The British came up with all the best and wacky names for tanks and planes. The Americans just gave their tanks and planes numbers but the Brits gave them names. It was the British who named the M4 tank the 'Sherman' and it was the British who named the P-51 plane the 'Mustang'.
Firefly is a great name. Kind of reminds me of 'Spitfire'.
@robcat2075 Actually Sherman 'firefly' wasn't really the nickname given - apparently it was nick named as the 'Sherman Mayfly' if pretty much troopers or tankers didn't give a rats ass about naming it the 'Sherman 1c hybrid - essentially the British term for a hybrid tank mounting a British gun - for the matter of the Sherman Mayfly the QF 17 pounder...'
That comparison have no sense. You can compare main tanks- pantzerkampfagen III with matilda II and t 34, Pz IV and Sherman, late t 34, t 34/85. Panther with late Sherman (better-Achilles, Panther is in fact the tank destroyer), t 34/85. Tiger can be compare only with Churchill, KW and IS.
Tiger kill ratios on the Eastern Front were mind-blowing. Pick any German heavy tank battalion and check the stats. For example, the 502nd Heavy Panzer of the German Heer (Army) lost only 107 Tigers but destroyed 1,400 T-34s and over 2,000 artillery guns. If the Germans had another 1,000 Tigers they would have wiped the floor with Russian armour in eastern Europe. Russia built 67,000 T-34s and only had 6500 operational by wars' end. Germany built only 1500 Tigers. Something to think about.
Yes quite so. The Tigers had a very high kill ratio. On average it was ten to one. Even low scoring Tiger battalions still had a 4 or 5 to 1 kill ratio.
@LaughingGravy31 Right. The allies fared no better in heads-up battles with the Tigers at Normandy. Operation Goodwood launched by the allies being a prime example. 11th Armoured lost 21 of 34 Fireflies in only one day, and "Tigerphobia" became a real problem for allied commanders. In one instance, a Tiger 1 of the 503rd Heavy Panzer fired for an hour straight at allied Shermans, yet not one Sherman crew went out to engage it, and as such it eventually drove off undamaged.
It should also be pointed out, during Goodwood the allies lost over 400 Shermans to the Tigers of 503rd. Allied books don't like to talk about that fact, but like to point out the heavy aerial carpet bombing eventually destroyed many Tigers @ Normandy. Aerial bombing was really the only way the allies could cope with the Tiger I and IIs on the western front.
@nuclearsharkattack The t34 never was a match against the TIGER, at battle of KURSK, even at close distance the t34 shells acted like candles hitting the TIGER(in the words of a t34 tank commander), even soviet artillery was frustrated with armor of the TIGER.
The air attacks and anti tank units did better job against TIGER, but TIGER got such reputation that soviet propaganda said that at 3rd day 1500 german tanks were destroyed, to dispel the TIGER FEAR, but soldiers knew truth about TIGER.
@MrBobe9 Tiger I's are like freaking solid as hell - I haven't seen on up close but seeing photo's of Tiger I's battle damaged - they look as if they could still take a real hell of a dent and keep fighting; a British test on a captured Tiger showed practically NONE of the AT gun shells they fired could penetrate the frontal hull armor save perhaps the QF17 pdr gun cannon but that was about it. THe Tiger I's Brinnell was like 250-280 - very durable and excellent by material science standards..
@MrBobe9 And it must have also been the fact the Tiger I's armor while not sloped wasn't just thick; it was of Rolled Homogenous Nickel-Steel composition that would have been worked to the most stringent of German QA standards in WWII which was why Allied guns on occaions which should theoretically penetrate a Tiger I didn't penetrate it at all...the Tiger I's armor was actually less brittle than a Panther's despite the sloping and thicker theoretical LOS of 140mm..
@MrBobe9 But '34/85' COULD have a chance but only a chance at knocking or destroying a Tiger but this had to be at 500 yards or so - otherwise the 85mm ZiS 53 was anything but useful against the Tiger I's formindable 100mm armor which contrary to the fact it wasn't sloped - it was slightly sloped - the mantlet for the matter was quite thick - 110 mm armor! At best the Soviet 122mm or the ZVEROBOYS 152mm could do was disable a Tiger or spall it; the huge HE could still cause concussive damage
Kursk was different - the Russians, courtesy of Enigma, knew Op Citadel down to the last detail. Start points, objectives, timings, the lot. They knew German armour was generally superior and that German soldiers very capable. So, they sewed the whole Kursk bulge a defensive feature with minefields, defensive positions in depth, anti-tank nests and tanks - lots of tanks. Kursk is still the largest tank battle ever and the Germans lost! Because the Russians were prepared and knew their enemy.
@LaughingGravy31 Hmm - me and Dreachon have talked a small bit about the Ferdinands; while they lacked an MG and were slow they had an impressive kill ratio in Kursk - the PaK 43 mounted on them could even smash a '34' at 3000 metres! Not to mention the Ferdinand frontally anyways was difficult to kill - it had double the armor of a Tiger I tank!
Yes the Ferdinands performed wonders in the defensive warfare of autumn 1943 especially. The battle of the river Dnieper bend was where they came into their own.
I have two excellent massive books on the Ferdinand abteilungs of 653 and 654 written by Karl Heinz Munch.
They really are excellent books.
The Ferdinand gets an unfair reputation based solely on the losses as Kursk. Post Kursk the Ferdinand had a very long and highly successful combat career.
@soldier0559 Actually the german won a TACTICAL VICTORY at KURSK, they were outnumbered and yet the german managed to destroy more than 3000 tanks and caused more 5 times more casualties on the soviets also in the air 3 times more soviet airplanes destroyed(if wasn't for lack of aviation fuel,etc..).
Soviets put immense resources there to finish off the germans and end the war but got to use all the reserves just to contain germans, Hitler helped them by halting offensive and help MUSSOLINI .
All this talk of the Stalingrad and Kursk massacres - get your facts straight! Hitler decided, against his own Generals advise that Stalingrad was more important the oilfields. Stalin was no strategic genius, but he knew a killing field when he saw one. The majority of Russian were poorly trained, if they were trained at all! Compared to the Germans they didn't rate at all! BUT, in a city, the odds levelled. Hitler didn't see the trap and lost 6th Army.
Hahaha since when Tarnopol is in Romania? Most of this programs made in the west is so stupid and incredible ,good for youtube history specialist who learned history on Discovery chanel.
@lopik1974 Because the IS-2's were almost all destroyed by Tigers in WW2. While it was a heavy tank, the IS-2 just was not in the same league as the Tiger I and Tiger II in actual combat. If you read the comments below, it is mentioned the design flaw of the IS-2 requiring lowering the gun barrel to load ammo into the breech. Tiger commanders noticed this, & it took little time for them to take advantage in combat. Also, the IS-2 122mm was not nearly as good as the Tiger's 88mm gun.
@nuclearsharkattack Also - the mantlet had a shot trap on the 1943 JS-2 models which saw service in Targu Frumos - these versions had the vulnerable stepped hull compared to the simpler sloped glacis on the 1944m JS-2 tanks. The JS-2 also had 2 piece loading ammuniton and only 28 rounds - at 1.5-2 rounds per minute vs the Tiger I's possible 6-8 rounds per minute if ideal. The JS-2 tank also had crappier optics comapred to the Tiger I and Panther tnak - the muzzle velocity of a JS-2 tank was 747
@nuclearsharkattack 747 m/s vs up to 936m/s for the Panther if using APCR and 906m/s for the Tiger I's gun if using the same ammunition type. Another factor was crew training and maneuvering - the Tiger I actually had slightly faster speed but also better ground pressure handling than the JS-2 tank. And returning to the 121.92mm A19 derived gun the Kubinka tests were quite flawed - it could not penetrate a Panther's armor! Though the 121.92mm gun was useful in bunker busting
@nuclearsharkattack The 122mm gun was said to be more for softer targets and bunker busting - though the ZVERBOYs were even better at that due to a bigger shell caliber and more HE. The JS-2 was really best for HE work - as its HE shell was undeniably superior to the Tiger I and the Panther's - the 122mm shells could weight as much as 25 kg and carry up to 3kg of TNT - but that was about it. Sounds as if the JS-2 wasn't much better than the KV-1 tank or was it? As it had bigger gun, better armor
No doubt the Tiger tank dished out a lot of punishment to the Allies. But I think it was best suited for defensive tactics. Any Allied tank ambushed by a competent Tiger crew was doomed. It was just too difficult to produce enough of them.
@mrgeorgebailey1 DefDefensivewise doctrinal recommendation was armor formations would be kept back, and ready to counter-attack any breakthrough of the German defense lines. Consequently, the doctrinal mission of the Tiger was first and foremost, to kill the enemy's tanks and survive direct firepower in encounters expected. Michael Wittmann took out a British column of 25 vehicles in July 1944 before withdrawing and knocked out himself - where he abandoned his tank
@mrgeorgebailey1 Make no mistake - the Tiger I was extremely expensive - up to 250K Reichmarks which today would be over 1 million USD roughly. This was worth atleast 4 StuG III/IV's or almost exactly 2x Panzer IV tanks! Not to mention maintenance costs, lost vehicles, ammunition, fuel feed, engine installation, ball bearings, machine tooling - and metals for the armor! I'll expect naturally the Tiger I crewmen could struggle maintaining a damaged or KO'ed Tiger I :(
@mrgeorgebailey1 Though this is an interesting fact: Tiger I crews - in additon to just training with thier Tiger I's would also be sent to the Henschel factories to assist building the Tiger I; as a means to 'familiarize themselves at home with thier tank' and to get better practical knowledge/experience out of it :) That and the fact almost every Tiger I crew could expect thier Tiger to be towed by another Tiger I desptie strict rules not to allow this if a comrade tank broke down :(
Guys: Simple fact the 17 pounder could and did take out Tigers because it - too - was a great gun. Trouble is the British did not have enough of them either in static defence mode or in Firefly mode. A few hundred Fireflys might have been knocked out easily by the german defenders (they were defending by then most of the time) but they certainly, if handled properly, would have taken out PLENTY of Tigers.
@Juicingood Actually the QF17 pdr first saw service in Africa on 25pdr carriages - known as the Pheasant - they had a field day in the Battle of Medenine knocking Panzer IV's and Tiger I's that attempted to counter-attack. Also the QF17pdr was incredibly heavy and had a huge recoil that tankers described as a loud slap - and initial problems with HE ammunition as given ti was an excellent AT gun it sacrificed some HE for better AP though this was later attempted to be recitified.
@HeirofGojira91 I was saying to somebody else I think the UK was putting a lot of technical effort into radar for ships and submarines not tanks (like the Comet) and I guess the lives of tankers were sacrificed on the back of that sad fact.
In contrast to the Tiger the simpler KV-1 and IS-2 could be mass produced and almost never broke down and had the mobility to be used as attacking tanks and had heavy enough armament to defeat all the Axis tanks except the Tiger.
For all its impressiveness on paper the reality is that the Tiger was very much a boutique tank that while brilliant in its local impact could never make a difference in the bigger picture.
Wrong, the KV-1 and 2 were notoriously unreliable, it was the awfull performance of the KV to that persuaded Stalin to basicly cancel any further work on heavy tanks.
Hadn't it been for the Tiger and Panther in 1943 there would have been no IS series of tanks, also the KV-1 didn't carry any greater firepower than the T-34, a feeble 76mm gun which was already outclassed by the german 7.5cm L43, L46 and l48 guns.
@Dreachon Amongst all the criticisms of Soviet tanks I have never in all my years of studying the second world war heard that the KV-1 and IS-2 tanks had notable reliability problems.
The KV-1 was cancelled for the IS-2 because the Germans had upgraded their tanks by Kursk. Prior to that it was more than good enough to cause the Germans headaches, and by virtue of its higher production and deployment that was much more headaches than the Tiger could cause the Soviets.
The KV-1 had already become useless by 1942, it was unreliable ( besides had you bothered to read i don't mentino the IS-2 anywere ) as germans mounted in their tanks, assault guns and tankdestroyer.
@Dreachon Are just making this up or something. Can you elaborate exactly on what technical problems the KV-1 experienced? Because it's not the reputation I'm aware of.
And if it was so useless by 1942 then how was it still easily destroying the PzIII's and PzIV's that made up the great bulk of Germany's Panzer Corps?
""And if it was so useless by 1942 then how was it still easily destroying the PzIII's and PzIV's that made up the great bulk of Germany's Panzer Corps?""
Oh behave. In 1942 the German panzer forces completely swept the Soviets aside. The KV-1 didn't stop them, nor did the T-34. The Germans got bogged down in Stalingrad and outran their supply lines in the Caucasus.
THOUSANDS of KV-1s and T-34s had been left burning wrecks on the battlefield in 1941 and 1942.
Do you know why comparatively so few KV-1 tanks were in action at Kursk? It was because the vast majority of them had been knocked out by the Germans and no more were being made by that time.
@truekiwijoker Many IS-2 tanks were destroyed in Latvia by Tiger I tanks of the German 6th Army. The IS-2 had to lower the gun in order to load the breech with a shell, a design flaw that would cost many of those tank crews dearly. The other issue is the 122mm gun on the IS-2 was not nearly the masterpiece of engineering the 88mm gun on the Tiger was. The Russians had nothing in the inventory that could take on a Tiger 1 and certainly not a Tiger II in a straight-up gun battle.
Something else to consider -- @ Kursk Franz Staudegger of 1st SS Heavy Panzer encountered a column of 50 T-34 tanks. He burned 22 T-34s with AP and HE rounds completely destroying these tanks. The ferocity of his attack and the fast rate of fire scared the living crap out of the rest of the Russian column, and the remaining '34's high-tailed it out of there. The only reason he let those tanks leave is because he ran out of ammo. The Germans had many Tiger aces.
The other thing here is, the Tiger, although few in number relative to most other tanks of the day, almost made up for that in terms of outright kill ratios. Because of the enormous range with which they could engage and destroy enemy tanks with great accuracy --- ~2000 meters for a Panther/76 mm gun; ~3000 meters for a Tiger/88 mm gun --- if they had been able to make more of them and with reliability, it might have turned the war on the Eastern Front in Germany's favour.
@nuclearsharkattack I have book Lloyd Clark nov 2011, t34 tank commander at BATTLE OF KURSK talking after all these years without going to a GULAG, say he encountered a TIGER at close range his bullets were like candles hitting the TIGER , when he saw the TIGER'S turret moving towards him the T34 ran as fast it could(that was the good thing of the t34,running fast) because it was no match for the TIGER, no propaganda here he just admit it, TIGER FEAR was real.
@maulisdjan Yeah whatever, dude. You don't like what I have to say about the superiority of German tanks in WW2, that's too bad for you my Rusky friend. The Germans built better stuff than we did (allies) or you guys did (Russians) and that's historical fact, not fiction.
@NewSoviet507 Even a T34/85 was no match for a Tiger. It did better than the T34/76 at closer ranges but Tigers could hit and destroy a 34 from 1.6 miles away with complete accuracy. No other tanks of WW2 could come anywhere close to that range of fire. That said, yes, eventually the sheer numbers of tanks and men thrown at the Germans wore them down. The Russian people paid a terrible price to beat Germany -- by wars' end 29.5 million Russians were dead.
@NewSoviet507 Total USSR deaths were close to 30 million, although the exact # varies depending on the source. This includes countries under Russian rule as USSR.
@NewSoviet507 in terms of ROF, AP and accuracy yes the KwK 36 takes it. THe only useful thing of the 122mm A19 was undeniably though the huge HE shell; an 88mm shell might be say 7-10kg while the A19 was 25kg - which was both a strength and weakness; need i not say that slow ROF, mv, lower loading but the HE for the OF-471 could blast open field forts and agaisnt a Tiger/Panther yes the 122mm couldn't penetrate ideally under field battles but if the shot was right the 122mm could still disable
@NewSoviet507 disable as I mean by strikign the side wheels, side armor or the very least cause concussive damage - via spalling. But that was about it the 88mm and even the Panther's 75mm Pak/Kwk 42 was superior to the 122mm in all but HE work - hope what I spammed abit made some points not that you care if you knew it already. Quite frankly even the 85mm Soviet ZIS 53 atleast could fire faster than the 122mm gun
@NewSoviet507 Yes the 52K M1939 Airdefence gun was the 85mm Soviet gun - it was also provided with AP shells if the need rose for AT capacity; at Kursk the Soviets found it was capable of some AT work if in an emergency; after the '34/76' was found to be severely underpowered by 1943 they tried to upgrade it and the '34/85' was chosen over the T43 model; the 85mm gun D5T (later ZiS 53) was developed based on the 52-K and while not as good still as the German Heavies
@NewSoviet507 the ZiS 53 gave the '34/85' better allround performance and the 'punch' it needed to have a chance of defeating a German heavy tank just like the Sherman 76 though dismayed American tankers found they were still out classed by the Panther's KwK PaK 42 75mm gun cannon ...
""For all its impressiveness on paper the reality is that the Tiger was very much a boutique tank that while brilliant in its local impact could never make a difference in the bigger picture.""
Well the KV-1 tank didn't make a blind bit of difference to the bigger picture either. The KV-1 didn't stop the great German advances of 1941 and 1942. Then it was decided to stop making them.
So what exactly did the KV-1 achieve in the bigger picture? The Soviets were LOSING.
@truekiwijoker Bigger picture was that USSR had full war production by 1942, while Germany just went full war production by 1943/1944 when they had been beaten at STALINGRAD and also fighting in 3 fronts, 1500 TIGERS produced, 60 000 t34s destroyed and made no difference, the soviet tank production was huge even after defeat of Germany, their plan B (conquer of Europe stalled because of ATOMIC BOMB).
@truekiwijoker T34 was as good as PANZER IV, maybe better speed and larger tracks, it was horrible tank for its crew, the toxic smoke made then to faint during battle, bad turret, no radio, it was mass produced because it survived only a few days in battle, it was easy to mass produce, but it was not even remotely compared to TIGER (a magnificent machine with power steering, highly selected crew, with radio, taking t34 at miles,etc.the tank from the future made soviets sh.t their pants)
@MrBobe9 I wonder how the hell the Soviet tankers could have communicated with the command tank - I know that they used flags/signals but wouldn't that be suicidal in the field battle? Hell make no mistake - in Stalingrad '34/76' crews sometimes just got 3 days 'the how to' and then they got sent straight into the field. :D - Yup - Tiger gtanks talk about power steering :) The Panther was surprisingly fast a pivoting as well - at the cost of turret speed though :(
While there is no questioning the superiority of the Tiger's armament and armour it's also worth noting that its sophistication condemned it to a low production run. And so it was never available in enough numbers to make enough of a difference. It was also too heavy and slow to spearhead assaults and had chronic problems with mechanical reliability.
@Dreachon Hahaha "update" my knowledge!? what? on 60-year old data?
That Max speed was only road speed and was not advised due to problems with the Maybach powerplant. Cross-country (where it mainly operated) it never got close to 37km/hr. And even that was slower than many tanks such as the T-34 (which could make 50+ km/h on the road).
Where did you ever get the idea the Tiger was faster than other tanks from?
@Dreachon Hahaha no you didn't say "heavy tanks". You said verbatim; "it was faster than any other tank during 1942 and 1943", it's right there beneath you.
The Churchill wasn't really a heavy tank as neither was it designed for nor fulfilled that role. It was an "infantry tank".
It's not surprising the Tiger was better then the KV-1 considering the KV-1 spurred its redevelopment. But it ended up making less of an impact due to production limitations.
""It's not surprising the Tiger was better then the KV-1 considering the KV-1 spurred its redevelopment. But it ended up making less of an impact due to production limitations.""
1. A German heavy tank with a 88mm gun was finalised and was being designed in spring 1941, BEFORE the KV-1 was encountered.
2. The Tiger had a FAR bigger impact than the KV-1. It k.o'd circa 10,000 allied tanks and lead to the allies coming up with the T34/85, SU 85, IS-2, Firefly and Pershing etc.
Interesting video, what's also interesting is that the Panzer mark IV was more or less equal to the Sherman in Normandy as well as the fact that the Panther's 75mm canon was more powerful than the Tiger tank's 88mm at closer ranges
@canigetanoorah I think you are referring to the Sherman Firefly with the British 76mm (17 pounder) gun retrofitted. The standard 75mm Sherman gun was more or less ineffective against the Panzer IV unless it was basically at point blank range facing the side of the Panzer. Even at that, during the Battle of the Bulge the US tankers were horrified to see their shells bouncing off German frontal armor. The US did not put as much importance on tank design as the Germans did.
@nuclearsharkattack The Sherman 75 has one advantage in its gun though; while not a dedicated AT gun cannon of highvelocity its HE was actually save for the bigger 85mm, 88mm gun cannons the 75mm M3 had superior HE to the 76mm M1, QF17pdr and possibly even the Panther's HE shell. WHy? Because if you think about it the British realized thier tanks in early war years had only AP solid shot, sacrificing HE which was better against soft targets so when they sacrificed AP for HE it went the other way
@nuclearsharkattack As the 75mm gun of the Sherman didn't need a big propellant charge nor thick shell casings it permitted more HE to be contained and hence more useful against generalist roles of soft targets, at the cost of AP whereas the 76mm M1, Panther KwK/PaK 42 and the QF17pdr would have had abit less HE shells than the Sherman 75mm but again its not like it counts much in a Tank-Tank battle unfortunately - hope I'm making a sense here...
The King Tiger (Tiger II) -- even with its' teething issues -- had no peer in WW2. Straight-up against a Russian heavy JS tank with 122mm cannon the Tiger still destroyed it easily with its 88. This was readily apparent in the fighting in Estonia where the Tigers layed waste to large numbers of heavy JS tanks they encountered in the villages. Not helping the Russian cause was the design flaw of having to lower the gun barrel to load the breach with ammo. I wonder who thought up that great idea.
@nuclearsharkattack Could the Russian Su152 , fire its gun accurate enough to score direct hits on german tanks, or did they simply rely on getting a near miss, and doing damage with a large high explosive shell?
The ISU-152 did sometimes hit German tanks, but overall the gun was not very accurate. It was a howitzer, not an anti tank gun. Well even the IS-2's 122mm gun was also a howitzer and not an anti tank gun and it was very inaccurate at long range. I don't know of a single case where a IS-2 managed to hit a German tank at long range. If it ever did it was pure luck.
In long range engagements Tigers and Panthers usually bested IS-2s and the IS-2 rarely even scored hits.
@Dreachon After a little research, I found the SU 152 was mainly used as a artillery piece, but the soviets did kill quite a few german tanks with it, even Tigers, they did not issue any A.P rounds, since the gun was not acurate enough, and would use them in a
group to bracket german tanks in a barrage of shellfire, the 152mm had enough explosive force to blow the turret off of a tank, with just a near miss. The Russians nicknamed the SU152, the Beastkiller,because it could kill the Tiger tank
With a near miss still blowing off a turret of a tank sounds like another piece of crappy soviet propaganda.
As for it's nickname it's highly exagerrated, they claimed it was good at destroying panther, Tiger and Ferdinand at Kursk but there it managed to kill only 1 Ferdinand and from what I've read sofar it didn't do any better for kills against the Panther and tiger.
@Dreachon The 152mm gun was not as effective against the Ferdinand because it did not have a turret, but could still disable it with near misses, and damage it tracks or running gear. there are plenty of picture of Tigers with there turrets blown off from the concusive force of American artillery and aircraft bombs in Normandy, The Tiger was not as invincible as you think.
Dude it could not disable a Ferdinand with a near miss, that is just crap bullshit soviet propaganda, the only chance it had was a hit in the side or rear, any hit that ddin't hit the vehicle had little chance.
As for the pictures, sounds more liek you are having a hard time figuring out what really killed them.
These would have been caused by naval artillery, heavy bombers or by their own crews with demolition charges.
@Dreachon Agreed, very few Tigers were killed by artillery, in fact most were destroyed by aircraft bombs hitting directly and Sherman "wolf packing" of 4-6 tanks against one Tiger. In fact, German Tiger I ace Michael Wittman of the 503rd Heavy Panzer was finally done in by combined aircraft bomb dropping and the bundled firepower of 4-5 Canadian Sherman tanks. Wittman once destroyed 17 British tanks/ artillery vehicles in less than 15 minutes on a road in Normandy with his Tiger I.
Sorry to correct there your making some serious mistakes here.
First of all Wittmann was a memeber of the ss 101st heavy panzerbateilung.
Second he was NOT done in by combined aircraft and tanbks, there were no aircraft at that battle at that day.
Third aircraft did NOT destroy the majority of Tiger contrary what pilots claimed, during WWII the worst way of directly knocking out enemy armour was the aircraft.
Yes I agree with all your points about aircraft attack (see my other posts with the actual figures of destroyed Tigers and Panthers).
The vaunted Typhoon fighter bomber, though it packed a very heavy punch with it's rockets, was not accurate at all. Hit rate success was only 4%. That's pretty bad.
Aye, the accuracy of the rockets was awfull, the British did some test firing on a captured Panther painted white somewere in England, standing al alone in a large flat field with several flights of typhoons attacking it.
From what I have read the results were very dissapointing
@Dreachon Thanks for the corrections re: Wittman and the aircraft strikes. Wittman was in an SS Panzer division and had a Tiger 1. I was thinking of the King Tigers (Tiger II) of the 503rd Heavy Panzer. By the time those were on the battlefield Wittman was already KIA. There was also a huge controversy over whether or not an RAF Typhoon had hit Wittman's Tiger with a rocket rather than a Sherman tank.
The initial claim was that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by an allied fighter bomber. This came about because German propaganda did not want to admit his Tiger was destroyed by another tank. None of the surviving German participants in the battle mentioned any allied planes.
Then it was claimed a British Firefly gunner called Joe Ekins got him. However, while Ekins did get the other Tigers, Wittmanns Tiger was hit by a close range flank shot from a Canadian Sherman 75mm.
@LaughingGravy31 I don`t see how a regular Sherman 75mm gun could take out a Tiger even with a flank shot. In Tunisia the French hit Tigers from the flank with 75mm artillery at less than 100 meters and the shells bounced off the armor. I've read that story about the Canadian Sherman and Wittman as well, but most historians on the subject seem to feel it had to be a Firefly with a 76mm gun that could have done the damage to Wittman's Tiger, with blown-off turret.
No most historians now feel it was a Canadian Sherman 75mm firing at close range at Wittmanns' LEFT flank. The British Sherman Firefly was firing at the Tiger's RIGHT flank. Wittmann was over 1,000 m away.
The new evidence indicated that the shell penetrated Wittmann's left rear engine compartment..i.e IMPOSSIBLE from the position the Firefly was in.
Sherman 75mms were capable at taking out a Tiger on the flank at 150 metres. It now looks like a Canadian 75mm did it.
@LaughingGravy31 If the Sherman hit the Tiger from the rear, I can see the Tiger being destroyed once it's own ammo caught fire and exploded. The rear was the weak point on the Tiger as is well known. Also, if the Tiger was carrying a quantity of HE shells (as opposed to AP rounds) that exploded that could explain the turret being blown off, certainly.
Yeah the weaker point on the Tiger was the rear, although the weakest point of all (not including the top and bottom) was actually the 60mm lower hull side, particularly the small gap between the top of the wheels and the hull overhang.
The rear plate was actually stronger that the hull and turret side because it was the same thickness (circa 80mm) but it was sloped at 81 degrees and not a complete 90 degrees vertical plate like the turret and hull sides.
Even the renowned British tank veteran Ken Tout, who earlier thought Joe Ekins was the man responsible for Wittmann's death, in his new book now thinks it was more likely to have been a Canadian 75mm Sherman that hit Wittmann in the flank at close range.
The stories kept changing. First it was an allied plane, then Joe Ekins and finally a Canadian Sherman 75mm. The later seems to be the truthful one.
Also it was likely to be a fire that spread to the ammunition which then got ignited and blew the turret off. The turret of Wittmann's Tiger wasn't blown off by a gun but rather by it's own ammunition which caught fire and exploded.
@Dreachon Is it known for certain whether or not the Canadians actually had a Firefly in their battallion during the Wittman incident? I would be interested in whatever info you have on this, out of curiosity. I haven't come across anytrhing yet in my reading on the subject, but you certainly bring up a major point if, in fact, the Canadians did have confirmed Firefly in their ranks.
Well the regiment did have firefly in their OOB and given that they follow the british model than each troops of 3 standerd shermans would also have 1 firefly with them, it stands to good rason thne that they would have had firefly with them.
It also make the penetration easier to explain as even at 100m the 75mm of the sherman had immense difficulties of penetrating the side and rear of a Tiger.
There is a documentary regarding this incident with the Canadians and Wittmann and they interviewed some of the Canadians who were there and from what I can recall there was not a Sherman Firefly in the chateau grounds at Gaumesnil.
Yes all the records were soon lost due to a US friendly fire bomb blowing up the Canadian unit's records.
Which documentary was it, I have seen the one called Wittmann's last ride and in it they have no conversation with the veterans who fought at that place.
There is one documentary where Joe Ekins is interviewed (it might be on You Tube) but it wasn't that one. It was a fairly recent documentary and they even show pieces of Wittmann's Tiger which a local farmer still had. They interviewed Canadian Sherman tankers of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers who were in the region at the time and they were speaking about the château and how they were situated etc.
@Dreachon The name of the documentary about Michael Wittman is called "Battlefield Mysteries" "Who Killed Michael Wittman", it's also on youtube as 1/5 Michael Wittman's Last Battle, etc... in case your wondering, the documentary is hosted by Canadian military historian Norm Christie, he interviews the farmer, whom has pieces of Wittman's tank including a full 88mm shell!!
As the other poster already said, the documentary is called "Michael Wittman's Last Battle".
The Canadian tanker is interviewed in 4/5 and he speaks about seeing the turret blow off. The Shermans were 75mm and the exact distance to Wittmann's Tiger was measured at 143m. In contrast, Ekins in his Firefly was near 1,000 m away from Wittmann's Tiger.
Ekins also says only 3 Tigers were seen and knocked out but there were actually 4. The 4th one was Wittmanns Tiger near the Canadians.
That I know. Wittmann Tiger was the furthest away and beyond the accurate range of the 17 pounder.
He was the closest to the Canadians, i'll check the 4th part of the docu again, still have my doubt about it beeing a standerd sherman as they had hit the rear armour and that is still 80mm thick, though it has happened before that a 75mm sherman penetrated the side armour, this was in Italy.
They don't actually say which Sherman type but in the documentary they show Ekins Tiger to be a Firefly while they show the Canadian's tanks to be regular Sherman 75mms. They seem to be going for accuracy.
ON THE OTHER HAND...the Tigers they show are the older 1943 model with the old dustbin commander's cuppola whereas the real Tigers there were later models with the lower cuppola.
And yes theoretically a Sherman 75mm could penetrate the Tiger's hull side at just 143m distance.
I never take the footage they have in these shows for granted, i've seen to many dumb mistake coming from the history channel.
So basicly we say that a firefly was there, this makes it very easy to see how they knocked him out or one sherman gunners was very very lucky that moment, in any case the cadians did score the kill.
A heavy tank would have been needed, the problem coems that the Tiger II was not given the time it needed to have the problems worked out, in general it was not a horrible tank like so many shows claims, it wasn't slow, it wasn't that terrible on maintenance.
For 1945 there was already an update plannend which included a far more powerfull engine.
@Dreachon I mean The Jadgpanthers were easier,faster and cheaper to make than a Tiger Tank, and gave the most bang for the buck, with good frontal armor, 88mm gun, and a low profile, good for setting ambushes and defensive roles, At the later stages of the war, thats about all Germany could really do anyhow,
@Dreachon Agreed, the Germans, as well as planning to up-engine the existing Tiger I and II, were also planning even larger tanks with 2-3x the range of a Tiger, in 1945. The Panzer 9 & 10 were on the drawing board but never built. These tanks would have definitely caused a serious problem for the allies and Russia. Approaching 100 tons+ and armed with naval guns from a heavy cruiser, these tanks would have had a range of 5+ miles. Germany had serious weapons upgrades planned in 1945.
@nuclearsharkattack There were also concepts for the E-series tanks - not just the E-100 Nacht-Tiger or Panzer VIII Maus. There was even the porposed Maus II and vehicles with weights up to 90 tonnes - the E90 tank, Jaguar Tank, Jagdpanther II, Tiger Ausf B with 105mm gun, Panther Ausf F - Panther Ausf N - grandiose ideas if one may say. But if you think about it - the bigger tha tank - the more expensive, heavier and troublesome it can be in maintenance. There was the propsed Lion (Panzer VII)
@nuclearsharkattack The Lion Panzer VII which was meant to be in a light and heavy version - both with weights beyond 70 tonnes and mounting either the 88mm Kwk 43 or the 105mm high velocity cannons - though Hitler eventually demanded the heavy Panzer VII be utilized - but when the Germans realized it was too expensive and impractical to use across bridges they abandoned the project - so they decided to incorporate features into the Tiger Ausf B instead :)
And also, for all we know, the Canadian shot may have even gone through via the 60mm section of the hull side.
The theory seems to be the the shell entered somewhere on the rear side hull, the fuel leaked, there was a fire that spread to the ammo...which blew the turret off.
The lower hull was 'only' 60 mm and there is a dangerous gap between the top of the wheels and the hull overhang.
The damage done to Wittmann's Tiger was to small for a rocket, basicly the engine section would have been much more heavily damaged had it actually been a rocket.
Actually air power played less of a role in destroying Tigers (and Panthers) that the myth suggests. It was the 'fear' of air power that hindered movement more than the planes actually destroying tanks.
In France in 1944 out of the two SS Tiger units, only 8 Tigers out of the nearly 104 Tigers deployed were destroyed by air power.
The army's Tiger battalion 503 was hit hard by plane bombs on 18th July (Goodwood) but that was an anomaly.
The British also carried out detailed analysis of German Panther tanks lost in Normandy in order to find out how they were lost. They inspected the Panthers destroyed/abandoned on the battlefield. Of the 178 Panthers the British inspected and analysed on the Normandy battlefield lost from June to end August 1944, only TWELVE were destroyed by air attack.
Allied air attacks didn't destroy nearly as many German tanks as the myth keeps telling us. They hampered movement more.
""The Russians nicknamed the SU152, the Beastkiller,because it could kill the Tiger tank""
As Dreachon said, that was Soviet propaganda. The Soviets also claimed 70 Tigers were destroyed at Prokhorovka on July 12th 1943 but the Germans never even had more than 43 Tigers in that entire sector (and even less in actual combat) at the time and only ONE Tiger tank was a total write off at Prokhorovka on 12th July 1943.
Never believe the Soviet version of WW2 or their weapons.
@LaughingGravy31 I have read numerous books that all state the same thing, the Russian 152mm, was used as a tiger killer in the SU152, using only high explosive shells, I would not doubt soviets lied about how many Tigers they killed, but every book cant be Soviet propaganda.
Yep, I have read a lot of books too. Western historians usually repeat what the Soviets claimed and never questioned them (until recently).
The fact though, say that the SU-152 didn't knock out as many Tigers and Panther as the Soviets claimed.
When you think about it, at Kursk it would have been rare than the small numbers of IS-152s would even encounter the small number of Tigers and Panthers. The SU-152 would have more commonly encountered Panzer IIIs and IVs and StuGs.
At Targu Fromus in spring 1944 the Tigers of Grossdeutschland opened fire on IS-2s at 3,000 metres and as far as I know, the IS-2s returned fire at long range.
Possible but beyond 1200m they would not have been able to hit anything, experienced IS-2 crews would not fire at enemy armour as at those distances they would accomplish little save for exposing their own firing position.
Yes too true. The IS-2 gun was more of a howitzer than an accurate anti tank gun. Even at 800 metres it still wasn't very accurate. It was more of a 'barrage' gun than a pinpoint precision target gun like the 88mm or 75mm and, as you know, the IS-2 only carried 28 rounds of ammo.
At long range it had almost zero chance of hitting an enemy tank and especially a moving one.
The IS-2 just wasn't designed to engage enemy armour, especially highly mobile ones.
I do recall an incident were a single Panther hiding in a village and constantly moving after firing 1 or 2 shell kept an entire IS-2 formation stuck for several hours.
The Panther later escaped during the cover of the night.
Interesting regarding that Panther vs the IS-2s. I have not heard that story. Do you know any other details like the Panther unit and where and when? I would like to find out more. IS-2s vs German tanks is a very fascinating subject.
I'll need to do some digging been a long time since I first read about it, I don't recalll which unit it belonged to but it was somewere in late 1944.
@LaughingGravy31 Read Targu Frumos - or Korsun Shekensovsky (if you are interested in the IS-1) - for Targu Frumos May '44 an JS-2 force was knocked by Tiger I's and Panthers and Panzer IV's despite the fact the Soviet heavy tank at 2000 yards + wasn't penetrated by the Tiger I 88mm KwK 36 but because at 1100 yards or so the combination of ambush, skill, faster ROF and superior optics meant German tankers got the strikes first before JS-2 crews knew what got them!
"" Korsun Shekensovsky (if you are interested in the IS-1)""
Just pointing out that at Korsun Shekensovsky there were no IS-1s but rather IS-2s.
In the book Hell's Gate by Doug Nash there is a picture of the IS-2s knocked out in this battle and they are clearly IS-2s with the big 122mm gun. It's on page 176 and the picture was taken by photographer from 1st Panzer Division.
Best book ever written on that battle. Over 400 pages.
@LaughingGravy31 I haven't read the book but I've seen photos of JS-2's that look as if they had a hell of a field day - like JS-2's that have thier turrets blown off, JS-2's with huge shell holes in the armor or smashed up JS-2 tank's that got abandoned - I'll be the Tiger and Panther crews must have had a 'field day' 'stalking' the Stalins :(
There is an awesome picture of a IS-2 with it's turret blown off by a Tiger I tank of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 at Ternopol in April 1944. The Tiger's shell penetrated the turret mantlet frontally (I don't know the distance) causing the ammo to explode inside, blowing the turret off it's hull and knocking the forward section out of joint.
Yes quite so. You are right. At 2,000 yards the Tigers and Panther had problems penetrating IS-2 but at 1,000 yards no problem.
For the IS-2, their weak optics/gun accuracy meant they were unlikely to even hit a German tank at 1,000 yards. None of the Tigers at Targu Frumos were even hit by the IS-2.
So even though the IS-2 gun was powerful, at long range it's accuracy was ineffective against enemy tanks.
Tigers and Panthers would best IS-2s at long range.
@LaughingGravy31 But again the JS-2's tankers were not up to scratch by German tanker's standards as well. The JS-2's gun as we know it was not ideal to knock German tanks; but rather it was expected IF the JS-2 had to engage German heavies then the 122mm was expected to be used in a breakthrough operation; the JS-2 from what I recall was better at High Explosive work - the 122mm shell as slow as it is I'll bet a German MG-42 nest should start praying it doesn't strike them
@LaughingGravy31 Because our colleage Dreachon stated the JS-2's shells weren't even good against concrete forts; instead it was excellent against field forts so say trenches, MG'42 nests, sandbags, improvised small bunkers - anything short of Panzerfaust, shrekts, Panthers and Tigers - the 122mm OF-471 was capable of smashing these defences and soft targets - must have been frightening to the Germans to be on a buisiness end of a 122mm gun aiming on you :S
I can't imagine naming a tank "firefly"
robcat2075 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robcat2075
""I can't imagine naming a tank "firefly"""
The British came up with all the best and wacky names for tanks and planes. The Americans just gave their tanks and planes numbers but the Brits gave them names. It was the British who named the M4 tank the 'Sherman' and it was the British who named the P-51 plane the 'Mustang'.
Firefly is a great name. Kind of reminds me of 'Spitfire'.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@robcat2075 Actually Sherman 'firefly' wasn't really the nickname given - apparently it was nick named as the 'Sherman Mayfly' if pretty much troopers or tankers didn't give a rats ass about naming it the 'Sherman 1c hybrid - essentially the British term for a hybrid tank mounting a British gun - for the matter of the Sherman Mayfly the QF 17 pounder...'
HeirofGojira91 3 days ago
1 german tank is equal to 10 russian tanks.. just like one finnish soldier is equal to 10 russian ones :)
DaKattila 1 week ago
@DaKattila Stupid children are so funny! :D
Rea1aspid 2 days ago
That comparison have no sense. You can compare main tanks- pantzerkampfagen III with matilda II and t 34, Pz IV and Sherman, late t 34, t 34/85. Panther with late Sherman (better-Achilles, Panther is in fact the tank destroyer), t 34/85. Tiger can be compare only with Churchill, KW and IS.
glfan896 1 week ago
Tiger kill ratios on the Eastern Front were mind-blowing. Pick any German heavy tank battalion and check the stats. For example, the 502nd Heavy Panzer of the German Heer (Army) lost only 107 Tigers but destroyed 1,400 T-34s and over 2,000 artillery guns. If the Germans had another 1,000 Tigers they would have wiped the floor with Russian armour in eastern Europe. Russia built 67,000 T-34s and only had 6500 operational by wars' end. Germany built only 1500 Tigers. Something to think about.
nuclearsharkattack 2 weeks ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Yes quite so. The Tigers had a very high kill ratio. On average it was ten to one. Even low scoring Tiger battalions still had a 4 or 5 to 1 kill ratio.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 Right. The allies fared no better in heads-up battles with the Tigers at Normandy. Operation Goodwood launched by the allies being a prime example. 11th Armoured lost 21 of 34 Fireflies in only one day, and "Tigerphobia" became a real problem for allied commanders. In one instance, a Tiger 1 of the 503rd Heavy Panzer fired for an hour straight at allied Shermans, yet not one Sherman crew went out to engage it, and as such it eventually drove off undamaged.
nuclearsharkattack 2 weeks ago
It should also be pointed out, during Goodwood the allies lost over 400 Shermans to the Tigers of 503rd. Allied books don't like to talk about that fact, but like to point out the heavy aerial carpet bombing eventually destroyed many Tigers @ Normandy. Aerial bombing was really the only way the allies could cope with the Tiger I and IIs on the western front.
nuclearsharkattack 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrBobe9 2 weeks ago
@nuclearsharkattack The t34 never was a match against the TIGER, at battle of KURSK, even at close distance the t34 shells acted like candles hitting the TIGER(in the words of a t34 tank commander), even soviet artillery was frustrated with armor of the TIGER.
The air attacks and anti tank units did better job against TIGER, but TIGER got such reputation that soviet propaganda said that at 3rd day 1500 german tanks were destroyed, to dispel the TIGER FEAR, but soldiers knew truth about TIGER.
MrBobe9 2 weeks ago
@MrBobe9 Tiger I's are like freaking solid as hell - I haven't seen on up close but seeing photo's of Tiger I's battle damaged - they look as if they could still take a real hell of a dent and keep fighting; a British test on a captured Tiger showed practically NONE of the AT gun shells they fired could penetrate the frontal hull armor save perhaps the QF17 pdr gun cannon but that was about it. THe Tiger I's Brinnell was like 250-280 - very durable and excellent by material science standards..
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@MrBobe9 And it must have also been the fact the Tiger I's armor while not sloped wasn't just thick; it was of Rolled Homogenous Nickel-Steel composition that would have been worked to the most stringent of German QA standards in WWII which was why Allied guns on occaions which should theoretically penetrate a Tiger I didn't penetrate it at all...the Tiger I's armor was actually less brittle than a Panther's despite the sloping and thicker theoretical LOS of 140mm..
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@MrBobe9 But '34/85' COULD have a chance but only a chance at knocking or destroying a Tiger but this had to be at 500 yards or so - otherwise the 85mm ZiS 53 was anything but useful against the Tiger I's formindable 100mm armor which contrary to the fact it wasn't sloped - it was slightly sloped - the mantlet for the matter was quite thick - 110 mm armor! At best the Soviet 122mm or the ZVEROBOYS 152mm could do was disable a Tiger or spall it; the huge HE could still cause concussive damage
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
Kursk was different - the Russians, courtesy of Enigma, knew Op Citadel down to the last detail. Start points, objectives, timings, the lot. They knew German armour was generally superior and that German soldiers very capable. So, they sewed the whole Kursk bulge a defensive feature with minefields, defensive positions in depth, anti-tank nests and tanks - lots of tanks. Kursk is still the largest tank battle ever and the Germans lost! Because the Russians were prepared and knew their enemy.
soldier0559 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soldier0559
""Kursk is still the largest tank battle ever and the Germans lost! Because the Russians were prepared and knew their enemy.""
And also because they Soviets had more tanks on the battlefield and could send many more fresh ones into battle immediately after.
Still, the Germans decimated Soviet armour at Kursk at a ratio far higher than vie versa.
One of the reasons why the Soviets exaggerated the numbers of German tanks was to 'excuse' why they lost so many of their own tanks.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 Hmm - me and Dreachon have talked a small bit about the Ferdinands; while they lacked an MG and were slow they had an impressive kill ratio in Kursk - the PaK 43 mounted on them could even smash a '34' at 3000 metres! Not to mention the Ferdinand frontally anyways was difficult to kill - it had double the armor of a Tiger I tank!
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91
Yes the Ferdinands performed wonders in the defensive warfare of autumn 1943 especially. The battle of the river Dnieper bend was where they came into their own.
I have two excellent massive books on the Ferdinand abteilungs of 653 and 654 written by Karl Heinz Munch.
They really are excellent books.
The Ferdinand gets an unfair reputation based solely on the losses as Kursk. Post Kursk the Ferdinand had a very long and highly successful combat career.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@soldier0559 Actually the german won a TACTICAL VICTORY at KURSK, they were outnumbered and yet the german managed to destroy more than 3000 tanks and caused more 5 times more casualties on the soviets also in the air 3 times more soviet airplanes destroyed(if wasn't for lack of aviation fuel,etc..).
Soviets put immense resources there to finish off the germans and end the war but got to use all the reserves just to contain germans, Hitler helped them by halting offensive and help MUSSOLINI .
MrBobe9 2 weeks ago
All this talk of the Stalingrad and Kursk massacres - get your facts straight! Hitler decided, against his own Generals advise that Stalingrad was more important the oilfields. Stalin was no strategic genius, but he knew a killing field when he saw one. The majority of Russian were poorly trained, if they were trained at all! Compared to the Germans they didn't rate at all! BUT, in a city, the odds levelled. Hitler didn't see the trap and lost 6th Army.
soldier0559 2 weeks ago
Anyway Russian have stopped all tanks of Germans... on always!!!
dollarik2 3 weeks ago
Hahaha since when Tarnopol is in Romania? Most of this programs made in the west is so stupid and incredible ,good for youtube history specialist who learned history on Discovery chanel.
staryjaszczur 3 weeks ago
well as a German tank commander once said A Tiger can take on and win against 4 Shermans---the problem is there is always a 5th Sherman.
FreeFOXMIKE 1 month ago
i meant sherman was a joke against king tiger,,not against the horse carriage:)
hejdiklump 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is like comparing a Porsche Cayenne with a Chevy Suburban and a Lada Niva...
pablof59 1 month ago
Comment removed
pablof59 1 month ago
sherman tank was a joke in the battlefield
hejdiklump 1 month ago
@hejdiklump Only to the uneducated.......
0341MarineInfantry 1 month ago
@0341MarineInfantry oh,,,hello mr.uneducated:))
hejdiklump 1 month ago
@hejdiklump Oh hello, YouTube Military Strategist.
Zuzmaw 1 month ago
It took shear numbers to bring germany down.......
memadmax69 1 month ago
@dreacom Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress /Guy M. Townsend
GEN237 1 month ago
@GEN237
And that is an even worse.
Especially given that we have detailed information from the tiger formations and they make it clear what were the main causes of Tiger losses.
Dreachon 1 month ago
Most tiger tanks were probably destroyed by B52 bombers
GEN237 1 month ago
@GEN237 ......a tiger tanks main threat from the air was a rocket armed RAF Typhoon......tiger tank crews were terrified of them
Aussiephil99 1 month ago
I don't understand why author compare heavy tank like Tiger with middle T-34 or Sherman? More correctly comparition is with IS-2.
lopik1974 1 month ago
@lopik1974 Because the IS-2's were almost all destroyed by Tigers in WW2. While it was a heavy tank, the IS-2 just was not in the same league as the Tiger I and Tiger II in actual combat. If you read the comments below, it is mentioned the design flaw of the IS-2 requiring lowering the gun barrel to load ammo into the breech. Tiger commanders noticed this, & it took little time for them to take advantage in combat. Also, the IS-2 122mm was not nearly as good as the Tiger's 88mm gun.
nuclearsharkattack 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack Also - the mantlet had a shot trap on the 1943 JS-2 models which saw service in Targu Frumos - these versions had the vulnerable stepped hull compared to the simpler sloped glacis on the 1944m JS-2 tanks. The JS-2 also had 2 piece loading ammuniton and only 28 rounds - at 1.5-2 rounds per minute vs the Tiger I's possible 6-8 rounds per minute if ideal. The JS-2 tank also had crappier optics comapred to the Tiger I and Panther tnak - the muzzle velocity of a JS-2 tank was 747
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack 747 m/s vs up to 936m/s for the Panther if using APCR and 906m/s for the Tiger I's gun if using the same ammunition type. Another factor was crew training and maneuvering - the Tiger I actually had slightly faster speed but also better ground pressure handling than the JS-2 tank. And returning to the 121.92mm A19 derived gun the Kubinka tests were quite flawed - it could not penetrate a Panther's armor! Though the 121.92mm gun was useful in bunker busting
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack The 122mm gun was said to be more for softer targets and bunker busting - though the ZVERBOYs were even better at that due to a bigger shell caliber and more HE. The JS-2 was really best for HE work - as its HE shell was undeniably superior to the Tiger I and the Panther's - the 122mm shells could weight as much as 25 kg and carry up to 3kg of TNT - but that was about it. Sounds as if the JS-2 wasn't much better than the KV-1 tank or was it? As it had bigger gun, better armor
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Most od Red Army tanks in Germany were destroyed by guns and Faust/Panzershrek - the combats between tanks were very rarely
lopik1974 1 month ago
No doubt the Tiger tank dished out a lot of punishment to the Allies. But I think it was best suited for defensive tactics. Any Allied tank ambushed by a competent Tiger crew was doomed. It was just too difficult to produce enough of them.
mrgeorgebailey1 1 month ago
@mrgeorgebailey1 DefDefensivewise doctrinal recommendation was armor formations would be kept back, and ready to counter-attack any breakthrough of the German defense lines. Consequently, the doctrinal mission of the Tiger was first and foremost, to kill the enemy's tanks and survive direct firepower in encounters expected. Michael Wittmann took out a British column of 25 vehicles in July 1944 before withdrawing and knocked out himself - where he abandoned his tank
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@mrgeorgebailey1 Make no mistake - the Tiger I was extremely expensive - up to 250K Reichmarks which today would be over 1 million USD roughly. This was worth atleast 4 StuG III/IV's or almost exactly 2x Panzer IV tanks! Not to mention maintenance costs, lost vehicles, ammunition, fuel feed, engine installation, ball bearings, machine tooling - and metals for the armor! I'll expect naturally the Tiger I crewmen could struggle maintaining a damaged or KO'ed Tiger I :(
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@mrgeorgebailey1 Though this is an interesting fact: Tiger I crews - in additon to just training with thier Tiger I's would also be sent to the Henschel factories to assist building the Tiger I; as a means to 'familiarize themselves at home with thier tank' and to get better practical knowledge/experience out of it :) That and the fact almost every Tiger I crew could expect thier Tiger to be towed by another Tiger I desptie strict rules not to allow this if a comrade tank broke down :(
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The best soldiers ever! no body could ever match the germans !especially England and Usa..
amirturist 1 month ago
The clip of the sherman @ 3:22 is reversed , hull machine gun is on wrong side !
MrBears38 1 month ago
Guys: Simple fact the 17 pounder could and did take out Tigers because it - too - was a great gun. Trouble is the British did not have enough of them either in static defence mode or in Firefly mode. A few hundred Fireflys might have been knocked out easily by the german defenders (they were defending by then most of the time) but they certainly, if handled properly, would have taken out PLENTY of Tigers.
Juicingood 2 months ago
@Juicingood Actually the QF17 pdr first saw service in Africa on 25pdr carriages - known as the Pheasant - they had a field day in the Battle of Medenine knocking Panzer IV's and Tiger I's that attempted to counter-attack. Also the QF17pdr was incredibly heavy and had a huge recoil that tankers described as a loud slap - and initial problems with HE ammunition as given ti was an excellent AT gun it sacrificed some HE for better AP though this was later attempted to be recitified.
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@HeirofGojira91 I was saying to somebody else I think the UK was putting a lot of technical effort into radar for ships and submarines not tanks (like the Comet) and I guess the lives of tankers were sacrificed on the back of that sad fact.
Juicingood 2 weeks ago
In contrast to the Tiger the simpler KV-1 and IS-2 could be mass produced and almost never broke down and had the mobility to be used as attacking tanks and had heavy enough armament to defeat all the Axis tanks except the Tiger.
For all its impressiveness on paper the reality is that the Tiger was very much a boutique tank that while brilliant in its local impact could never make a difference in the bigger picture.
truekiwijoker 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
Wrong, the KV-1 and 2 were notoriously unreliable, it was the awfull performance of the KV to that persuaded Stalin to basicly cancel any further work on heavy tanks.
Hadn't it been for the Tiger and Panther in 1943 there would have been no IS series of tanks, also the KV-1 didn't carry any greater firepower than the T-34, a feeble 76mm gun which was already outclassed by the german 7.5cm L43, L46 and l48 guns.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Amongst all the criticisms of Soviet tanks I have never in all my years of studying the second world war heard that the KV-1 and IS-2 tanks had notable reliability problems.
The KV-1 was cancelled for the IS-2 because the Germans had upgraded their tanks by Kursk. Prior to that it was more than good enough to cause the Germans headaches, and by virtue of its higher production and deployment that was much more headaches than the Tiger could cause the Soviets.
truekiwijoker 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
The KV-1 had already become useless by 1942, it was unreliable ( besides had you bothered to read i don't mentino the IS-2 anywere ) as germans mounted in their tanks, assault guns and tankdestroyer.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Are just making this up or something. Can you elaborate exactly on what technical problems the KV-1 experienced? Because it's not the reputation I'm aware of.
And if it was so useless by 1942 then how was it still easily destroying the PzIII's and PzIV's that made up the great bulk of Germany's Panzer Corps?
Not a clue have you?
truekiwijoker 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
""And if it was so useless by 1942 then how was it still easily destroying the PzIII's and PzIV's that made up the great bulk of Germany's Panzer Corps?""
Oh behave. In 1942 the German panzer forces completely swept the Soviets aside. The KV-1 didn't stop them, nor did the T-34. The Germans got bogged down in Stalingrad and outran their supply lines in the Caucasus.
THOUSANDS of KV-1s and T-34s had been left burning wrecks on the battlefield in 1941 and 1942.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
Do you know why comparatively so few KV-1 tanks were in action at Kursk? It was because the vast majority of them had been knocked out by the Germans and no more were being made by that time.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
Oh really do explain to me then how in 1942 the russians lost 1200 KV next to the 6600 T-34 they also lost that year.
As for the problems, they were mechinical and came with the transmission and drivetrain.
The one without clues here is you.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker Many IS-2 tanks were destroyed in Latvia by Tiger I tanks of the German 6th Army. The IS-2 had to lower the gun in order to load the breech with a shell, a design flaw that would cost many of those tank crews dearly. The other issue is the 122mm gun on the IS-2 was not nearly the masterpiece of engineering the 88mm gun on the Tiger was. The Russians had nothing in the inventory that could take on a Tiger 1 and certainly not a Tiger II in a straight-up gun battle.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago 6
Something else to consider -- @ Kursk Franz Staudegger of 1st SS Heavy Panzer encountered a column of 50 T-34 tanks. He burned 22 T-34s with AP and HE rounds completely destroying these tanks. The ferocity of his attack and the fast rate of fire scared the living crap out of the rest of the Russian column, and the remaining '34's high-tailed it out of there. The only reason he let those tanks leave is because he ran out of ammo. The Germans had many Tiger aces.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago 14
The other thing here is, the Tiger, although few in number relative to most other tanks of the day, almost made up for that in terms of outright kill ratios. Because of the enormous range with which they could engage and destroy enemy tanks with great accuracy --- ~2000 meters for a Panther/76 mm gun; ~3000 meters for a Tiger/88 mm gun --- if they had been able to make more of them and with reliability, it might have turned the war on the Eastern Front in Germany's favour.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack I have book Lloyd Clark nov 2011, t34 tank commander at BATTLE OF KURSK talking after all these years without going to a GULAG, say he encountered a TIGER at close range his bullets were like candles hitting the TIGER , when he saw the TIGER'S turret moving towards him the T34 ran as fast it could(that was the good thing of the t34,running fast) because it was no match for the TIGER, no propaganda here he just admit it, TIGER FEAR was real.
MrBobe9 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack
не пизди СССР пизды дал и будет давать сука вам!!!!!!!!!!
maulisdjan 3 weeks ago in playlist WW2
@maulisdjan Yeah whatever, dude. You don't like what I have to say about the superiority of German tanks in WW2, that's too bad for you my Rusky friend. The Germans built better stuff than we did (allies) or you guys did (Russians) and that's historical fact, not fiction.
nuclearsharkattack 3 weeks ago
@nuclearsharkattack Nobody did. when it arrived. it was specifically designed to battle the t-34 because when t-34 came, nothing stood up to it.
Hatinonthehaters 2 weeks ago
@Hatinonthehaters Pz 4
NewSoviet507 2 weeks ago
@nuclearsharkattack Except a bunch of T-34/76 and 85 to overwhelm them but you are right the soviet 122mm was not as good as the 88mm
NewSoviet507 2 weeks ago
@NewSoviet507 Even a T34/85 was no match for a Tiger. It did better than the T34/76 at closer ranges but Tigers could hit and destroy a 34 from 1.6 miles away with complete accuracy. No other tanks of WW2 could come anywhere close to that range of fire. That said, yes, eventually the sheer numbers of tanks and men thrown at the Germans wore them down. The Russian people paid a terrible price to beat Germany -- by wars' end 29.5 million Russians were dead.
nuclearsharkattack 2 weeks ago
@nuclearsharkattack you mean 17 or 23 million casualties and about 60% where civilians
where you got that crazy number .
and yes the Tiger was the bigger, miner and scary tank of the war.
NewSoviet507 2 weeks ago
@NewSoviet507 Total USSR deaths were close to 30 million, although the exact # varies depending on the source. This includes countries under Russian rule as USSR.
nuclearsharkattack 2 weeks ago
@NewSoviet507 in terms of ROF, AP and accuracy yes the KwK 36 takes it. THe only useful thing of the 122mm A19 was undeniably though the huge HE shell; an 88mm shell might be say 7-10kg while the A19 was 25kg - which was both a strength and weakness; need i not say that slow ROF, mv, lower loading but the HE for the OF-471 could blast open field forts and agaisnt a Tiger/Panther yes the 122mm couldn't penetrate ideally under field battles but if the shot was right the 122mm could still disable
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@NewSoviet507 disable as I mean by strikign the side wheels, side armor or the very least cause concussive damage - via spalling. But that was about it the 88mm and even the Panther's 75mm Pak/Kwk 42 was superior to the 122mm in all but HE work - hope what I spammed abit made some points not that you care if you knew it already. Quite frankly even the 85mm Soviet ZIS 53 atleast could fire faster than the 122mm gun
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 wasn't that soviet 85mm an AA gun?
NewSoviet507 1 week ago
@NewSoviet507 Yes the 52K M1939 Airdefence gun was the 85mm Soviet gun - it was also provided with AP shells if the need rose for AT capacity; at Kursk the Soviets found it was capable of some AT work if in an emergency; after the '34/76' was found to be severely underpowered by 1943 they tried to upgrade it and the '34/85' was chosen over the T43 model; the 85mm gun D5T (later ZiS 53) was developed based on the 52-K and while not as good still as the German Heavies
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@NewSoviet507 the ZiS 53 gave the '34/85' better allround performance and the 'punch' it needed to have a chance of defeating a German heavy tank just like the Sherman 76 though dismayed American tankers found they were still out classed by the Panther's KwK PaK 42 75mm gun cannon ...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@truekiwijoker
""For all its impressiveness on paper the reality is that the Tiger was very much a boutique tank that while brilliant in its local impact could never make a difference in the bigger picture.""
Well the KV-1 tank didn't make a blind bit of difference to the bigger picture either. The KV-1 didn't stop the great German advances of 1941 and 1942. Then it was decided to stop making them.
So what exactly did the KV-1 achieve in the bigger picture? The Soviets were LOSING.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker Bigger picture was that USSR had full war production by 1942, while Germany just went full war production by 1943/1944 when they had been beaten at STALINGRAD and also fighting in 3 fronts, 1500 TIGERS produced, 60 000 t34s destroyed and made no difference, the soviet tank production was huge even after defeat of Germany, their plan B (conquer of Europe stalled because of ATOMIC BOMB).
MrBobe9 1 month ago
@MrBobe9 So I take it the ability to mass produce isn't also a factor in how good a tank is in your eyes?
Although your last sentence shows-up why I shouldn't waste my time with you.
truekiwijoker 1 month ago
@truekiwijoker T34 was as good as PANZER IV, maybe better speed and larger tracks, it was horrible tank for its crew, the toxic smoke made then to faint during battle, bad turret, no radio, it was mass produced because it survived only a few days in battle, it was easy to mass produce, but it was not even remotely compared to TIGER (a magnificent machine with power steering, highly selected crew, with radio, taking t34 at miles,etc.the tank from the future made soviets sh.t their pants)
MrBobe9 2 weeks ago
@MrBobe9 I wonder how the hell the Soviet tankers could have communicated with the command tank - I know that they used flags/signals but wouldn't that be suicidal in the field battle? Hell make no mistake - in Stalingrad '34/76' crews sometimes just got 3 days 'the how to' and then they got sent straight into the field. :D - Yup - Tiger gtanks talk about power steering :) The Panther was surprisingly fast a pivoting as well - at the cost of turret speed though :(
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
While there is no questioning the superiority of the Tiger's armament and armour it's also worth noting that its sophistication condemned it to a low production run. And so it was never available in enough numbers to make enough of a difference. It was also too heavy and slow to spearhead assaults and had chronic problems with mechanical reliability.
truekiwijoker 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
Wow, you really need to update your knowledge as it's full of mistakes.
First the Tiger I was not slow with a max speed of 37km/h it was faster than any other tank during 1942 and 1943.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Hahaha "update" my knowledge!? what? on 60-year old data?
That Max speed was only road speed and was not advised due to problems with the Maybach powerplant. Cross-country (where it mainly operated) it never got close to 37km/hr. And even that was slower than many tanks such as the T-34 (which could make 50+ km/h on the road).
Where did you ever get the idea the Tiger was faster than other tanks from?
truekiwijoker 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
The cross country was close to 25km/h, which is what most would be stuck with as well.
Again as you not have bothered to read I said heavy tanks, that means KV-1, KV-2 and the Churchill, all of them were slower.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Hahaha no you didn't say "heavy tanks". You said verbatim; "it was faster than any other tank during 1942 and 1943", it's right there beneath you.
The Churchill wasn't really a heavy tank as neither was it designed for nor fulfilled that role. It was an "infantry tank".
It's not surprising the Tiger was better then the KV-1 considering the KV-1 spurred its redevelopment. But it ended up making less of an impact due to production limitations.
truekiwijoker 2 months ago
@truekiwijoker
""It's not surprising the Tiger was better then the KV-1 considering the KV-1 spurred its redevelopment. But it ended up making less of an impact due to production limitations.""
1. A German heavy tank with a 88mm gun was finalised and was being designed in spring 1941, BEFORE the KV-1 was encountered.
2. The Tiger had a FAR bigger impact than the KV-1. It k.o'd circa 10,000 allied tanks and lead to the allies coming up with the T34/85, SU 85, IS-2, Firefly and Pershing etc.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
need dat M10 tank destroyer
SpartanArmy647 2 months ago
Somebody edited out the tracer.
centurion180ad 2 months ago
Interesting video, what's also interesting is that the Panzer mark IV was more or less equal to the Sherman in Normandy as well as the fact that the Panther's 75mm canon was more powerful than the Tiger tank's 88mm at closer ranges
canigetanoorah 2 months ago
@canigetanoorah I think you are referring to the Sherman Firefly with the British 76mm (17 pounder) gun retrofitted. The standard 75mm Sherman gun was more or less ineffective against the Panzer IV unless it was basically at point blank range facing the side of the Panzer. Even at that, during the Battle of the Bulge the US tankers were horrified to see their shells bouncing off German frontal armor. The US did not put as much importance on tank design as the Germans did.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack The Sherman 75 has one advantage in its gun though; while not a dedicated AT gun cannon of highvelocity its HE was actually save for the bigger 85mm, 88mm gun cannons the 75mm M3 had superior HE to the 76mm M1, QF17pdr and possibly even the Panther's HE shell. WHy? Because if you think about it the British realized thier tanks in early war years had only AP solid shot, sacrificing HE which was better against soft targets so when they sacrificed AP for HE it went the other way
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@nuclearsharkattack As the 75mm gun of the Sherman didn't need a big propellant charge nor thick shell casings it permitted more HE to be contained and hence more useful against generalist roles of soft targets, at the cost of AP whereas the 76mm M1, Panther KwK/PaK 42 and the QF17pdr would have had abit less HE shells than the Sherman 75mm but again its not like it counts much in a Tank-Tank battle unfortunately - hope I'm making a sense here...
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
The King Tiger (Tiger II) -- even with its' teething issues -- had no peer in WW2. Straight-up against a Russian heavy JS tank with 122mm cannon the Tiger still destroyed it easily with its 88. This was readily apparent in the fighting in Estonia where the Tigers layed waste to large numbers of heavy JS tanks they encountered in the villages. Not helping the Russian cause was the design flaw of having to lower the gun barrel to load the breach with ammo. I wonder who thought up that great idea.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack Could the Russian Su152 , fire its gun accurate enough to score direct hits on german tanks, or did they simply rely on getting a near miss, and doing damage with a large high explosive shell?
federalwarhawk 2 months ago
@federalwarhawk
The ISU-152 did sometimes hit German tanks, but overall the gun was not very accurate. It was a howitzer, not an anti tank gun. Well even the IS-2's 122mm gun was also a howitzer and not an anti tank gun and it was very inaccurate at long range. I don't know of a single case where a IS-2 managed to hit a German tank at long range. If it ever did it was pure luck.
In long range engagements Tigers and Panthers usually bested IS-2s and the IS-2 rarely even scored hits.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
IS-2 crews would not fire at enemy tanks over 1200m as the only thing it would do would be giving away their own position.
The IS-2 could not engage in long range duels as it lacked the FCS, ammo supply, accuracy and RoF giving it a huge disadvantage.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon After a little research, I found the SU 152 was mainly used as a artillery piece, but the soviets did kill quite a few german tanks with it, even Tigers, they did not issue any A.P rounds, since the gun was not acurate enough, and would use them in a
group to bracket german tanks in a barrage of shellfire, the 152mm had enough explosive force to blow the turret off of a tank, with just a near miss. The Russians nicknamed the SU152, the Beastkiller,because it could kill the Tiger tank
federalwarhawk 2 months ago
@federalwarhawk
With a near miss still blowing off a turret of a tank sounds like another piece of crappy soviet propaganda.
As for it's nickname it's highly exagerrated, they claimed it was good at destroying panther, Tiger and Ferdinand at Kursk but there it managed to kill only 1 Ferdinand and from what I've read sofar it didn't do any better for kills against the Panther and tiger.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon The 152mm gun was not as effective against the Ferdinand because it did not have a turret, but could still disable it with near misses, and damage it tracks or running gear. there are plenty of picture of Tigers with there turrets blown off from the concusive force of American artillery and aircraft bombs in Normandy, The Tiger was not as invincible as you think.
federalwarhawk 2 months ago
@federalwarhawk
Dude it could not disable a Ferdinand with a near miss, that is just crap bullshit soviet propaganda, the only chance it had was a hit in the side or rear, any hit that ddin't hit the vehicle had little chance.
As for the pictures, sounds more liek you are having a hard time figuring out what really killed them.
These would have been caused by naval artillery, heavy bombers or by their own crews with demolition charges.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Agreed, very few Tigers were killed by artillery, in fact most were destroyed by aircraft bombs hitting directly and Sherman "wolf packing" of 4-6 tanks against one Tiger. In fact, German Tiger I ace Michael Wittman of the 503rd Heavy Panzer was finally done in by combined aircraft bomb dropping and the bundled firepower of 4-5 Canadian Sherman tanks. Wittman once destroyed 17 British tanks/ artillery vehicles in less than 15 minutes on a road in Normandy with his Tiger I.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Sorry to correct there your making some serious mistakes here.
First of all Wittmann was a memeber of the ss 101st heavy panzerbateilung.
Second he was NOT done in by combined aircraft and tanbks, there were no aircraft at that battle at that day.
Third aircraft did NOT destroy the majority of Tiger contrary what pilots claimed, during WWII the worst way of directly knocking out enemy armour was the aircraft.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
Yes I agree with all your points about aircraft attack (see my other posts with the actual figures of destroyed Tigers and Panthers).
The vaunted Typhoon fighter bomber, though it packed a very heavy punch with it's rockets, was not accurate at all. Hit rate success was only 4%. That's pretty bad.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
Aye, the accuracy of the rockets was awfull, the British did some test firing on a captured Panther painted white somewere in England, standing al alone in a large flat field with several flights of typhoons attacking it.
From what I have read the results were very dissapointing
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Thanks for the corrections re: Wittman and the aircraft strikes. Wittman was in an SS Panzer division and had a Tiger 1. I was thinking of the King Tigers (Tiger II) of the 503rd Heavy Panzer. By the time those were on the battlefield Wittman was already KIA. There was also a huge controversy over whether or not an RAF Typhoon had hit Wittman's Tiger with a rocket rather than a Sherman tank.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
The initial claim was that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by an allied fighter bomber. This came about because German propaganda did not want to admit his Tiger was destroyed by another tank. None of the surviving German participants in the battle mentioned any allied planes.
Then it was claimed a British Firefly gunner called Joe Ekins got him. However, while Ekins did get the other Tigers, Wittmanns Tiger was hit by a close range flank shot from a Canadian Sherman 75mm.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31 I don`t see how a regular Sherman 75mm gun could take out a Tiger even with a flank shot. In Tunisia the French hit Tigers from the flank with 75mm artillery at less than 100 meters and the shells bounced off the armor. I've read that story about the Canadian Sherman and Wittman as well, but most historians on the subject seem to feel it had to be a Firefly with a 76mm gun that could have done the damage to Wittman's Tiger, with blown-off turret.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Hi,
No most historians now feel it was a Canadian Sherman 75mm firing at close range at Wittmanns' LEFT flank. The British Sherman Firefly was firing at the Tiger's RIGHT flank. Wittmann was over 1,000 m away.
The new evidence indicated that the shell penetrated Wittmann's left rear engine compartment..i.e IMPOSSIBLE from the position the Firefly was in.
Sherman 75mms were capable at taking out a Tiger on the flank at 150 metres. It now looks like a Canadian 75mm did it.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31 If the Sherman hit the Tiger from the rear, I can see the Tiger being destroyed once it's own ammo caught fire and exploded. The rear was the weak point on the Tiger as is well known. Also, if the Tiger was carrying a quantity of HE shells (as opposed to AP rounds) that exploded that could explain the turret being blown off, certainly.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Yeah the weaker point on the Tiger was the rear, although the weakest point of all (not including the top and bottom) was actually the 60mm lower hull side, particularly the small gap between the top of the wheels and the hull overhang.
The rear plate was actually stronger that the hull and turret side because it was the same thickness (circa 80mm) but it was sloped at 81 degrees and not a complete 90 degrees vertical plate like the turret and hull sides.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Even the renowned British tank veteran Ken Tout, who earlier thought Joe Ekins was the man responsible for Wittmann's death, in his new book now thinks it was more likely to have been a Canadian 75mm Sherman that hit Wittmann in the flank at close range.
The stories kept changing. First it was an allied plane, then Joe Ekins and finally a Canadian Sherman 75mm. The later seems to be the truthful one.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Also it was likely to be a fire that spread to the ammunition which then got ignited and blew the turret off. The turret of Wittmann's Tiger wasn't blown off by a gun but rather by it's own ammunition which caught fire and exploded.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
Which is generally the only way that a turret will be removed from a tank, in the case of the Tiger I that is a 12 ton piece.
Still I do believe that the canadians did have some firefly with them as the regiment was equipped with them as wel.
Still we will never know the finer details thanks to that unfortunate US related friendly fire incident which took place a few days later.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon Is it known for certain whether or not the Canadians actually had a Firefly in their battallion during the Wittman incident? I would be interested in whatever info you have on this, out of curiosity. I haven't come across anytrhing yet in my reading on the subject, but you certainly bring up a major point if, in fact, the Canadians did have confirmed Firefly in their ranks.
nuclearsharkattack 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Well the regiment did have firefly in their OOB and given that they follow the british model than each troops of 3 standerd shermans would also have 1 firefly with them, it stands to good rason thne that they would have had firefly with them.
It also make the penetration easier to explain as even at 100m the 75mm of the sherman had immense difficulties of penetrating the side and rear of a Tiger.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
There is a documentary regarding this incident with the Canadians and Wittmann and they interviewed some of the Canadians who were there and from what I can recall there was not a Sherman Firefly in the chateau grounds at Gaumesnil.
Yes all the records were soon lost due to a US friendly fire bomb blowing up the Canadian unit's records.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
Which documentary was it, I have seen the one called Wittmann's last ride and in it they have no conversation with the veterans who fought at that place.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
I can't recall the title of the documentary.
There is one documentary where Joe Ekins is interviewed (it might be on You Tube) but it wasn't that one. It was a fairly recent documentary and they even show pieces of Wittmann's Tiger which a local farmer still had. They interviewed Canadian Sherman tankers of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers who were in the region at the time and they were speaking about the château and how they were situated etc.
I'll try my best to remember the name.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
That does sounds like the one I have watched here on youtube.
The farmer also had part of the Tiger turretbasket floor correct?
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon The name of the documentary about Michael Wittman is called "Battlefield Mysteries" "Who Killed Michael Wittman", it's also on youtube as 1/5 Michael Wittman's Last Battle, etc... in case your wondering, the documentary is hosted by Canadian military historian Norm Christie, he interviews the farmer, whom has pieces of Wittman's tank including a full 88mm shell!!
hailherrosner 2 months ago
@hailherrosner
That's the one I have watched yes, never seen the part were they say only regular sherman, guess I'll need to look at it again.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
As the other poster already said, the documentary is called "Michael Wittman's Last Battle".
The Canadian tanker is interviewed in 4/5 and he speaks about seeing the turret blow off. The Shermans were 75mm and the exact distance to Wittmann's Tiger was measured at 143m. In contrast, Ekins in his Firefly was near 1,000 m away from Wittmann's Tiger.
Ekins also says only 3 Tigers were seen and knocked out but there were actually 4. The 4th one was Wittmanns Tiger near the Canadians.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
That I know. Wittmann Tiger was the furthest away and beyond the accurate range of the 17 pounder.
He was the closest to the Canadians, i'll check the 4th part of the docu again, still have my doubt about it beeing a standerd sherman as they had hit the rear armour and that is still 80mm thick, though it has happened before that a 75mm sherman penetrated the side armour, this was in Italy.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
They don't actually say which Sherman type but in the documentary they show Ekins Tiger to be a Firefly while they show the Canadian's tanks to be regular Sherman 75mms. They seem to be going for accuracy.
ON THE OTHER HAND...the Tigers they show are the older 1943 model with the old dustbin commander's cuppola whereas the real Tigers there were later models with the lower cuppola.
And yes theoretically a Sherman 75mm could penetrate the Tiger's hull side at just 143m distance.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
I never take the footage they have in these shows for granted, i've seen to many dumb mistake coming from the history channel.
So basicly we say that a firefly was there, this makes it very easy to see how they knocked him out or one sherman gunners was very very lucky that moment, in any case the cadians did score the kill.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon i appreciate your comment however i'd like to point out in this case this isnt a history channel mockumentary...
It a special interest video - well researched, extensively detailed
cheers
spottydog4477 2 months ago
@spottydog4477
My apologies for that.
Dreachon 2 months ago
Germany would have been better off just making only Panther and Jadgpanther , and
not even making the King tiger.
federalwarhawk 1 month ago
@federalwarhawk
A heavy tank would have been needed, the problem coems that the Tiger II was not given the time it needed to have the problems worked out, in general it was not a horrible tank like so many shows claims, it wasn't slow, it wasn't that terrible on maintenance.
For 1945 there was already an update plannend which included a far more powerfull engine.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon I mean The Jadgpanthers were easier,faster and cheaper to make than a Tiger Tank, and gave the most bang for the buck, with good frontal armor, 88mm gun, and a low profile, good for setting ambushes and defensive roles, At the later stages of the war, thats about all Germany could really do anyhow,
federalwarhawk 1 month ago
@federalwarhawk
That i have to agree with, the Jagdpanther provided a solid counter to the allied and russian heavy tanks.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon Agreed, the Germans, as well as planning to up-engine the existing Tiger I and II, were also planning even larger tanks with 2-3x the range of a Tiger, in 1945. The Panzer 9 & 10 were on the drawing board but never built. These tanks would have definitely caused a serious problem for the allies and Russia. Approaching 100 tons+ and armed with naval guns from a heavy cruiser, these tanks would have had a range of 5+ miles. Germany had serious weapons upgrades planned in 1945.
nuclearsharkattack 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack
True but I have my severe doubts these super tanks would have been of any help.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack There were also concepts for the E-series tanks - not just the E-100 Nacht-Tiger or Panzer VIII Maus. There was even the porposed Maus II and vehicles with weights up to 90 tonnes - the E90 tank, Jaguar Tank, Jagdpanther II, Tiger Ausf B with 105mm gun, Panther Ausf F - Panther Ausf N - grandiose ideas if one may say. But if you think about it - the bigger tha tank - the more expensive, heavier and troublesome it can be in maintenance. There was the propsed Lion (Panzer VII)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@nuclearsharkattack The Lion Panzer VII which was meant to be in a light and heavy version - both with weights beyond 70 tonnes and mounting either the 88mm Kwk 43 or the 105mm high velocity cannons - though Hitler eventually demanded the heavy Panzer VII be utilized - but when the Germans realized it was too expensive and impractical to use across bridges they abandoned the project - so they decided to incorporate features into the Tiger Ausf B instead :)
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon
And also, for all we know, the Canadian shot may have even gone through via the 60mm section of the hull side.
The theory seems to be the the shell entered somewhere on the rear side hull, the fuel leaked, there was a fire that spread to the ammo...which blew the turret off.
The lower hull was 'only' 60 mm and there is a dangerous gap between the top of the wheels and the hull overhang.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
The aircraft is a myth, nothing more.
When you look at all the evidence there is noone of it support the Typhoon rocket myth.
British records make it lcear that no aircraft were reported in the area and no claims for destroying or even engaging enemy tanks was reported.
The german, british and canadian tankers involved al mentioned no aircraft were there.
The penetration hole is in line with the position of the canadians
Dreachon 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
To continue
The damage done to Wittmann's Tiger was to small for a rocket, basicly the engine section would have been much more heavily damaged had it actually been a rocket.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
Actually air power played less of a role in destroying Tigers (and Panthers) that the myth suggests. It was the 'fear' of air power that hindered movement more than the planes actually destroying tanks.
In France in 1944 out of the two SS Tiger units, only 8 Tigers out of the nearly 104 Tigers deployed were destroyed by air power.
The army's Tiger battalion 503 was hit hard by plane bombs on 18th July (Goodwood) but that was an anomaly.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@nuclearsharkattack
The British also carried out detailed analysis of German Panther tanks lost in Normandy in order to find out how they were lost. They inspected the Panthers destroyed/abandoned on the battlefield. Of the 178 Panthers the British inspected and analysed on the Normandy battlefield lost from June to end August 1944, only TWELVE were destroyed by air attack.
Allied air attacks didn't destroy nearly as many German tanks as the myth keeps telling us. They hampered movement more.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@federalwarhawk
""The Russians nicknamed the SU152, the Beastkiller,because it could kill the Tiger tank""
As Dreachon said, that was Soviet propaganda. The Soviets also claimed 70 Tigers were destroyed at Prokhorovka on July 12th 1943 but the Germans never even had more than 43 Tigers in that entire sector (and even less in actual combat) at the time and only ONE Tiger tank was a total write off at Prokhorovka on 12th July 1943.
Never believe the Soviet version of WW2 or their weapons.
As
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31 I have read numerous books that all state the same thing, the Russian 152mm, was used as a tiger killer in the SU152, using only high explosive shells, I would not doubt soviets lied about how many Tigers they killed, but every book cant be Soviet propaganda.
federalwarhawk 2 months ago
@federalwarhawk
Yep, I have read a lot of books too. Western historians usually repeat what the Soviets claimed and never questioned them (until recently).
The fact though, say that the SU-152 didn't knock out as many Tigers and Panther as the Soviets claimed.
When you think about it, at Kursk it would have been rare than the small numbers of IS-152s would even encounter the small number of Tigers and Panthers. The SU-152 would have more commonly encountered Panzer IIIs and IVs and StuGs.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@Dreachon
At Targu Fromus in spring 1944 the Tigers of Grossdeutschland opened fire on IS-2s at 3,000 metres and as far as I know, the IS-2s returned fire at long range.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
Possible but beyond 1200m they would not have been able to hit anything, experienced IS-2 crews would not fire at enemy armour as at those distances they would accomplish little save for exposing their own firing position.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
Yes too true. The IS-2 gun was more of a howitzer than an accurate anti tank gun. Even at 800 metres it still wasn't very accurate. It was more of a 'barrage' gun than a pinpoint precision target gun like the 88mm or 75mm and, as you know, the IS-2 only carried 28 rounds of ammo.
At long range it had almost zero chance of hitting an enemy tank and especially a moving one.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
Indeed.
The IS-2 just wasn't designed to engage enemy armour, especially highly mobile ones.
I do recall an incident were a single Panther hiding in a village and constantly moving after firing 1 or 2 shell kept an entire IS-2 formation stuck for several hours.
The Panther later escaped during the cover of the night.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
Interesting regarding that Panther vs the IS-2s. I have not heard that story. Do you know any other details like the Panther unit and where and when? I would like to find out more. IS-2s vs German tanks is a very fascinating subject.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31
I'll need to do some digging been a long time since I first read about it, I don't recalll which unit it belonged to but it was somewere in late 1944.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon
Ok thanks mate. No worries if you can't find anymore info.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31 Read Targu Frumos - or Korsun Shekensovsky (if you are interested in the IS-1) - for Targu Frumos May '44 an JS-2 force was knocked by Tiger I's and Panthers and Panzer IV's despite the fact the Soviet heavy tank at 2000 yards + wasn't penetrated by the Tiger I 88mm KwK 36 but because at 1100 yards or so the combination of ambush, skill, faster ROF and superior optics meant German tankers got the strikes first before JS-2 crews knew what got them!
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeirofGojira91
"" Korsun Shekensovsky (if you are interested in the IS-1)""
Just pointing out that at Korsun Shekensovsky there were no IS-1s but rather IS-2s.
In the book Hell's Gate by Doug Nash there is a picture of the IS-2s knocked out in this battle and they are clearly IS-2s with the big 122mm gun. It's on page 176 and the picture was taken by photographer from 1st Panzer Division.
Best book ever written on that battle. Over 400 pages.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 I haven't read the book but I've seen photos of JS-2's that look as if they had a hell of a field day - like JS-2's that have thier turrets blown off, JS-2's with huge shell holes in the armor or smashed up JS-2 tank's that got abandoned - I'll be the Tiger and Panther crews must have had a 'field day' 'stalking' the Stalins :(
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91
There is an awesome picture of a IS-2 with it's turret blown off by a Tiger I tank of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 at Ternopol in April 1944. The Tiger's shell penetrated the turret mantlet frontally (I don't know the distance) causing the ammo to explode inside, blowing the turret off it's hull and knocking the forward section out of joint.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeirofGojira91
Yes quite so. You are right. At 2,000 yards the Tigers and Panther had problems penetrating IS-2 but at 1,000 yards no problem.
For the IS-2, their weak optics/gun accuracy meant they were unlikely to even hit a German tank at 1,000 yards. None of the Tigers at Targu Frumos were even hit by the IS-2.
So even though the IS-2 gun was powerful, at long range it's accuracy was ineffective against enemy tanks.
Tigers and Panthers would best IS-2s at long range.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 But again the JS-2's tankers were not up to scratch by German tanker's standards as well. The JS-2's gun as we know it was not ideal to knock German tanks; but rather it was expected IF the JS-2 had to engage German heavies then the 122mm was expected to be used in a breakthrough operation; the JS-2 from what I recall was better at High Explosive work - the 122mm shell as slow as it is I'll bet a German MG-42 nest should start praying it doesn't strike them
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@LaughingGravy31 Because our colleage Dreachon stated the JS-2's shells weren't even good against concrete forts; instead it was excellent against field forts so say trenches, MG'42 nests, sandbags, improvised small bunkers - anything short of Panzerfaust, shrekts, Panthers and Tigers - the 122mm OF-471 was capable of smashing these defences and soft targets - must have been frightening to the Germans to be on a buisiness end of a 122mm gun aiming on you :S
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago