Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Who said it was? Hunter was desperately trying to get me to say something like that and I told him I do not get involved in 'which tank was best' arguments.



Again I ask who said that?



The point I was making is that the site given in the link was used to 'authenticate' high kill rates for the Tiger.
If I had dared to suggest it might not be correct then I would have been vilified again. I posted proof and thus head off this possibility.

The root of everything I post is simple. There were no 10:1 kill ratios for Tigers in Normandy.

There simply were not enough dead Allied tanks to even get up to 5:1 for the Panzer fleet.
True some ace's could and did get multiple kills in excess of this but I am only trying to put right the 5:1 AVERAGE exchange rate for the German tanks.
Truth is the Tiger was hardly noticed in Normandy. The Tiger II made its debut in France and there is not a single account that suggests they had any effect whatsoever. In all 45 TII's went into action up to September and were simply flattened by the advancing Allies with very little trouble.

Ok Kenny,

After reading this post you seem to be changing what you are saying some what. Backpedling or your message you are trying to say is not coming out clearing. Not sure which.

All Chris or I have been saying from the start is this:

- Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 were better tanks 1vs1 than anything the Allies had until very late 1945. You will not compare tanks so I guess that ends everything we were chatting about.

This is what I never said:

- I never said anything about 10:1 ratio or even claiming there was 5:1 ratio. If you think I did find it please and point it out to me.


We all know how WW2 ended so we all know that numbers (with other factors of course) won the day for the Allies. In the end quality German tanks in limited numbers could not match the huge tank forces of the Allies. No one is arguing that fact with you.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Ofcourse they did not make an impact because there were not eneogh of them. That is not even an arguement here. Yes we know that more German tanks were killed overall, that is not an arguement here.

I think we are all just shooting past each other hear talking on a completely different level. Each with there own agenda and frankly we are not getting any where.

100% agree. Seems I and Chris are talking about totally different things/points than Kenny wants to talk about. Maybe we just all misunderstood each others points and got off to a bad start with each other, then it snowballed from there.

[Soren]

Guys, all M_kenny can give us is numbers, he can't tell which tank was taken out by which tank. Fact is Tigers 'were' noticed in Normandy, and there are many accounts. And can tell you this as-well - Allied tank crews were genuinely and thuroughly scared of the Tiger and Panther, so much so that they, because of pure psychological terror, often called PzIV's Tigers and retreated emmidiately - something that often happens during high psychological stress is you only see what you fear to see.

Anyways....

The StuG and PzIV's didn't prove too succesful in Normandy as the distances were short and therefore they couldn't take advantage of their superior firepower, and armor on these tanks was either equivalent or inferior to the Sherman. The Tiger's and Panther's on the other hand not only had overwhelming firepower but also lots of armor, so much that a head on attack by nearly any Allied tank would prove no trouble at all. And the Tiger and Panther sure did make a notice of themselves in Normandy, one Tiger taking out an entire British armored collumn consisting of Shermans and other type AFV's. (And the numbers of AFV's taken out corresponds well to Wittmans claim)

This may be of interest concerning the number of Tigers which were present in Normandy: German WWII Tiger I Tanks in Normandy, schwere Panzer Abteilung (LoneSentry.com)


Now the Tiger was not indestructable, no tank is, but one thing it was is Lethal, very lethal infact and was therefore not underestimated by the Allies as this report from the Battle of Florence demonstrates: " A Tiger was observed about 3,000 yards away, engaging three Shermans. When it set one of the Shermans afire, the other two withdrew over a crest. A 17-pounder was brought up to within 2,400 yards of the Tiger, and engaged it from a flank. When the Tiger realized that it was being engaged by a high-velocity gun, it swung around 90 degrees so that its heavy frontal armor was toward the gun. In the ensuing duel, one round hit the turret, another round hit the suspension, and two near-short rounds probably ricocheted into the tank. The tank was not put out of action. The range was too great to expect a kill; hence the New Zealanders' tactics were to make the Tiger expose its flank to the Shermans at a range of almost 500 yards, by swinging around onto the antitank gun. The Tiger did just this, and, when it was engaged by the Shermans, it withdrew. The enemy infantry protection of half a dozen to a dozen men was engaged by machine guns"

- Taken from Allied Intelligence Bulletin dated January 1945.

Fact is long distance and head on clashes with Tigers and Panthers were avoided at all costs by Allied tanks, simply because it was a one way deal everytime in the German's favor. Hnce why special tactics were developed to combat the Tiger and Panther tanks.

Something interesting to watch:
YouTube - Tiger Phobia
YouTube - Tiger tank - MWittman
YouTube - King Tiger
YouTube - Wittmann in Villers Bocage

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Soren

Guys, all M_kenny can give us is numbers, he can't tell which tank was taken out by which tank.

Anyone saying they know 'which tank was taken out by which tank' must have the most complete and detailed combat records ever kept. Was it a shock when you found that the actual numbers destroyed your cosy little world ?

Fact is Tigers 'were' noticed in Normandy, and there are many accounts. And can tell you this as-well - Allied tank crews were genuinely and thuroughly scared of the Tiger and Panther, so much so that they, because of pure psychological terror, often called PzIV's Tigers and retreated emmidiately - something that often happens during high psychological stress is you only see what you fear to see.

Yes The Allies were so petrified by the big bad high scoring Panzers. They stood paraylised by fear and as we speak still sit shaking in the fields of France.

Anyways....

The StuG and PzIV's didn't prove too succesful in Normandy as the distances were short and therefore they couldn't take advantage of their superior firepower, and armor on these tanks was either equivalent or inferior to the Sherman.

Here I see your new tactic. Write of all the other German tanks/SP's and now you can award all their kills to the Tigers and Panthers!

The Tiger's and Panther's on the other hand not only had overwhelming firepower but also lots of armor, so much that a head on attack by nearly any Allied tank would prove no trouble at all. And the Tiger and Panther sure did make a notice of themselves in Normandy

Yes for a whole 8 weeks-then the front broke and the war was lost for Germany.

one Tiger taking out an entire British armored collumn consisting of Shermans and other type AFV's. (And the numbers of AFV's taken out corresponds well to Wittmans claim)

You really out to read more. The hoary old Wittmann myth. He knocks out maybe 12 tanks and suddenly he is credited with the single handed destruction of a whole Armoured Brigade!
I recommend you get hold of Daniel Taylors book 'Villers Bocage Through The Lens'
Amazon.com: Villers-Bocage Through the Lens: Books: Daniel Taylor
There you will find out just what really happened.
Failing that you might try Henri Marie's 'Tigres Au Combat' first published in 1993.

TIGRES AU COMBAT - VILLERS BOCAGE, une oeuvre de H.MARIE, proposée par Chapitre

This same book was translated, updated and republished in English about 2 years ago

Amazon.com: VILLERS BOCAGE: Normandy 1944: Books: Henri Marie

Until you get beyond all the rubbish about one Tiger destroying a complete Brigade then you are not a serious historian

This may be of interest concerning the number of Tigers which were present in Normandy: German WWII Tiger I Tanks in Normandy, schwere Panzer Abteilung (LoneSentry.com)

Excellent site by John isn't it? He used to be quite heavily invoved in the area of Tigers but lately he devotes most of his effort to his site.
If it was just the number of Tigers in france you wanted all you had to do was ask.

125 Tiger I's
12 Tiger II's

If you stretch the 'Normandy' dates to September and include the Seine crossing then a further 33 TII's come into play.

Do you want the Panther numbers?
650 for Normandy proper.
PzIV's? 900

Now the Tiger was not indestructable, no tank is, but one thing it was is Lethal, very lethal infact and was therefore not underestimated by the Allies as this report from the Battle of Florence demonstrates: " A Tiger was observed about 3,000 yards away, engaging three Shermans. When it set one of the Shermans afire, the other two withdrew over a crest. A 17-pounder was brought up to within 2,400 yards of the Tiger, and engaged it from a flank. When the Tiger realized that it was being engaged by a high-velocity gun, it swung around 90 degrees so that its heavy frontal armor was toward the gun. In the ensuing duel, one round hit the turret, another round hit the suspension, and two near-short rounds probably ricocheted into the tank. The tank was not put out of action. The range was too great to expect a kill; hence the New Zealanders' tactics were to make the Tiger expose its flank to the Shermans at a range of almost 500 yards, by swinging around onto the antitank gun. The Tiger did just this, and, when it was engaged by the Shermans, it withdrew. The enemy infantry protection of half a dozen to a dozen men was engaged by machine guns"

- Taken from Allied Intelligence Bulletin dated January 1945.

and from John's site again I believe?

Fact is long distance and head on clashes with Tigers and Panthers were avoided at all costs by Allied tanks, simply because it was a one way deal everytime in the German's favor. Hnce why special tactics were developed to combat the Tiger and Panther tanks.

Special tactics? Hmmm.........and where can I find the booklet that lays out these 'special tactics'

Something interesting to watch:
YouTube - Tiger Phobia
YouTube - Tiger tank - MWittman
YouTube - King Tiger
YouTube - Wittmann in Villers Bocage

The above are the same source video chopped up and made into small bite size sections.
The errors in the original are repeated of course and so many mistakes are included that they are worthless as a reference.
Danile Taylor appears in one clip and he(if you had his book you would know this) completely demolished the old 'lone Tiger' fantasy in his work. Yet here the compilers include him as if he validates their version! Well if it sells that is all that matters.
Daniel recently did an update of his book in After The Battle Magazine no. 132.
This is about 3 months ago and I was quite suprised he saw fit to mention me in this article. Wonder why he did that when, as you constantly parrot, I know nothing.
Simon Trew also appears in some of these clips. Simon has started posting at AHF

Axis History Forum :: Viewing profile

Perhaps you should ask him for some help in this area because you are struggling badly at the moment?
This is not really fair though. I am heavily involved in the current research into Villers Bocage and have access to sources and materiel not widely known or distributed. I assure you there is nothing published you can show me that I am not already aware of.

[plan_D]

I find this funny that an argument about the Tiger has been pulled down to the Tiger in Normandy, and then even further about the Tiger in Villers-Bocage. I assume, m kenny, you're choosing the ignore the Tiger had been on the battlefield since 1942.

You claim constantly not to get into this "which was better" argument because it's only opinion. Well, that's a stupid comment because in the real world it's obvious that some things are superior than others. It takes people to interpret data and experience to come to this conclusion. And it's obvious the Tiger was superior in more areas than the Sherman was.

More importantly, you laugh and joke about the Allies "not" being scared of the Tiger. Well, that's funny because I've read and seen interviews, and spoken to a couple of British tankers myself who have all said the Tiger was a great war machine and they would fear it on the battlefield.

The Tiger inflicted tons more losses on the Eastern Front than on the Western because A) There were more there, and B) There were more targets.

You might have all the numbers for Normandy, but look a little further beyond Normandy and you'll see the Tiger was a great war machine. And the King Tiger was the most powerful AFV in the war.

The Allies and Soviets had to adapt tactics to the Tigers, the Tigers didn't need to fear the Shermans.

On top of all this, there's plenty of pictures showing ALL AFVs destroyed. So, showing Tigers and King Tigers destroyed isn't impressive nor does it prove anyones case. 752nd Tank Battalion got plenty of Tiger kills ...I'm sure they'll give you a hard-on.

[lesofprimus]

Bout time u chimed in pD...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

pD it does not matter. What you have been saying is what I have been saying the whole damn time, but m kenny chooses to ignore this. I too find it funny that he think we should believe what he says over interviews and statements by allied tanks crews. Like he is more creditable than the guys who actually fought in the war. I dont even know who this m kenny guy is, and frankly dont give a damn who he is either.

[Soren]

Thank you M_kenny but I'll go with what Cpt. Diaz says, I have a feeling is abit more into things than you are. (Despite what some of your fellow writers might say)

[plan_D]

Sorry, Dan, been a bit busy recently acing my aerospace engineering course. Finished my first assignment last week, three weeks before due date. Already been marked - full marks! If anyone cares I could send 'em it (in pieces)

Doing my first hydraulics assignment at the moment. Easy!

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I find this funny that an argument about the Tiger has been pulled down to the Tiger in Normandy, and then even further about the Tiger in Villers-Bocage. I assume, m kenny, you're choosing the ignore the Tiger had been on the battlefield since 1942.

I think you narrow the boundry too much. I suggest you take it that I am on about the whole of the Normandy campaign. Villers just stands out as the most overhyped example concerning the Tiger tank. Because it was so well documented it is also the easiest to expose.
As for Russia, I know it fought there but I repeat an earlier statement of mine. I refuse to talk about a subject where I believe I do not have the information to argue authoratively. If I don't 'know' I dont 'say'.
I would add this though. German tank kill claims in Russia are astronomical.
The totals were so over the top that the German High Command automaticaly gave a 33%-50% reduction before they collated them for intelligence purposes.
I have yet to see any account or Unit report that admits this when they tabulate their 'kills'. The initial raw and unadjusted claim is ALWAYS used.

In Normandy Will Fey (sSS PzAbt 102)claimed some 14 Shermans and 'too many to count' other vehicles on 7/8/44. Checking the British accounts we find not a mention of this great act in any of the Units supposedly hit.

More importantly, you laugh and joke about the Allies "not" being scared of the Tiger. Well, that's funny because I've read and seen interviews, and spoken to a couple of British tankers myself who have all said the Tiger was a great war machine and they would fear it on the battlefield.

Being scared of a superior vehicle is a normal reaction. I presume PzIV crews were 'scared', Stug. crews were 'scared', Jagdpanther crews were 'scared'. Anybody with an ounce of sense would have been scared. However to go further and suggest that a Tiger only had to poke its nose round a corner for panic to grip the Allied tankers is a step too far. Tigers were taken in combat wherever they were seen and a good number were despatched for their trouble.

The Tiger inflicted tons more losses on the Eastern Front than on the Western because A) There were more there, and B) There were more targets.

or C) The Russian records do not allow us to check the claims and thus by default they are accepted?

You might have all the numbers for Normandy, but look a little further beyond Normandy and you'll see the Tiger was a great war machine. And the King Tiger was the most powerful AFV in the war.

Some 500 tanks introduced late and without any back up. Met in penny packets and not able to alter the course of any action in which they took part. Might be the most 'powerful' but it was never close to being the most effective.
Check the accounts about sPzAbt 506 at Arnhem and you will see that there are photos of 3 knocked out TII's and 4 had to be towed away damaged.
sSS PzAbt 501 didn't exactly cover itself in glory in the Ardennes either

Tigers in the Ardennes

page The Battle 26 December - 2 Janua

"The actions to support Kampfgruppe Peiper took a heavy toll of s. SS-Pz.Abt. 501. At least 12 Tigers had been knocked out or abandoned between Stavelot and La Gleize, and many more were unavailable due to mechanical failure. The battalion regrouped and moved into an assembly area east of Vielsalm to refit and reorganize. The 1. Kompanie handed its tanks over to the other companies and departed for Sennelager in Germany to receive new tanks. The remaining Tigers, approximately 15, were grouped into a kampfgruppe commanded by SS-Hauptsturmführer Möbius. This unit fought alongside Peiper’s remaining tanks as the 1. SS-Panzerdivision attacked south of Bastogne on 30-31 December in an attempt to cut the corridor that U.S. forces had opened to that beleaguered city. At least two more Königstigers were lost in those battles. The remainder withdrew with the rest of the division at the beginning of January to refit in the Köln area.

The 501st SS Heavy Tank Battalion did not fight again as a unit. The bulk of the battalion accompanied the 1. SS-Panzerdivision to Hungary in late January and fought through Hungary and Austria to the end of the war. Part of the 1. Kompanie and other elements that had remained in Germany drew a few new tanks and continued to fight as the Americans approached Bielefeld. In early April the surviving crewmen were moved by train to Austria and united with the rest of the battalion. SS-Obersturmbannführer von Westernhagen had died on 20 March 1945 in Hungary. The remnants of his battalion surrendered to the Americans in Austria. The Tigers had roared their last."

The Allies and Soviets had to adapt tactics to the Tigers, the Tigers didn't need to fear the Shermans.

The average Allied tanker never saw a Tiger in Western Europe. They were rare beasts indeed and hardly ever encountered.

752nd Tank Battalion got plenty of Tiger kills ...I'm sure they'll give you a hard-on.

I advise caution. I repeat that ALL tank kill claims are considerably in excess of reality. Check first before you commit yourself to this Units claim.

Originally Posted by Soren

Thank you M_kenny but I'll go with what Cpt. Diaz says, I have a feeling is abit more into things than you are.

It is actualy Captain Pat Dyas. Pat has been dead a few years now but I have met and spoken to John Cloudsley Thompson. He was with Pat that day in Villers Bocage and was also hit by Wittmann. All his crew got out alive (88's did not always destroy everything).
John liked and respected Pat (Pat was John's best man) but disputes Pat's version of the days fighting. All very technical and not really important-other than to let you know I have met many of the British soldiers who fought and served in 4th CLY. I have a lot of contacts in this area.

Despite what some of your fellow writers might say

Fellow writers? Daniel Taylor was quite a friend of Pat Dyas.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

pD it does not matter. What you have been saying is what I have been saying the whole damn time, but m kenny chooses to ignore this. I too find it funny that he think we should believe what he says over interviews and statements by allied tanks crews. .

I doubt if anyone is going to change their mind on anything.
Pauline conversions are rare and nothing I say could ever change what people 'know' is true. I am unable to believe anything not allowed by the figures.

Impasse!

No one changes but the world keeps turning. It is not something I worry about
and I presume the same applies to the others.

Like he is more creditable than the guys who actually fought in the war.

The logic of the above is that no one other than a combat veteran can ever write with any authority. Every WWII author born after 1940 is therefore 'not credible'-except of course, when he agrees with you(or me)

I dont even know who this m kenny guy is, and frankly dont give a damn who he is either.

Decorum would prevent me from giving the appropiate reply (Ditto in spades!)

[mkloby]

hey pD - i'd actually be very interested in reading what you have written, if you would oblige.

[Soren]

M_Kenny, two of Pat's crew actually died following the hit by the 88, Pat says this very clearly - now don't even think for a second thats an ordeal you'd just forget !

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Soren

M_Kenny, two of Pat's crew actually died following the hit by the 88, Pat says this very clearly - now don't even think for a second thats an ordeal you'd just forget !

The 'trouble' with Dyas's recollection has nothing to do with him getting hit. It is about when and where he was hit. It has no connection with the subject in question. The detail is complicated and of no interest to the general reader.
It is a side issue.