Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Woody Wetter
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 02 Apr 2020, 06:38
Location: Estonia

Re: Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

#16

Post by Woody Wetter » 14 Apr 2020, 09:59

Repairing the Panzers: V. 1: German Tank Maintenance in World War 2 is very good book.

About 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion(Tiger 1) during 5 july - 21 september. Its noted normal wear and mechanical problems were only 1/3 of total problems. 2/3 issues were made by combat damage.

Example about final drives: 22 due wear and 40 due battle damage - on Tiger 1 tank final drive is vulnerable to even small caliber fire.

Being under artillery shelling basically destroys anything what is not protected with main armor.Like gun , optics , suspension , tracks , radiator , hatches , turret rotation mechanism , gun elevation system and so on.

Im not sure im allowed to copy paste full length of raport due copyright .

------

I personally think what ever trouble free working hours or kilometer driven tanks/spgs had after leaving factory is not important in battlefield. Because it was difficult to even survive 100-150hours(as most authors give lifetime for T-34 engine) without knocked out or some smaller combat damage what removes tank from frontline service.

Panzer Gunner: From my Native Canada to the German Ostfront and Back. In Action with 25th Panzer Regiment, 7th Panzer Division 1944-4 According to this book they had to blow up 2x Panzer 4 and 1x Jagdpanzer L70 due gun barrel and mounts damage . All these vehicles were in good running condition and needed no recovery. With new guns they would be put back in action.

Book does not tell was it impossible to get spare parts or to organize repairs - neither way maintenance system was not working what meant almost any damage meant total loss. It seems these vehicles were not cannibalized before blown up by crew - maybe there was no salvage crews and no transportation for acquired parts available.

tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Re: Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

#17

Post by tracks031 » 18 Apr 2020, 18:03

Regarding the Panther's reliability, here's a comment on a YouTube video that I thought was interesting. Its premise is that the Panther, once the teething issues were fixed, was by all means reliable tank for its weight class, comparable to tanks of a similar weight, and that continuing low rates of readyness were due to other factors that had little to do with the tank itself.

I'm not entirely sure I agree, based on what I've learned so far. My belief is that the final drives always remained too weak for the tanks weight, but that careful driving could compensate enough so that they could last an acceptable amount of km's driven, although at the cost of avoiding certain terrain, speeds etc.

Comment:
In regards to final drive and reliability:

"From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t).
Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective final drives in the Panzer IV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100.
General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilization of tank is simply impossible. The troops lose their confidence and, in some situation, abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem. He requests an increase in efforts for the final drive, since only this way can the problem be laid to rest. With the previously intense criticism of the engine and the final drive continually playing such a roll, it is welcome news to learn that the gearbox generally enjoys a good reputation." (Page 259 "Panther and its Variants" by Walther Speilberger).

According to Hartmut Knittels Book "Panzerfertigung im Zweiten Weltkrieg", the officials in the Nibelungen Werke (Panzer IV production) were clearly aware that they made use of final drives, which did not meet the quality standards. The german war industry was forced to experiment with the hardening processes during the steel production, because they were short on certain resources.
This could be the reason, why all late war german tanks (38t, Panzer III and IV, Panthers, Tigers) suffered from broken finald drives and bad bearings.

Were the final drives to weak or a flawed design. I dont think so:
Some people claim (including Spielberger), that the final drives of the Panther were bad by design, but the Centurion, which was 7 tons heavier, used the exact same type of final drives. Like many other tanks too, M26 for example. (Thx Roland).

Page 118 "The Centurion Tank" by Pat Ware
In the Chapter "Centurion Reference Data it says:

"Final Drive: double-reduction spur gear train; ratio 7.41:1 (MK 1 6,94:1)

Here is a picture out of Spielbergers Book: Final Drive with double spur reduction gear
https://i.imgur.com/dGktjYv.png

A Bergepanther drove 4200 km without new spareparts and 1000 km from 4200 km it was towing other panthers.
(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55.)

"There is an article on this subject in the June 1944 edition of Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (News sheet: Armoured troops):
Performance of a Panther-recovery tank driver.
Unteroffizier Krause of a Panther workshop platoon has up to 3 May 1944 driven his Panther recovery tank – Chassis No. 212132 – 4,200km without an engine
change or damage to the transmission, including the final drive units, gearbox and drive shaft. Approximately 1,000km of this was made towing a Panther tank.
The vehicle and engine are still in excellent condition and continue to be operational.(Panther - Thomas Anderson page 55).

"On Octover 28, 1944, the problem with the final drives seemed to be solved. The 654th reported that Jagdpanthers had already covered 400 to 500 km without damage."
(Heavy Jagdpanzer: Development - Production - Operations by Walter J. Spielberger, Hilary L. Doyle and Thomas L. Jentz. Schiffer Publishing Ltd page 24.)

The theory that the drivetrain of the Panther was overstressed, can explain why Panthers had big reliability problems.
But this theory can not explain, why large percentage of Panthers made it easily beyond those often claimed 150 km before the final drive gave up or other parts of the drivetrain broke down.
This theory can not explain why a Bergepanther drove 4200 km including the stress of towing another 45 Ton Panther without receiving any damage.
I think production quality, available resources and crew training were the true limiting factors.

In terms of reliability i think we are a bit hypercritical in the Panthers case. Lets compare it to other tanks:

The russians turned the war around with tank engines (The V2-series), which had a service life of only 300 to 400 km between 1941 until mid 1944 (T 34 vs Stug III by Steven Zaloga). Percentage of T34 tanks reaching 300km during factory trials (Zaloga, Page 14):

Apr 43 = 10.1%, May 43 = 23%, Jun 43 = 7.7%
This number slowly imporves to 79% in February 1944. But only 33% reached 1000 km before a breakdown in Feb. 1944

The 6th Guards Tank Army discovered the following lifespans of their tanks (late 1944/45):

T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
IS 2/ISU-122: 1200-1800 km, 230-280 hours
M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
SU-76: 1200-1800 km, 180-200 hours

The Churchill was accepted for frontline duty in 1941, after its engine reached a service life of 500 miles (800 km). The first Churchill production batches had a service life for the engine and transmission of 250 miles. Cromwells, Matildas and Valentines (also less than 1000 miles) are also not shining examples in terms of reliability. (British Tank Production and the War Economy, 1934–1945 by Benjamin Coombs).

Hilary Doyle pointed out several times, that the final drives became quite reliable. He also said that the germans knew what they were doing when it comes down to tank maintenance.
(Chieftain and Doyle in the Panzer Museum Munster, on Chieftains youtube channel). The replacement of the engine took only 8 hours in a Panther under field conditions.
For a Centurion you need 15,5 hours in the field. I would assume that a Sherman with a radial engine, a twin diesel or an 30 cylinder Chrysler Multibank engine are much harder to maintain than a regular V12. At least the radial and the Multibank engine have many cylinder heads facing down into the tank hull. I think that they had to remove the engine out of the sherman for basic maintenances. Does anyone have detailed information on this? Spielberger wrote that the germans disliked the idea of an radial engine for a tank, because of difficult maintenances.
The French guys of the Tank Museum in Saumur were interviewed by Bernhard at the Tankfest 2019 about their Panther and their experiences with it.
Didn't they admitted that they prefer to work on the Panther than on other tanks of the same time period? Unlike the common believe, they admitted, that the Panther was actually build with ease of maintenance in mind (at least the engine bay). Correct me if i am wrong here. I think it is really surprising that they mentioned maintainability as big pro for the Panther design. But there must be something to it, because the Panther achieved the same combat ready rates as the Panzer IV since spring 1944 (Tiger I and II combat tactics by Jentz).

Nonetheless there are many contradicting facts and reports around. The matter remains complicated.

The Leopard 2 was also designed as a counter to the possible massive soviet tank assaults. Its main purpose was tank on tank warfare. Panther served the same purpose. Nobody would call the Leopard 2 a tank destroyer.


Woody Wetter
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 02 Apr 2020, 06:38
Location: Estonia

Re: Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

#18

Post by Woody Wetter » 21 Apr 2020, 02:48

1)The combat readiness rate does not show vehicle X reliability. It literary shows how many from number of total vehicles on paper are ready for use in combat. Info needed for commanders to make planning.

Mostly it was game of statistics . Sometimes Germans kept heavily damaged tanks listed in unit and sometimes it was written off. Example: tank was so damaged it was sent for factory repair and later to new unit.Or tank was simply cannibalized for parts at field workshop but was not written off immediately.

Also "not ready" can mean if there is no crew available or any other problem what makes tank unusable for next combat mission.

But Allies and Germany statistics methods were not equal what makes this comparison even more difficult.

2) The problem with statistics for vehicles under repair is flawed because we mostly see only "long term" and "short term". But we lack deeper knowledge of were problems wear/tear related or combat damage. Mostly "long term" meant spare parts arrival will take time and not so much connected with how bad is the actual damage.

3) Now comes the problem with comparing Tigers , Panthers , Shermans , T-34 , Panzer 4 and so on. If tank survives long enough due not being knocked out then it will eventually break down(mechanical error) at some point - it cant fight forever. Tanks with greater armor generally have more change to survive and acquire battle damage without being knocked out - what also creates extra "under repair" data.

4) Overall the bad reliability of German tanks is overrated factor. First it was told by German generals to justify their own failures(they excepted wunderwaffe) and then it was picked up by historians who made it into narrative by using selected reports. In late 44 and 45 many tanks were abandoned(at excuse of broke down) because for some there was no point to keep fighting.

Does blaming bad weather during Barbarossa and "Hitler never listens his generals" along with invincible T-34 sounds familiar?

What made German tanks to look unreliable along with everything else(halftracks , cars , trucks etc) than horse drawn cart after second half of 1943 was collapse of logistic system and lack of fuel to move anything around . Conditions at front line meant it was almost impossible to set up and organize repair shops due too rapidly retreating and being under enemy air supremacy.

Woody Wetter
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 02 Apr 2020, 06:38
Location: Estonia

Re: Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

#19

Post by Woody Wetter » 01 May 2020, 19:13

tracks031 wrote:
12 Apr 2020, 20:49
Again, interesting stuff Woody.

Could I ask you some questions about the mechanical performance of some tanks?

Regarding KV-1, I've heard its reliability was extremely poor, rendering it a "strategic and operational failure", as said by Stephen Zaloga in "Operation Think Tank" on Youtube (worth a watch if you like tanks). Could you fill in a little more about its mechanical performance? And maybe share whatever reports are available?

And then Jagdpanther, I've seen it said online that during its first months in service its final drives had an average lifespan of just 35 km! Could this possibly be true? If so, any ideas about what could've caused such an extremely low lifespan?

The same people said reports from crews later states that the final drives lifespan was improved, saying they had driven 500 km with no damage yet, due to an improved design. Some say this new design was similar to the final drives on Tiger-tanks (a different design), some say it was the same as the Panther, which was modified. So, is this true?
What i have found from Soviet/German point of view about KV-1 tank is very mixed.

1) In its original design it was supposed to be break trough tank with good armor and gun. Reliability and mobility was not top priority because it was seen as special weapon for limited tactical use. It was first used in combat conditions/battlefield trials at Winter War against Finland. Soviet Union had a lots of light tanks what were more suited to be used as highly mobile forces after KV tanks have succeeded their mission - at least that was the idea behind it.

2) During Barbarossa situation of war changed and for Soviets that meant KV tanks shortcomings became huge issue in battle field usage.

*KV-1 tank started as around 44-45 tons weight but upgrades to armor and field modifications(added locally at field workshops) meant uparmored models(KV-1E , KV-1C) weighted 50 tons.

*Tank steering was provided by dry side clutches what were undersized(for weight and engine power) but it was deemed acceptable in 1939 standards. During Barbarossa where more mobility was needed then their wear out quickly and it was very dependable about type of terrain.If roads were relatively straight and even elevation then 200-300 kilometers could be achived without major problems - only regular stops at marching and adjusting side clutches. But in wooden area/difficult terrain what meant constant turning(ie side clutches wear rapidly) then it was hard to reach more than 30-50 kilometers. But sometimes even first difficult hill climb with zig zag road could cause over heat(clutch material became loose/metal disks warped) and total failure of steering system.

Germans seems to used capture KV-1 tanks mostly as mobile pillboxes or as recovery vehicles because generally poor performance to cover long distances for keeping up with their own units ( Here we have to compare average German tank in 41/42 and KV-1 what were built in different mindset).

*Weak parts were also main clutch and gearbox. Again for limited use to create hole in enemy line/knock out bunkers it was acceptable. But as soon as KV were forced to be mobile then problems piled up. Changing gears without grinding them was difficult so it was only matter of time when it was impossible to engage gears because shifter hub(i cant find better word in english , it transfers power from shaft to gear when engaged) teeth got damaged.

This issue is multiplied by fact that before KV-1S (upgraded version) KV tanks had only 5 forward / 1 reverse gears. So in difficult terrain it meant constant gear changing what made lifetime of these components very low. Main clutch and gearbox got overworked. With arrival of KV-1S model what had a 8 forward + 3 reverse meant driver could select right gear for moving . Before with 5 speed gearbox there was issue with too big speed gaps between gears what meant lots of main clutch slipping to avoid engine stalling.

*Overheating. On paper KV tank should be relatively fast and keep up with other tanks. Power weight ratio was not very far away from T-34 .The KV had more uptuned V-2 diesel engine than T-34 , some figures i have seen are 580-600HP.

The top speed of tank is not important factor because it can rarely be used as advantage in combat. More important is average sustained cross country speed. Just for example : Soviets were amazed of Panzer 3 tank what could drive at its maximum speed(around 50km/h) for hours . It had very good cooling system for engine and there was also no problems with overheating transmission.

But the KV cooling system(mainly radiators) was not able to keep engine in normal operation temperature for long period of time. The heat out put is in direct contact with engine power output. That meant engine full power was only available for short bursts. So conclusion is the KV speed was limited by the engine temperature. More difficult the terrain was the more it lacked behind T-34 or any other tank because KV had to use limited engine power to avoid overheating/engine damage. Cooling system upgrade was also one major improvement to be applied from coming of KV-1S tank.

Overall:

KV-1 tanks were not bad but like many other vehicles they were pressed into new battlefield what made small problems becoming big issues.
In general Soviet Union was aware of fact the tanks are replaceable so they did not put too much effort for making automotive parts high quality and designed long lasting. SU excepted large casualties and short life time during battle anyway.Also to compensate poor quality you can always repare it . But during 41/42 the battlefield situation meant what broke down for any reason was write off because it was difficult to recover it and organize repair.

General reason why Soviet Union pulled back prodcution of KV tank series (along with KV-1S ) was not because of low reliability. Key factors were:

*Armor advantage what KV enjoyed in 1941 was gone with German massively fielding long 75mm/50mm. After the big territorial push by Germans ended they were become more static and that meant more 88 FLAKS and other heavy artillery. KV like any other tactically poorly used tank became easy target.

*Its gun was same as T-34 what was more cheaper to build anyway and KV series needed years of modifications/upgrades until it was possible to install 85mm gun KV-85 mid 1943.

*It think the major factor was the Soviet Union army was built around T-34. And KV series was seen as extra unnecessary waste of time and resources. KV needed for proper use different battlefield tactics , logistics(spare parts , bridges , transportation) and crew training .

So when it was thrown into battle mixed with T-34 then commanders only saw the downsides - lower speed , worse reliability than T-34 and no improvement in firepower , less flexibility and more difficulties with logistics. Having bit more thicker armor did not made real differences about survival - it was still not enough to withstand German guns.

tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Re: Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

#20

Post by tracks031 » 06 May 2020, 21:13

Thank you for sharing this fascinating, seemingly very accurate and thorough information - it's very much appreciated!

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

#21

Post by bam » 21 May 2020, 15:35

The bergepanther that drove 4000km without major problems is a statistical outlier, explained by being driven by a senior, very experienced and careful, driver (who was also a specialist mechanic) who had constant access to the werkstat garage, so could always do the proper minor repairs, oil ups, adjustments etc, away from the enemy. It was such an outlier that it was used for propaganda. It doesn't equate at all to frontline tanks driven by young recruits with only very basic mechanical skills.
The saumur boys who run their panther say, on YouTube, that they have to religiously oil and adjust the track tension and the brakes and clutches after EVERY SINGLE journey, otherwise they will have to do much bigger repairs later.
So you can run a panther trouble free, if you have the time and tools to constantly adjust and oil everything. Hardly feasible in frontline conditions...

Ulater
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 09 Mar 2015, 20:36
Location: USA

Re: Anyone knows the km's driven between overhauls for Tiger 1 and 2?

#22

Post by Ulater » 22 May 2020, 02:16

bam wrote:
21 May 2020, 15:35
The bergepanther that drove 4000km without major problems is a statistical outlier, explained by being driven by a senior, very experienced and careful, driver (who was also a specialist mechanic) who had constant access to the werkstat garage, so could always do the proper minor repairs, oil ups, adjustments etc, away from the enemy. It was such an outlier that it was used for propaganda. It doesn't equate at all to frontline tanks driven by young recruits with only very basic mechanical skills.
The saumur boys who run their panther say, on YouTube, that they have to religiously oil and adjust the track tension and the brakes and clutches after EVERY SINGLE journey, otherwise they will have to do much bigger repairs later.
So you can run a panther trouble free, if you have the time and tools to constantly adjust and oil everything. Hardly feasible in frontline conditions...
Officer in question did not have any exceptional rank for his position, he did not have a constant access to the werkstatt garage, simply because reoughly 1/4 of those 4200 kilometers driven were driven towing other Panthers, and neither was it used for propaganda.

Post Reply

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