Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Ulater
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Ulater » 16 Apr 2018 16:30

I can only repeat that which I said to you in the last thread where you were stalking me:

viewtopic.php?p=2128525#p2128525

To wit:

I am not interested in an endless back-and-forth. The reader can chose who to believe. Our conversation is over.


Oh boy, now I am stalking you. Trying to play the victim, are we?

It sound a quite a bit more than hollow, after "fanboys" and other more covert, toxic crap.

Yes, reader can decide for himself whether a tank that is hit 227 by a weapon system that can penetrate 50 mm of armor out to 150 meters, more than a dozen 45 mm and 57 mm shells and 11 hits from 76.2 mm gun, is an exceptional example.


Rather odd isn't it. Multiple kill claims are the norm in the East but as soon as the Germans hit Normandy the claims almost vanish. The 3 best known multiple-kill claims for Fey, Wittmann and Barkmann can be proved to be bogus.
As I said strange isn't it?


Eastern front = Western front

Amazing.


Also, the fact that claims arent accurate does not mean that nothing at all happened.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby critical mass » 16 Apr 2018 17:22

I´d argue that the largest obstacle in development were automotive issues.

there is nothing special on the amount and distribution of armor and armament carried on the large weight of the TIGER I. The powerplant is a considerable limitation, too. With 56t gross weight, the challange is to arrive at an acceaptable combination of road speed, cross country mobility, ease of controll & steering in addition to armor and armement.
The CHURCHILL had good armor, good steering and better cross country mobility than the TIGER at the expanse of a somehow under-average armament and sub-average road speed.
The KV-series had reasonable armement and armor, but inferior mobility and particularely steering qualities.

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby WEISWEILER » 16 Apr 2018 18:21

If choosing not to build a Tiger-like tank was due to its poor qualities and statistics, I’d like to see some world war sources who claim that.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1316
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Richard Anderson » 16 Apr 2018 18:57

WEISWEILER wrote:If choosing not to build a Tiger-like tank was due to its poor qualities and statistics, I’d like to see some world war sources who claim that.


The U.S. "Tiger-like" tanks were the Heavy Tank T1-series, the Assault Tank T14, and the Medium Tank M4A3E2 (the T20-series was developed as a medium tank).

After two and a half years of work, development of the T1-series effectively ended on 7 December 1942 when Lieutenant General Jacob Devers, Commanding General of the Armored Force, opined:

"Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor."

The T14 was intended in September 1941 as a joint British-American development to replace the then troubled Churchill tank. There was never much interest in the project on the American side for the same reasons the T1-series never went anywhere and when the Churchill's problems were rectified British interest evaporated as well.

Medium Tank M4A3E2 was developed as an interim, limited procurement project specifically to meet the requirement expressed by the ETOUSA for a heavy assault tank for use in NEPTUNE. Originally, it was intended the Medium Tank T26 would fill the request, but it was known they could not be ready until November 1944 at earliest. T14 was also off the table, since it required an entirely new hull casting, when facilities were already over-strained developing and producing the castings for the pilot T25 and T26 tanks. Thus, the decision to use the welded hull M4A3 with heavy applique armor to the front and side hull, with a heavier armored version of the T20/22/23 turret. However, the rosy assumption that it would be ready for the May-June invasion date was off by three months and twelve days...just about the same time the estimate for the arrival of the T26 was off by.

yantaylor
Member
Posts: 427
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby yantaylor » 16 Apr 2018 19:41

Imagine if the allies would have armed all their M4A3E2s with 17 pdrs!

Yan.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1316
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Richard Anderson » 16 Apr 2018 20:03

yantaylor wrote:Imagine if the allies would have armed all their M4A3E2s with 17 pdrs!

Yan.


Imagine all you wish, but it wasn't going to happen without either a redesign of the 17-pdr Mark IV or a redesign of the modified M62 Gun Mount as found in the turret of the M4A3E2. The Mark IV was designed to mate with the M34/M34A1 Gun Mount, which utilized trunnions and trunnion bearings mounted on the inner face of the Gun Mount, but the M62 Gun Mount utilized trunnions and trunnion bearings mounted on its outer face.

Never mind of course that the requirement for the M4A3E2 was for an assault tank intended to break through fixed fortifications, rather than as a pure antitank weapon, which is what the 17-pdr effectively was at the time. For a similar reason, they mounted the 75mm Gun M3 in the M4A3E2, even though the turret was originally designed for the 76mm...the 75mm Gun M3 was modified to fit it, rather than the other way around.

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby WEISWEILER » 16 Apr 2018 20:21

Richard Anderson wrote:
WEISWEILER wrote:If choosing not to build a Tiger-like tank was due to its poor qualities and statistics, I’d like to see some world war sources who claim that.


The U.S. "Tiger-like" tanks were the Heavy Tank T1-series, the Assault Tank T14, and the Medium Tank M4A3E2 (the T20-series was developed as a medium tank).


Tiger-like, except for the gun. 75 mm vs 88 mm...

And let's not forget days after the Landing of Normandy the Germans deployed King Tigers, with een 88 mm with much higer velocity as the original Tiger 1's 88.
Last edited by WEISWEILER on 16 Apr 2018 20:24, edited 1 time in total.

yantaylor
Member
Posts: 427
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby yantaylor » 16 Apr 2018 20:22

Ok, all right, how about the 105mm L/22 M4 Howitzer?
A nice addition for a assault tank.

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby WEISWEILER » 16 Apr 2018 20:36

Air superiority

I just did some extra reading and found that the Allies in France found that their air superiority compensated the lack of a true equal to the Tiger. Makes sense… Many German tanks including Tigers and Panthers were destroyed by aircraft.

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby WEISWEILER » 16 Apr 2018 20:38

yantaylor wrote:Ok, all right, how about the 105mm L/22 M4 Howitzer?
A nice addition for a assault tank.


Didn't have the same protection and were slower.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 4726
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Michael Kenny » 16 Apr 2018 20:49

WEISWEILER wrote:Many German tanks including Tigers and Panthers were destroyed by aircraft.


Not this one. Penetrated 7 times by AP shot
mar2018093 nm.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1316
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Richard Anderson » 16 Apr 2018 21:14

WEISWEILER wrote:Tiger-like, except for the gun. 75 mm vs 88 mm...


The Tiger was a schweres Panzerkampfwagen...a "heavy" tank, so those that are "Tiger-like" would be heavy tanks. The earliest development iteration, DW I, was Durchbruchwagen I, i.e. breakthrough vehicle I. It was designed to Break through fortified positions. All were armed with 75mm guns up to the penultimate designs, the VK36.01(H). And they were KwK37 at that. It was at the last moment that the VK45.01(P) and VK45.01(H) were armed with the 8.8cm KwK36...and even then Henschel also designed the VK45.01(H)H2 with a 7.5cm KwK42.

You asked "why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'? The Tiger was a heavy tank and it was intended for breaktrhough operations. The only tanks like that the Americans built were those I specified. What armament they chose for them really doesn't have much to do with it?

And let's not forget days after the Landing of Normandy the Germans deployed King Tigers, with een 88 mm with much higer velocity as the original Tiger 1's 88.


What would forgetting that - I hadn't BTW - have anything to do with the Allies building their own 'tiger'?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1316
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Richard Anderson » 16 Apr 2018 21:18

WEISWEILER wrote:Didn't have the same protection and were slower.


Now I'm really confused? Which were? The 105mm Howitzer M4 was utilized in the Medium Tank M4-series and in the Heavy Tank T26E2/M45. Yes, the Medium Tank M4 did not have a similar armor basis as the Tiger I (excepting the M4A3E2 of course), but it was faster (for whatever that is worth), while the T26E2/M45 had similar armor basis and was faster.
Last edited by Richard Anderson on 17 Apr 2018 01:29, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1316
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Richard Anderson » 16 Apr 2018 21:19

WEISWEILER wrote:Air superiority

I just did some extra reading and found that the Allies in France found that their air superiority compensated the lack of a true equal to the Tiger. Makes sense… Many German tanks including Tigers and Panthers were destroyed by aircraft.


Which extra reading was that? There is little evidence that many German tanks of any type were destroyed by aircraft in the West.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Why didn't the Allies build their own 'tiger'?

Postby Sheldrake » 16 Apr 2018 22:56

WEISWEILER wrote:It’s said that the British knew about the Tiger before it was actually deployed (in Russia). They knew this from decoded radio traffic. BUT by the time they faced the big tank in North-Africa, they still didn’t know much about how it looked.


It was not merely said, but documented by General Alan Brooke in his diary on 21st July 1941.He recorded meeting with Lord Beaverbrook (Minister of Supply) to produce anti-tank ammunition for 3" and 3.7" Heavy AA guns to deal with heavy German tanks. It did not matter what shape a Tiger took, AP rounds from a 3.7" AA would be an effective solution. By the time the British faced Tiger tanks in Tunisia, they had a new improved high velocity 3" gun the 17 pounder, which was more than adequate for the task.
Last edited by Sheldrake on 16 Apr 2018 23:06, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot], Ulater