Top 10 tanks of the war

Operational range is not as important as mileage.

The Tiger II consumed fuel at a rate of 601 on/863 off road (liters/100km)

The KV-1 consumed fuel at the rate of 240 l/100km (on road)

The IS-2 consumed fuel at the rate of 340 l/100km (on road)

Both of those are heavy tanks. You can say what you want about Petrol vs. Diesel, or the Tiger II being heavier but those are the facts.

 

Proeliator.

It is not about the Maybach HL 210, it is about the Maybach HL 230. I don't know what else to say about that one, I even gave you a direct primary source.

As I said in my last post, you are speaking for Jentz. If this is so give me a quote...

The title says Tiger, it is possible as you say that it includes the Tiger II. However, it is silly to hold an argument about the Tiger II's reliability based on that.

I love how out of my whole post, that is all you address...

 

I find it somewhat difficult to compare equipment from different countries because of some very important variables. For vehicles/planes you have the people who are working on them and the people manning/flying them just to name a few. How much better would have some of the later war Japanese fighters faired had they had more experienced pilots flying them like the planes they were going up against. How much better if any would the Panther or Tiger have performed if it was being getting the maintenance of an American Sherman. I trust the testimonies of the men who fought with or against most of all because although figures don't lie, those that figure do.

 

JagdTigerI,

When a tank uses 7.17 Liters of fuel pr. km crosscountry then that usually means that it uses 717 Liters pr. 100 km cross country. Which for a 70 ton WW2 gasoline powered tank is quite an achievement.

Perhaps for a comparison you should post the milage of the M4 Sherman & M26 Pershing cross country ?

No'one ever argued against that the Soviet diesel powered tanks had a long range.

Chris Bishop is right about one thing, and that is the Tiger Ausf.B wasn't as mobile as the Panther, but the Panther was also one of the most mobile tanks of the war, so a bad comparison really. But he also fails to note that the Tiger wasn't really that far behind either, and apparently he doesn't have available the various German evaluation reports on German tank mobility as in them it is revealed that thurough testing of the Tiger Ausf.B's mobility proved it to be a remarkably mobile tank, capable of climbing steeper slopes and negotiate much taller obtacles than any Allied tank.

 

No it's not, it's about the initial batch of Panther Ausf.Ds as is clearly stated, and they were powered by the HL210 engine. Furthermore the Ausf.D suffered from some design flaws in its' engine compartment layout, causing a lack of air circulation which in turn lead to the engine overheating, which was the the direct cause behind the engine failures spoken about in that report. And that's a fact, deny it if you wish but it will remain a fact forever.

So it was not even a fault of the early HL210 engine, but instead the engine compartment layout causing the engine to overheat. The problem was solved even before the HL230 started powering the Panther.

So again I will ask you, do you have any source at all for your claim that the Maybach HL230 suffered from catastrophic failures ?

 

It doesn't matter if it is an achievement for a 70-ton tank, what matters is that it is a high rate of fuel consumption! I.E. building a 70-ton tank is reckless for a country like Germany.

Those factors are not as important in terms of mobility. Factors that are more important are acceleration, torque, and flotation.

I don't understand where you are getting this from.....

The exact quote I am looking at is "The Maybach HL 230 engine proved so unreliable that one battalion reported 25 engine failures in the space of only 9 days"

That is from Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII by R. L. Dinardo who cites Inspector General of Panzer Troops, Discussion Points For the Fuhrer Conference of 3 December 1943.

I have no source which cites any specific details about engine failures in the Tiger II. However, I have presented a reasonable argument about how the Maybach engine was overstressed in the Tiger II and therefore did lead to engine failure. Do you have any source which was that the Maybach HL 230 engine was efficient in the Tiger II.

 

No it was not. Germany couldn't ever hope to outproduce the Allies, thus had they built Pz.IV's or Shermans instead of Tigers & Panther it wouldn't have helped them at all, only speeded up their defeat. They needed equipment that was tactically superior if they wanted to win, so thats what they aimed their resources at.

Are you kidding me ? Are you actually trying to claim that the gradient & obstacle clearing abilities of a tank aren't important to its mobility ?? You don't think torque has a very important role to play when it comes to perform such actions ??

The Maybach engine provided almost 2,000 Nm of torque at 2,100 rpm, and according to the guys who actually drive these machines today, namely the guys at the Saumur museum, the acceleration of the Tiger Ausf.B is remarkable for a tank its age and size. According to them the Panther's acceleration is also easily the best of any WW2 tank in their collection, so good that they'll throttle it up infront of crowds just to demonstrate how powerful that 60 year old engine still is and for the sheer wow effect on how quickly it moves around that 45 ton tank.

Yup, and its the authors fault not yours. It's about the conference in which Güderian mentions the issues which he encountered with the Panther Ausf.D's at Kursk, and again the engine failures were the result of too tight an engine compartment and design flaws in the ventilation systems. (They got clogged up too easily)

The engine didn't fail, the drivetrain & transmission were the parts which failed, and that when mishandled by untrained drivers. Read Jentz's book KingTiger Heavy Tank 1942-45.

The HL230 engine was a reliable engine which was built to last, infact it was built a little too good for a war, with a life expectancy longer than most other engines used during the war.

 

Proeliator,

I can see no end to this argument in sight. It is clear neither side is going to give. I myself am moving on for now, I suggest others do the same.

 

Fair enough.

 

Aye.

 

Triple C, Proeliator and JagdtigerI thanks for a very interesting discussion, didn't join in as you obviously know more about the Tiger B than I do so I had nothing to add but really liked the way both sides brought in hard data and learned a few things more.

 

One point that is often forgotten in the many discussions regarding the Tiger II, is the availability of raw materials, fuel, workforce and experienced crews. Of these elements, only raw materials were in sufficient [FONT=&quot] [/FONT] supplies.

Even if the Germans decided to build two Panthers or three Pz. IVs instead of one Tiger II, they still would not have had the capacity to operate the increasing number of tanks.

One Tiger II seemed like a better bet than one Panther in other words.

Sincerely, D Evil

 

D Evil,

Raw materials were certainly not in sufficient supply for Germany

 

Well thats just plain silly.

I can say the same thing about you.
Of course I expect you to believe every grain of what is written by Jentz. Everything he says is pro-german, all of your posts are pro-German and all of your sources come from either German sources (which is where Jentz got his info from) or those who defend your pro German agenda. Based on what you write ill guess that your either German, have German back round or just another German wanna be who believes that everything Germany did and built was the best. So lets not go there shall we?

What I find interesting is that many here have given you multiple sources, may they be American, British or Russian and yet you simply throw them out the window and stick with one of yours Jentz the very same individual who got all of his info from Germany.

So let me get this straight. The U.S. engineers who performed tests on captured Tiger II's have no idea what they are talking about? The Russian engineers who performed the same tests on the Tiger II's and came up with virtually the same results, also have no idea what they are talking about, however, Jentz, who got his info from German sources (the very same ones who were afraid to give Hitler bad news and suffered from all kinds of shortages) is correct?

Here is a question for you, why would Americans and Russians both of who had more time, money and resources to perform these tests and mysteriously come up with the same conclusions, lie about their results? or do simply think that they were incompetent in comparison to the "Aryan race"?

If the King Tiger was as good of a marvel as you claim it was, then the winning nations' scientists and engineers would have built their tanks on such a model. None have, none will.


Good day.

 

Jagdtiger,
raw materials for the Tiger II and Panther production were in sufficient supply.

Sincerely, D Evil

 

That is why the quality of the steel deteriorated in the last years? Because the Nazis had suffcient supply? There was also the little problem of time of production. One has to remember it took 300,000+ man hours to build a single Tiger I, whereas it took about 110,000 man hours to build a Panther.

Consequently the Nazis built less than 2800 Tiger I's in four years of production, when there were nearly triple that number of Panthers produced (6200 ?) in three. The Tiger II, "Royal", or "King" Tiger was produced in even fewer numbers in three years, 489 or so at an even greater cost in manpower and material. If a machine takes that long to build, and it has a service life measured in days, it isn’t a good exchange in a cost-benefit analysis.

There were 100,000 + Shermans and T-34's produced alone. In comparison, it took under 10,000 man hours to produce either the M4 or the T-34, and as the war went on they were assembled even faster (8,000+ hours), and at less cost.

Where do you think the Germans got their chromium? (hint Turkey) Where do they get their nickel? (Sweden) Where did they get their magnesium? (hint USSR) Where did they get their tungsten? (Spain) Where did they get their best iron ore? (Sweden) The indigenous supply of necessary raw material was woefully short in Germany.

 

brndirt1,
I have mentioned the reasons why it would be pointless to produce two Panthers instead of 1 Tiger II:

Also, another element i could add to the list, is the working conditions in the Tiger II production facilities : Allied bombing greatly inflicted the Tiger II production.

Sincerely, D Evil

 

Steel, oil, and rubber are the three main resources most important to the production of tanks and other motor vehicles. From before the war broke out, Germany was lacking in all three area's.

Germany was indeed one of the major steel producers in Europe, but it lacked an indigenous supply of high grade iron ore. Most of this was supplied from Sweeden, which offered 71% of its total iron ore production to Germany. In 1943 Germany imported 10.3 million tons of iron ore from Sweden.

In terms of oil, Germany was also serious lacking. In 1933 Germany produced 233,000 tons of crude oil. Romania produced 7,377,000 tons and the USSR produced an astounding 23,489,000 tons. Germany attempted to up its production of oil, and although between 1933 and 1936 they saw a 90% increase, they also experienced a 56% increase in oil consumption. So Germany was left to seek outside sources for oil. In 1934 Germany consumed 3,000,000 tons of petroleum products, of which 85% were imported. Germany's synthetic oil production did aid them slightly, although it still fell short of what was needed to match other eastern European nations. In 1938 the Germans only produced 1,800,000 tons of synthetic oil.

Rubber was possibly the most scarce material, and Germany was almost solely dependent on imported rubber. Although Hitler made it a part of Goering's Four Year Plan to increase the production of synthetic rubber, it would never be accomplished to the extent needed by Germany.

As the war went on Germany's raw material situation only became more precarious, as their sources of import became targets for bombings and liberation.

Sources:

Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII by R.L. Dinardo

which cites:

Hans-Erich Volkmann, "Die NS Wirtschaft unter dem 'Neuen Plan,'" Militargeschichtlichen Forschungsamt, Das Deutsche Reich under der Zweite Weltkrie (Stuttgart, 1979-1990), Vol. 1, p.261.

Rolf Wagenfuhr, Die Deutsche Industrie im Kriege, 1939-1945 (Berlin 1955), p.54.

Volkmann, "Die NS Wirtschaft unter dem 'Neuen Plan,'" Militargeschichtlichen Forschungsamt, Das Deutsche Reich under der Zweite Weltkrie, Vol. 1, p.271.

Brian R. Mitschell, European Historical Statistics, 1750-1975 (2nd Edition) (New York, 1981), pp. 393-394.

Robert Goralski and Russel W. Freeburng, Oil and War (New York, 1987), p.21 Volkmann, "Die NS Wirtschaft unter dem 'Neuen Plan,'" Militargeschichtlichen Forschungsamt, Das Deutsche Reich under der Zweite Weltkrie, Vol. 1, p. 270.

Burton H. Klein, Germany's Economic Preparations For War (Cambridge 1959), p. 32.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey, "The Effects of Strategic Bombing on the German War Economy" (Washington, D.C., 31 October 1945), p. 75 (Herafter cited as USSBS)

 

My original choice was the panther #1 and Pershing #2, I'm starting to rethink the Pershing, Ive been trying to read as much as i can on this tank and found over all its mobility is considered poor, some literature has its top speed(burst) at 30 mph others have it at 25 mph but the most detailed documents Ive seen state that its top speed on road is 20 mph and 6 mph off road.

The front armour doesn't seem to be any better than the panther:
panther: glacis-85 at 35 degrees, front turret/mantlet-100, 110, 120
Pershing:glacis-102 at 44 degrees, front turret/mantlet-102, 114

The side of the Pershing is 26 mm thicker than the panther though.

On paper the 90mm seems as good or better than the 75mm on the panther but i came across something that stated in testing(i think) that the 75mm was a better antitank gun.

I have a couple of questions, first, did German tanks like the panther use coincidence or stereoscopic range finders. Also, did the germans ever use the pzgr 44 FSAPDS=fin stabilized armour piercing discarding sabot round in combat?