"Every tank became a Tiger"

Discussion in 'General' started by Swiper, Dec 23, 2010.

  1. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Buckley has a reference in 'British Armour in the Normandy Campaign' to a june 16th SHAEF report saying that Mk.IVs were being deliberately disguised as Tiggers, but this was countered straight away by someone explaining what schurzen were.
    http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=42511&stc=1&d=1293128175
    (That took me a while to dig up...)

    16/06 Report from Brig H Pyman to Erskine that "recent operations had revealed the Tiger & Panther tanks now form a high proportion of the equipment of German Armoured Regiments" - (Not correct, but seems to have led to further pessimistic reports being compiled).
    Not strictly untrue: 50% of a panzer regiment was Panthers.

    Monty gets progressively more "infuriated" at the tone of some of this stuff and it's affect on morale etc. ... His defence of British Armour, and dismissal of the Tiger & Panther were certainly somewhat overstated, but he was definitely doing so in response to a contemporary fear/panic/whatever that he felt needed nipping in the bud.

    There was also the MP in Guards Armoured - Anstruther-Gray - circumventing the chain-of-command by asking questions in Parliament on the matter.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Not strictly untrue: 50% of a panzer regiment was Panthers.

    Maybe "'supposed to be' Panthers" would be a better way of putting it?

    Not that I've got much clarity on combat organisation and what exactly was fielded (there are others here FAR better qualified - I have the books, yet they often do my head in :unsure: ), but I'm pretty sure without checking that many Panzer mobs weren't exactly 100% at strength across the board for Normandy were they?
    The definition of a Division had been trimmed pretty drastically, and they weren't issuing StuGs to Panzer units in '43 because there were too many of the newer types.
     
  3. idler

    idler GeneralList

    There is the minor detail that the Panther batatalions had 3 x 5 tank troops but the Pz IV battalions had 4 x 5 tank troops, so the figure should have been around 43%. That'll teach me to trust my memory.

    It's a valid point about many units not being up to establishment, though XXX Corps could be forgiven as they bumped into the better-equipped-than-average Pz Lehr and 2 Pz Div.
     
  4. Alan Allport

    Alan Allport Senior Member

    Montgomery to de Guingand, June 24, 1944: "If we are not careful, there will be a danger of the troops developing a 'Tiger' and 'Panther' complex - when every tank becomes one of these types; compared to the old days when every gun was an 88mm." (In French, Churchill's Army, p. 96).

    Best, Alan
     
    Charley Fortnum and Owen like this.
  5. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    There is the minor detail that the Panther batatalions ...

    Holy shoot! I had no idea you had learned Portuguese :lol:

    There is the minor detail that the Panther batatalions were supposed to have 3 x 5 tank troops but the Pz IV battalions were supposed to have 4 x 5 tank troops, so the figure should have been around 43%. That'll teach me to trust my memory

    There, fixed it for you :) And besides there was a new KstN issued everytime Guderian took a leak :D
     
  6. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Holy shoot! I had no idea you had learned Portuguese

    Perhaps the inevitable result of doing half a year of Spanish and 1.5 years of Latin a very long time ago :p

    I should've done typing instead...
     
  7. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Montgomery to de Guingand, June 24, 1944: "If we are not careful, there will be a danger of the troops developing a 'Tiger' and 'Panther' complex - when every tank becomes one of these types; compared to the old days when every gun was an 88mm." (In French, Churchill's Army, p. 96).

    Best, Alan
    Well found that man.


    Never read that book.
     
  8. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    Like most of these 'well-known' facts it is not quite correct.


    Death By Design. British Tank Development In The Second World War.
    Peter Beale. ISBN 0-7509-1059-3. Alan Sutton 1998
    page 125/126


    On 24 June 1944 Monty's Chief of Staff, de Guingand, wrote to him: 'If we are not careful there will be a danger of our troops developing a Tiger and Panther complex. P.J.Grigg (Sir James Grigg, Secretary of State of War) rang me up last night and said he thought there might be trouble in the Guards Armoured Division as regards the inadequacy of our tanks compared with the Germans. Naturally the reports are not being circulated.' On 25 June Monty wrote to Grigg as follows:

    My Dear Secretary of State,
    It has come to my notice that reports are circulating about the value of British equipment, tanks etc. compared to the Germans.
    We cannot have anything of that sort at this time. We have got a good lodgement area, we have built up our strength and tomorrow we leap on the enemy. Anything that undermines confidence and morale must be stamped on ruthlessly. I have issued the enclosed letter.

    Yours ever,
    B.L. Montgomery


    Monty also wrote to Alan Brooke, the CIGS, at this time. He said:

    I have had to stamp very heavily on reports that began to be circulated about the inadequate quality of our tanks as compared with the Germans. In cases where adverse comment is made on British equipment such reports are likely to cause a lowering of morale and a lack of confidence among the troops. It will generally be found that when the equipment at our disposal is used properly and the tactics are good, we have no difficulty in defeating the Germans.

    de Guingand, wrote about Tiger phobia not Monty


    I have no idea why Guards Armoured would be complaining before June 24th. They had not even landed in Normandy
     
  9. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Buckley then cites: "However the greatest source of the panic that began to filter out to Britain was XXX Corps HQ, undoubtably still in shock after the reversal at Villers Bocage" ... 16/06 Report from Brig H Pyman to Erskine that "recent operations had revealed the Tiger & Panther tanks now form a high proportion of the equipment of German Armoured Regiments"

    Here's another fact: Pyman's memo was only copied to Erskine, it was actually sent to Second Army. No doubt it continued upwards to 21 Army Group. It fits the timescale.
     
  10. canuck

    canuck Closed Account

    I have had to stamp very heavily on reports that began to be circulated about the inadequate quality of our tanks as compared with the Germans. In cases where adverse comment is made on British equipment such reports are likely to cause a lowering of morale and a lack of confidence among the troops. It will generally be found that when the equipment at our disposal is used properly and the tactics are good, we have no difficulty in defeating the Germans.

    That sounds like the words of any CEO in almost any country and any company. By official edict, black is now white and don't be caught saying otherwise!
     
  11. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    When the Panther was first encountered (Russia and Italy) it was believed it was to be used like the Tiger. Only serving in a few'Heavy' Units whilst the Pz IV was the universal tank in the Panzer Divisions. The Allies were caught off ballance when it turned out that the Panther was in general issue. 6 times as many Panther as Tigers served in Normandy
     
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    In Buckley, 16/06 is listed as the date the message to Erskine was copied to 2nd Army, lazy paraphrasing from me - tried to scan the thing but the machine's on the blink.
    Erskine seems to have then added to the 'scaremongering' stuff.

    Then goes on to say GSO1 Bowring "used the Pyman & Erskine papers to construct a pessimistic report", this then "leaked out beyond the confines of XXX Corps & second Army, possibly direct to the War office, and within a few days reactions began to appear"

    (Mention of a vociferous counter from Maj-Gen George Richards RAC, who "pointed out there were no more Tigers and Panthers in Normandy than had been expected, and further, that a Pamphlet had been circulated in April of 1944 outlining the failings of allied weaponry against the heavily armoured German Tanks. He went on: 'therefore nobody should have been surprised when they found out what had been said in theory was proved correct in practice.'")

    Buckley suggests that it was the Bowring report, and more the manner it spread, that initially pissed Monty off, and led to his reaction.

    I had a Shufti in Alanbrooke's Diaries, and sadly he doesn't seem to mention any of these 'Tank Gap' issues for these dates. More concerned with higher Strategic stuff (and rightly so!).

    The famous Anstruther/MP thing ought to be in Hansard shouldn't it...
    Hmm, can't seem to find it, or the April questions in the house about Allied weapon inferiority. Anyone any good at Hansard searches?:
    Search: anstruther (Hansard)
    Got 'em in a book somewhere, and I'm sure Fletcher makes mention, (I've been drinking, and the indexes are rubbish in Fletcher's books).

    More directly than all these details though, I wouldn't be surprised at any nervous chap ID-ing a MK IV as a Tiger, particularly from the front, and from within the stinking disoriented interior of a Tank in battle - better safer than sorry:

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    (Perhaps not the best shot of a MkIV for Normandy, as it's draped with T34 track, so likely serving elsewhere, but it's late, and I'm still supposed to be sorting Christmas things...)

    Edit - that MKIV shot may be a terribly forced comparitor... as it strikes me they were deliberately 'Tigering it up' with that track.
    This might be fairer, among other shots:
    [​IMG]

    Even seeing 'em moving now, at Beltring and Bovington etc. The machines are reminiscent of each other from the front. Similar sort of 'stance'.
     
    Owen likes this.
  13. Alan Allport

    Alan Allport Senior Member

    de Guingand, wrote about Tiger phobia not Monty.

    Hmm, curious. After seeing this I wondered if perhaps I'd flipped the names around: but no, French gives the quote as Montgomery writing to de Guignand. Dunno who's right. If anyone is curious, the original letter is in WO 205/5b.

    Best, Alan
     
  14. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Been wondering about US perceptions of the same issue - as we're dwelling solely on Commonwealth viewpoints. Not like there weren't others that faced both machines.
    Pottered onto this 1946 report:

    Front Line Intelligence - Lt. Col Steadman Chandler & Col RW Robb -
    One division’s experienced G-2 declares that “excited and over-anxious
    listening posts will almost always exaggerate the actions of the enemy
    "all heavy-caliber guns sound like 88s and all tracked vehicles sound
    iike Tiger Royal tanks.” This is true, but it’s true of most soldiers,
    day or night. From Omaha and Utah Beaches on, the commonest GI
    phrase was “Them friggin’ 88s !“ He might have been shot at with a
    burp gun; it was still a “friggin’ 88.” Men who had never seen a live
    enemy tank and had never looked closely at a picture of one, would
    tell you solemnly that there were “twenty friggin’ Tigers out front—
    I’m sure they’re Tigers !“ Nevertheless, listening posts are essential
    installations and have done amazingly good work."

    Doubtless the Soviet squaddie also often drew similar conclusions...
     
  15. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    There is a very good reason why our troops should have a great deal of respect for the Tiger...We had nothing to touch the bloody thing. But that goes pretty well for all our arms, We had nothing like the 88 with its high velocity. Nothing like the spandau. Nothing like the light Mc gun, ours was a 7 shilling welded Sten, up against a Beautifully balanced schmeiser..... Spelling? That also applies tio the mines the S mine was devastating, as was the Schu, later the Regal bar mine. For anti tank, we had the complete abortion.... the PIAT while the Germans had their light panzerfaust Spelling?

    To be realistic All of our tanks were inferior, the Germans called them "Tommy Cookers" rightly so, we called our tanks "Ronson Lighters" It was a cigarette lighter with the advert "Lights first time every time" Im sure that our other Vets will back me up about quality of German arms, while ours was quantity.....
     
  16. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Secondary sources... pah!

    From WO 171/336 30 Corps G June 1944:

    http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=42550&stc=1&d=1293184753

    Directing this at Erskine would be teaching grandmother to suck eggs, I think.

    I haven't seen a Bowring report but he did respond to a questionnaire on 16 June, sent to 21 AG, copied to 2 Army. The only statement regarding ordinary armour was to highlight differences of opinion on the use of Fireflies: some units preferred a Firefly per troop, others a Firefly troop per squadron. He does attach a report on the Firefly 'by the Comd of an Armd Regt' that criticises the sight layout and quality and argues for extra armour to improve crew morale. It doesn't look like it came from 7 Armd as the author was in the 'Firefly tp per sqn' camp.

    The Anstruther-Gray issue was dealt with in secret sessions according to Boscawen in Armoured Guardsman. I'm sure there was an earlier entry in Hansard where A-G requested a secret session on a different matter.

    I've also seen somewhere the argument for reverting to 6 prs on Cromwells to improve antitank performance. I'm pretty sure that was in 7 Armd.

    To balance things, I'm aware of at least one clear case of Tiger-philia amongst A/Tk Regts - bagging one must have been the ultimate challenge.
     

    Attached Files:

    Juha, stolpi and CL1 like this.
  17. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Still a fair dose of Tigerphilia about to this day...
    It can jump six feet you know.
     
    Red Jim likes this.
  18. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    I have just bought a couple of Tiger Books for Christmas.

    Germany's Tiger Tank Series, Tigers at the Front, by Thomas L. Jentz and

    Germany's Tiger tanks by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary L. Doyle.

    Both look to be good reading on the subject.

    It's all Adams fault for posting the Heng Long Thread and reviving my Tiger modelling :D

    Regards
    Tom
     
  19. Jamie Holdbridge-Stuart

    Jamie Holdbridge-Stuart Senior Member

    Remember this from a book written by a young tank commander in Normandy, he'd just gone to his Troop as a replacement, it went summat like this...

    "How does one tackle a Panther?"

    "You aim for the bottom of the gun mantlet and bounce a shot down into the driver's compartment."

    "Crikey! Has anyone managed it?"

    "Young Tommy in C Troop got one the other day. That's why you're here...
    he's back down the line recovering his nerve."

    "How does one tackle a Tiger?"

    "Don't know, nobody's managed it!"

    :m4:
     
  20. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    The first Tigers reached Normandy on 13/6/44. Villers Bocage was the opening engagement and 5 of the 45 were lost. That left 40 with at least 10 of these becoming wrecks until the next 90 arrived mid July.
    The date of these letters confirm that all the fuss was made in the period when none available!
    Hargest makes mention of the superiority of the Tiger twice in his notes. I think both refer to the same incident and again there were no Tigers on this date.


    On the evening of 12th June, the 8th Armoured Bde in laager on
    Hill 10s above Saint Pierre, was approached and attacked by
    one German Tiger which settled in a hollow almost in the S.P.
    gun line and fired for an hour or nearly so and then drove off
    unmolested. Not one tank went out to engage it. At least one
    of our Shermans was destroyed. It was about 2200 to 2300 hrs
    and not yet dark


    On D,+ 6 (12 June) I came across a whole squadron of tanks in
    a field supported by S.P. guns. They told me that there was a
    Tiger Tank in Verriere about 1000 yds to the left front and in
    reply to my query as to why they did not attack they said it
    was very powerful.

    He also says:


    26th June

    The ground around CHEUX is rolling and more open than further
    west - good tank country.
    Here our tanks were in position on ridge just North of Cheux,
    firing at a suspected enemy tank laager around La Haut du Bosq
    assisted by artillery. I could see no enemy.
    Tanks were moving with their usual excessive [?caution?]
    The mere report of enemy tanks puts our armour into a flat
    spin.
    Every enemy tank is a Tiger.
    Enemy spandaus something to fear.
     

Share This Page