Tigers - were they worth it?

JagdPanthers and Ferdinands/Elephants would have been useful in The Desert, but not in the Bocage or Forests or whatever. Think Frontal Armour and a huge long-range punch where a good thing for the Desert, and not much chance of being outflanked. Same goes for the Tiger. Good for wide open spaces. Not so good for Urban or Bocage (Or any western European countryside in fact) style fighting.

Good things for tanks in Western Desert or whatever;
-Think Armour
-A large hitting, long range gun
Unfortunately no British or Allied tank had these Characteristics. However, the Tiger did. So did the Panther and, to a lesser extent, the Panzer IV Specials.

 

I would imagine that the desert might perhaps be one of the worst places for tanks as sand getting into all of the cracks and joints might be more then a mere inconvenience?

 

But you don't need that thick of armor when you have a gun that could stand off and out-shoot your opponent. Think 88 flak gun. The Tiger had no range, so it could'nt exploit any gains it made w/o waiting for the fuel trucks to catch up.

 

FramerT

You don't even need an 88mm gun when the opposition has got puny 2pdr guns. Mark IV would lob their HE shells on the positions and stay out of range.

 

is that right that the tiger wos weakest at the back end of the tank

 

I believe it is so

 

Just about every tank ever made was/is weakest in the rear. With the engine being in the rear, access to it and the radiator/fans/ventilation was needed.

 

Here are some disadvantages, gas guzler, very slow turret rotation, slow tank, weaker armor in the rear end,could not carry as much ammo. Here are some advantages, 88mm main gun, very very hard to destroy, it would take 5 Shermans firing at once to destroy the Tiger. Hmmm seems like cons outnumber pros. I liked your'e question.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARG !!!


:headbonk::deadhorse::ambulance:

 

Remind me, haven't we already destroyed this myth?

 

MY GOD !! Not that freaking myth again!! Do you seriously read up on anything you post about ? I would love to see the source where it STATES that it takes 5 Shermans to destroy a Tiger. How about one engagement where it Took 5 Shermans "firing at once" to destroy a Tiger? So far you are 3 out of 3. :headbash: .You are right Joe this is just :deadhorse:.

 

Perhaps we should consider this a board equivalent of Godwin's law.

 

It just may be . I think it may take 5 Shermans in video games. But in real life? LOL. Its bad enough to believe and repeat the myth statement about the 5 Shermans to 1 Tiger ratio. But to say that it took " 5 Shermans firing at once" to destroy a Tiger is even worse.

 

ok that's just hilarious!

 

Dodds Corollary (of Godwin's Law) states:

"When debating a particular subject, if a comparison or implied connection is drawn between the opponent's argument and Hitler and the Nazi Party, the maker of that statement is automatically discredited and the debate is automatically lost by the person or group who referenced the connection to Hitler or the Nazis."

I think it has applicability here too.

 

The Tiger had several advantages. yeah a gun that could destroy anything on the battlefield from extreme ranges, good protection best at the time, dues to its extreme weight it required wide tracks (a T-34 quality), and I dont know how you say it had poor mobility. The mobility was actually god especially for a HT. BTW the Tiger had a greater speed than other HT's of the time like KV,Matilda, and Char B1. It was prone to break down at first. after the limiter was placed reducing rpms to max 3000 the drive train broke less. the weight and bulk caused alot of tigers to get stuck in rough terrain and the interlocking wheels clogged easily bogging the tank down in soft ground. Maneuver around a Tiger? sir and what great plan is there to get close enough to it considering it is shooting you at beyond 1000m. Also the germans did have the 88mm flak gun. the reason they built the tiger was because the 88mm was slow to deploy immobile and the crew was extremely vulnerable to HE. The Tiger was a great support vehicle. it was not intended to be a MBT. It was meant to be HT and support MBT's which it did well after its bugs were worked out.

 

If the AT screen (PAK Front) had been a viable option, the Germans would have continued with it. However, these were very vulnerable to direct tank fire (HE rounds) common in the second half of the war. Guderian called for putting them in armored, tracked vehicles to keep them mobile and protected. Towed AT guns were even more vulnerable to well controlled arty. The Germans came up with some good panzerjagers in the STUGIII and the Hetzer, among others.

After many of the bugs were worked out, the Tiger I was quite useful, when used properly. Its heavy armor and gun gave its crews a psych advantage that should not be overlooked. Its only real problem was that it wasn't set up for mass production. Instead of coming up with the Tiger II, I feel the Germans would have been better off to reconfigure the Tiger I's frontal armor and turret (adding the more powerful version of the 88) and rationalizing it for mass production.

 

I'd consider it's reliability and maintain ability to be significant problems as well.

 

This in particular is a rather peculiar assertion, and one that I've never come across before.
I'm intrigued as to what this is based on? (maybe particularly in the light of the varied weapons considered for fitting in the earlier experimental vehicles which led directly to 'Tiger' as we know it.)

"considering it is shooting you at beyond 1000m"
This could also be termed an overly simplified asessment, so many WW2 Armoured engagements being confused and confusing encounters, taking place in the real world of terrain, weather, tactical uncertainty etc. etc. rather than on a plain kilometre wide sheet of paper... or maybe certain parts of Tunisia.

Cheers,
~A