Anyone watch the History channels program on the Tiger Tank?

[SUBMAN1]

That was a good Heavy Metal episode! Records of one Tiger taking over 200 hits from T-34's and it still limped back home over 40 miles away.

-S

[A Very Super Market]

No, I didn't watch it, but its a wonder it even got to the battle!

Tigers were notorious for breaking down, and more of them were lost to mechanical failure than enemy tanks! And somehow I doubt that the Soviets didn't manage to get one T-34 to flank and shoot his rear. Ah well, maybe it got lucky.

[Hylander_1314]

The King Tiger was the one with the most mechanical problems. The Tiger itself was something to behold. There weren't too many of them built, around 1,200 total production, but the legend of it's durability and the respect it commanded from the US Armoured forces is commendable. The guys driving the Shermans were told not to take on the Tiger or Panther tanks unless they outnumbered them 5 to 1.

[Fincuan]

No doubt some of the History Channel stuff is visually great, but I have a hard time taking them seriously after watching a couple of episodes of "Dofights"

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Fincuan

No doubt some of the History Channel stuff is visually great, but I have a hard time taking them seriously after watching a couple of episodes of "Dofights"

Any Documentary with the Hollywood flavour I dont watch...

-narrated by some deep trailer voice
-too much CGI that replaces footage
-re-enacting scenes, then I go watch a movie if I want to see that kind of stuff.

HunterICX

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Any Documentary with the Hollywood flavour I dont watch...

-narrated by some deep trailer voice
-too much CGI that replaces footage
-re-enacting scenes, then I go watch a movie if I want to see that kind of stuff.

HunterICX

I stopped taking these "patriotic" documentaries seriously for a looooooong time already. These imported shows usually are aired in the middle of the night on second rate channels over here. They do have some entertainment value, though.

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

No, I didn't watch it, but its a wonder it even got to the battle!

Tigers were notorious for breaking down, and more of them were lost to mechanical failure than enemy tanks! And somehow I doubt that the Soviets didn't manage to get one T-34 to flank and shoot his rear. Ah well, maybe it got lucky.

That is not entirely correct. Mechanical faults were sorted out over the course of the production run, the same as with the Panther.
The later models were much improved over their earlier designs. Both never got to the same levels of reliability as the Shermans, but they were certainly better then their reputation suggest. Later on the tanks biggest flaws lay in a detoriation of armor quality due to wartime material shortages.

The Tiger certainly was one heck of a tank, it's reputation amongst its oponents well founded. Going for quality instead of quantity was the only way Germany had against the huge material advantages the allies had.

[A Very Super Market]

Well yes, perhaps I have a rather low view of the Tiger. But I never understood why they didn't slope its armour. The Panther was more maneuverable, and could escape those 5 Shermans after it because it was so much lighter. The Tiger weighed to much to have that luxury, and though it could definitely take punishment, it wouldn't be able to take the P-47s the Shermans would inevitably radio in.

[AntEater]

The Tiger was a way earlier design than the Panther, first Tigers were in use in Summer of 1942, in very limited numbers though.
The design was much older as well.
Also, Tiger and Panther do not really compare.
Tiger was never intended to be a standard tank, rather a special weapon for seperate battalions and companies, mostly at army level.
Some divisions (Großdeutschland and serveral Waffen-SS) had organic Tiger companies, but that was the exception.
Panthers were designed as standard tanks for the Panzer Divisions.
Also, one workaround was the "dinner time" doctrine, meaning that in a defensive position, you positioned your Tiger in such a way that the 11 or 1 o'Clock position pointed towards the enemy.
The armor was much more effective that way.

Second, Shermans could not "radio in" anything.
If somebody could, it was the forward air controller, who most likely was NOT sitting in a tank.
In WW2, the forward air controller was still a rarity and even if they were there, accuracy was not so great.
Airpower had a great effect in WW2, but taking out point targets was something relatively rare.
The "disable that single Tiger tank there and there" kind of thing simply did not happen.

[August]

Originally Posted by AntEater

Airpower had a great effect in WW2, but taking out point targets was something relatively rare.
The "disable that single Tiger tank there and there" kind of thing simply did not happen.

You're right. Most of the Tigers destroyed by air power were attacked as they traveled to and from the battlefield by roaming aircraft.

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Well yes, perhaps I have a rather low view of the Tiger. But I never understood why they didn't slope its armour. The Panther was more maneuverable, and could escape those 5 Shermans after it because it was so much lighter. The Tiger weighed to much to have that luxury, and though it could definitely take punishment, it wouldn't be able to take the P-47s the Shermans would inevitably radio in.

The Panther had the benefit of beeing influenced by captured russian T34s during it's development, the Tiger was not that lucky. That said, it's a bit unfair to have a go at the Tiger for that anyways, as by far most tanks used in WW2 didn't use sloped armor.

Nevertheless it's armor was up to the task, even if this was achieved by the most brutal method in just adding more and more armor. The Tiger was not the most modern tank by a wide shot, but it was a feared and very effective tank given the right circumstances.

Btw, airpower in regards to tank kills in WW2 is grossly overestimated. British tests conducted of tank remains in Normandy and Falaise showed a roughly 5% hit percentage by rockets and bombs. Aircraft nevertheless were responsible for the ineffectiveness of the german tanks by hitting logistics, soft targets transporting fuel and spare parts, making the panzers unserviceable. Many had to be abandonded without getting hit once.

[AntEater]

Killing tanks is generally not the same as shooting down aircraft.
In most circumstances, a plane shot down cannot be used again, except for maybe a belly landing with minor damage.
With tanks, it is very well possible to restore most knocked out tanks.
So basically, if you're in command of the field, you can recover most of the tanks you lost.
So if you lose territory, you lose more tanks than those that take the territory.
After repelling an attack on the retreat, german troops mostly tried blowing up the enemy tanks knocked out in front of their position.