Best/Favourate Tank in the west

ndicki · 11-09-2006, 09:34 AM

Just to add my two-pennyworth - how many of these Tigers were actually mechanically functional when they were destroyed? It strikes me that Tigers particularly were mechanically rather fragile, and prone to engine and transmission problems. That alone makes the tank-to-tank kill ratio suspect, as a sitting target is an easier one, not to mention that retreating crews might deliberately destroy their vehicle rather than let it fall more-or-less intact into Allied hands.

It is rather difficult to say what "better" actually means in this context. If we are talking about one-on-one combat for a limited period of time - Tiger, easily - or massed armour assaults, in which case you have to admit that the sheer numbers of adequate vehicles did for the low numbers of very dangerous ones.

Which makes you wonder about the NATO doctrine of quality versus quantity in the 1970s - 1980s Third World War in Germany projections.

Hunter368 · 11-09-2006, 10:54 AM

I agree with you.

I will add this also. Syscom said on different thread the following (which I agree with):

Shermans would of had a much harder time of it in France 1944 if the Allies did not have so many fighter-bombers. If they had less F/B their would of been allot more dead Shermans on the battle field. Allies still would of won don't get me wrong but there also would of be allot more dead Shermans.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-09-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

Just to add my two-pennyworth - how many of these Tigers were actually mechanically functional when they were destroyed? It strikes me that Tigers particularly were mechanically rather fragile, and prone to engine and transmission problems. That alone makes the tank-to-tank kill ratio suspect, as a sitting target is an easier one, not to mention that retreating crews might deliberately destroy their vehicle rather than let it fall more-or-less intact into Allied hands.

Absolutly correct. The Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers as a matter of fact were prone to breaking down. A tanks breaks down on the battle field I dont care how good the tank is you are going to get knocked out. That is where the shear numbers of Shermans come in.

Allied tank crews new not to attack a Tiger from the front. The allied tank guns could not penetrate the frontal armour. For instance the American crews would send out one Sherman to get the attention of a Tiger and then the rest of the unit would flank it and attack it from either the side where it was more vulnerable or from the rear which would tank out the engine and set the fuel on fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

It is rather difficult to say what "better" actually means in this context. If we are talking about one-on-one combat for a limited period of time - Tiger, easily - or massed armour assaults, in which case you have to admit that the sheer numbers of adequate vehicles did for the low numbers of very dangerous ones.

Which makes you wonder about the NATO doctrine of quality versus quantity in the 1970s - 1980s Third World War in Germany projections.

Agreed. The Tiger was more superior however the shear numbers of allied tanks is what did them in.

Hunter368 · 11-09-2006, 11:11 AM

Agree 110%

m kenny · 11-09-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Wow I agree with you on something....thats a start. All nations over claimed tank kills. All nations over claimed air kills. Whats your point?

My point?
one example (from many)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

According to US Army Ground Forces statistics, destruction of a single Panther was achieved after destruction of 5 M4 Shermans or some 9 T-34s.

There are no such 'US Ground Force Statistics' that say 5 Shermans (or 9 T34's) were needed to destroy a single Panther.
Let me repeat there are no such statistics.
They are internet myth or invention.
In the Normandy campaign the overall loss rate for Allied to German tanks was less than 2:1 in the German favour.

Soren · 11-09-2006, 01:09 PM

M_kenny please prove to us that the Tiger doesn't have a 10 to 1 kill ratio and that Wittmann didn't even score half of his claims. Also please explain why the Allies 'themselves' as a general rule of thumb claimed that it took 5 Shermans for every Tiger destroyed ?

Yes thats right M_kenny, we both that the point you're trying to stress is total bulls**t. So you better start supporting your bold claims with some hard evidence from now on M_kenny.

Sorry Adler, but thats as polite as I can be at this moment.

Soren · 11-09-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m kenny

My point?
one example (from many)
There are no such 'US Ground Force Statistics' that say 5 Shermans (or 9 T34's) were needed to destroy a single Panther.
Let me repeat there are no such statistics.
They are internet myth or invention.
In the Normandy campaign the overall loss rate for Allied to German tanks was less than 2:1 in the German favour.

HA ! You're on a total frenzy of lies !

However please try to prove these untrue claims of yours.

Hunter368 · 11-09-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

M_kenny please prove to us that the Tiger doesn't have a 10 to 1 kill ratio and that Wittmann didn't even score half of his claims. Also please explain why the Allies 'themselves' as a general rule of thumb claimed that it took 5 Shermans for every Tiger destroyed ?

Yes thats right M_kenny, we both that the point you're trying to stress is total bulls**t. So you better start supporting your bold claims with some hard evidence from now on M_kenny.

Sorry Adler, but thats as polite as I can be at this moment.

At least one us was able to hold back.

Hunter368 · 11-09-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m kenny

My point?
one example (from many)

Mmmm ok with that line of logic, the Allies also over claimed .......so I guess that makes them even.

Hunter368 · 11-09-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Ok Chris I will stop giving him a hard time and good post.

Kenny,

As per Chris request I will not respond to your last post at the risk of flaming this thread anymore.

But I will start over, from the start. Ok you will not answer my question, Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 or Sherman. Ok then. I will move on to next question for you. You claim to know more than I (and others) on tanks and perhaps you do. I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. But perhaps you could enlighten us folk on the specs of the following tanks: Sherman, Tiger, Panther, Tiger2

I would like to see the following information if its not too much to ask:

- Model of tank
- Armor thickness (all sides)
- Weight
- Gun specs (incluing ammo types used)
- Year that it was introduced
- Produced numbers before the end of the war
- Radio or no radio
- Width of tracks
- Kill ratio if you can provide it

That should be a good start and then we can continue our chat on tanks. Also you can refrain from posting destroyed German tanks b/c it proves nothing. We could just as easly post destroyed Allied tanks. That would prove nothing either. Lets just keep this to facts, not fiction. You post those stats and then we can keep chatting.

Chris that is about as nice as I can be. I am trying to be nice to him. Lets see if he brings back anything I asked for.....meaning facts.

Kenny,

Whats wrong you seen all the other posts before and after this one of mine. Are you choosing not to comment on these questions of mine also? Or maybe you just did not see them? yeh that must be it. Now that I have pointed it out you I am sure you repley to it, right?

Please repley to my questions kenny, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am just trying to glean a tiny bit of your knowledge of tanks. Please educate me. Sincerely I do want to increase my knowledge of tanks and apparently you are the man to ask.

m kenny · 11-09-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

M_kenny please prove to us that the Tiger doesn't have a 10 to 1 kill ratio and that Wittmann didn't even score half of his claims.

Seems like you stanfd things on their head. It is not for me to prove a negative. Howeverit would seem the killer fact would be:

Tank losses, Northern France 1944:

USA
June 231
July 291
Aug 665
Sept 350
Total = 1,537

British.

June – 146
July – 231
August – 834
September - ?
Total = 1,211 [est. 1,568]

June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228
Total = 1,845

Let us take the J/J/A monthly totals (the German August totals are incomplete)

48 Tigers lost= 480 Allied tanks.
All Tigers on the British front. Total UK losses to August = 1211.
Thus 40% of all British losses to Tigers?
Silly isn't it?

Now you provide me with proof, any proof, for a 10:1 kill ratio.

Wittmann is easy. If you take the route he took into Villers Bocage then he saw only 10(12 absolute max) tanks. 2 were Stuarts and 2 Artillery OP tanks
That is the upper limit of his kills. If he was the only Tiger engaged (and he was not. 2 others were firing down this road) then the limit is 12 kills before he was knocked aout and had to flee. Why then his award citation saying he destroyed 20+ tanks?

Quote:

Also please explain why the Allies 'themselves' as a general rule of thumb claimed that it took 5 Shermans for every Tiger destroyed ?

Asa I explained earlier there is no such Allied rule. It was inventented by people like you and it infests the net. Without a single scrap of evidence to back it up Uber Tiger deciples repeat it in the hope the gullible will be taken in by the lie.
Now all you have to do is find the document that prints this 'rule' and you can completely destroy my credibility. Then you can silence me. Dont get your hopes up though because it is a complete invention. A lie, a myth, wishful thinking or whatever you want to call it. Bull****.
Can I be any more certain for you?

Caution.
A WEB SITE IS NOT A REFERENCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Mmmm ok with that line of logic, the Allies also over claimed .......so I guess that makes them even.

The problem with trying to be clever is sometimes you make redundant posts
as I said in the original post you partialy quoted:

"All tankers of every nationality overclaimed"

However you are to be commended for getting there on your own and without any help from me!

Hunter368 · 11-09-2006, 02:49 PM

Kenny I am glad you are starting to actually use some numbers now, good. The one big thing I noticed right away from you Allied and German losses is that......we never asked what the German losses for their light and med tanks were. You are posting numbers (finally) but you are posting numbers about nothing we are talking about currently. We are talking about Allied tank losses vs German Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 losses.

You keep calling everyone here a uberGerman tank fan, I don't see any here. I see people here who know that a good tank from a inferior one. We don't care if it is German, British, USA or anyone else's.

No one here is saying that a lighter tank with a smaller gun and thinner armor can't take out a bigger tank with a larger gun and thicker armor. We are just saying that in a 1 vs 1 battle the lighter tank is going to lose more often then the heavier tank. Not sure why you can't accept that point. You seem to just want to argue over something as clear as the nose on your face. Everyone here sees it why can't you?

By quoting numbers about things we are not even talking about you appear just to be side stepping the hard questions. That is a major part of our fustration with you. You try and stir the pot then you get it all worked up but you never answer the hard questions, you dodge them.

Just telling you how I see it, am I judging you wrong?

m kenny · 11-09-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Kenny,

Whats wrong you seen all the other posts before and after this one of mine. Are you choosing not to comment on these questions of mine also? Or maybe you just did not see them? yeh that must be it. Now that I have pointed it out you I am sure you repley to it, right?

Let me repeat I have no interest in being drawn into juvenile and purile opinionating on the relative safety of one tank over another, This area I leave to you because obviously you find the subject fascinating.

Quote:

Please repley to my questions kenny, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am just trying to glean a tiny bit of your knowledge of tanks. Please educate me. Sincerely I do want to increase my knowledge of tanks and apparently you are the man to ask

If the information you try and impart is the sum of your understanding then this would be a Herculean task. I fear that even with my advantages I would be hard put convicing you of anything. When you 'know' something instinctively then why cloud this opinion with awkward facts?

Quote:

Sincerely I do want to increase my knowledge of tanks and apparently you are the man to ask:

Always willing to help those who realise their limitations...............

Udet · 11-09-2006, 03:22 PM

Hello, do not have much time to remain logged on, but may I warn you guys abour this m kenny?

The fact of the matter being there is nothing to be warned about anymore as this individual has already shown the sort of sorrowful creature he is.

As you all have noticed, this individual requires professional help, and should be sent to some mental institution.

He is a sick keeper of the truth at its purest form. Keepers of the truth are fundamentalists, therefore, when you deal with this type of lifeform there is nobody out there to really discuss with.

I met this man in a forum a long time ago, and dealt with him accordingly. I am sure he will remember me (painfully).

Cheers

m kenny · 11-09-2006, 03:26 PM

Udet the last time we spoke (via AHF) it was quite civil. When I saw you looking here I was going to PM you and ask how things are in Mexico. Should I not bother now?