Tiger Question

Tiger and Panther actually.....
Whenever I watch a WWII video, the allied armies always say they had no idea about the above mentioned German tanks. They were shocked to see them after the Normandy landing.
How could that be.? They had been around for 2 or 3 years at that point.
Eisenhower had no knowledge of Panthers and Tigers.?
Thank You

 

I don't know what kind of documentaries you're watching, but nobody was "shocked" by the presence of the Tiger or Panther.

There were a couple of things they didn't expect.

They didn't expect to see the Panther in the numbers that were encountered. Allied intelligence had assumed the Panther would be made in small numbers as a heavy tank. They didn't realize it was a "medium" tank that would be made in large numbers.

They also didn't expect that all Mark IV's had been upgraded with a longer barrel that gave their 75 much higher velocity with greater range and penetration. The armor had also been upgraded. They'd seen these newer versions in Italy, but by 44 all the Mark IV's had changed over. In North Africa the British actually rated the Sherman as superior to the Mark IV in most respects. The guns were of similar power, the armor was similar, and the Sherman was more reliable. Overall, it was quite effective against the Mark IV. That was no longer the case in 44.

I'm sure some of the Panzer experts here can tell you much more than I can.

 

I think it was more an issue of not knowing the Tigers or Panthers were in Normandy in such numbers.

(if I hadn't stopped myself from maiking a smart a** remark this post would not be redundant)

 

First denny, welcome to the forum!

If you are referencing History/Military Channel program's you confusion is understandable. These shows or intended for as mass market and are somewhat 'dumbed' down. What might be more accurate is the surprise in the numbers of Tiger's and Panther's seen in Normandy and later.

Before Normandy, encountering Waffen-SS units was rare and these tended to have the best equipment. Whereas Heer (German regular Army) Panzer formation's had far fewer such vehicles, and these were the ones the western forces regularly engaged until the Normandy landings.

Hope this helps.

 

I gotta learn how to type faster!

 

10-4
Yeah, whatever videos I have seen on youtube, and all since I was a kid.
Interviews with the tank soldiers all seemed the same. They thought the "Sherman" was the best tank going, until the slaughter started I guess.
The Russians had been fighting these 2 tanks and tank destroyers for a long time.
Just seems weird to me (not a WWII nut or student of) that the Allied Armies went ashore with no real plan to battle afore mentioned vehicles. I guess they assumed that type of gear would not be there. The Allies seemed to have planned and anticipated for everything BUT better tanks.
I guess war is a complex game. Easy for me to see the mistakes now. 20/20 foresight is what most of us lack.
Thanks Again

 

Again, your confusion is understandable.

From the US perspective they did have a plan and generally speaking it worked spectacularly well. The problem was it was not all together fun for Tankers.

The Sherman was intended to be a easy and inexpensive to produce. Reliable and easy to operate by almost anyone. A fair balance of Speed, armor and protection. Able to operate in almost any climate or environment, and something that was well suited to transport by sea transit since it needed to be.

The Sherman was not designed to be a "tank'' killer as such but to serve as a general purpose armored vehicle, that could engage most armor, bunkers or infantry and be a good vehicle to exploit breakthough's.

Tiger's and Panther's had great armor and guns, but were far less reliable, more restricted in crossing bridges, slower and much more expensive to produce.

This also discount the Tank Destroyers built by the US specifically to 'Kill' enemy armor or the lavish use of Ground Attack aircraft to also kill tanks.

This all of course was little comfort to a Sherman crew with a Tiger a thousand yards to their front.

 

Welcome to the forum!

If the documentaries you watch actually state that the Allies had no idea about the Panthers/Tigers, they are blatantly wrong. The Tiger I was encountered in North Africa as early as 1942 (in fact, well before Overlord the British already had a captured Tiger in Britain for testing). The Allies even had a document published showing the weak points on the Tiger's armor before Overlord kicked off.

The Panther is a more complex issue: although the Soviets encountered it at Kursk in 1943 (and apparently shared some information about it with the Western Allies), the West did not encounter it until Anzio in 1944. Even then, it was only in small numbers. Normandy was the first time that Panther was encountered in any meaningful numbers. Furthermore, based on the limited numbers seen so far, it was assumed that very few of the German tanks encountered in Normandy were to be Panthers. The Americans expected to encounter primarily Panzer IVs supported by some Tigers. The Panzer IV was a more equal match for the Sherman, while the Tigers were (presumably) to be dealt with via air-ground support, artillery and some of the up-gunned Shermans and tank destroyers. Though there was some last-minute intelligence showing vastly higher-than-expected production figures just before Overlord, the Americans were surprised to encounter Panthers in such large numbers. The British seemed to be more aware of the German tank threat, and pushed the production of the Sherman Firefly as a result.

The Tiger II is another issue entirely. The tank first saw combat in mid-July against the Allies at Demouville, and didn't see combat against the Soviets until a month later. This may well have been a surprise to the Allies (I'm not aware of anything indicating that the Allies were aware of the arrival of this tank on the battlefield), but since it was only deployed in small numbers, I doubt it had any major impact on Allied strategy.

 

The Heer divisions were not under equipped compared to the SS in Normandy, the only unit with integral Tigers in it's force was Lehr with 8 and of these 5 were King Tigers. Lehr had around 237 tanks (89 Panthers) and assault guns and a staggering 693 armoured half tracks, when it arrived 1st SS had about 187 AFV's (inc. 72 Panthers) and about 260 half tracks. 2nd Panzer had 94 PzIV's, 73 Panthers, 21 JgPzIV and 476 half tracks. 2nd SS by contrast had 83 PzIv, 80 Panthers, 45 Stug III's with about 250 half tracks and at the end of June it still had aa PzGr Regiment in France due to a lack of transport. 10th SS had no Panthers and was weak on AFV's I could go on but won't.

 

The Sherman tank suffered from a number of issues. It wasn't designed as a cheap weapon, but was designed by three different organizations, no two of which could agree on what a tank was supposed to do. We had no decent engine available. The gun was
chosen by the artillery folks, who wanted a long lifespan, not high velocity - no Sherman ever survived long enough to wear out its barrel.
The suspension was not the superior Christy type until late in the war. Our biggest advantage in armor was the ability to recover knocked out Shermans and get them back into service, at least those that hadn't blown up. Patton nixed production of the Pershing, which could have gone ashore on D-Day. Without a doubt, "tank expert" George Patton made the stupidest decision by any American commander
in the war. Ike and others had also been told that the new 76 MM Sherman cannon was a "wonder gun." They were lied to. American
development of the tank was the biggest foul up of the war, ahead of the bazooka, another fiasco. The Pershing would certainly have shortened the war and saved an enormous number of tank crews. Next time somebody claims Patton a tank expert, set them straight.
He also followed the stupid Army doctrine that "tanks won't fight other tanks." Incredible.

 

Putting aside the initial Russian encounters, the First 'Western allies' reports of Tiger (transcribed from David Fletcher's 'Tiger, A British View') :

Intercept:

And more:

US II corps report after kasserine:

(With thanks tp 'Phaethon' on WW2T)

Appraisal of a capture:

Barlow & Neville's fuller report:

&c.

So Tiger was hardly a surprise, and I'd have to echo the other chaps' suggestions re what you've been watching, Denny .


Veering off-track somewhat:

I'm sorry, Arthur, but this is such an 'odd' post it requires some comment, mate.
A Christie Sherman?
Bold assertion on the murky history of who, specifically, designed Sherman?
Patton's oft-quoted and just-about non-existent involvement with Pershing's delay?
Pershing as a panaceaic wonder weapon, disregarding what actually happened?
The Bazooka? A Fiasco?

I think perhaps you've been reading Cooper and taking it as gospel? Or maybe the recycled Internet variant of these views.
Not wishing to take Denny's thread off-Tiger, and off the top of my head, try these threads for some Pershing chat:
http://www.ww2f.com/armor-armored-fighting-vehicles/39015-why-didnt-us-standardize-t23e3.html
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-films-tv/25506-sherman-deathtrap.html

~A


(doubtless MK will be along soon... Ooh look, there he is )

 

In Gavin's memoir he talks about the failure of the Bazooka. In his opinion it just didn't have enough power to be an adequate weapon. He went as far as to have the 82nd collect every Panzerfaust they captured and put it into the divisions inventory to be issued as an alternative to the Bazooka.

 

Really? I find that hard to believe. The engine chosen was from what I've read at least decent and well suited for mass production.

Sources please.

Did any tank aside from some obsolete Soviet ones have a Christy suspension? Why do you think it was supperior?

Really? When first introduced the Sherman was supperior in pretty much every way to it's opposition. Its availability rate was signficantly higher than that of the opposition and it was available in numbers the opposition couldn't match. Sounds like you rate recovery awfully high to me.

??? Not only did Patton have nothing to do with it there is little to suggest that the Pershing would even have been available by D-day much less that it could have "gone ashore" at that time even if it was available in numbers.

Since it wasn't his decision and he didn't make it that seems rather far off base.

The US testing of the 76mm gun did leave something to be desired. Whether it was actually lieing is another matter. Care to support your contention?

Actually it was one of the greatest succss stories. It could have been better but that's another matter.

Hardly a "fiasco". That's not to say that improvements couldn't have been made, indeed they were but by the time they were available it was considered not worth while deploying them.

Would it? I doubt it. Indeed it might even have lengthened the war depending on how much effort was exerted in getting it to the front. It might have saved some tank crews (or not) but emphasising it would almost assuredly resulted in more infantry casualties.

From what I'ver read they would seem to have a pretty good handle on things already.
He also followed the stupid Army doctrine that "tanks won't fight other tanks." Incredible.[/QUOTE]

 

I saw one of those documentaries and was most surprised to hear the American tank man say he thought that the Sherman tank was the best in the world before he landed in Normandy and learnt the truth. Well most of the troops who landed on D-Day had not been in action before, and lived under a heavy security blanket in the UK. I expect the commanders knew about the German tanks but maybe they thought it better not to tell the ordinary troops about them, or just assumed they knew anyway.

 

From a POV that's high enough up the org tree a case can indeed be made for the Sherman being the best. When you are slugging it out with the cat's not so much.

 

I always have to wonder that perhaps the USA's 76mm gun would have been adequate in Normandy had they not cut the barrel by 15" so that it would fit in ships better.

 

The delay of the Pershing and the delay of the 76m Sherman gun AND the delay of self propelled tank destroyers in favored of towed AT guns is generally attributed to General Leslie McNair. Patton would have had little to no influence in such things at the development stage.

 

Here is my 2p.

1. In Q1 1943 the British encountered Tiger Tanks in Tunisia. One was knocked out by a 6 pdr (57mm) anti tank gun. They were not invincible. (BTW at Villers Bocage Wittman's tank was immobilised and knocked out, probably by Sgt Bray's 6 Pdr gun. They were a tought tank to defeat.

2. The Tiger, and to a lesser extent the Panther caused anxiety , if not panic among allied armoured crews. Possibly the most significant implication of the longer barrel and turret skirt of the Pz IVH was that it looked superficially like a Tiger. From D day onwards a disproportionate number of "Tigers" were engaged by the allies./ The Panther had thin side armour and caught fire easily - just like the Sherman.

3. The Germans had similar problems in 1941 facing the Russian KV1 and T34 as well as the British Matilda which could not be defeated by German tank guns. The German solution was to combine tanks attacking on the flanks with artillery weapons which could beat these tanks. This was the same solution adopted by the 4 AD at Arracourt in Sep 1944..

4./ There is an argument that the Sherman was a GREAT tank and far more use than the Tiger.

a) it is a lot more cost effective and there were a lot more of them. Most of the time Shemans faced German infantry without better tanks,. because the Germans spent too much effort on Tigers and Panthers..

b) The Tiger was an unreliable heavy tank. That is fine if it broke down in a good fire position. (E.g only five out of 45 tiger tanks from 101 SS Hy Tk Bn made it as far as Villers Bocage in June1944. In mobile operations the Sherman was a .fantastic tank. Close on 95%+ would arrive after a tactical move. By contrast the Germans accepted that 20% of Panthers would break down.

 

Indeed but even this is a laying a bit too much blame on one person. Part of the problem is that the equivalant of FORSCOM wasn't requesting those or not requesting them loudly enough. There is some thought that had McNair survived he would have actually pushed forward with those but his death left subordinates in charge who had to climb a bit of a learning curve.

 

There is a case for blaming the British as much as anyone. In late 1942 the Sherman was a good tank and on a par with any other medium tank in service, comparable to the T34 and Pz IV F2 and a lot better than the Pz III and T70 . US Army had the choice of having a lot of Shermans or start work on the T20 series which was better than the M4 but might not be ready until the war was over. At the time the US Army was intending to invade Europe in 1943 until persuaded otherwise by Winston Churchill and Alanbrooke.

There are two other issues,

1. There were delays in developing the 76mm anti tank gun, which never performed as well as the British 17 pdr/77mm gun of a very similar calibre. Production of the M5 gun used in the M10 TD and towed 3" equipment was based on the WW1 AA gun only started in Nov 1942 and there were lots of teething problems with the ammunition. Getting a lighter version with a new cartridge case in a year isntl too bad going.

2. The opposition of the AGF to the 76mm gun is well founded in US Army Doctrine. The purpose of tanks was not to kill other tanks, that was the job of the TD arm. Tanks without an effective HE round were useless for their prime purpose.

Historically, US armour very rarely met Tiger tanks until the Battle of the Bulge. The Heavy tank company at Anzio failed spectacularly to hold up the 1st Armoured Division and seemed to suffer an inordinate amount of careless losses. In Normandy the 1st US Army faced few tanks of any sort until the Mortain counterattack - stopped by a combination of air attacks and combined arms defences based on the TD arm and infantry. At Arracourt in the Lorraine campaign well handed US armour based on the M4 beat superior numbers of Germans in panther tanks. In the Ardennes the tigers were a hindrance as much as a help to KG Peiper.