Hello fellus

Ah, having hardly any time to do modelling with school and stuff, the only real time to pursue my passion for tanks was by reading before sleeping, anyways, i was reading up on my favourite tank (Tiger Late Production) and i recently purchased the Osprey book on Modelling the Tiger.

After much reading with several sources exclaiming that the Tiger was nearly indestrucible, was quite shocked to read this Osprey book that said in the introduciton that the Tiger was far from indestructable.

So, i would like too no just how good the Tiger was incomparison with allied tanks? (ie, Shermans, Cromwells, Churchills)

What are your opinions on the Tiger?

Also did all Tiger 1s (Late Production) have zimmerit anti-magnetic tank mine paste applied to them?

Thank you Gentlemen

mg-42,
It is widely accpected that it took about 5 75mm shermans to disable a tiger
they were easier to knock out from the rear and a firefly's gun could penitrate
a tiger not sure from what range though. But the mention of a tiger in the area
no doubt did un -nerve allied tank crews but I've read that the tiger was influenced
by the british matilda tank as during the battle of france the smaller anti tank
guns of the germans couldnt knock them out from the front .As to other tanks
that I cant answer but head on I dont think any were capable to take out a tiger
unless a luck hit due to the smaller guns they used not until the bigger 17 pounders
and T/Ds and pershings coming on the sence would the allies be able to compete
on equal grounds.
And as for zimm on late tigers it was not applied to the late tigers

Hi. The tiger was a good tank for what it was. There's no doubt. But being somewhat underpowered for its size it was more of a defensive oriented vehicle than and offensive weapon. Straight on, it was pretty much indestructable to the Allied vehicles coming up against it, but it's sides and rear were quite thin and could be penetrated quite easily if these areas were presented to Allied gunners. Plus there were some very good commanders in these Tiger units that had basically 'cut their teeth' in Russian combat and could exploit the weaknesses in Allied tank doctrine to a large extent, given the right set of circumstances.

The Sherman's main strong point, at least in my way of thinking, was it's automotive dependability and mechanical ruggedness that kept they basically pretty much operational most of the time, whereas the German tanks suffered quite a bit of maintenance problems. And a down tank, whether from combat or mechanical failure, is still a down tank. Plus the Tiger was so heavy that it was really hard to retrieve it from the battlefield, even if it suffered just minor problems or simply ran out of gas, which wasn't uncommon as time went on for the German forces.


All AFVs suffer from some sort of weakness, and some have more weaknesses than others, depending on the circumstances they are put in. A lot of the Tiger's reputation came from it's ability to be able to hit it's target and 'kill' it at longer ranges than most of the Allied tanks could, again, given the right circumstances of that particular combat at the time.

Personally I would prefer the Panther or T-34/85 as a better vehicle because of it's speed, combined with pretty good hitting power and slope-sided armor design, which by itself is a far superior design to the Tiger I, with it's straight armor plating. And, of course the later models of the Sherman as well, esp. the British Firefly tank with it's 17 pounder gun on it.

This, of course, is just my opinion here. And others will differ, I'm sure. But that's okay, as that's what learning history is all about.

Take care, sgirty

Here is one of the great myths of 20th century warfare. If we take a comparison between the Tiger and the Sherman, tank for tank in an ant-tank duel, the tiger was superior. If other factors are thrown int the mix, the Tiger becomes less and less fomidable... The allied forces in europe were superbly well supplied. The infrastructure for re-supply and the flow of POL (Petrol Oil and Lubricants) were rarely interrupted. The Germans had some serious problems in these areas. Their lines of communication (railways, road network etc.) were always subject to attack either from the air or from resistance groups within occupied europe. Production of basic materials and shortage of raw materials also ensured that the advantage would be with the allies. Germany suffered constant shortages of such basic materials such as tungsten, rubber and of course, POL. Much of the German re-supply network was forced to rely on horse-drawn transport.... Overwhelming air-superiority. allowed the allies to fly where they wanted and constantly to interdict German attempts at re-supply. As the war went on, the German empire contracted as well, they were never able to establish air-superiority as they had enjoyed in the early part of the war, naval blockades also ensured that transporting materiél by sea was a risky undertaking also.

Any vehicle to fight, needs fuel it needs spares, it needs ammunition. Without these elements any mega-vehicle becomes less of a threat, this was ultimately what happened to the Tiger. There were never as many (on the western fronts) as was imagined, rarely would a Tiger find itself in one-to-one combat with an allied vehicle, usually it would find itself against combined arms of artillery, armour, air-power and infantry, when this was the case the superiority was utterly negated...Jim

I think the original question was simpy, one on one, tank v tank, which tank was overall better.
Armor: Advantage Tiger
Armament: Advantage Tiger
Speed: Advantage Sherman
One shot, one kill: Advantage Tiger
Reliability: Advatage Sherman

The other factors are ancillary to the basics. On a one on one, opne field high noon showdown, the Tiger was the better tank, the one that would survive.

Eventually the problems of reliability would play in as the German infrastructure collapsed. Also, the single greatest advantage of the Sherman were the numbers available to replace those knocked out.

It's similar to the situation in the last years of the American Civil War. The Union could loose a battle and 25,000 men and continue while the Confederates would "win" with loss of 10,000 and be worse off by the day because they had no replacements available.

The Tiger was one of the best armored vehicles to come out of WWII. Although, the Sherman was a cute little bugger, it was a mass producer, and not a real threat to the Tiger.

In my opinion, which is a better tank? Tiger.

You can do a mid production Tiger, they had Zimm. Zimm is actually pretty fun, now that I know how to do it!

~Chip :-)

In your opinion, why is the Sherman still in service, and what did the Tiger operate on? fresh-air? While we're at it how long is a piece of string?...Jim

Numbers, (There were far more Shermans produced than Tigers)
Economy (They were realtivley inexpenssive and were probably made available to many nations as surplus by the US and othe allies as better tanks came on lilne)
Reliability (They worked better (and were able to be maintained after the war and upgraded)
and the Allies won the war. (The Germans weren't going to be allowed to continue building badass tanks having just been beaten into submission.)
Further, at the time, the Tiger was being replaced by the King Tiger and Panther, and was facing serious challenges from the next generation of Allied tanks.

In my opinion, the Sherman.
Much more reliable, cheaper to produce, and a ton of possible variants. In fact they are still in use today in some lesser known armies. Where's the Tiger? I know the Tiger had better armor and was better armed, but many of them broke down in battle, was very costly to produce, and not so maneuverable.
Besides, the Sherm was on the winning side!

Personally, I think comparing the Tiger to the Sherman is like comparing apples to oranges. The Sherman was a medium tank designed to support infantry. Its 75mm gun fired a highly effective HE round and an inadequate AT round. The Tiger was a heavy breakthrough tank. Its 88mm gun was originally designed to be a high velocity anti-aircraft gun, converted to be a most effective AT gun. In WW2 terms it was better to compare tanks to tank destroyers. I once spoke to an M18 Hellcat crewman who told me about an encounter he had with a Tiger in France. The fact that he was telling the story should give you a good idea of which vehicle won.

Mike

I'd have to agree with MGard. Its sorta like apples to oranges. The Tiger was a good open area tank and had the great range advantage. It was big and heavy but from accounts it wasn't a pig of a tank. It just wasn't as nimble as a T-34 or Sherman which were smaller tanks.

Just my personal observation and opinion but to me the germans went for more formidable armor that was harder to mass produce and was susceptable to breakdown. While the allied forces went for a large number of mass produced tanks and won by attrition with superior forces. I'm not sure of the number of Shermans that were in europe during the war but they made like 40,000 T-34's. There were only 1300 Tigers made and even less King Tigers right? I don't know a lot about KT's.

I'm reading thru some Tiger books and it was pretty surprising to me just how many Tigers were scuttled by there own crews.

I think its the differences in approach that make the comparisons so interesting!

Tiger, plain and simple. Forget all the other variables, and who won the war, 1 on 1 if I was on the battlefield I'm climbing inside the Tiger 100% of the time. I have read battlefield accounts from both sides and it is amazing the beating the Tiger could take and still keep the crew safe. On the other hand the Sherman wasn't nick-named the Ronson lighter for nothing. Was the Tiger indestructible? No, but it sure came alot closer to it than a Sherman. Oh and by the way, yes, all late Tigers I's did have zimmerit.

Mike

MG42_Gunner-

To answer your last question first.... Yes, all late production Tiger I's that I have seen had the Zimmerit. Tiger I production stopped in Sept. '44 before the zimm was discontinued. Early Tiger II's also had the zimm applied - those made after Sept. '44 did not.

As far as the Sherman vs. Tiger question goes... the Tiger was the better tank. That isn't to say that the Sherman wasn't any good at all, just that the Tiger was a better combat vehicle. Much has been said about the reliability and fuel consumption of the Tiger - in and of itself, this isn't a factor in my opinion. While it certainly could be argued that these factors played a huge role in the outcome of the war - this would indicate that the Tiger tank was inappropriate for Germany's tactical situation - not that the vehicle was a bad design. The Germans would have been better off sticking to the PzKpfw IV and building more of them, than constantly trying to upgrade. For that matter - they would have been better off with more ME109's and less tanks in general. I read somewhere that the materials and labor required to build 1 Tiger could build 5 FW190 fighters... considering that they made 1,300 Tigers..... that could have been around 6,000 more fighter aircraft - a much more valuable commodity in my opinion. I feel that had the Americans or Soviets operated the Tiger I, the supply and maintenance problems would have been drastically reduced. The Tiger just wasn't a wise tactical descision for Germany's wartime situation. All the deficiencies of the Tiger presented here so far are only drawbacks if the operating army doesn't have the logistical power to operate them (which Germany didn't have)- not flaws in overall design.

I think that the reason the Sherman still serves today and the Tiger doesn't is born out of the fact that Germany lost the war. The companies that made them were all German. The allies weren't about to allow these companies to keep making these vehicles for sale to other countries after the war, when American companies making Shermans could profit from similar sales. I would bet that countries that ended up using the Sherman would have picked the Panther or Tiger if they were given a choice. I am of the feeling that if you asked 100 US tankers serving in Shermans in Europe if they would rather be in a Tiger (or Panther) or a Sherman..... they'd pick the Tiger (or Panther). Remember, these guys were people with survival instinct - not a commodity as the top brass seemed to think of them. They didn't want to be one of the sacraficial casualties that were absorbed as a "cost of doing buisness" trying to take on German armor.

Just my 2 cents.....

Jeff

I totally agree with Lord Nelson on the subject. Yes, the Tiger is a better combat vehicle.

And Yes, German should just stick to make tons of Pz IV, FW190s, Pz IV L/70, Stug III ausf G, nothing more, and also tons of U-Boat. Then they probably last a bit longer....

One to one the Sherman would lose 99% of the time. I saw something on the Discovery channel where they did a comparison. The experts figured it took at least 4 Shermans to tackle one Tiger. If the Tiger had been supported by a squad of infantry with a couple of Panzerfausts, well it probably would have been close to 8 to one ratio. It's like AJ shows. Range and protection go to the Tiger. It would start killing the Shermans before they would be in range andif the Shermans couldn't get behind the Tiger it was pretty much hopeless.

1 on 1 the Tiger is better, but that assumes it comes to the fight. Because of the small number built and the support required the Tiger often just was not where it needed to be when the fight was on, the Shermans large production number, reliability and more economical running costs meant it was there when needed in most cases.

Both the Tiger and Panther were "superior" and generally it was accepted that it took 5 Shermans to beat one of the German Heavy tanks, but when you add in the production factor the Sherman had a 10-1 advantage over the Panther and almost a 50-1 advantage over the Tiger. Many of the Shermans "weaknesses" were due to decisions made by the Allies, they wanted a lighter weight tank that was easy to transport, the American doctrine prevented the Sherman from getting a proper gun until late in the war. Also don't forget you are comparing the Sherman to a tank almost twice the weight. Despite the advantage of size and weight if the Sherman had gone through a serious development program to make it a tank killer you might have seen something much more fomidible, look at what the Israeli's did with theirs after the war, a 75mm nearly equal to the Panther's and a long 105mm gun. The Shermans armor was actually pretty decent but the gun was a poor anti armor weapon, if you compare it to the Tiger the armor is actually close (when you factor in the Sherman's sloped armor) it is the 88 vs the short 75 that makes the differance, a Sherman 90 would have put the Sherman in the lead for best tank.

Uh, the T-34/85 was better.

Gee, lots of bytes about a question debated a million times.

I think you need to look at things as a whole here. It has more to do with economics and production than it does with other things.

Obviously 1 to 1 you'd want to be in a Tiger. But, I'd rather have been an American in the war than a German. I think you had a better chance of surviving to argue apples and oranges.

hi there what Osprey book did u get for the tiger book.
did you get tony greenlands book the 2nd Edition.
or did u get the Osprey Modelling Manuals - PzKpfw VI Tiger
i just wanna know cause i might pick it up.
i have yony greenlands frist edition book.
thats a good book,

this is one hell of a tricky one,
and to those who say one on one the tiger, i disagree.
it depends on a huge number of things,
yes the tiger had a better gun and thicker armour,
the sherman was faster, more manuverable, infinately more reliable.

the circumstances of the battle matter more than these factors
if its a long range engagement in open country, desert etc, then the tiger is gonna win, because of its gun,
if its a close in, short range one, bocage etc, id bet on the sherman, as the differences in guns are reduced. and the sherman was faster and more likely to be able to evade enemy fire.

id personally say the sherman, T34, and to a lesser extent the cromwell/comet family were better, simply because all post war tank designs are based in part on vehicles such as these.
the tiger design has never been much inspiration to designers because it was a bad one for modern combat.
it had bad, underpowered engines and transmissions. and the design of the running gear was very poor in my opinion. rocks, ice and even mud would split the roadwheels, and shed the tracks.
all in all the tiger and most german designs were far too complicated to be truly successful weapons
of course this is my opinion so you tiger fans dont get too mad! hehe
cheers
joe

sure tigers were to be feared and respected but they also had their weaknesses too. particularly steet fighting. my dad used to drive the big daimlers ,and before he reached his regiment his daimler killed a tiger by driving in back of it and hitting it in the band all this from an armoured car with a 2 pdr .

i meant to say turret band and not just band .what can i say?

He-he, JS-2 was even better than that. I'm wondering why the JS series of tanks is ignored in every single "Tiger vs. [your favorite piece of equipment here]" argument? There is no doubt that in one-on-one it would knock out any tank produced by the end of WWII.

Zimmerit WAS INDEED APPLIED to late production Tiger I's



- ralph

Hi All,

The JS series were formidible (I read that the late JS-3, a.k.a. T-10, was very difficult for the Israelis to contend with even with a M-48/Centurion). Yet, they too had flaws. Two-piece ammo, relatively not much of it, slow firing; optics favored the Panzertruppen.

I read that the JS-2's 12.2cm gun, fired into the glacis of a captured Panther (don't recall range but it was 'typical' battlefield) went through the front, interior, engine, and out the back. Even when the round failed to penetrate, the shock of impact often jammed the turret or otherwise damaged the target to the extent of retreat.

Still, almost all sources I have encountered rate the Tiger II as overall superior to the JS-2 in a shooting match. That it couldn't move as well as the JS was a case of Tiger I vs T-34/Sherman pt. II!

hmmm,
what about a Pershing against a Tiger? They saw limited use in WWII in '45.
Footage from the History Channel shows a Pershing knocking out a Panther with no trouble.

They should have listened to Patton....


Peter