Top 10 tanks of the war

I read a quote somewhere that said, "The best way to knock out a Tiger is 50 miles of undefended road."

 

The Tiger had reliability problems throughout its service life; Tiger units frequently entered combat understrength due to breakdowns. It was rare for any Tiger unit to complete a road march without losing vehicles due to breakdown. The tank also had a poor movement range. Due to its very wide tracks, the Tiger had a lower ground pressure than smaller tanks, the most notable exception being the Soviet T-34.




Tiger I towed by two Sd.Kfz. 9


The infrastructure to support such a heavy vehicle was found wanting. For example, the standard German Sd.Kfz. 9 Famo heavy recovery half-track tractor could not tow the tank; up to three tractors were usually needed to tow one tank. Therefore another Tiger was needed to do this, but on such occasions, the engine of the towing vehicle often overheated and sometimes resulted in an engine breakdown or fire, so Tiger tanks were forbidden by regulations to tow crippled comrades. The low-mounted sprocket limited the obstacle clearance height. The tracks also had a bad tendency to override the sprocket, resulting in immobilisation. If a track overrode and jammed, two Tigers were normally needed to tow the tank. The jammed track was also a big problem itself, since due to high tension, it was often impossible to split the track by removing the track pins. It was sometimes simply blown apart with an explosive charge. Ouch....lost mobility = arty, typhoon, mustang, sturmovik fodder

 

From what I've read thier availability was not only impacted by their reliability but by the amount of work required to do some repairs that would be considered fairly simple on other vehicles.

 

David Fletcher's 'Tiger, A British View' contains a contemporary (August '44) report from Italy by the AFV Technical Branch (?) called "Who killed Tiger?".
Of 12 out of action vehicles found & surveyed, Nine were counted as losses to mechanical/logistical failure. (The vehicles were believed to be from 506 Schw., which was said to have a total of 16 Tigers tasked to contain the Anzio break-out.)
Their conclusion: Tiger killed himself.
Though as several of the vehicles might well have been repaired/recovered had the overall strategic/supply/infrastructure situation been better for the Germans, it could also quite reasonably be stated that these vehicles were in fact 'knocked out' by the overall advance of the allies as much as by their own mechanical failures.

"Conclusion: Tiger is not yet sufficiently developed to be considered a reliable vehicle for long marches.
He suffers from frequent suspension defects and probably also gearbox trouble.
When pushed, as in a retreat, these troubles are too frequent & serious for the German maintenance & recovery organisation to deal with."

All very well to put a monster in the field, but monsters are hungry, and require quite some infrastructure to support. Luckily, despite often heroic efforts by maintenance units, Germany seems to have failed again & again re. this infrastructural/logistical support. Anyone might think the pen-pushers became a tad hubristic early on after seeing the size of the things... not unlike many corners of the Internet today .

 

From "Tigers in Combat 1"

Schwere Pz Abt 503

March 29th 1944 Total tanks 60.
March 30th 1944. 13 Tanks operational. The battalion loses all 21 Tigers left behind in the maintenance facility, one in an attempt to defend Potash in vain and 2 during the crossing of Revukha river after a night defence of Pomonyik.

Tells you all you need to know about the beast. 13 vehicles operational (just over 20%), 21 non-combat losses, 3 combat losses.

 

The Russians published maintenance manuals for the captured Mk IIIs and IVs but a bulletin said captured Panthers and Tigers were to be used while they were running but scraped as soon as they broke down as repairing was impractical.

Sorry but I can’t find the source material at the moment

 

Which reminds me of the French postwar use of Panthers, Dave.
I'm temporarily away from the source, but if I recall right they rated them as good for 150km before needing a complete transmission overhaul.

They were all 'just' machines. Nothing perfect in armoured warfare before or since.

 

You do have to be a tad careful not to go too far when critiquing such a machine though.
Though it had it's flaws, it was still a notable device for the period, just not quite the be-all-&-end-all so often claimed.
I'm never so sure it justifies the sheer level of material published relating to it (he said somewhat sheepishly, glancing at his own bookshelves), but interesting nonetheless.

To quote Henschel's Chief designer, Dr Aders (Again) :

Nothing's perfect...

 

Shock and Awe on the battlefield from The Balkans to Villers Bocage. Hauptsturmfuhrer Wittman had some good mechanics, his Tigers always seemed to run very well indeed. What a stud.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/michael-wittmann.htm


On January 13th of 1944, Michael Wittmann received the Knight’s Cross for his outstanding service to the Fatherland. "From July of 1943 to the beginning of January 1944 he has destroyed 56 enemy AFVs, including T 34s and super heavy SPs. On 8 and 9 January he and his platoon halted and destroyed breakthrough attempts of a Soviet tank Brigade, and in that battle he destroyed a further ten vehicles. On January 13, nineteen T 34s and three super-heavy SP guns. His total then stood at 88 tanks and SPs." – German radio annoucement, January 13th of 1944. On January 15/16th of 1944, SS-Rottenfuhrer Balthasar (Bobby) Woll received his Knight’s Cross. Balthasar Woll was an excellent gunner, who was even able to fire accurately while on the move.(no small feat!!)

Good pictures too.

 

Michael bleedin' Wittmann and the propaganda surrounding him are as bound up with Tiger's peculiar position as any other factor.

Loath though I am to get into any more discussion of him, it's perhaps Worth noting in this context that during his most 'celebrated' action at Villers, he was apparently operating in a borrowed Tiger, his own being unserviceable with mechanical problems.

 

Are we talking about same Wittmann who recklessly charged with just a 5 Tiger tank detachment against an unknown enemy and got himself and crews of other panzers killed during Operation Totalize in 8th August 1944 ? Even his superiors in Leibstandarte criticized him for his recklessness. Wittmann was lucky in Villers Bocage , survived and got glory. In Operation Totalize due to his lack of recon before any movement his Tiger couldn't even survive against first shot of a Sherman Firefly.

 

That's the fella .

 

I was always an Otto Carius fan myself.

 

That's a good point. I've alway's been a big critic of the Panther/Tiger but when everything was working they were hard to top.

I saw this series when it was first on TV several years ago and had to admit that the torsion bar suspension worked like a jewel. Check how it ignores a railroad tie at 6:35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKxquvOW8kU

 

appreciate all the pompous feedback boys. cheers. Just MHO didn't mean to forget to toe your line.

 

Easy, mate. You never struck me as the type to get chippy over a disagreement on point of view....
We're sort of here to discuss this stuff aren't we?

Imply that Wittmann never had mechanical problems and it seems fair to suggest, with a touch of evidence, that he doubtless had as many as any other Tiger commander, and wasn't perhaps necesarily the warrior paragon he's painted as.
The man might sometimes maketh the tank, but the propaganda department plays it's part too.
If there'd have been a real Goebbels on the Allied side, doubtless Lafayette Pool would have had as many hagiographies written about him as Wittmann (and there might be a few more conflicted tankophiles re. the Sherman's reputation). But there wasn't, so there haven't been.

Lafayette G. "Lafe" Pool (1919-1990)

 

Not sure the Tiger was mechnically that bad, Panther is possibly a different story as by the time they debugged the major flaws production standards were faling fast and there was even some sabotage.
It's onlt significant if you compare availability figures for similar circumstances, the Matilda II also had a repution as a "workshop queen" but that made it no less effective on the battlefied, when 1sr Army Tank Brigade was first committed at Arras it was well below strength (IIRC it had 23 MkII and commited 16) . Losses due to mechanical failures are almost always tied to tactical/operationational considerations, a retreating force will loose a lot more tanks to brekdown than an advancing one. The bottom line is that tanks, unless destroyed by catastrophic explosions, are usually repairable, the most vulnerable part may possibly be the crews, horror stories of vehicles "cleaned up" and put back into service are quite common.
If you look at Tiger operations by "KG Bake" and other East Front offensive ops those tanks put up a respectable amount of mileage.

 

Although KG Bake performs very well it's reliability was no better than any other Tiger unit, during the period it was in "Bake" 503 Schw Pz Abt. Had approx 60 vehicles, it rarely has 20 tanks available and the most it had was 24 Tanks. It suffers 16 Tiger losses in about a month of hard fighting and 8 of these are destroyed by the crew because they cannot be recovered (also not helped by it's first loss being destroyed by a Panther from 1st SS!). I'll check my 23rd Panzer Division history for the Panther stats but I seem to remember they have to blow up 18 Panthers on one day at the end.