Best Tank in Normandy

Welcome then.

I'd almost be tempted to go with the German heavies, sine they were well suited to defensive warfare (which except for the battle of the bulge was the rest of the axis campaign was it not?)

 

Well, they did try a couple of armoured counter-attacks against the British shortly after D-Day, both of which were foiled by a combination of screwed-up logistics (yay to tactical air support) and effective anti-tank fire.

 

Welcome

Biggest was Tiger II for shure,but it it was not close to Tiger I performance. Only 90 Tiger I was deployed in Normandy doing D-day and they did performed excelent when we consider number and air superiority of Allys. On one ocassion 7 tiger I get in fight with bunch of Sherman tanks.End was 4 Tiger I destroyed and 47 Sherman totaled. It was not long range fight ,it was close combat. Owerall tiger I was one of best tanks in WWII,outclassed nearly all Allys tanks,only IS-2 coud match Tiger I in some areas,but tiger was betther tank killer,when IS-2 had more HE capabilitys.

 

At the time of the Normandy invasion the Tiger 2 had only been in service for a little over a month and therefore still suffered from a lot of teething problems (as do all new tanks, even modern ones). Whereas the Tiger 1 had been in service for almost two years and had had most of it's problems sorted out.

More Tiger 2s were lost due to airstrikes and mechanical failures then from tank vs tank engagments.

It was only near the end of the war that the Western allies had anything that they considerd to be anywhere near equal to the Tiger 2 and that was the heavily modified "Super Pershing"

And I think that even the 122mm gun of the IS2 wasn't as good a tank killer as the 88mm on the T2.

 

T2 had longer 88mm gun then T1, and IS-2 122mm gun was not betther tank killer eaven from T1 gun,lack of accuracy and rate of fire,but shell was bigg enought that any direct hit will atleast damage tank to knock him out of combat.And IS-2 is much more lighter then a KT r T1,so it is not really same class.

T2 was too much heawy,used alot fuel,and lack off road capatibilitys,and mechanical unreliable,alot design flaws and used alteranate materials to bould it coz Germans had lack of resources.None KT was penetrated from front side in WWII,all destroyed KT was in air strikes,by the crews and with hits on side/rear armor. So basicly,KT was just a hardly mowing fortress

 

The 122mm gun was comparable to the 88L71 mounted on Tiger-2 and superior to that in Tiger-1.

No, 122L43 was very accurate, and optics -contrary to the myth- were quite good. Only problem with IS-2 was lower ROF, but that was not generally a problem. When both tanks met IS-2 got the best part.

Best tank for Normandy would be Tiger, best vehicle StuG-III.

 

I pointed that 122L43 gun was not betthet killer then german 88 coz of lower accuracy and rate of fire ( as far i know,german 88/L71 was one of most accuracy tank guns in WW II,corect me if i wrong)

 

I was only trying to make my point as to why I thought that the King Tiger was the biggest, toughest, most powerful tank during the Normandy campaign, after D-Day.

The KT' 88mm had (I think) the most powerful gun on a tank at the time of the Normandy campaign and was still probably one of the best guns at the end of the war when the allies were putting 100mm and 122mm guns on their tanks.

 

sinissa, not all King Tigers were lost through airstrikes. They were lost to enemy fire, mechanical breakdown, lack of fuel, bogging, et cetera...

 

Accuracy of 122L43 was similar.

[/quote]

 

In all fairness that's not quite what Sinissa said:

My emphasis.

How true that is, I'm not sure since my tank knowledge tends to be somewhat sparse, but my guess would be as well that Sinissa counts Tanks intentionally wrecked following mechanical breakdown and running out of fuel amongst those destroyed by the crews.

 

As far as I know it is true that no Tiger 2 had its frontal armour penetrated in combat.

 

There was one with front turret pierced. I would say that there are no evidences of front hull armour being penetrated, but that does not mean it did not happened.

 

Jumped the gun a bit there. My apologies

 

Welcome to the forum, wozwasnt!

At the time of the invasion, the Tiger II wasn't in service yet, as far as I know. In any case, its major problem wasn't the fact that it was new, but the fact that it was too heavy, unwieldly, and fuel-consuming for its own good.

However it still was, by far, the most powerful tank to serve in Normandy, in answer to the thread's opening question. It was the biggest in terms of weight and dimensions, the strongest in terms of armour thickness and firepower, and the most powerful in terms of its potential to wreak havoc among other tanks. It must be noted, though, that strategically this tank wasn't so sound a concept, and that other tanks were notably better at winning wars...

In theory, the British 17pdr gun using APDS could do the trick, though I only know of it being pulled off during test range shooting of a King Tiger's front plate, never in combat.

 

sPzAbt 503 were given 12 Tiger II's in April 44 and were sent to Normandy soon after the invasion. They were the only unit with TII's in Normandy. The KT's first went into service in May 44 on the Eastern front.


"Status reports from the Western Front, dated March 1945, showed that the percentage of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw IV and as good as or better than the Panther."

 

What's that quote taken from? It seems unlikely that the Western Front even as late as March 1945 would count as many Tigers as it did Panzer IVs, and more of both than it did Panthers, considering the fact that the Germans were trying to replace the Panzer IV as a medium tank by the Panther.

 

It says "as a percentage" not total numbers.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm

Scroll down to mobility.

I've read elsewhere that the Tigers were as reliable as any other tank when serviced properly.

Also I found this on wikipedia-

The first use of the Tiger II in combat was in Normandy on 18 July 1944 with the 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion (schwere Panzerabteilung 503). It was first used on the Eastern Front on 12 August 1944 with schwere PzAbt 501 in the fighting at the Soviets' Baranov bridgehead over the Vistula River.

 

I have seen that as wel, including on here. One other problem was that due to the relatively weak gearbox they needed specially trained drivers. When driven properly - few problems. Otherwise...

 

Engine was also quite weak considering the weight of Tiger-II. This causes overheating and shorter life. It was planned to use another, more powerful one, but was not available before the end of the war. In any case Pz-IV was a far more reliable design.