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

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1317
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 15 Apr 2018 02:42

Pershing was a Tiger tank, super Pershing was a Tiger II.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2108
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Apr 2018 05:55

WEISWEILER wrote:Makes sense. Then again, they could 'copy' a captured Tiger. I know, simply said but, the technology didn't have to be invented from scratch anymore. It's just that you hear over and over that the Tiger was a terror and that even a few of them could be enough to change the way a battle developed.
No, they could not 'copy' it...they did not have the ability to 'copy' the Maybach HL230P45 and had enough trouble of their own developing and then manufacturing their 500 HP Ford G-series. There simply wasn't much development experience in such engines, especially given prewar all engine development was based upon lightweight radials. Worse, it took quite a while to develop the engine production capacity...one reason why ford stopped building the M4A3 was that Highland Park was turned over almost entirely to engine production, which reached 1,287 for the month finally in November 1944. General Motors, Allison, and Continental all began development of high output engines, but in late 1943 and the earliest ready were in early 1945, but only in small numbers. Eventually, Continental perfected the superb linked to the Crossdrive transmission, but that was 1948...
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

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

Post by WEISWEILER » 15 Apr 2018 10:41

Paul Lakowski wrote:Pershing was a Tiger tank, super Pershing was a Tiger II.

It was almost 1945 (22 December 1944), when the first T26E3 tanks were ordered to be deployed to Europe.

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

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

Post by WEISWEILER » 15 Apr 2018 10:54

Richard Anderson tnx for your post. I understand a copy was hard to make.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5708
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Apr 2018 11:40

The Tiger was first encountered by the western Allies in 1943 Tunisia then Sicily and Italy. Where can we find the clamour of those who 'wanted Tigers, for their own protection' in 1943.
If better armour was the ideal why were British tankers not simply demanding more of the Churchills that had thicker armour than a Tiger?

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

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

Post by WEISWEILER » 15 Apr 2018 12:16

Churchills were infantry tanks. Heavy, yes, but extremely slow (15 mph).

I don't know if there are documents saying that tank crews wished to be in a Tiger or the like, but if a certain vehicle strikes you into fear, I think it's only natural to be wishing you had a similar tank... to fight it.

When I say copy their own 'tiger' it's not only about the armour, but the combination of protection, firepower and speed.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5708
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Apr 2018 13:18

WEISWEILER wrote:, but if a certain vehicle strikes you into fear, I think it's only natural to be wishing you had a similar tank... to fight it.
So where, in 1943, can you see this fear being expressed?
For example accounts where Allied tankers say things like. 'I was quite happy to take on a Pz IV and never once felt threatened but as soon as I saw A Tiger I wanted to run away'
Specific instances than can be checked.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2108
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Apr 2018 16:01

WEISWEILER wrote: It was almost 1945 (22 December 1944), when the first T26E3 tanks were ordered to be deployed to Europe.
Actually, it was 10 October 1944 when that decision was made. (History of the Medium Tank T20 Series, pp. 111, 113-116.)
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2029
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

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

Post by Sheldrake » 15 Apr 2018 17:10

WEISWEILER wrote:Churchills were infantry tanks. Heavy, yes, but extremely slow (15 mph).

I don't know if there are documents saying that tank crews wished to be in a Tiger or the like, but if a certain vehicle strikes you into fear, I think it's only natural to be wishing you had a similar tank... to fight it.

When I say copy their own 'tiger' it's not only about the armour, but the combination of protection, firepower and speed.
Oh did someone mention Churchill? Let me continue from Hansard...
I am afraid all this must be causing pain and sorrow to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

§Mr. Stokes (Ipswich) That is not the whole story.
§The Prime Minister The hon. Member had better pull himself together, because there is worse to come. The notorious Churchill tank, the most thick-skinned weapon in Europe, also won commendation. This tank was originally conceived in 1940, for fighting in the lanes and in the enclosed country of this Island, and in spite of every form of abuse as well as the difficulty inherent upon haste in design and construction, it is now once again coming into its own as it did for a short while in Northern Tunisia in 1942. It is coming into its own because the conditions of the war in France and in parts of Italy in which we are now fighting are extremely suitable to its climbing and manoeuvrable qualities and heavy armour.
Mr Stokes was Richard Stokes the Mp fpr Ipswich an independently minded Labour MP (think Jeremy Corbyn pre leadership or Frank Field) Several armoured Corps offciers had raised the inadequacy of British armour with him and Churchill's statement was aimed at him. Stokes has a serious military connection. His uncle Leslie invented the stokes mortar, the precursor to modern infantry mortars.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2029
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

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

Post by Sheldrake » 15 Apr 2018 17:18

WEISWEILER wrote:Churchills were infantry tanks. Heavy, yes, but extremely slow (15 mph).

I don't know if there are documents saying that tank crews wished to be in a Tiger or the like, but if a certain vehicle strikes you into fear, I think it's only natural to be wishing you had a similar tank... to fight it.

When I say copy their own 'tiger' it's not only about the armour, but the combination of protection, firepower and speed.
Oh did someone mention Churchill? Let me continue from Hansard...
I am afraid all this must be causing pain and sorrow to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

§Mr. Stokes (Ipswich) That is not the whole story.
§The Prime Minister The hon. Member had better pull himself together, because there is worse to come. The notorious Churchill tank, the most thick-skinned weapon in Europe, also won commendation. This tank was originally conceived in 1940, for fighting in the lanes and in the enclosed country of this Island, and in spite of every form of abuse as well as the difficulty inherent upon haste in design and construction, it is now once again coming into its own as it did for a short while in Northern Tunisia in 1942. It is coming into its own because the conditions of the war in France and in parts of Italy in which we are now fighting are extremely suitable to its climbing and manoeuvrable qualities and heavy armour.
Mr Stokes was Richard Stokes the Mp for Ipswich an independently minded Labour MP (think Jeremy Corbyn pre leadership or Frank Field) Several armoured Corps offciers had raised the inadequacy of British armour with him and Churchill's statement was aimed at him. Stokes has a serious military connection. His uncle Leslie invented the stokes mortar, the precursor to modern infantry mortars.

Churchill went on to say
But there is one more general feature which has emerged in the fighting in Normandy to which I must draw the attention of the House. No new tank weapon or type of ammunition has been employed by the enemy. They have brought out nothing new so far, whereas we have put into operation for the first time in these operations the Sherman tank mounting the 17-pounder, the latest Churchill tank, the new Cromwell tank and we have also a number of interesting variants of very great ingenuity, which I cannot tell the House about to-day, because we do not know whether the enemy have had an 1472 opportunity of testing them and tasting them.
That is a thought. Instead of building a single heavy tank to support assaults on fortified positions The British spent their development ingenuity building families of specialist assault equipment : amphibious M4 shermans, AVRE churchill's (much more versatile than the sturm tiger) Mine clearing flails, bridgelayers, heavily armoured APCs, searchlight tanks. Not as macho as the Tiger,but far more important to winning the war.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1317
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 15 Apr 2018 19:48

Richard Anderson wrote:
WEISWEILER wrote: It was almost 1945 (22 December 1944), when the first T26E3 tanks were ordered to be deployed to Europe.
Actually, it was 10 October 1944 when that decision was made. (History of the Medium Tank T20 Series, pp. 111, 113-116.)
Then its production could be accelerated if push came to shove.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2108
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Apr 2018 20:50

Paul Lakowski wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
WEISWEILER wrote: It was almost 1945 (22 December 1944), when the first T26E3 tanks were ordered to be deployed to Europe.
Actually, it was 10 October 1944 when that decision was made. (History of the Medium Tank T20 Series, pp. 111, 113-116.)
Then its production could be accelerated if push came to shove.
No.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
WEISWEILER
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: 07 Sep 2007 17:19

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

Post by WEISWEILER » 15 Apr 2018 22:50

"We were hit 30 times and our Tiger was still undamaged."

"In one engagement of six hours a Tiger was hit 227 times, and despite having it wheels, tracks and transmission damaged, it managed to crawl another 40 miles across country."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFgg7kY2ILE

MLW
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 04:35
Location: Maryland

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

Post by MLW » 15 Apr 2018 23:54

That video does a good job of adding the the myth of the Tiger I. Contrary to popular belief, other than the Wittman's brief moment of glory, the Tiger I played a minimal role on the Western Front. Their numbers were too small and their accomplishments were insignificant and, in general, the Tiger I's performance in 1944 was mediocre at best.

bam
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 22:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

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

Post by bam » 16 Apr 2018 00:54

It's quite easy to make the case that the tiger was a dead end, tho loved by its Crews. What the allies needed was a decent assault tank, hence the hurried creation of the M4A3E2 Jumbo, uparmoured Sherman with 150mm armor.
Maybe we should be asking why the western allies never tried fielding their own Stug... IMHO the stug was the best German afv. In terms of its resource cost to build, its costs to run and maintain, and importantly its kill ratio (&what it achieved) , it was the outstanding vehicle of the war.
For the allies who needed lighter vehicles to fit their mobile multi front war, it woulda been a good pick. It was better at breaking through heavy AT defences than an equivalent weight tank, which would be of great benefit to the allies in 1944 campaigns, where we were assaulting heavily defended lines.
The divisions who advanced the most at Kursk, against the heaviest defensive lines, were the three SS divs & 11th PzD, who did so by putting their stugs up front with medium tanks flanking. 11th PzD's neighbour Gross Deutschland had stugs but reversed their role, using them on the flanks with the tanks in front. GD performed terribly at Kursk, as did the other PzD in that Corps, 3rdPz, who didn't have any stugs.
VIVA STUG!

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