Request for Information
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Request for Information
I don't think not producing Tigers and producing Panzer IVs or even Vs would have made much a difference to the air power. Once the Allies had air superiority; pretty much any ground vehcile was easy pickings for the close support aircraft.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Request for Information
Azraelck: While reading some of these accounts do they mention the lack of a recovery vehicle???? While broke down Panthers might have been easier to recover that the Tigers (especialy after the recovery version of the Panther came out) it seems that a good number of tigers were destroyed by thier own crews because they couldn't be recovered while lighter tanks could be. Is this a fault of the tank design or of the officers in charge of purchasing who didn't authorize or order suitable support equipment???? Or is it the fault of the leaders who wouldn't allocate a high enough percentage of spare parts for repair vrs new production to keep production numbers up????
See that many modern armies have learned from these mistakes and have quik change engines and/or power packs, quick change gun barrels and repair/ recovery vehicles with onboard cranes to handle some of these jobs.
Early US M-48 tanks were sometimes credited (if that is the word) with one major breakdown per 38 miles traveled in the mid 1950s. And American M-26s were disliked in Korea (after the tank to tank shooting stopped[;)]) because they broke down much more often the the M-4A3E8 (which used they same engine)
See that many modern armies have learned from these mistakes and have quik change engines and/or power packs, quick change gun barrels and repair/ recovery vehicles with onboard cranes to handle some of these jobs.
Early US M-48 tanks were sometimes credited (if that is the word) with one major breakdown per 38 miles traveled in the mid 1950s. And American M-26s were disliked in Korea (after the tank to tank shooting stopped[;)]) because they broke down much more often the the M-4A3E8 (which used they same engine)
RE: Request for Information
Dragoon, as a side note, Ian Hogg in his book on German Secret weapons of the Second World War estimates the cost of Gusav and Dora at about 7 million Reichsmarks each not counting the transporter cars, cranes, rail road trains and the TWO air defense batteries that acompanied each one. He says that for the price of ONE gun the Germans could have had 28 Tiger tanks. Each gun was commanded by a General officer with 1,720 men under his command.
RE: Request for Information
While mechanical reliability must be considered, it is a variable factor. I mean that, in time, the Tiger might have had the bugs wrinkled out.
I seem to recall reading ( I know, links or it didnt happen) that the roadside from Munich to Vienna was littered with Mk II and Mk III's during the Anchluss. And this was a relatively unopposed drive over hard roads.
Also, what were the breakdown rates for the panzers during the May-July 1940 time frame? I suspect that they were surprisingly high to arm-chair generals like me. [:)]
According to Sirechaos in post #17, Tigers had a 5 (operational) to 40 (on paper) ratio...
Is that right? If so, then all I can say is Wow!
Introducing new weapon system in time of war is always a tricky thing.
If you wait too long, you might get outpaced by the enemy. Too fast, and you have a buggy system that gets the users killed (worst case).
The Japanese Zeke/Zero and the Me109 might be examples of this. They were 1st generation aircraft (for WW2) that outperformed what the enemy had at the beginning. Then they slowly became outclassed as the war dragged on longer than expected. (Arguably, the Germans were better able to squeeze more use out of their aircraft in the later years.) The Japanese late war designs were good, but poor quality control, poor pilot training programs, and a shattered economy kept them from being employed in effective numbers to turn the tide.
Another factor that occured to me, is Germany's manpower problem. Let's say you only have enough men to man 10,000 tanks. That's all, a hard limit. Any more and your starting to recruit old men (post 60) and others unsuited for combat. (Also you will be eating into your skilled factory labor force, reducing production in already high demand areas.) Let's say you believe that the combined enemies can throw 5 times that many at you. Now, if you have the ability to build 5,000 of any tank you have on the drawing boards, what kind do you get? The ones that make the most of your limited numbers. (The hardest to kill, right?)
Edit: After checking, I realised that there were probably no Mk III's around in March of 1938 operationally.
I seem to recall reading ( I know, links or it didnt happen) that the roadside from Munich to Vienna was littered with Mk II and Mk III's during the Anchluss. And this was a relatively unopposed drive over hard roads.
Also, what were the breakdown rates for the panzers during the May-July 1940 time frame? I suspect that they were surprisingly high to arm-chair generals like me. [:)]
According to Sirechaos in post #17, Tigers had a 5 (operational) to 40 (on paper) ratio...
Is that right? If so, then all I can say is Wow!
Introducing new weapon system in time of war is always a tricky thing.
If you wait too long, you might get outpaced by the enemy. Too fast, and you have a buggy system that gets the users killed (worst case).
The Japanese Zeke/Zero and the Me109 might be examples of this. They were 1st generation aircraft (for WW2) that outperformed what the enemy had at the beginning. Then they slowly became outclassed as the war dragged on longer than expected. (Arguably, the Germans were better able to squeeze more use out of their aircraft in the later years.) The Japanese late war designs were good, but poor quality control, poor pilot training programs, and a shattered economy kept them from being employed in effective numbers to turn the tide.
Another factor that occured to me, is Germany's manpower problem. Let's say you only have enough men to man 10,000 tanks. That's all, a hard limit. Any more and your starting to recruit old men (post 60) and others unsuited for combat. (Also you will be eating into your skilled factory labor force, reducing production in already high demand areas.) Let's say you believe that the combined enemies can throw 5 times that many at you. Now, if you have the ability to build 5,000 of any tank you have on the drawing boards, what kind do you get? The ones that make the most of your limited numbers. (The hardest to kill, right?)
Edit: After checking, I realised that there were probably no Mk III's around in March of 1938 operationally.
RE: Request for Information
Something to be said for in last post mLees. Weither it is manpower, radios, optical equipment or what ever. (did it really take twice as long in man hours to make the V-12 engine in a Tiger as the smaller V-12 engine in the MK IV[&:])
I also read somewhere that of all the british tanks lost in France in 1940 75% were NOT due to enemy action. 75% were lost due to break downs and running out of gas. Retreating is always harder on equipment than advancing. If you attack and win you can recover your losses. If you attack and have to retreat or you are defending and have to retreat the enemy recovers your losses[;)]
I also read somewhere that of all the british tanks lost in France in 1940 75% were NOT due to enemy action. 75% were lost due to break downs and running out of gas. Retreating is always harder on equipment than advancing. If you attack and win you can recover your losses. If you attack and have to retreat or you are defending and have to retreat the enemy recovers your losses[;)]
RE: Request for Information
Tigers were most often used to recover dead Tigers, in response to the earlier post. There was a dedicated recovery vehicle, built off damaged but operational Tigers. This was sometimes a field modification, but other times it was a rebuild of a tank that otherwise would have to be scrapped. IIRC, it took 3 or 4 18 ton tractors to recover or pull one Tiger, and often had to have a couple acting as a brake, running behind the vehicles in steep areas.
Any way you look at it, the Tiger failed to do much other than consume needed resources. I stand by my theory of upgunning the Panthers to the 88's as a viable alternative.
Any way you look at it, the Tiger failed to do much other than consume needed resources. I stand by my theory of upgunning the Panthers to the 88's as a viable alternative.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
-
Dragoon 45
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:57 am
RE: Request for Information
In "The Tank Killers" by Harry Yeide, it is mentioned many times that the TD crews took on Tigers all the way from NA to Germany. Once they got the M-10 with its 3" gun (early 43), they figured they had a weapon that could defeat any German Tank. Also remember it was TD Doctrine to engage from the flank and rear, not to get into a slugging match with a tank. From what I can find in my research, the SP TD Bn's were quite effective at what they were designed to do, kill tanks.
As for the subject of air, which is easier to target 1-2 Tigers or 8-10 Panzer MK-IV's?
As for the subject of air, which is easier to target 1-2 Tigers or 8-10 Panzer MK-IV's?
ORIGINAL: 264rifle
Dragoon, I am not sure which US tank destryers you are refering too. Part of the problem with this type of comparison is the time line. Tigers started to show up in late 1942 (OK, no real numbers till mid 43 [;)]) While the M-36 might have had little trouble with them that was not until late 1944. M-10s without APCR (same gun performance as Sherman 76) might have had a bit more trouble.
While air units were able to counter the German tigers, would having more Mk IVs instead have made the air units less effective????
Artillery always has the Right of Way
-
Dragoon 45
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:57 am
RE: Request for Information
No matter which engine you want to pick, German Tank engines were notorious for very poor fuel consumption. The HL230P30 engine in the Tiger was quite massive and had very poor fuel economy, it also was prone to overheat even in relatively mild weather. The final drives and transmissions on the Tigers could not really handle the strain of moving the heavy vehicle around. Just in sheer size I would imagine the Tiger's gasoline engine was much harder to produce than the smaller MK-IV engine.
Your point about being in a retreat is really a double edged sword for the Tiger. When you are in a retreat your logistical services are the first thing to break down. Hence the tanks run out of fuel. Also parts to repair vehicles become almost impossible to obtain, leaving the unit no choice but to either abandon or destroy deadlined vehicles. Check the histories of the two Tiger Battalions in Italy. If memory serves me correctly, their overall exchange rate was less than 2-1, and those battalions lost almost all their tanks during the retreat North of Rome in the Summer of 44.
When you look at the design history of the Tiger, it orginally started in late 38 or early 39 with the Bruchwagen. This was orginally a heavy tank designed for breakthrough operations. Contrary to what some may think, the Tiger was not designed to match any other tank design of the time. It was designed as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one as can be shown by its mechanical problems. Then also it took the Germans what about 6 months or so to fix the major problems with the Panther, but in 3 years they couldn't fix the Tiger's problems? Then with the Tiger II multiple the Tiger I's problems by at least a factor of 2 and I think that does show how much of a waste these two tanks really were.
The MK-IV could kill any tank the Americans or British put into the field during the war. The Panther could kill anything the Soviets produced.
Also any serious drawback of the Tiger was that their mere presence on the Battlefield indicated what part of the battlefield contained the main effort for the Germans.
Your point about being in a retreat is really a double edged sword for the Tiger. When you are in a retreat your logistical services are the first thing to break down. Hence the tanks run out of fuel. Also parts to repair vehicles become almost impossible to obtain, leaving the unit no choice but to either abandon or destroy deadlined vehicles. Check the histories of the two Tiger Battalions in Italy. If memory serves me correctly, their overall exchange rate was less than 2-1, and those battalions lost almost all their tanks during the retreat North of Rome in the Summer of 44.
When you look at the design history of the Tiger, it orginally started in late 38 or early 39 with the Bruchwagen. This was orginally a heavy tank designed for breakthrough operations. Contrary to what some may think, the Tiger was not designed to match any other tank design of the time. It was designed as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one as can be shown by its mechanical problems. Then also it took the Germans what about 6 months or so to fix the major problems with the Panther, but in 3 years they couldn't fix the Tiger's problems? Then with the Tiger II multiple the Tiger I's problems by at least a factor of 2 and I think that does show how much of a waste these two tanks really were.
The MK-IV could kill any tank the Americans or British put into the field during the war. The Panther could kill anything the Soviets produced.
Also any serious drawback of the Tiger was that their mere presence on the Battlefield indicated what part of the battlefield contained the main effort for the Germans.
ORIGINAL: 264rifle
Something to be said for in last post mLees. Weither it is manpower, radios, optical equipment or what ever. (did it really take twice as long in man hours to make the V-12 engine in a Tiger as the smaller V-12 engine in the MK IV[&:])
I also read somewhere that of all the british tanks lost in France in 1940 75% were NOT due to enemy action. 75% were lost due to break downs and running out of gas. Retreating is always harder on equipment than advancing. If you attack and win you can recover your losses. If you attack and have to retreat or you are defending and have to retreat the enemy recovers your losses[;)]
Artillery always has the Right of Way
RE: Request for Information
IIRC, the ratio to losses due to mechanical failure was sometihng like 1 US vs 8 Soviet vs 18 German tanks. Of course, the M4 Sherman is among the most reliable tank designs of WWII; (thank the long-deceased Chrysler Corporation for that!) with some being able to run as far as 2500 miles without even track maintenance. But, that was countered by the fact that it's light armor and almost vertical front; coupled with a high profile, made it an easy target. Gas engines didn't help the matter any. The Sherman always was able to be upgunned; the effectiveness of the Firefly tanks proves that.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Request for Information
Gentlemen. please understand that I am not saying the Tiger was a great design. I am just bringing up points that, IMHO, should be adressed in some way for a through examination of the of the Idea that the Germans would have been better off building more MK IVs or Panthers than building Tigers.
Part of this is examining the faults of the Tiger as a weapons system. Part of this is looking at the German (and Japanese) tendency to do "make-do" up grades on weapons while working on the next "world beater" weapon.
Feilding a 56 ton tank with no practical way to recover it seems to have been a mistake that should have been forseen. Hitching 3 half-tracks together or using a second tiger to tow (one 600-650 Hp engine trying to move 112 tons) are not practical. If an engine overheats and has to use full throttle to move one tank how far is going to get pulling another one?? leading to multipul breakdowns. Trying to use 3 Me 110s hitched together to tow giant gliders wasn't practical either but at least the tank recovery crews didn't get killed when a Tiger was stuck a little more firmly than they thought.
I never said that the engine in the Tiger was a great or even a good engine. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. It was certainly overloaded while trying to move Tiger tanks. It was a 23 liter engine. THe Rolls-Royce merlin and meteor engines were 28 liters and were limited in tank use to just over 600hp. When the british fuel injected it and used in the 65 ton Conquerer tank they had more problems with it than they had in the Centurian tanks. The meteor engine certainly didn't give the Centurian and Conquerer tanks much range.
Engine in M-46 through M-48 was also about 28 liters in size. And May have had more problems when installed in M-103. None of these tanks were noted a milage champions either. M-41 tanks used a 6 cylinder version souped up to 500HP from about 14 liters and were noted for setting themselves on fire. Sometimes you have to look at things in context to see if they were really as bad or as good as you think.
While these German tank engines were probably made of cast iron and fairly heavy their parts were cetainly no bigger than aircraft engines. From a maufacturing point of veiw once you need a hoist to move an engine block does it matter if it's a 400lb block or a 1000lb block??? And you need to make the same number of pistons, valves, connecting rods, etc for a small V-12 as for a big one. Same number of machining operations. Each one may take a little longer because of the bigger part.
I will go back to the time line. The Tiger, because of the work done on the bruchwagen, as Dragoon has noted, had an early start date than the Panther. This may have worked to it's disadvantage in that sloped armour was not used. The 88/56 was a known gun.The interior ballistics were already worked out and there was a series of Ammuntion already in production. The Panther gun was origianaly supposed to be 60 calibers long. When this turned out not give the desired performance it was lengthend. Sources do not say if the powder capacity was changed or not. While both tanks may have been ordered ( as opposed to designed) as a result of meeting the T-34 and KV tanks The Tiger was the RUSH job that used old thinking. First sevice use for Tiger was how many months ahead of the Panther???? 9 months or more???? At Kursk did the Tigers have a break down rate much different than the Early Panthers[&:] And once they had a production line (if at 25 a month you could call it that) set up in late 1942, who was going to shut it down untill they had a replacement for the Tiger??? Even if you accept the Panther as a replacement for the Tiger Did the Germans KNOW the Panther was really going to work untill the fall of 1943???Since Tiger production stopped in the summer of 1944 did the Germans really only keep the production going for about 9 Months too long????
What were definatly wastes of time, material and engineering effort were the dupication of the Tiger by the Porsche design which became the Elephant. The whole Tiger II program. And the even bigger tanks being worked on. If the German army had trouble recovering a 56 ton tank how did they think they were going to recover 75 ton or 100 ton tanks. The Porshe design with the electric transmission was never going to be produced in large numbers given Germany's shortage of copper so why did it go beyond one test rig let alone 90+ chassis????
Maybe without all those distractions the Germans could have gotten the Panther with the 88/71 into sevice in 1944.
Germans pretty much stopped deveopment on MK IV with the H model. J had turret power traverse removed and additional fuel tank put in. Was the Mk IV really at a dead end with no possiablity of improvement. What would have happened if they put a little time and work into the MK IV??
Maybe they could have modifies the Hull of the MK IV to that shape they used on the Jagd version and put a turret on the top with with that 75/60 gun they had planned for the Panther. Hmmmm sloped armour front, sloped sides above track, larger turret ring on wider hull top, gun with 15-20% better penetration than 75/48, over loaded chassis but better balanced than the Jagd version with the L 70 gun. Might need a little bit bigger engine[&:]. There is a 30 ton what if for you.[;)]
Part of this is examining the faults of the Tiger as a weapons system. Part of this is looking at the German (and Japanese) tendency to do "make-do" up grades on weapons while working on the next "world beater" weapon.
Feilding a 56 ton tank with no practical way to recover it seems to have been a mistake that should have been forseen. Hitching 3 half-tracks together or using a second tiger to tow (one 600-650 Hp engine trying to move 112 tons) are not practical. If an engine overheats and has to use full throttle to move one tank how far is going to get pulling another one?? leading to multipul breakdowns. Trying to use 3 Me 110s hitched together to tow giant gliders wasn't practical either but at least the tank recovery crews didn't get killed when a Tiger was stuck a little more firmly than they thought.
I never said that the engine in the Tiger was a great or even a good engine. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. It was certainly overloaded while trying to move Tiger tanks. It was a 23 liter engine. THe Rolls-Royce merlin and meteor engines were 28 liters and were limited in tank use to just over 600hp. When the british fuel injected it and used in the 65 ton Conquerer tank they had more problems with it than they had in the Centurian tanks. The meteor engine certainly didn't give the Centurian and Conquerer tanks much range.
Engine in M-46 through M-48 was also about 28 liters in size. And May have had more problems when installed in M-103. None of these tanks were noted a milage champions either. M-41 tanks used a 6 cylinder version souped up to 500HP from about 14 liters and were noted for setting themselves on fire. Sometimes you have to look at things in context to see if they were really as bad or as good as you think.
While these German tank engines were probably made of cast iron and fairly heavy their parts were cetainly no bigger than aircraft engines. From a maufacturing point of veiw once you need a hoist to move an engine block does it matter if it's a 400lb block or a 1000lb block??? And you need to make the same number of pistons, valves, connecting rods, etc for a small V-12 as for a big one. Same number of machining operations. Each one may take a little longer because of the bigger part.
I will go back to the time line. The Tiger, because of the work done on the bruchwagen, as Dragoon has noted, had an early start date than the Panther. This may have worked to it's disadvantage in that sloped armour was not used. The 88/56 was a known gun.The interior ballistics were already worked out and there was a series of Ammuntion already in production. The Panther gun was origianaly supposed to be 60 calibers long. When this turned out not give the desired performance it was lengthend. Sources do not say if the powder capacity was changed or not. While both tanks may have been ordered ( as opposed to designed) as a result of meeting the T-34 and KV tanks The Tiger was the RUSH job that used old thinking. First sevice use for Tiger was how many months ahead of the Panther???? 9 months or more???? At Kursk did the Tigers have a break down rate much different than the Early Panthers[&:] And once they had a production line (if at 25 a month you could call it that) set up in late 1942, who was going to shut it down untill they had a replacement for the Tiger??? Even if you accept the Panther as a replacement for the Tiger Did the Germans KNOW the Panther was really going to work untill the fall of 1943???Since Tiger production stopped in the summer of 1944 did the Germans really only keep the production going for about 9 Months too long????
What were definatly wastes of time, material and engineering effort were the dupication of the Tiger by the Porsche design which became the Elephant. The whole Tiger II program. And the even bigger tanks being worked on. If the German army had trouble recovering a 56 ton tank how did they think they were going to recover 75 ton or 100 ton tanks. The Porshe design with the electric transmission was never going to be produced in large numbers given Germany's shortage of copper so why did it go beyond one test rig let alone 90+ chassis????
Maybe without all those distractions the Germans could have gotten the Panther with the 88/71 into sevice in 1944.
Germans pretty much stopped deveopment on MK IV with the H model. J had turret power traverse removed and additional fuel tank put in. Was the Mk IV really at a dead end with no possiablity of improvement. What would have happened if they put a little time and work into the MK IV??
Maybe they could have modifies the Hull of the MK IV to that shape they used on the Jagd version and put a turret on the top with with that 75/60 gun they had planned for the Panther. Hmmmm sloped armour front, sloped sides above track, larger turret ring on wider hull top, gun with 15-20% better penetration than 75/48, over loaded chassis but better balanced than the Jagd version with the L 70 gun. Might need a little bit bigger engine[&:]. There is a 30 ton what if for you.[;)]
RE: Request for Information
Germans pretty much stopped deveopment on MK IV with the H model. J had turret power traverse removed and additional fuel tank put in. Was the Mk IV really at a dead end with no possiablity of improvement. What would have happened if they put a little time and work into the MK IV??
Maybe they could have modifies the Hull of the MK IV to that shape they used on the Jagd version and put a turret on the top with with that 75/60 gun they had planned for the Panther. Hmmmm sloped armour front, sloped sides above track, larger turret ring on wider hull top, gun with 15-20% better penetration than 75/48, over loaded chassis but better balanced than the Jagd version with the L 70 gun. Might need a little bit bigger engine. There is a 30 ton what if for you.
I am doubtful that the Mk IV could have been improved much beyond what was already done historically. (Like all the "improvements" done to the Mk II, Mk III, PzKw 38(t), and so on.) The Panther may have been able to accept a larger turret ring, I dunno.
As for the subject of air, which is easier to target 1-2 Tigers or 8-10 Panzer MK-IV's?
Answer: "Depends". *chucles* Nothing is ever simple...
1) It's easier to scout/spot a formation of 8-12 tanks than just one (or two) tank from the air.
2) Air defence of a smaller formation is simplified. (Though bombers will probably leak through anyway...)
However, the air effort wasn't the only factor I had in mind when measuring the effort expended to defeat a Tiger.
What happens when air power is not available? (Bad weather, for example.) A bazooka bounces off a tiger, but not a Mk IV.
Also for further consideration: While it takes that many more bombs and sorties to kill the extra tanks, it also means that the number of Gemans dead is more. (2 5man tanks versus 10 3 or 4 man tanks.) This matters when manpower is at a premium.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the key to Allied victory was it's ability to field the vast quantities of men and material that eventually overwhelmed the Whermacht. But the quality of the German gear (and the decent training of it's NCO's) led to a long dragged out slugging match.
I am just trying to think up of the reasons why the Germans did what they did, and suggesting that their decisions were not made "willy nilly". There are many "ripple effect" considerations involved. And not all of those considerations make sense (like the political ones). Were there areas that could have been streamlined, and with a single controlling authority (with an accurate grasp of what works/will work and what doesn't/won't), were improvements to war production and quality control possible?
Yes, I suspect so. (And that applies to all of the belligerents, too.)
Then also it took the Germans what about 6 months or so to fix the major problems with the Panther, but in 3 years they couldn't fix the Tiger's problems?
Maybe they didnt really try?
I speculate that the Tiger may have been seen (at first) as a (prewar) design that will hold the line until the Panther is produced in numbers. The Tiger was mechanically finicky, but it might have been seen as "good enough for now". The fact that the Panther had many new innovations (requirements deduced from actual combat experience) and teething problems delayed it's mass production severly. The Tiger was needed now, and no money and rescources were diverted to improving the Tiger because the Panther was seen as "just around the corner".
Then with the Tiger II multiple the Tiger I's problems by at least a factor of 2 and I think that does show how much of a waste these two tanks really were.
I agree. I suspect that the Tiger II may have been an Industrial lobby victory, and a propoganda icon of German power and technical might for the ruling party. It seems to me that the German armaments industry was as fractured, and as much controlled by competeing self interests, as the ruling political regime itself.
From your last quoted statement, it seems that you have already reached a conclusion, and are looking for evidence to support it... Please be careful. That may cause you to ignore some evidence that doesn't support your thesis. But I hope you do well! I have had a life long interest in WW2, and I am just an amatuer around here.