Top 5 Tank Destroyers

1. From what i have heard, the 76mm gun could only penetrate the tigers glacis plate at under 100 meters, and could not penetrate the panthers glacis plate at any range. it could however, penetrate the tigers side armor at medium range and the panthers side armor at long range. It could penetrate the tigers and panthers gun mantlet ant close range. Finally, the 76mm could not penetrate the tiger II's glacis plate or gun mantlet at any range. Compare that to The german 88mm Kwk 36 and 75mm Kwk 42 which could penetrate any part of the sherman at any range.

Secondly, most german tanks and assault guns were light vehicles like the panzer IV, marder, stug III and IV, with moderate numbers of panthers and small numbers of tigers and heavy tank destroyers, with the number of light vehicles increasing as the war drew to its close. And most german tanks were destroyed by the allied air force, not the ground forces. For example, 657 tiger II's were destroyed by allied bombing before they were even complete. compare this to the 200 or so tiger II's that were actually lost in combat. And the majority of german tanks in normandy were destroyed by the massed carpet bombings in operation cobra. For example, the majority of the elite panzer lehr divisions tanks were destroyed by carpet bombings in the falaise pocket and around caen and saint lo.

 

So you're proposing that we should just ignore the many German tanks who got either bombed or shot to smithereens by the USAAF & RAF?

And what about the number simply abandoned? According to the opertional record of the Tiger tank most were abandoned and blown up by their own crews rather than destroyed by the Allies. Something like 60 to 70% of all Tiger II's were destroyed by their own crews, so the 11:1 kill/loss ratio is probably conservative at best.

Also how does Normandy represent the whole war in any way at all? You seem obsessed with this small theater of operations, so much so you forget the rest of the war.

 

25% of tiger II's were destroyed in combat
25% if them were destroyed by airplanes
50% of them were abandoned when they ran out of fuel or broke down.

that means on average, a tiger II had a 40:1 KD ration in combat alone, because tigers had an 11: KD ratio when you count everything, but only 22% were destroyed in combat. And the 3 tiger II's that were give to the panzer lehr division in normandy broke down and were abandoned before even seeing combat.

also, 657 tiger II's were destroyed by allied bombing before they were even finished (factories were destroyed).

 

I'd love to see where those figures came from.....

 

Not sure about SSDasReich's figures, as far as I can remember something like 60% of all Tiger II losses were to the crews abandoning and blowing the tanks up themselves. A lot were lost due to Allied bombing as-well.

You can add up all the numbers if you have Wolfgang Schneider's books Tigers in Combat I & II, I don't have adequate time to do so atm. But I'll add them up the upcoming week.

 

Wrong twice.
Tiger I's 45+45+33+5= 126
Tiger II 12+14+14+5= 45 (28 from August and thus east of the Seine)

The OR Reports found a max of 15% of destroyed tanks were directly caused by aircraft.
Your claim, whilst a staple of the fan-boy universe, is fiction.

There are no Official 'statistics'. What you are quoting are the wet dreams of believers in the Uber-panzer myths.

Do you know how absurd that claim is?

Bunk. Yet more excuses culled from third rate books by second rate authors.

First you would do well to establish that 'many' German tanks were bombed/shot to 'smithereens' in Normandy. The surveys done only show 15% max.
You will have to find over 275 destroyed tanks to show that figure is wrong. Where can we find these tanks?

'Operational Record' Where can I find this document?
Do you mean figures from a book on the Tiger?


.

Having to run for your life and throw away your perfectly fit tank is an inevitable result of total defeat..
Let me give you the other side of the coin
In August/September 1944 during the advance of the British into Belgium they lost 78 tanks to enemy action-and 305 (80%) that broke down!
Source OR-T-117 Table III. Casualties in Guards/7th/11th/Polish and 4th Canadian Armoured Divisions and 8th Armoured Brigade.
Loss causes for Allied tanks showed that 20% of losses were due to NON ENEMY action. Mines accounted for 16% and HC 12%.
That left 50% for AP pentration and tank fire was only a % of that 50%. Your 11:1 claim has no standing.
Source OR-T-117 Table I

I understand your problem. Claims made for the East have no corresponding Russian loss figures that we can compare with German claims. Thus we get the silly 150+ T34's being knocked out by a lone Tiger fiction.
However for Normandy we have the Allied loss figures. Thus we can compare the two and PROVE German claims are inflated.
That is the real reason you want to discount Normandy.

 

Don't bother. This book used Schneider as its main source and thus has the information

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A415948&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf



page 127 says:

"A Statistical Perspective
The Germans kept detailed records on the loss of each Tiger and on the number of
enemy tanks destroyed".

They did not. Indeed the fate of a large proportion is unknown and the Allied losses were nothing more than crew claims.

"The claims of U.S. and British tanks destroyed have been
confirmed, to various degrees of reliability, from available records".
This is invention. The actual Allied figures contradict the claims in a nunber of areas.

"For Soviet losses,
very few records are available to confirm the German claims. In these instances, the
German claims are generally accepted without the benefit of verification".

So Wilbeck acepts the claims. Claims that we know were reduced by 50% by the Germans themselves!
How much worse can it get?

 

Seriously. Do you know anything about the tiger II's history? The King Tiger did not see any combat during the normandy campaign.

Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B Konigstiger / King(Royal)Tiger / Tiger II Sd. Kfz. 182

ttp://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ii-ausf-b-konigstiger-kingroyaltiger-tiger-ii-sd-kfz-182.htm


German King Tiger tank - development history and photos

where is the source for that "OR report"

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Sd. Kfz. 171


German King Tiger tank - development history and photos

1,000 king tigers were planned. However, the allied bombing campaign leveled one of the factories that was producing the king tigers, destroying 657 KT in various stages of production. Look at the Sources above

have you read "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy" by Antony Beevor? It is one of the best books about the normandy campaign. That is where I get most of my information.

 

He knows more than you

James Baron - Telegraph

 

Your sources are confusing, innacurate and worthless.
Still then they get it half right:

Only two companies of schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 commanded by Hauptmann Fromme, equipped with Tiger II tanks (with Porsche turrets), were committed to the fighting in Normandy

The 1st kp of sSS 101 also had 14 Tiger II's destroyed in August 1944.
The photo of the TII used in the links ('104') is one from SS 101.


http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/image001.jpg

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/tig2s_2.jpg

Would you know it was authentic if you saw one?

Here is one example:
http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt

I do not think I will bother. Using the numbers of Tigers destroyed in factories (It is impossible that 600+ were on one production line) is a complete red herring. However if you want to go down that line add in the destroyed tanks as they were 'combat kills'. That should knock your statistics right out of kilter. Do you now accept over 700 were destroyed in combat

Beevor is ok for a general overview and he is a sensationalist popular author rather than a detail man.

 

Hello fellows,

maybe you guy's need to find an agreeable date first in reagrds to which timeframe "Normandy" should refer to.

August 44? IIRC the Allies already were having tea (how awfull ) and coffee in Paris.

Regards
Kruska

 

I am not interested in excluding actions because of some arbitary decision that Normandy ended on date X.
I am talking about fighting in France up to August.

Taking this line of argument to it's logical conclusion we would have to have 2 sets of loss data. One for Normandy and one for the Pursuit and the numbers do not exist in that format. If we are talking losses then they are arranged by month.
There is an escape route for true believers. If they want to stick to a strict definition on the Normandy fighting then as the bulk of the August German losses were not compiled until September then they can claim German Normandy losses were a lot smaller than the Allied losses............see the problems it would cause?

 

1. What is wrong with my sources? they provide excellent information on the Tiger II's design, development, specifications, and combat history. It you have any better sources, please tell me.


2. 600 tiger II's were not destroyed on one production line, but several. The allies bombed (and destroyed most) the factories that tiger II's were being produced in. After all, 1000 king tigers were ordered but only 450 were produced.

 

Back to the main topic,

due to criticisms of my earlier lists I have revised mine:

1. Jagdpanther
The jagdpanther mixed the devastating power of the 88mm L/71 with the proven chassis of the panther tank. It had the best anti-tank gun of the war, frontal armor that could not be penetrated by any american or british gun in service, and had a good top speed. It was also more reliable than germanys heavier tank destroyers (elefant, jagdtiger).

2. Su-100
The Su-100 mixed the extremely mobile and reliable chassis of the t-34 with the formidable 100mm d-10. While the d-10 is inferior to the 88mm L/71, it fires a more powerful HE round and outperforms all other german guns in terms of penetration. It also had decent armor protection and it was extremely fast and reliable as it used the chassis of the proven t-34.

3. elefant
While the elefants reliability might not be spectacular, Its armor and firepower definitely were. It used the massively powerful 88mm L/71 and had frontal armor a colossal 200mm thick. In fact, its frontal armor was so thick not even the most powerful Russian AT gun (d-10) could penetrate even at point blank range. In terms of kill/loss ratio the elefant is the most successful TD of the war, with an average kill/loss ratio of 10:1. While its armor and firepower are spectacular, its reliability was poor. Most elefants broke down before even seeing combat, and they had horrible fuel milage.

4. Nahsorn
While the nashorn has thin armor and and an open top, its main gun meant it could destroy any allied tank before it could get in range. After all, thin armor is irrelevant if you cant hit it. The Nashorn also used the reliable Panzer IV chassis and had very good mobility when compared to the heavier german vehicles. Its weaknesses are its thin armor and open top, which mean it is very vulnerable to infantry attacks and return fire.

5. ISU-152
While it was not designed as a tank destroyer, it was very effective in this role. It got the name "animal killer" because its massive gun could destroy any german tank in existence. In fact, its 99 pound high explosive round was so powerful it could blow the turret off a tiger tank. It also had very good armor which could shrug off fire from lighter german tanks and force the heavier ones to move to close range. Its mobility is also good, as it uses the IS-2 chassis. Its drawbacks are its low accuracy, slow reloading time (2 rounds per minute), and low ammunition storage (20 rounds maximum).

 

I'm still trying to figure out why m kenny thinks the entire war was fought in Normandy....

The 11:1 kill/loss ratio wasn't achieved in Normandy, it's a ratio the Tiger II achieved on the Eastern & Western front combined. In Normandy the German tanks didn't enjoy the same success as they did elsewhere because of the predominantly short ranged fighting taking place there. It was no where near ideal tank country.

Furthermore I find it funny how m kenny can just disregard information by highly respected authors if he doesn't like what is being said, while he himself relies heavily on other author's work. He has no problem quoting Schneider when what is said conforms to his own fantasy of things, but when it doesn't Schneider obviously isn't good enough for him; this is cherry picking in the first degree. Also had he bothered to read the books by Schneider he'd know the comprehensive list of sources used to compile the data presented in the book.

 

Honestly, I think hes just trolling.

 

I wonder if this conclusion is as well thought out as your claim only 3(?)Tiger II's saw action/were destroyed in Normandy?

Photos limited to the 14 TII (p) from sPzAbt 503 and do not include the wrecks of the 12 TII (h) from 503, the 14 TII(h) from sSS PzAbt 101 or the 5 TII (p) from fkl.316 in Pz. Lehr

 

I admit I am wrong on the issue of tiger IIs in normandy. However, I am right in that tiger II's had an average K/D ration of 11:1, and that more than 50% of tigers were abandoned by their crews when they broke down or ran out of fuel. In combat alone, tiger II's had probably had a 30-40:1 KD ratio. This is partly because its glacis plate was never penetrated in combat, its gun mantlet was only penetrated at point blank range by a 17 pounder using APDS ammunition, and its main gun could destroy any allied tank at any range on the battlefield. It also had a very fast turret traverse (19 seconds when engine is at full power), a good reload speed due to the large interior, and could pivot turn unlike sherman tanks. It was very much liked by crews (unlike sherman crews, who hated their tanks and gave it names like the "ronson" or "burning grave"). The Tiger II was easily the most powerful and fearsome tank used during world war 2, and the mere sight of one would cause most allied tank crews to panic. in the words of a british tanker:

 

As I said earlier the Tiger did not enjoy the 'success' it claimed elsewhere because the data is available to show the claims made for it were inflated.
Russia: No Soviet data thus high kill claims are not able to be challenged.
West: Checkable data, no high kill claims substantiated.

This is something you can do when you have the story from the other side of the hill. Myopic true believers taking their Allied data from Jentz and Schneider are at a severe disadvantage if they limit their sources in this way.

A quick glance at TIC I/II reveals not a single British Regimental History, War Diary or PRO number for any primary documentation and the bulk of the books used are German So much for balance!


There is nothing wrong with his work in regards to his account of German actions and claims but he a very poor source for British actions and losses.


By the way who do you think Schneider was in touch before he wrote his Das Reich Tigers book?
Someone who was able to put him in touch with a friend who provided some new photos for the book.


Which of Schneider's books do you recomend for a thorough and balanced account of British Regimental actions?

Elefant, Jagtiger, Sturmtiger: Variations of the Tiger Family?
The King Tiger : development, units, operations?
Das Reich Tigers?
Tiger Im Kampf?
German Tanks in World War I: The A7V and Early Tank Development?
Panzertaktik, German Small Unit Armour Tactics?
TIC I?
TIC II?

 

Did you keep your fingers crossed when you said all that?

You really are beyond reason.

Where can I find this statement by 'a 'British tanker'?