Tiger tanks: Deployment and operations

[CNE503]

Okay, but this 8th company belonged to which of the Tiger-equipped SS armored regiments: 1st, 2nd or 3rd?
It doesn't seem very accurate for a so long message...

Cheers,

CNE503

[pintere]

Hi everyone,

I have a humble question. According to Krivosheev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, the Soviet forces lost 8700 tanks in 1945, of these, 1997 in the Berlin area. Since the Tiger (Germany's main tank killer) is being claimed to be a dud with vastly exaggerated kill claims spun out by fanboys...I wonder what got all those Russian tanks so late in the day !?

The Luftwaffe had been shot out of the sky by 1945. German artillery was vastly outnumbered. We are certainly not being asked to believe that exploited child soldiers of the HJ with their ridiculous panzerfausts did the damage !! Perhaps the Russian tankers just vastly played up their losses to get brand new equipment ?

Ciao
Sandeep

The Russians actually lost more like 1300+ AFVs in '45 when you take into account their SU assault guns. But as for the original question, I think a large number of Russian tanks can be attributed to close-in AT weapons. The Panzerfaust was not hard to use, and the Russians used their tanks very recklessly during the battle. Still, your intuition is certainly justified. I also need to ask what areas and days of combat were counted under the battle of Berlin. If it includes the Seelow heights then the losses look much more like what I'd expect.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi everyone,

I have a humble question. According to Krivosheev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, the Soviet forces lost 8700 tanks in 1945, of these, 1997 in the Berlin area. Since the Tiger (Germany's main tank killer) is being claimed to be a dud with vastly exaggerated kill claims spun out by fanboys...I wonder what got all those Russian tanks so late in the day !?

The Luftwaffe had been shot out of the sky by 1945. German artillery was vastly outnumbered. We are certainly not being asked to believe that exploited child soldiers of the HJ with their ridiculous panzerfausts did the damage !! Perhaps the Russian tankers just vastly played up their losses to get brand new equipment ?

Ciao
Sandeep

The Russians actually lost more like 1300+ AFVs in '45 when you take into account their SU assault guns. But as for the original question, I think a large number of Russian tanks can be attributed to close-in AT weapons. The Panzerfaust was not hard to use, and the Russians used their tanks very recklessly during the battle. Still, your intuition is certainly justified. I also need to ask what areas and days of combat were counted under the battle of Berlin. If it includes the Seelow heights then the losses look much more like what I'd expect.

These figures I believe are for tanks only and don't include SP guns.
Krivosheev doesn't inflate figures. If anything, his figures are always lower than that provided by other sources.
The Berlin figures definitely include the losses on the Seelow Heights.
Tank losses pushing 9 thousand can only happen if a powerful tank killer was doing the job in the eastern front. The days of the PAK front and the good old 88s were long gone. Maybe the Tiger claims ain't that silly after all ?

Ciao
Sandeep

[Michael Kenny]

Maybe the Tiger claims ain't that silly after all ?

They are silly. Silly claims being made by simple people who have lost the ability to think clearly. You were given the Soviet losses for the time period and yet still you hope and dream...................

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Maybe the Tiger claims ain't that silly after all ?

They are silly. Silly claims being made by simple people who have lost the ability to think clearly. You were given the Soviet losses for the time period and yet still you hope and dream...................

I too am referring to Soviet losses in that time period taken from a well recognised Russian source....so..

Ciao
Sandeep

[Michael Kenny]

I too am referring to Soviet losses in that time period taken from a well recognised Russian source....so..

No you are not. You used '1945' numbers.
100 + tanks come under fire and they do nothing about it? The very notion is absurd. Do you believe they were all parked way out in the front line and there were no other supporting infantry or artillery near them and the tanks were incapable of firing back?

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Yes I quoted 1945 figures ... That's the time period relevant here to this discussion. Jan - May 1945...Eastern front.

The battle dynamics were similar all across the eastern front. The equipment used by both sides, the force ratios, the constant German retreats....
Such a high volume of Russian tank losses need to be explained rationally.

Now let's come to the question of the Russian tanks hitting back or not....and the role of Russian supporting arms. If the Tiger tanks played a key role in the Russian tank attrition then it needs to be noted that the Tigers' kill range was superior to the Russian tanks'. They have been reported to have effectively engaged at any range upto 2 km....sometimes more.

If a Tiger is engaging from such a distance, there is not much the supporting arms can do to protect the Russian tanks either. It is to be further noted that the battle terrain in the east, before the Russians reached the built up areas around Berlin, enabled Tiger crew to engage from a distance.
The Tiger's invincibility gets negated once they are fighting in built up areas where even a British 6 Pounder can score against the vulnerable parts of a Tiger at close quarters.

Ciao
Sandeep

[Michael Kenny]

Yes I quoted 1945 figures ... That's the time period relevant here to this discussion. Jan - May 1945...Eastern front.

The battle dynamics were similar all across the eastern front. The equipment used by both sides, the force ratios, the constant German retreats....
Such a high volume of Russian tank losses need to be explained rationally.

Now let's come to the question of the Russian tanks hitting back or not....and the role of Russian supporting arms. If the Tiger tanks played a key role in the Russian tank attrition then it needs to be noted that the Tigers' kill range was superior to the Russian tanks'. They have been reported to have effectively engaged at any range upto 2 km....sometimes more.

If a Tiger is engaging from such a distance, there is not much the supporting arms can do to protect the Russian tanks either. It is to be further noted that the battle terrain in the east, before the Russians reached the built up areas around Berlin, enabled Tiger crew to engage from a distance.
The Tiger's invincibility gets negated once they are fighting in built up areas where even a British 6 Pounder can score against the vulnerable parts of a Tiger at close quarters.

I thought we were talking about the claim 150+Russian tanks knocked out on a single day in the siege of Berlin. You seem to have wandered off into some fairy tale about invincible tanks.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Yes I quoted 1945 figures ... That's the time period relevant here to this discussion. Jan - May 1945...Eastern front.

The battle dynamics were similar all across the eastern front. The equipment used by both sides, the force ratios, the constant German retreats....
Such a high volume of Russian tank losses need to be explained rationally.

Now let's come to the question of the Russian tanks hitting back or not....and the role of Russian supporting arms. If the Tiger tanks played a key role in the Russian tank attrition then it needs to be noted that the Tigers' kill range was superior to the Russian tanks'. They have been reported to have effectively engaged at any range upto 2 km....sometimes more.

If a Tiger is engaging from such a distance, there is not much the supporting arms can do to protect the Russian tanks either. It is to be further noted that the battle terrain in the east, before the Russians reached the built up areas around Berlin, enabled Tiger crew to engage from a distance.
The Tiger's invincibility gets negated once they are fighting in built up areas where even a British 6 Pounder can score against the vulnerable parts of a Tiger at close quarters.

I thought we were talking about the claim 150+Russian tanks knocked out on a single day in the siege of Berlin. You seem to have wandered off into some fairy tale about invincible tanks.

The thread is about Tiger tanks. It developed into a discussion on Tiger operations and kill claims in the east in the last months of the war.

Specific locales and actions were discussed. IIRC Generalised comments were made about the effectiveness of Tigers . I am trying to put things in perspective in the context of the overall realities of the armour scenario in the eastern front in those days.

Ciao
Sandeep

[Michael Kenny]

. It developed into a discussion on Tiger operations and kill claims in the east in the last months of the war.

That is easy. All late-war German kill claims had everything to do with propaganda and nothing to do with actual kills.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

. It developed into a discussion on Tiger operations and kill claims in the east in the last months of the war.

That is easy. All late-war German kill claims had everything to do with propaganda and nothing to do with actual kills.

Perhaps the same doesnt hold good for late war Russian reporting of their own losses? Krivosheev's studies are from purely Russian sources.

Ciao
Sandeep

[EugE]

Okay, but this 8th company belonged to which of the Tiger-equipped SS armored regiments: 1st, 2nd or 3rd?
It doesn't seem very accurate for a so long message...Cheers,CNE503

Only PzGrDiv. "Das Reich" had 8th company equipped by Tiger, LAH & Tk Tiger had number 4 in the first time. Before Kursk battle all of them were reorganised and renumbered - LAH - 13th coy, DR - S, Tk - 9th coy.

[Art]

Perhaps the same doesnt hold good for late war Russian reporting of their own losses? Krivosheev's studies are from purely Russian sources.

And from what sources should it be? Certainly not Australian or Turkish.

[pintere]

. It developed into a discussion on Tiger operations and kill claims in the east in the last months of the war.

That is easy. All late-war German kill claims had everything to do with propaganda and nothing to do with actual kills.

It must be admitted though that he does have a point. 129. 1943 and 1944 saw the Russians lose 23,500 and 23,700 tanks respectively, so for each year about 65 tanks lost per day on average. By contrast, they lost 13,700 tanks over a 129 day period in 1945, about 106 tanks lost per day on average. And 1945 was the year when most of Germany's panzer strength was spent and her divisions all severely weakened. I'm not saying it was Tiger tanks, but the numbers beg for an explanation.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Perhaps the same doesnt hold good for late war Russian reporting of their own losses? Krivosheev's studies are from purely Russian sources.

And from what sources should it be? Certainly not Australian or Turkish.

Hi Art

I dont think you got my point. I was responding to a comment about over the top kill claims from late war German sources .
In that context I mentioned that the high Russian tank attrition figures for the last few months are quoted from Krivosheev, who is using Russian sources which can't possibly have a pro German bias.
Hope I have been able to clarify it now?

Ciao
Sandeep