Tiger talk

[Robert1968]

Hi chaps


everyone seems to like the tiger tank on here ( generally ) so thought why not have a post ( positive or negative ) all talk about the tiger from development etc


What's you all think


Robert

 

[Alan 45]

Good tank but had quite a few week points , tracks were very exposed , it back end was very week its turret ring was very week , plus points it had a big gun and thick armour , over all it was great as long as it faced an enemy head on


That's my take on the tiger

 

[Robert1968]

It was not that good in Russia though too heavy too thirsty ( I think l the Russian lakes have a few tigers that sank in the ice. According to my ref it was very noisy too as the mufflers were not that great and you could hear. Tiger coming miles away. Still I in anything other than another tiger would not want to meet one in anger.


I read in one tank battle there was a tiger think it was maybe the bulge that got its tracks broke, 7 shots from artillery to silence it's fun so it read ( Bastogne I think


Not 100% sure

 

[eddiesolo]

The Tiger is like the Spitfire, just something about it. It certainly isn't the best in many aspects, weak points, suspension and the overlapping wheels made it prone to issues especially in snow.


Same argument can be had regarding any WWII tank.


Soviet: T-34


German: Tiger.


US: Sherman.


British: Churchill.


That's just my list, all had virtues and flaws but these, in my mind, are probably what folk would think off before any other tank.


Si

 

[dubster72]

No tank is invincible, but the Tiger did better than most!


Production stopped in August 1944, yet examples where still in battle at the end of the war, which says a lot about their durability.


All tanks have thinner armour at the rear - with a Tiger you were lucky to see it's derrière


The design was laid down pre-war & developments quickly highlighted it's flaws - something covered up with thick armour plate.


But its essential problem was that as an offensive weapon, it proved less suited to that role as seen at Kursk.


The Germans might well have been better off concentrating their production on the Panther.


Having said that, the tank most feared by the Russians was the Tiger & as 90% of the Second World War's fighting was done in the East, perhaps it served its purpose.

 

[Robert1968]

the spitfire day was Battle of Britain but nothing spectacular after this event


However the tiger even in limited numbers always drew fear from any other tanker


You hear the stories of hitting them with shells and they bounced off. Yes it has its flaws like all tanks ( that's development for you


But let's imagine there's no panzer 3 of 4 and it's just tigers and king tigers and it's battle of bulge over again


Who would win the war of attrician


Robert

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

The tiger tank was one of tanks the Germans needed to fill a gap in their armoured divisions. It was a formidable tank in the right hands and a death trap in the wrong. The most famous tiger ace was Michael Wittman in whoes hands the tiger was a deadly killing machine. It's weakness was its rear and to some degree the sides however many tank commanders would plant its rear and side against something like a earth mound or kept its rear away from fire. To disable one many resorted to disabling the tracks immobilising the tank whilst preserving it. It was involved in the Kursk tank battle and size proved a disadvantage but it's 88mm gun was lethal at 1000 meters plus putting the T34 at a disadvantage. The T34 was faster and larger in numbers and close up a good match for the tiger. Many Sherman tanks also found out the hard way in the Falaise Gap and Villiers Bocage. The French called it a bocage tank as it would lay in wait for the enemy very much living up to its name as a predator. Mechanically it was a nightmare to maintain and the engine was very unreliable and breakdowns were frequent. Far more effective tanks were its sister the Panther and the Stumm both far deadlier in their own right. Best example I ever saw of a tiger tank in action in a movie was the last part of 'Kelly's Heros' which funnily enough pits a tiger against a Sherman and was an excellent example of the strengths and weakness of both tanks and the tactic is used. Oh and it's a great movie for its age too as I found a lot of the vehicles used were as authentic a possible?

 

[dubster72]

'Kelly's Heros' which funnily enough pits a tiger against a Sherman and was an excellent example of the strengths and weakness of both tanks and the tactic is used. Oh and it's a great movie for its age too as I found a lot of the vehicles used were as authentic a possible not American vehicles with German insignias.

The Tiger in Kelly's Heroes is actually a converted T-34!


Also, you're contradicting yourself, stating its gun range was a positive & then saying it was good in the Bocage at short ranges!


Also, it didn't fill a gap - the Tiger was designed in 1938 or thereabouts & was part of a long-established German plan for heavyweight armoured vehicles.

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

The Tiger in Kelly's Heroes is actually a converted T-34!
Also, you're contradicting yourself, stating its gun range was a positive & then saying it was good in the Bocage at short ranges!


Also, it didn't fill a gap - the Tiger was designed in 1938 or thereabouts & was part of a long-established German plan for heavyweight armoured vehicles.

I never said it was a Tiger just it it was a good example of a tiger in a movie all I said was it looked authentic but if you really want to know its authenticity or not the give away is the suspension.


Which ever way you want to explain it the gun was a modified long barrel 88mm AA gun used very effectively as an anti tank gun in Africa hence it became the gun of choice for a heavy tank and yes it was used as a bocage tank very effectively, both are not in dispute, ask Michael Wittman. A tank in the end is only as good as its commander.


That gap whether there was a long eatablished plan or not was a lack of heavy armour which wasn't filled until the latter part of the war however you want to explain it.

 

[tr1ckey66]

So much has been written about the Tiger both in it's technical abilities/deficiencies, it's seemingly unbelievable battlefield prowess (especially in the mid-war years) that it's difficult to know where to begin. However I think this one fact speaks volumes...


From less than 1500 production Tiger Is a legend was born. To put this in context over 50,000 Shermans and 80,000 T34s were built.


The Tiger is a tank legend - probably THE Tank legend. So much so that many allied tankers (and anti tank gunners) claimed they'd killed the beast when in fact they had destroyed Panzer III, IV etc. In fact if many of the troops were to be believed the numbers of production Tigers would have been in the 10s of 1000s!


Cheers


P

 

[Robert1968]

Michael wittman used his tiger to great extreme but if you look at the history of his kill ratio he always picked mainly soft targets ie half tracks armoured personal carriers and light tanks. If he knew he was in range of artillery he would back off and redeploy.


Yes the commander was the key and his loader but I think it was one of wittmans last battles his support was not as good as he thought and let's face it the majority of commanders were getting younger and younger and as mentioned a tiger tank was not the easiest of tanks to manoeuvre especially with the unskilled and non battle veteran.


Robert

 

[eddiesolo]

Michael wittman used his tiger to great extreme but if you look at the history of his kill ratio he always picked mainly soft targets ie half tracks armoured personal carriers and light tanks. If he knew he was in range of artillery he would back off and redeploy.

Sign of a good commander, know your limitations. Foolhardy to go crashing in against artillery or heavy armoured units. He used his tank for hit run tactics-make trouble, cause issues and leave before there is a chance of getting immobilised or destroyed.


I must admit that his tactics on the day he was killed are questionable, open fields and trundling along-begging for someone to have a pop at you.

 

[Alan 45]

I think the tiger was a brilliant ambush predator , Kursk proved it wasn't all that , the size of its gun gave its crews overconfidence

 

[Robert1968]

You've hit the ns on hand head the tigers teeth was its gun and it's supposedly invincibility and we all kros what happens there.


I've only seen one tiger in the flesh and that was at bovingtin but someone told me then it did not have the original engine possibly a centurion? Does anyone know this


Robert.

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

You've hit the ns on hand head the tigers teeth was its gun and it's supposedly invincibility and we all kros what happens there.
I've only seen one tiger in the flesh and that was at bovingtin but someone told me then it did not have the original engine possibly a centurion? Does anyone know this


Robert.

The Bovington Tiger apparently has been restored to running order. They say it has the original tiger engine.


The original Tigers were underpowered. The first versions were fitted with a Maybach V12 engine with a 21 litres capacity. This was later increased to 24 litres capacity in December 1943. The gearing made the Tiger easy to drive – the 8 forward gears could be used with a pre-selector.

 

[Robert1968]

I remember when I saw it it did that pop pop pop ; you know revving the engine it sounded the real Macoy very throaty and even going at 5/10


Mph it showed its awesome majestic presanceView attachment 110879

 

[Alan 45]

What ever we think is irrelevant this guy thinks their View attachment 110880

 

[Robert1968]

Tiger 131 is a GermanTiger IHeavy tank captured by the British 48th Royal Tank Regiment in Tunisia during World War II. Preserved at The Tank Museumin Bovington, England, it is the only operating Tiger tank in the world.

 

[dubster72]

I never said it was a Tiger just it it was a good example of a tiger in a movie all I said was it looked authentic but if you really want to know its authenticity or not the give away is the suspension.
Which ever way you want to explain it the gun was a modified long barrel 88mm AA gun used very effectively as an anti tank gun in Africa hence it became the gun of choice for a heavy tank and yes it was used as a bocage tank very effectively, both are not in dispute, ask Michael Wittman. A tank in the end is only as good as its commander.


That gap whether there was a long eatablished plan or not was a lack of heavy armour which wasn't filled until the latter part of the war however you want to explain it.

I see that you've edited your original post Neil!


The Tiger was a tank for open terrain like the steppes of Russia & all the tank commanders ( there were others, not just Wittman! ) had to change the tactics previously used on the Eastern Front.


It's therefore a sign of the Tigers versatility that it still performed well even in a less-than-ideal environment.


The Tiger I first saw active service in 1942 - hardly the end of the war!


And as far as Kursk went, in terms of men & material destroyed, the Germans were easily the winners. But the Soviet plan was to gut the German army of its best personnel & armour, so in that sense it was a German defeat from which they never recovered.


Having read a number of books on the battle, time & time again firsthand accounts speak of a stalled attack until a Tiger appeared to break the deadlock.


Their crews weren't overconfident at all, they had a great respect for the abilities of their enemy, especially the Russian 57mm AT gun.

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

I see that you've edited your original post Neil!
The Tiger was a tank for open terrain like the steppes of Russia & all the tank commanders ( there were others, not just Wittman! ) had to change the tactics previously used on the Eastern Front.


It's therefore a sign of the Tigers versatility that it still performed well even in a less-than-ideal environment.


The Tiger I first saw active service in 1942 - hardly the end of the war!


And as far as Kursk went, in terms of men & material destroyed, the Germans were easily the winners. But the Soviet plan was to gut the German army of its best personnel & armour, so in that sense it was a German defeat from which they never recovered.


Having read a number of books on the battle, time & time again firsthand accounts speak of a stalled attack until a Tiger appeared to break the deadlock.


Their crews weren't overconfident at all, they had a great respect for the abilities of their enemy, especially the Russian 57mm AT gun.

Yep just the last few words or we would end up in a T34 v Tiger fight! ;-D