[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Panzerlied! (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/4/2011 8:27:53 PM EDT
|
Sure, the Russian T-34s could take out the earlier Panzer IV's - especially the ones which did not have the 75mm long gun.
And even the Panzer V "Panthers" - with their troublesome transmissions - didn't worry the T-34s too much. But the Panzer VI "Tiger" was another story. This 60 ton monster, with its fearsome 88mm main armament, could smack a Russian T-34 from a great distance and put a HURTIN' on it! The T-34s had to tread VERY carefully wherever the Tigers lurked! 
|
|
The Tiger also had troublesome transmissions.
And it was first used in tactical totally unsuitable terrain. What gave the Allies fits was the all around protection of 80 mm, which meant, even form the side it was hard to knock out. Still very bad armour layout, lots of vertical area ... at least slight angles at turret sides and hull sides would have helped. Hermann |
|
Quoted:
Sure, the Russian T-34s could take out the earlier Panzer IV's - especially the ones which did not have the 75mm long gun. And even the Panzer V "Panthers" - with their troublesome transmissions - didn't worry the T-34s too much. But the Panzer VI "Tiger" was another story. This 60 ton monster, with its fearsome 88mm main armament, could smack a Russian T-34 from a great distance and put a HURTIN' on it! The T-34s had to tread VERY carefully wherever the Tigers lurked!
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCKk9D4LmTIYou're comparing a medium tank to a heavy thank though. How did the Tiger stack up against this or this? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure, the Russian T-34s could take out the earlier Panzer IV's - especially the ones which did not have the 75mm long gun. And even the Panzer V "Panthers" - with their troublesome transmissions - didn't worry the T-34s too much. But the Panzer VI "Tiger" was another story. This 60 ton monster, with its fearsome 88mm main armament, could smack a Russian T-34 from a great distance and put a HURTIN' on it! The T-34s had to tread VERY carefully wherever the Tigers lurked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCKk9D4LmTIYou're comparing a medium tank to a heavy thank though. How did the Tiger stack up against this or this? Quite well if you believe Otto Carius who was in a position to know. |
|
Tigers in the mud is a very enlightening book. The superiority of most of the german crews, the power of the 88 and the quality and thickness of the armor stacked up very well according to the book. Quality optics helped too. Seemed they had troublesome transmissions and mechanical issues, but it was the right tank for the eastern front according to Carius. It also talks about his motivations and similar issues. Very enlightening read. In that same series there is a book called T34s which is a book of interviews with T34 crewman. It's alot more interesting to read than play the which tank is better on paper game.
If I recall correctly he thought the IS series was the first tank the Russians had to equal the Tiger. He grudgingly respected the Russians, none to little for the Americans. All that said his war was fought on the eastern front. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
maybe I've watched too many WW2 movies but seeing an Iron Cross on a german soldier's uniform directly means brass balls to me. |
|
Quoted:
Tigers in the mud is a very enlightening book. The superiority of most of the german crews, the power of the 88 and the quality and thickness of the armor stacked up very well according to the book. Quality optics helped too. Seemed they had troublesome transmissions and mechanical issues, but it was the right tank for the eastern front according to Carius. It also talks about his motivations and similar issues. Very enlightening read. In that same series there is a book called T34s which is a book of interviews with T34 crewman. It's alot more interesting to read than play the which tank is better on paper game. If I recall correctly he thought the IS series was the first tank the Russians had to equal the Tiger. He grudgingly respected the Russians, none to little for the Americans. All that said his war was fought on the eastern front. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The quality of German tank crews cannot be overstated. The individual crew skills, leadership, and technical superiority of German armor in WWII has been the subject of study since the end of the war. What German armor accomplished on the Ost Front was nothing less than the "triumph of will" whether Hitler recognized it or not. The sacrifices that were made against impossible odds, the dedication and fighting elan demonstrated while slowing the advance of Soviet forces couldn't have been matched by very many. |
|
Quoted:
Sorry to ruin your day, but these bastards killed millions of innocent people. Oh yea, they lost. Mass production of American and Russian tanks ran right through them. Air power did not hurt either. I wish people would quit glorifying the huns. Our "Allies" the Russians did a lot worse, production capacity ultimately did win the war though. A lot of Americans died for no other reason than those who chose which equipment got used made bad choices. Sherman Vs. Firefly for instance or the refusal to let fighters use drop tanks earlier in the war. |
|
Quoted: Sorry to ruin your day, but these bastards killed millions of innocent people. Oh yea, they lost. Mass production of American and Russian tanks ran right through them. Air power did not hurt either. I wish people would quit glorifying the huns. inb4 our resident Elizabeth II kool-aid drinker chimes in and tells us it was actually the Battle of Britain that won the war.  |
| The Panther had a better gun than the Tiger I did. And the Germans got their asses kicked by the Russians period. Their own faulty strategy and planning doomed them from 1942 onward. They lost control of the air and consequently got pounded by overwhelming numbers on the ground and from the air ending in an all out rape fest of the Nazis. |
|
Quoted:
Sorry to ruin your day, but these bastards killed millions of innocent people. Oh yea, they lost. Mass production of American and Russian tanks ran right through them. Air power did not hurt either. I wish people would quit glorifying the huns. 
We killed our share of innocent people through the course of WWII also, if you're just going to trot that out. There's nothing wrong with being able to respect the qualities of your foe. Get off your fucking high horse. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tigers in the mud is a very enlightening book. The superiority of most of the german crews, the power of the 88 and the quality and thickness of the armor stacked up very well according to the book. Quality optics helped too. Seemed they had troublesome transmissions and mechanical issues, but it was the right tank for the eastern front according to Carius. It also talks about his motivations and similar issues. Very enlightening read. In that same series there is a book called T34s which is a book of interviews with T34 crewman. It's alot more interesting to read than play the which tank is better on paper game. If I recall correctly he thought the IS series was the first tank the Russians had to equal the Tiger. He grudgingly respected the Russians, none to little for the Americans. All that said his war was fought on the eastern front. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The quality of German tank crews cannot be overstated. The individual crew skills, leadership, and technical superiority of German armor in WWII has been the subject of study since the end of the war. What German armor accomplished on the Ost Front was nothing less than the "triumph of will" whether Hitler recognized it or not. The sacrifices that were made against impossible odds, the dedication and fighting elan demonstrated while slowing the advance of Soviet forces couldn't have been matched by very many. Early in the war is the key phrase. From 1942 onward they made a blundering mess of themselves and pretty much got their asses kicked because of their faulty tactics, machines, and over engineered delicate "technical supriorirty". Individual crew skills pretty much dissappeared and it was a fighting retreat all the way back to Berlin by both sides. Kursk was a massive failure and blunder of the utmost stupidity, and right after Stalingrad.... As for the biggest tank battle of the western front at the Battle of Arracourt, the Allies completely and utterly annihilated the so called technical superiority of the Germans. It wasn't even close. The Military channel and History channel do a great job in making the German war machine something they were not. When horse pulled carts is your main mode of supplies and transportation, you're still using JU87s and 109's from a decade earlier, and you build machines that are next to impossible to quickly service/repair and return back to the battlefield, that means you have no forethought into real war planning. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Sorry to ruin your day, but these bastards killed millions of innocent people. Oh yea, they lost. Mass production of American and Russian tanks ran right through them. Air power did not hurt either. I wish people would quit glorifying the huns. We killed our share of innocent people through the course of WWII also, if you're just going to trot that out. There's nothing wrong with being able to respect the qualities of your foe. Get off your fucking high horse. and yeah get off your high horse, JohnnyP.
|
|
Quoted:
Sorry to ruin your day, but these bastards killed millions of innocent people. Oh yea, they lost. Mass production of American and Russian tanks ran right through them. Air power did not hurt either. I wish people would quit glorifying the huns. Why don't you run along and find another thread to play in. Men are talking here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to ruin your day, but these bastards killed millions of innocent people. Oh yea, they lost. Mass production of American and Russian tanks ran right through them. Air power did not hurt either. I wish people would quit glorifying the huns. inb4 our resident Elizabeth II kool-aid drinker chimes in and tells us it was actually the Battle of Britain that won the war. To be fair, and having no idea who "our resident Elizabeth II kool-aid drinker" is, a loss during the Battle of Britain would have made the eventual Allied victory a much more questionable outcome. Thank god for Polish pilots. |
|
Quoted:
Tigers in the mud is a very enlightening book. The superiority of most of the german crews, the power of the 88 and the quality and thickness of the armor stacked up very well according to the book. Quality optics helped too. Seemed they had troublesome transmissions and mechanical issues, but it was the right tank for the eastern front according to Carius. It also talks about his motivations and similar issues. Very enlightening read. In that same series there is a book called T34s which is a book of interviews with T34 crewman. It's alot more interesting to read than play the which tank is better on paper game. If I recall correctly he thought the IS series was the first tank the Russians had to equal the Tiger. He grudgingly respected the Russians, none to little for the Americans. All that said his war was fought on the eastern front. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I am reading TIGERS IN THE MUD right now, which is how I got to thinking about this in the first place. Highly recommended book for anyone with an interest. |
|
Quoted:
The Panther had a better gun than the Tiger I did. And the Germans got their asses kicked by the Russians period. Their own faulty strategy and planning doomed them from 1942 onward. They lost control of the air and consequently got pounded by overwhelming numbers on the ground and from the air ending in an all out rape fest of the Nazis. True, the Panther's 75mm had better anti tank properties, as the Russians quickly learned. "Enemy introduced new tank ! Shape roughly similar to ‘Tridsatchedverka’ (T-34). Tank is heavily armored, weight is est. 40-50 tons. Armament is probably 88mm AA gun. We had losses at combat ranges beyond 2,000m. …" Soviet radio message from July 8th of 1943. But the Tiger 1 was still a beast. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
 I was waiting for you to show up! The Tiger 1 has been my favorite tank for as long as I can remember. I became acquainted with it (and World War II in general) as a child from reading Sgt. Rock comics in the '60s. I also read Haunted Tank/ G.I. Combat with Lt. Jeb Stuart and SGT. FURY and his HOWLING COMMANDOS and all the other war comics of the era. 
I am not a fan of the Nazis but there is no denying the average German soldier was a hell of a warrior. 
|
|
Holy track tension batman. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was waiting for you to show up! The Tiger 1 has been my favorite tank for as long as I can remember. I became acquainted with it (and World War II in general) as a child from reading Sgt. Rock comics in the '60s. I also read Haunted Tank/ G.I. Combat with Lt. Jeb Stuart and SGT. FURY and his HOWLING COMMANDOS and all the other war comics of the era.
I am not a fan of the Nazis but there is no denying the average German soldier was a hell of a warrior. No worries mate. No "fan" of the Nazis here either - I condemn them to hell, along with the communists (who have killed a lot more innocent people). Most of us here get that we can admire the hardware and fighting skill of a people without endorsing a regime though. Carry on. |
|
Is that German lettering on the turret? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to ruin your day, but these bastards killed millions of innocent people. Oh yea, they lost. Mass production of American and Russian tanks ran right through them. Air power did not hurt either. I wish people would quit glorifying the huns.
We killed our share of innocent people through the course of WWII also, if you're just going to trot that out. There's nothing wrong with being able to respect the qualities of your foe. Get off your fucking high horse. I hope you realize there is a vast difference between collateral damage from attacks on legitimate military or strategic targets, and intentional and organized extermination of specific populations. There is a separation of the Wehrmacht from the Nazis, but the fact is that Hitler could never have survived without the army. I will gladly look down upon the Nazis from my high horse, and piss on their collective faces. |
|
Quoted:
I hope you realize there is a vast difference between collateral damage from attacks on legitimate military or strategic targets, and intentional and organized extermination of specific populations. There is a separation of the Wehrmacht from the Nazis, but the fact is that Hitler could never have survived without the army. I will gladly look down upon the Nazis from my high horse, and piss on their collective faces. You realize that the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany came, in part, as a direct result of the crushing policies of the WW I Allies? Including reparations that were finally paid off only one year and two days ago..... ETA: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1004/Germany-finishes-paying-WWI-reparations-ending-century-of-guilt |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tigers in the mud is a very enlightening book. The superiority of most of the german crews, the power of the 88 and the quality and thickness of the armor stacked up very well according to the book. Quality optics helped too. Seemed they had troublesome transmissions and mechanical issues, but it was the right tank for the eastern front according to Carius. It also talks about his motivations and similar issues. Very enlightening read. In that same series there is a book called T34s which is a book of interviews with T34 crewman. It's alot more interesting to read than play the which tank is better on paper game. If I recall correctly he thought the IS series was the first tank the Russians had to equal the Tiger. He grudgingly respected the Russians, none to little for the Americans. All that said his war was fought on the eastern front. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The quality of German tank crews cannot be overstated. The individual crew skills, leadership, and technical superiority of German armor in WWII has been the subject of study since the end of the war. What German armor accomplished on the Ost Front was nothing less than the "triumph of will" whether Hitler recognized it or not. The sacrifices that were made against impossible odds, the dedication and fighting elan demonstrated while slowing the advance of Soviet forces couldn't have been matched by very many. Early in the war is the key phrase. From 1942 onward they made a blundering mess of themselves and pretty much got their asses kicked because of their faulty tactics, machines, and over engineered delicate "technical supriorirty". Individual crew skills pretty much dissappeared and it was a fighting retreat all the way back to Berlin by both sides. Kursk was a massive failure and blunder of the utmost stupidity, and right after Stalingrad.... As for the biggest tank battle of the western front at the Battle of Arracourt, the Allies completely and utterly annihilated the so called technical superiority of the Germans. It wasn't even close. The Military channel and History channel do a great job in making the German war machine something they were not. When horse pulled carts is your main mode of supplies and transportation, you're still using JU87s and 109's from a decade earlier, and you build machines that are next to impossible to quickly service/repair and return back to the battlefield, that means you have no forethought into real war planning. For all that the Wehrmacht was engaged in the longest fighting withdraw in the history of modern warfare, and consistently outfought the Russians with the remnants of units that were often at less than 50% strength. The disconnect between the maps that Hitler studied at his HQ with his various units represented across the vastness of the USSR and what was actually in the field capable of fighting was immense. The superiority of German armor is without question when compared to tanks fielded by the allies to include the crude but effective T-34 series and especially the M4 Sherman. That they were rushed into production before the technical deficiencies were addressed-as was the case of the Panther-does not take away from the qualities that made them formidable opponents on the battlefield, especially when they were later improved upon based on combat experience. The T-34/76 was such a shock at the time because it's thick, sloped armor and main gun were so much more capable than anything the Germans had anticipated despite the abysmal crew layout. To quote Wiki, "Only the poor level of Soviet crew training, the ineptitude of Soviet commanders, mechanical teething troubles and sparse distribution prevented the T-34 from achieving greater success." The Germans gave the Soviets a shock at Kursk, even if "Unternehmen Zitadelle" failed to meet its mission objectives. German armor gave better than it got, but unlike the Soviets, the losses suffered in the operation could not be recovered from. Not all German armor in the fight consisted of Tiger Is, Tiger IIs and Panthers either, as there were a large number of tank destroyer types such as the StuG IIIs and IVs, not to mention the up-gunned captured hulls that were pressed into service like the StuG 38. Up-gunned but more lightly armored PzKpfw IVs were made up until April 1945, and PzKpfw Is, IIs, and IIIs were retained right up until the end as well, even if not in the original roles they began with-so short of armor were the Germans that they were reluctant to scrap any vehicle type that could be pressed into service elsewhere. Not unnoticed, even the OKH recognized the logistical challenges of supporting so many different types of vehicle types. If Albert Speer had been appointed to Minister of Armaments earlier, he might have had enough time to rationalize war production even further. IIRC, 1945 saw some of the highest production output for war material despite the strategic bombing against Germany that took place day and night. The lack of any sense of urgency at various ordnance plants making weapons for the war effort until it was too late to make any difference in the outcome of the war was inexcusable. The lack of adequate logistical support for units in contact with the enemy was the most fatal shortcoming of the German war effort in the East. That German Soldiers literally starved to death while standing their posts in Stalingrad speaks volumes for how unprepared Germany was to provide for the most basic of requirements to allow their troops to fight and win. In this light, the shortages of adequate numbers of weapons such as AFVs capable of effectively fighting against Soviet medium and later heavy tanks is almost secondary no matter how fundamental the necessity. Regardless, the point of studying how Germany fought WWII is to learn how quality of personnel and technically superior equipment influences the outcome of battles with numerically superior forces. |
|
http://i488.photobucket.com/albums/rr244/Jackson_McGuire/germansherman.jpg
I thought their standards were a bit higher than this....
|
|
Quoted:
http://i488.photobucket.com/albums/rr244/Jackson_McGuire/germansherman.jpg I thought their standards were a bit higher than this.... They were really, really desperate. Although they were intrigued by the stabilization system on the M4 and attempted to employ it on their own tanks at one point. |
|
The Tiger had the same problems as many other German tanks - Poor transmission and quickly deteriorating material quality.
When you look at the number of tanks built by the US and Russia , it makes what Germany did even more impressive with the relatively few numbers they had. 1347 tiger 1s , 6000 Panthers versus 50,000 M4 Shermans, 6500 M3 Lees and 84,000 T34s. The tiger had amazing range all things considered, only our Pershing would outrange it, however it was MUCH too late in the war. Pershings were used for quite some time after ww2 along with T34s and IS2s (IS2s were used against m48 Pattons by the Israelis with very good success). |
|
Quoted:
Is that German lettering on the turret? Yep |
|
Quoted:
The Tiger had the same problems as many other German tanks - Poor transmission and quickly deteriorating material quality. When you look at the number of tanks built by the US and Russia , it makes what Germany did even more impressive with the relatively few numbers they had. 1347 tiger 1s , 6000 Panthers versus 50,000 M4 Shermans, 6500 M3 Lees and 84,000 T34s. The tiger had amazing range all things considered, only our Pershing would outrange it, however it was MUCH too late in the war. Pershings were used for quite some time after ww2 along with T34s and IS2s (IS2s were used against m48 Pattons by the Israelis with very good success). Both the Tiger I and II were underpowered. They and other German AFVs would gain weight during the design and development stage, and power output would not be adjusted accordingly. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Tiger had the same problems as many other German tanks - Poor transmission and quickly deteriorating material quality. When you look at the number of tanks built by the US and Russia , it makes what Germany did even more impressive with the relatively few numbers they had. 1347 tiger 1s , 6000 Panthers versus 50,000 M4 Shermans, 6500 M3 Lees and 84,000 T34s. The tiger had amazing range all things considered, only our Pershing would outrange it, however it was MUCH too late in the war. Pershings were used for quite some time after ww2 along with T34s and IS2s (IS2s were used against m48 Pattons by the Israelis with very good success). Both the Tiger I and II were underpowered. They and other German AFVs would gain weight during the design and development stage, and power output would not be adjusted accordingly. Yes , however I was also in the understanding that the quality of iron ore that Germany was utilizing after 1942 started to degrade rapidly as well, adding to the transmission problems. Also from my understanding, more tigers were lost due to faulty transmission than enemy fire. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that German lettering on the turret? Yep Translated, "Bestimmt Für OKW" it means "Intended for Oberkommando der Wehrmacht", or more fully "Intended for Supreme Command of the Armed Forces"-most likely their Gruppe G "Technische Arbeitsmittel", or "technical equipment" according to Wiki. |
|
Quoted:
Early in the war is the key phrase. From 1942 onward they made a blundering mess of themselves and pretty much got their asses kicked because of their faulty tactics, machines, and over engineered delicate "technical supriorirty". Individual crew skills pretty much dissappeared and it was a fighting retreat all the way back to Berlin by both sides. Kursk was a massive failure and blunder of the utmost stupidity, and right after Stalingrad.... As for the biggest tank battle of the western front at the Battle of Arracourt, the Allies completely and utterly annihilated the so called technical superiority of the Germans. It wasn't even close. The Military channel and History channel do a great job in making the German war machine something they were not. When horse pulled carts is your main mode of supplies and transportation, you're still using JU87s and 109's from a decade earlier, and you build machines that are next to impossible to quickly service/repair and return back to the battlefield, that means you have no forethought into real war planning. No, the German crew quality remained high well into the war, even in '45 when they were fighting on German soil. The Germans had excellent tactics and in many respects superb quality, but they had bad stratigic planning and worse logistical planning. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Tiger had the same problems as many other German tanks - Poor transmission and quickly deteriorating material quality. When you look at the number of tanks built by the US and Russia , it makes what Germany did even more impressive with the relatively few numbers they had. 1347 tiger 1s , 6000 Panthers versus 50,000 M4 Shermans, 6500 M3 Lees and 84,000 T34s. The tiger had amazing range all things considered, only our Pershing would outrange it, however it was MUCH too late in the war. Pershings were used for quite some time after ww2 along with T34s and IS2s (IS2s were used against m48 Pattons by the Israelis with very good success). Both the Tiger I and II were underpowered. They and other German AFVs would gain weight during the design and development stage, and power output would not be adjusted accordingly. Yes , however I was also in the understanding that the quality of iron ore that Germany was utilizing after 1942 started to degrade rapidly as well, adding to the transmission problems. Also from my understanding, more tigers were lost due to faulty transmission than enemy fire. There is probably an element of truth to the assertion that quality of steel declined as the war progressed. German small arms suffered from that as well (as did the Japs) towards the end of the war. As an aside, I don't know if the steel was of worse quality, but the Mosin Nagant rifles I looked at last Friday at Impact Guns here in Boise were made in '43 and the receivers looked like they were machined with a bench grinder. The volume of production required by respective ordnance departments came at the cost of quality in more than a few nations-Britain, Germany, Imperial Japan, and the USSR all took shortcuts. The USA had the luxury of keeping material quality at a relatively high standard as far as I know. Anyhow, I've read from various sources that the early Panther was subject to fire due to a defect in the engine. Not sure about the Tiger I. |
I've been in this tank, when the curator Mr. Lemons gave me a tour back in '99 or so. It was one of the highlights of my career as a tanker.
ETA: See the StuG III next to it on the right side of the pic? That was pulled out of swamp somewhere in the former USSR and traded for a UH-1 helo by the museum. It was in remarkable shape. Still had very low miles and hours on it from rebuild when it was abandoned. There's still shrapnel sitting loose there on hull if you can believe that. IIRC, the hull cracked the after several attempts over the years to recover it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that German lettering on the turret? Yep Sooooo....apparently at least one IS-2 was owned by the Germans.... Damn, I had to wait days to post that punchline. 
|