Tanks

The tanks I think that were in world war 2 the war king tiger, tiger 1 and panther tank all had good guns and a heak of a lot of armour. British and American shells would bounce right off and the germans would blow there turret off from long rang.

 

Patton said that the King Tiger was useless because of it's immobility. It was sitting duck to air power. Too hard to hide and unable to escape and could only go certain places because of its enormous weight (many bridges couldn't take it). I always liked the Tiger.

 

Tiger was the best! There is no other tank what could succesfully fight with Tiger!

Patton said so! Because he was jealous and angry! He hasn´t his own Tiger.

 

Patton never needed a King Tiger, with a steady influx of Sherman's he could easily out number any tank he faced in the battle field not to mention the air superiorty as well.

 

Panther for me. More mobile than the Tiger with a gun almost as good. Could take out any Allied tank before they came into range.

 

Patton didnt need them because he hadn´t problem with fuel!

I can make a mistake but I think that Tigers stoped in Ardenns because the fuel ended!

It makes things easy for Patton and his Shermans!

 

If Tigrithe was in good shape and faced with the enemy tanks in battle then Tigrithe crash it!
And nothing or nobody wont distrub Tigrithe to do that!

Tigrithe is the king in battle! Just like the tiger in nature!




One old man who was in Wiking Narva told me once how Tigrithe grupp save his and many other solders
lives!
In 1943 part of german forces was blockaded in Tchrkasso. One day, early morning they sart moving
to join with the german main forces!
That wont easy! They came ower soviets lines and mumerous mines! Needless to say there were some rivers!
But they still move!

Soviets didnt sleep! Two hundred or three hundred(maybe more) Soviets tanks started follow them!
Otto Gille and other officers decided that the last 17 Tigrithe tanks will go against them and try to keep them till they brief to save the solders lives who try to escape!

Old grenader who told that story said that the crews of the tanks were btw16-17 years old !
Seventeen last Tigrithe with they crews go.....!
They stoped Soviets tanks over 30-40 min. That wont enough but stil! It helped! Many solders escape thanks for them! There is a legend(Maybe it is truth nobody knows) that the 17 tigrithe fight till the ammo ended!
They died in they tanks as hieros!

17 tigrithe against 200 or 400 t-34! And ower 30-40 min t-34 wont move! That numerous grupp stop
because of 17 tigrithe!
I tryly belive that there is no other tanks that could repeat that! No Sherman or whatewer!
The Tigrithe is the best!

Thanks for them my grandfather come out from the hell called Tcherkasso!

Tigrite forever!

 

I go with Flackfire. The Tiger was the best for me.

 

(Flakfire @ Feb 13 2006, 10:22 AM) [post=45763]Tiger was the best! There is no other tank what could succesfully fight with Tiger!

Patton said so! Because he was jealous and angry! He hasn´t his own Tiger.
[/b]
Patton did like the Tiger, it was the King Tiger he said was pretty useless because it was immoble, too heavy and broke down all the time. It would also be too vulnerable to aircraft. But the standard Tiger was a nice tank.


(Flakfire @ Feb 13 2006, 12:57 PM) [post=45775]Tigrithe is the king in battle! Just like the tiger in nature!
[/b]
The Tiger was not the king. Artillery (queen of the battlefield) and air power (king of the battlefield) ruled tigers. Just like in nature, the tiger is ruled by man.

 

The Panther a match for the T34, more mobile than the Tiger! The amount of breakdowns due to engine failures it might as well have been as mobile as one. If they could have kicked out enough of them to face the T34's it would be an interesting face off. If the Germans had concentated on this and say the Stugs and ironed out the engine problems it might have prolonged events. Saying that the Germans did base it on the T34, though they couldn't be seen to be adopting the inferior eastern technologies.

The Tiger too heavy limited battlefield mobility top enders kicking 60 - 70 tons?. No dispute on the 8.8cm gun. Unreliable engine - Maybach engine -the bores are seperated by literal mms. This powering a 60 ton+ tank. No wonder it broke down. Thick armour , you can have too much of a good thing, with tanks it is a trade off between mobility and protection. For presence on the battlefield with the tanks that were around it was the daddy. The big bad monster on the block.

T34 radical engineering for it's time - first with sloping armour, bullet proof engine, cheap mass produced tonka and resilience. Wide tracks to spread it's weight.

Ultimately is what defines the idea of best: the biggest baddest hitter on the block,most savage fire power,best overall qualities reliability. Best covers a wide mulititude of sins! For sheer presence on the battlefield the Tiger and it's variants would take some beating. None of the tanks had it all

 

The Tiger was no match for an M-26 Pershing which was faster than both the Panther and Tiger. It could out run both of them and had more armament. So the comment that Patton didn't have a Tiger might be true but it might be irrelevant as well. They didn't get into the war until late in it and then all they did was chase the Tigers around until their crews abandoned them. I am sure you have all seen the history channel footage where the Pershing runs down a Tiger and destroys it in some German town. That Tiger commander had not intention whatsoever of fighting the M-26 and was trying to elude him. Too bad they didn't show up in 1944, we wouldn't have had to rely on TAC.

 

</div><div class='quotemain'>The Tiger was no match for an M-26 Pershing[/b]


Too fast for me to post before you but I have to agree. The M-26 was a direct copy of the Tiger from Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Tiger used the modified 88MM and the US used the modified 90MM anti aircraft gun. Sperling also used the M-26 in the Battle of the Bulge to serve as the Tiger in the movie(Just a little Cliff Claven factoid)

</div><div class='quotemain'>Thanks for them my grandfather come out from the hell called Tcherkasso![/b]

What unit was your Grandpa in?



Oh dear a double post... images/smilies/default/cool.gif

 

I think the Russian T-34 was the best tank, easy to manufacture, first to have sloping armour and made in big numbers.

 

Could be wrong but didn't they use a Pershing for the German tank in " To Hell and Back", the film of Audie Murphy's biography.

 

When two tanks face each other in the killing range of each other, the advantage goes to the one with the faster rate of fire and/or speedier turret traverse. If the Tigers sent to Africa had reached Rommel, while his Afrika Korps was still in Libya, they would have proved to be deadly. However, in the hills of Tunisia (and later in Italy) they they proved to be oversized pussycats when coming up against 6-pdr guns.
The first two Tigers knocked were by 6-pdrs of the RA.The second two (the first to be knocked out by another tank) followed later at the battle of Hunt's Gap being put out of action by Churchills of the North Irish Horse.
Here are links relative to the topic:
http://www.nih.ww2site.com/nih/vehiclegallery/Tiger-131.html
http://www.nih.ww2site.com/nih/Documents/Tiger-6pdr-data.html
http://www.nih.ww2site.com/nih/Documents/RA-6pdr-Report.html

Cheers, Gerry

 

Gerry,

That last report you provided a link to seems very suspect to me. It has American spelling for 'armour', and refers to a tank being 'buttoned up' when British army terminology for the same condition was 'closed down'. It's also rather confused, straying into a discussion of 'Tank Destroyers' which were scarcely in use, if at all, in 1943.

Regards,
MikB

 

Gerry,

That last report you provided a link to seems very suspect to me. It has American spelling for 'armour', and refers to a tank being 'buttoned up' when British army terminology for the same condition was 'closed down'. It's also rather confused, straying into a discussion of 'Tank Destroyers' which were scarcely in use, if at all, in 1943.

Regards,
MikB

Could the last report be an American analysis of a British action? As you say, it uses US spelling & it twice refers to "British gunners". Would a British report feel it necessary to point out that the gunners were British?

 

You are quite correct - I posted the US comment on the initial RA report. I have the original (and much longer) in the files on my computer in the States which I will post on my return from Bali.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention,
Cheers, Gerry

 

Thanks. I didn't mean to seem snappish, and I'd be intersted to see the original.

Regards,
MikB