealing with enemy Tiger tanks in that time and place. Of course in that same place and time, the armoured regiments in question did not have any 17-pounder armed Shermans.

 

The problem with the 17pdr AT gun, as opposed to those found on vehicles, was that it took 8-15 hours to dig in properly, and the Germans often counter attacked any advance, well before then. This was a major reason why the 6 pdr was re-introduced to the AT battalions of British infantry divisions. OTOH, Archers took about 1 hour to dig in, the same as the 6 pdr, and obviously added greater firepower, always a good thing.

However, I have also read that a major improvement to British infantry units was the adding of vehicles, like Weasels, for re supplying infantry units immediately after an assault. It should be noted that British infantry assaults were usually initially successful, despite perceived superiority of German weaponry, in most respects (such as the Tiger, MG42, Me262 et al). What the problem was, was the fact that these assaults often left units bereft of ammunition, and very suseptible to counter attack. Elements, such as an Archer, or Weasel mitigates this issue.

 

I think the best way of mitigating any counter-attacks would have been for any likely German mustering points (i.e. woods, copses, farms etc.) to be pre-registered by the artillery. Don't know if there were any attempts to do this, however.

 

Well, you didn't have to spot them first, you had to predict where they were most likely to aggregate. There's a passage in "Stout Hearts" where a British officer recounts where he successfully did just that for three separate locations. I don't know however how viable this would have been as a general policy, and if it was viable, why it doesn't seem to have been widely implemented.

 

What certainly also makes the Tiger myth:
Often a question of subjective experience at the time and the resulting narrative for subsequent generations:
My hometown was bombed by 12(!) B-17s in 1945. In the memory of the eyewitnesses at that time there were hundreds of airplanes, which brought the apocalypse over the small town.
One should always keep in mind that the war was experienced in all places mainly by ordinary people (like us), whose perception was quite overstimulated: Accordingly, the discrepancy between the experienced and the documented fighting often differs quite considerably.
Anyone who has ever experienced a car accident himself will have an idea of what I mean.