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

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2552
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

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

Post by Yoozername » 19 Apr 2018 20:07

I am not that sure that having an 'Allied Tiger' in the bocage would have helped matters. It would have blocked the roads/sunken lanes for the US when the Germans KO'd them, and the British would find that they would be very vulnerable to Panther and 88mm fire.

The Tiger did not do well in close terrain, except to get knocked out and support simple-theories by some 'simple-souls'...{The 12 SS had Tigers?
Kgr Wünsche?}...maybe if the range had been greater than 60 yards, the visor may have held up????
Stuart Hill, By Tank Into Normandy. page 108/109

Meanwhile A Squadron had begun moving up from Fontenay, the
plan being that they would come through us and thrust towards Rauray.
John Semken was Squadron Leader and he had already heard from C
Squadron that there were tanks about, so his gun loader put an AP shell
up the spout, just in case. As they cleared Fontenay, they were suddenly
confronted by an enormous tank coming round the bend in front. It
was hard to khow who was more surprised, but John shrieked, 'Fire,
it's a Hun', and they loosed off about ten rounds into the smoke. As
this cleared away, it was observed that the crew were baling out as small
flames came from inside the tank. It was a Tiger of 12th SS Panzer, the
first Tiger to be captured in Normandy, and made an impressive sight at
close quarters as both its size and the thickness of its armour became
apparent. Although the range had been only sixty yards, not one Sher-
man shell had penetrated that armour. The fire in the Tiger, we discov-
ered, had instead been caused by a shot hitting the side of the driver's
observation visor and showering white-hot splinters into the tank. The
driver had screamed that he had been hit and the commander had oblig-
ingly ordered his crew out.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7341
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Apr 2018 20:24

This Tiger(114) had 2 hull intrusions as well as the drivers visor hole:


Four shots had scooped on front plates.One had taken a piece out of the lower edge of the mantlet
and gone into the tank through the roof,and one had ricocheted off the
track and up into the sponson.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2552
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

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

Post by Yoozername » 19 Apr 2018 20:28

So, why even make the 17 pdr.? Just use the 75mm and that makes stocking ammunition easier? Sorry, but you continue to bring this on yourself.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7341
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Apr 2018 20:39

Yoozername wrote:So, why even make the 17 pdr.? Just use the 75mm and that makes stocking ammunition easier? Sorry, but you continue to bring this on yourself.
I simply give details about real-life engagements. It is not my fault if 75mm shot keeps finding sneaky ways into the front aspect of a tank that (in theory) should keep not be in the least troubled by it.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

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

Post by critical mass » 19 Apr 2018 21:05

Sounds like a biased and therefore questionable methodology to me. While You can claim virtually everythign using a fitting observation event, You will always remain to be unable to recognize the (in-)significance of that observation. Preselection of single events fitting to Your view and ignorance of the remaining data will invite all kind of misleading conclusions.
As always, I propose not to state that this or that tank/aspect was immune to that or that threat. Rather, the question shouldn´t be whether or not it was immune but to what degree it offered immunity and what scale level is used for analysis. We know that an IS-2 was knocked out frontally once by a 28mm (!) hit. That such a freak event happened once in a while doesn´t reduce the amount of ressistence offered by this AFV to this calibre when judged by all aviable data.
That´s why any meaningful assessment has to include not only the positive but also the negative events and arrive on a conclusion based upon the best weighted fit for a given set of data, wherever they lead You to.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7341
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Apr 2018 21:57

critical mass wrote:Sounds like a biased and therefore questionable methodology to me.While You can claim virtually everythign using a fitting observation event, You will always remain to be unable to recognize the (in-)significance of that observation. Preselection of single events fitting to Your view and ignorance of the remaining data will invite all kind of misleading conclusions.
Re-read and you will see I gave you 2 examples of frontal hits doing significant damage to tanks that should (in theory) be immune. What is more I have other examples so claims I am basing everything on a single example is bunk.
I think perhaps you should check your own blinkers and instead of studying test shoots try researching real tanks that took real hits in the real word.


critical mass wrote: That´s why any meaningful assessment has to include not only the positive but also the negative events and arrive on a conclusion based upon the best weighted fit for a given set of data, wherever they lead You to.
You and others are constantly posting this 'negative' data on Allied tanks. Why do you get so uptight when someone posts anything that runs counter to your world view? Along comes little old me who give checkable real-word examples where the results were not what the rule book predicted and you simply can not resist attacking and suggesting I lack your superior analytical skills.
I spend most of my time looking into individual Normandy tank engagements and trying to work out the details. I attempt to identify previously 'unkown' wrecks and match losses to Units.

This is the type of thing I (and others) do on other forums:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... 03437.html

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... 03435.html

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... 5#p1518955

http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/nr ... are.72869/

http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showt ... hp?t=28282

and my posting history here can be checked as well.

I think I know enough on this subject to offer an informed opinion.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2552
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

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

Post by Yoozername » 19 Apr 2018 22:06

Be careful...if you go to those threads and post...he will accuse you of being a stalker!

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7341
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Apr 2018 22:25

Yoozername wrote:
The Tiger did not do well in close terrain, except to get knocked out and support simple-theories by some 'simple-souls'..
Lets have a look at this 'close terrain' where Tiger 114 was knocked out. It is somewhere along the red line.
4108 Fontenay ,,,.jpg
Has not changed much since then.
screenshot.2018-04-19 (6).jpg

Hmm..............seems very open to me.


I bet some 'simple soul' does not know there was a big difference between the terrain in the US Sector and that of the Commonwealth Sector.

St Lo bocage
IGNF_PVA_1-0__1944-06_.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2552
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

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

Post by Yoozername » 19 Apr 2018 23:09

Michael Kenny wrote:This Tiger(114) had 2 hull intrusions as well as the drivers visor hole:


Four shots had scooped on front plates.One had taken a piece out of the lower edge of the mantlet
and gone into the tank through the roof,and one had ricocheted off the
track and up into the sponson.
Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Both hits are very lucky shots. And no one is saying that the Tiger is invulnerable, so you can quit that red herring. It's your objectivity that is skewed, not mine.

Again, the Tiger was at its end-of-life, operating in tactical situations that it was ill suited for. Horray for the CW!
I bet some 'simple soul' does not know there was a big difference between the terrain in the US Sector and that of the Commonwealth Sector.
The US operated in the worst of the Bocage. And, if you think that is open terrain, well goody on you. If you are saying that as to my point regarding the 'Allied Tigers' (being used by the US) blocking roads and sunken lanes, etc., then yes we agree that heavy armor would not have done them much good. If you are going off on another tangent regarding some other CW-Revisionistic-fan-boisdom, well excuse me.
I think I know enough on this subject to offer an informed opinion.
Everyone's entitled IMO. But, having a objective opinion would be better. And stop accusing people that don't agree with your photographic interpretations as being biased or somehow less knowledgeable than you. AHF has some great technical people posting here.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7341
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Apr 2018 23:59

Yoozername wrote:
Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Both hits are very lucky shots.
Yes. Any shot that knocks out a Tiger is usualy described as a 'lucky shot'. Like the 'lucky shot' that gave us the Tiger now on display at Bovington.
Me? I belive that the crews knew that if they fire enough shots at a Tiger you are bound to hit something vulnerable. It worked.


Yoozername wrote: And no one is saying that the Tiger is invulnerable, so you can quit that red herring. It's your objectivity that is skewed, not mine.
I beg to differ. We are constantly told a Tiger is invulnerable to 75mm shot from the front. It was not. Note also that I am not saying that all Tigers could be easily penetrated at any distance by a 75mm. That is your projection. Trouble is that 'you' can not bear anyone disputing your graphs and charts. Perhaps you should change your language and start saying:
'no 75mm can penetrate the thickest part of the front of a Tiger. However shots fired at these thick plates can deflect into thinner parts of the Tiger and penetrate it.
Yoozername wrote: Again, the Tiger was at its end-of-life, operating in tactical situations that it was ill suited for. Horray for the CW!
There we go, excuses are introduced to explain away defeat.


Yoozername wrote:The US operated in the worst of the Bocage. And, if you think that is open terrain, well goody on you.
And there you go deliberately distorting what I said. I simply countered your 'excuse' for the capture of Tiger '114'. You clearly were saying that this Tiger suffered because it was operating in 'close terrain'


Original Quote:
Yoozername wrote:The Tiger did not do well in close terrain, except to get knocked out and support simple-theories by some 'simple-souls'.
I posted an air view of the area where '114' was caught and it is by no stretch 'close terrain'. I know the ground very well. I have complete 1944-47 air photo coverage of the commonwealth sector of Normandy.
Yoozername wrote: If you are saying that as to my point regarding the 'Allied Tigers' (being used by the US) blocking roads and sunken lanes, etc., then yes we agree that heavy armor would not have done them much good. If you are going off on another tangent regarding some other CW-Revisionistic-fan-boisdom, well excuse me.
I am not trying to disabuse you of anything. I am getting my views over and if you are willing to provide me a platform to preach then I say keep up the good work.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3388
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

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

Post by Sheldrake » 20 Apr 2018 00:31

critical mass wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:Oh and here is another explanation at the end of this talk by David Fletcher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuDuBwA ... A5Vujkpjd8

For the cost of one tiger II you could build nine Shermans. One Tiger Battalion (45 tanks) or enough tanks (405) for one and a half armoured brigades?

In financial terms one tiger battalion costs about the same as one and half divisions worth of medium tanks. Or putting it another way if it takes five Shermans to knock out a Tiger, they are overpriced at nine times the cost!
I don´t think that US production costs and german production costs can readily be compared without a serious effort in normalization and standartization of data. First of all monetary costs alone are largely irrelvant in isolated economies and therefore do not constitute a reliable measurement scale for production effort. The germans never managed to obtain US production efficiency and thus, were deprived of the ability to manufacture a medium tank approaching US (or soviet) production cost terms.

A more realistic comparison would be with the german manufactured Pz IV and it doesn´t support -at all- the idea that You could get nine medium tanks for one TIGER:

RM 103 462 price tag for Pz. IV Ausf. F1/2 & -G. Assembly work time: 1,400 manhours
RM 250,800 price tag for Tiger Ausf. E. Work time:

I don´t have the work time for Tiger I here but I suppose it´s probably short of the 13,000 manhours required to fullfill the presumption that nine mediums could be obtained for one TIGER.
If you watch the video you will see the reference was to the cost of Tiger II - twice the cost of the Tiger I.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2552
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

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

Post by Yoozername » 20 Apr 2018 02:51

I am not trying to disabuse you of anything. I am getting my views over and if you are willing to provide me a platform to preach then I say keep up the good work.
Believe me, it is no work at all. It is great (effortless) fun poking fun at your faintly veiled positions.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13839
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

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

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 20 Apr 2018 06:25

Drop the insults and snide remarks.

Any further posts containing or quoting such insults may be removed entirely, even if the posts also contain actual discussion contents.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

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

Post by critical mass » 20 Apr 2018 10:36

Michael Kenny wrote:
critical mass wrote:Sounds like a biased and therefore questionable methodology to me.While You can claim virtually everythign using a fitting observation event, You will always remain to be unable to recognize the (in-)significance of that observation. Preselection of single events fitting to Your view and ignorance of the remaining data will invite all kind of misleading conclusions.
Re-read and you will see I gave you 2 examples of frontal hits doing significant damage to tanks that should (in theory) be immune. What is more I have other examples so claims I am basing everything on a single example is bunk.
You speak about "significant damage". That´s a very loose term compared to "penetration" and isn´t the same. You refer to 2 examples, again that doesn´t count for much if You can´t weight it with resistent damage to obtain a normalized score. I count on that individual TIGER You mentioned at least eight frontal hit marks. 2/8 means that 75% of the hits didn´t result in appreciable damage with two other could be called "dangerous", though from paths not necessarely involving complete projectile penetration. ORG study on M4 sherman 1944 found it resisted frontally only 5% of the hits. Soviet study on T34 hits 1942 stated it resisted frontally 46% of the 5cm hits.
Now, one might throw in that one observation case of a TIGER 1 isn´t a sufficiently large sample size to arrive at any conclusions.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

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

Post by critical mass » 20 Apr 2018 11:11

Sheldrake wrote: If you watch the video you will see the reference was to the cost of Tiger II - twice the cost of the Tiger I.
Yes, they state 300,000 manhours to make, and this sounds right to me in view of the total manhours required to make (including casting and treatment of armor, equipment production, ressource allocation and part transportations as well as final assembly and fitting).
However, the price tag claimed for TIGER 2&1 (800000RM & 400000RM, respectively) is only valid for the first prototypes (official price tag was 250,800 for TIGER E production vehicle) and the price tag reference for TIGER II was too, because the official price tag on a TIGER Ausf. B production model was only 321,500 RM, not 800,000 RM. Actual costs will be higher but that is also caused by factory bombings, something no M4 production line had to endure.
And of course, the translation of RM for a TIGER 2 prototype vehicle to US$ for a M4 mass production vehicle in order to express comparative production cost efforts remains to be an invalid expression which leads to misleading conclusions. It´s an apples vs oranges comparison.
The aviable data for production vehicle indicate that in terms of manhours (total, not just assembly time) and price tag, the TIGER Ausf. B is equal to 1.3 TIGER Ausf. E heavy tanks, or 2.8 Mark 4 / Mk V medium tanks. The prototype costs may be higher but I don´t have all data at hand to make a statement.
Compared to teh TIGER I, the TIGER II is a a progression in production cost efficiencies and battlefield performances but I´d agree that the PANTHER was the most cost effective tank which could be produced out of the options avaiable.

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