Tiger Kills and Losses

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by hammy »

Byron Angel wrote:
lwd wrote:
Byron Angel wrote: ..... What inspired the British to undertake their 17-pdr program? My "reading between the lines" of the history suggests a case of bureaucratic inertia and arrogance on the part of departments much too far away and disconnected from the actual battle front - similar to the US torpedo debacle. My opinion, of course.
No it was the lack of demand from the army in the field not the R&D organization.

From Hunnicut - "By the Fall of 1943, the Armored Board had concluded that only the Sherman could be available in sufficient quantity in time for the Normandy invasion. They then requested that 90mm guns be installed in 1000 M4A3s. Ordnance did not concur, contending that the heavier weapon badly overlaoded the Sherman and that the proper solution was the early production of the new T20 series with the 90mm gun. The Armored Board request was rejected by the Army Ground Forces on the grounds that the destruction of enemy tanks was a job for the artillery and the tank destroyers. It was felt that the provision of such a powerful gun would encourage tank versus tank battles thus diverting tanks from their role as a maneuvering element and weapon of exploitation."



Byron
Hallelujah !
We've remembered that in the case of the anti-tank gun , someone has to trundle the thing about ( usually the poor bloody infantry ) . You should have heard what they had to say about the 32pounder later again ! or the germans about the "Scheuentor" ( = barn door ) 88mm .

And in the case of the tank , that its primary job is NOT to fight other tanks , but to bust through defensive lines and go ripping about behind the enemy lines in the offensive , and to act as a mobile pill-box in the defensive . And in both situations to do it in concert with the conventional infantry and artillery forces .

One subquestion no-one has addressed is why , given that we were first in the field , and spent a lot of time producing and testing different designs between the wars , and that our gunmaking is good , why were British tanks such consistent dogs ?
I can only think of (some of) the Matilda models early on , and the Cromwell much later as being like anything reasonable , and that had a small gun and bad armour inclination and only came out at the end of the war .
Even the postwar Centurion had a poorly inclined cast turret , it seems that only now with the Chieftan/Challengers have we got something to compare with contemporaries .
Nearly all the tanks we sent to Russia never appear to have been used , the only thing they liked about the Valentine was its engine . Same with the hundreds of Hurricane fighters , might as well have tipped them off the pier in Birkenhead .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by VeenenbergR »

Mckenney. How Kills on tanks become inflated in practise: in the Ardennes BG Peiper attacked Stoumont with PzKW V's. All US defenders claimed kills"they were sure that 5-6 Panthers must have been knocked out during the battle, but afterwards research turned out that only 1 Panther was actually lost and many teams directed their fire at this single Panther. Mist, fog of war, confusion and different eye-witness accounts all gave a different picture of the battle.

BG Peiper stormed forward towards the farthers road block reached in their drive to the Meuse, loosing 1 other Panther against a dugged in 90 mm AA gun halfway near a station. When they arrived at the roadblock the column was shelled by US artillery and crews of 2 Panthers fled their fired upon Panthers after taking some crew losses and abandoned them.......the US defenders stated that they stopped and KO 3- 4 Panthers... but also the artillery and strafing aircraft (which also hit the same Panthers) recorded kills.
Later the US counter attacked the column in the dark and .........hit the same Panthers again, recording new kills in that darkness against already abandoned vehicles unable to verify that it were the same tanks. They later were sure the Panthers offered resistance.....(?). The same happened later when they reached the Panther near the station. Again the scores ran high.

This short example deals with the destruction of 4 Panthers, while allied scores were many times higher.

Fog of war, different views of what happened, tanks which seem to be knocked out , but later are brought back in battle (for the ones which dominate the battlefield).....it all inflates the kill numbers.

Perhaps this all played a role if judging what happened to Schwere SS Batalion 503 in the fighting for Berlin. I am sure the many kills of the batalion and all the other battions will result in Thousands and thousands of Soviet tanks destroyed. Perhaps in the whole battle of Berlin 4000-4500 (or even far more) Soviet tanks were hit or believed to be knocked out, while in reality they lost only 2000 tanks (total loss) near the Oder, in the dense pine forests around Berlin or in Berlin itself.
If they really destroyed the claimed 500 Soviet tanks in exchange for their 39 Tiger II's lost (that is for sure!!!) is quite acceptable to me. I personally think that 250 Soviet tanks is a fairly good number for a unit which operates under extreme difficult circumstances, most of the time out of everything, not to speak of demoralization. Körner and others ferquently reported that they were hit and devices inside their tank were damaged (like opticals aso). So IF they really managed to destroy 250 Soviet "monsters" you can speak of a brilliant performance and a proof of the high quality of the German tank arm.
In my opinion they were ordinary people, extremely well trained, equiped with the strongest (not the best) tank in the world and defending their own "heimat" which was constantly bombed, shelled and one big slaughterhouse. If I would be one of them I really only wanted to kill as much of Soviet armour as possible, because each surviving Soviet tank could bring destruction among defensless civilians, older armed riflemen ......
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Bgile »

Well said.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

VeenenbergR wrote:Mckenney. How Kills on tanks become inflated in practise: in the Ardennes BG Peiper attacked Stoumont with PzKW V's. All US defenders claimed kills"they were sure that 5-6 Panthers must have been knocked out during the battle, but afterwards research turned out that only 1 Panther was actually lost and many teams directed their fire at this single Panther. Mist, fog of war, confusion and different eye-witness accounts all gave a different picture of the battle.
I do not see hordes of people trying to tell us they MUST have knocked these Panthers out and coming out with lots and lots of convoluted excuses why it MIGHT have happened and the 'mistake' is the result of faulty reporting-as you do with most German kill-claims.
VeenenbergR wrote:This short example deals with the destruction of 4 Panthers, while allied scores were many times higher.
Give me a link where I can see a heated discussion showing where Allied devotees argue forcefully that the original claim was correct.
Now compare those examples (if the exist) the the huge number of threads where some German devotee defends to the death every German claim.
VeenenbergR wrote: I personally think that 250 Soviet tanks is a fairly good number for a unit which operates under extreme difficult circumstances
Yes belief is a powerful emotion.

VeenenbergR wrote: I really only wanted to kill as much of Soviet armour as possible, because each surviving Soviet tank could bring destruction among defensless civilians, older armed riflemen ......
Others might say this desire might have more to do with thinking 'they' are going to do to you what 'you 'did to them
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

VeenenbergR wrote:
In my opinion they were ordinary people, extremely well trained, equiped with the strongest (not the best) tank in the world and defending their own "heimat" which was constantly bombed, shelled and one big slaughterhouse. If I would be one of them I really only wanted to kill as much of Soviet armour as possible, because each surviving Soviet tank could bring destruction among defensless civilians, older armed riflemen ......
Cannot put it better! :clap:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by VeenenbergR »

mckenny: I can advise you strongly to buy "Duel in the Mist" pof AFV-modeler publications which deals about BG Peiper in the Ardennes.
Written by Stefan de Meyer, Timm Haasler, Roddy McDougall, Simon Vosters and Hans Weber.

Here each fight around a tank is described from BOTH sides and you will detect your favourite Allies are as unprecise as your less favourite Germans.

Try to stop your accusations that too many people believe that the German scores are trustworthy or that statistics from different sources are all wrong.

The Tiger tank was immensely feared by Soviet and Western tankers. They saw in every German tank "a Tiger tank". This is called the famous "Tiger scare".

The Brittish churned out over 60.000 tanks (even more than all German tanks and TD's produced) but I never read any story about the events of a Brittish tank, though they possessed the excelent Firefly's, which stopped the German advance at Dinant.

So why moaning and by so obvious jealous about the best tank army the world has ever seen?
Be honest: the German tank arm was responsible for most German successes in WWII, they were the real workhorses.

Even nowadays the German tank is undisputed the best in the world: the vaunted Leopard!!!

Germany and tanks ........(or subs) that they are famous for!!
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

VeenenbergR wrote:mckenny: I can advise you strongly to buy "Duel in the Mist" pof AFV-modeler publications which deals about BG Peiper in the Ardennes.
Written by Stefan de Meyer, Timm Haasler, Roddy McDougall, Simon Vosters and Hans Weber.
I did a long time back.
VeenenbergR wrote:Here each fight around a tank is described from BOTH sides and you will detect your favourite Allies are as unprecise as your less favourite Germans.
I knew this a long time ago as well. You seem to miss the fact no one is trying to say 'claims' are kills-well almost no one. It seems one nations kills are believed to be much more reliable and precise than the other sides!

VeenenbergR wrote:So why moaning and by so obvious jealous about the best tank army the world has ever seen?
Is this a factual argument or another example of you 'winding' people up?

VeenenbergR wrote:Be honest: the German tank arm was responsible for most German successes in WWII, they were the real workhorses.
Yes the miliions and millions of Infantrymen had little or no effect. It was all done by tanks. Nothing else mattered.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Bgile »

VeenenbergR wrote:Even nowadays the German tank is undisputed the best in the world: the vaunted Leopard!!!
Where does this ridiculous statement originate? It's completely absurd.

What exactly is the Leapard's combat record? What has the modern German army achieved? As far as I know they haven't done much of anything since WWII.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Bgile »

I have a question. How did allied aircraft destroy Tigers? As far as I know, it would be nearly impossible to destroy one using the weapons carried by US or British support aircraft. A rocket probably would if you could actually hit one with it, but that's pretty unlikely.

Next question. How would artillery fire destroy one? A direct hit has a very low probability. So how?
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by alecsandros »

Bgile wrote:I have a question. How did allied aircraft destroy Tigers? As far as I know, it would be nearly impossible to destroy one using the weapons carried by US or British support aircraft. A rocket probably would if you could actually hit one with it, but that's pretty unlikely.

Next question. How would artillery fire destroy one? A direct hit has a very low probability. So how?
Hello!

I am currently focusing exactly on this topic, and so far I have several accounts of heavy tanks (tigers) destroyed by "jabos". The way in which they were destroyed is not always mentioned, but it's clear that nothing else knocked them out.

Indeed, I read about the very low probability of hit using the old rockets (IIRC one test showed 0.5% probability of hit/rocket. Wiki quotes another test, with 4% accuracy). However, a mass attack by 2-4-8 jabos against a formation of tanks would have had much more chance of success. And they also carried bombs (227-450kg), which needn't hit the tank directly to disable it.

Also, and perhaps this is the most important aspect, some fighter bombers were equiped with AP rounds, specificaly designed to "open the cans". The Hurricane Mk2 in North Africa (2x40mmAT guns) is perhaps the best known example, but also Stukas, Ju-88, Hs-129, Iliushin-2, and others were modified to carry 37/40/75mm guns.

One more thing about guns: the Typhoon/Tempest 4x20mm Hispano2 were capable of penetrating the top-side armor of German tanks (of only 10mm in Pz4, 15mm in Panther).

Finaly, there were at least 2 occasions in Normandy when heavy bombers destroyed great numbers of German armor, by area bombing: Goodwood and Cobra. For Goodwood, I have several sources confirming: 28Mk4, 2Tigers, 10 self-prop. guns destroyed (completely), and 20-25 other tanks severely damaged.

Hope this helps,
All the best,
Alex
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by VeenenbergR »

Bgile.

Is is not ridiculous if you look at the characteristics of the Leopards last version to a Chalenger or Abrahams: the German tank is widely judged by experts to be the best in the word.
If you call this ridiculous ...

Bgile. Aircraft were THE threat for the German tanks in WWII. Allied aircraft armed with rockets could blow a Tiger on its top, or set the tanks afire or blow all tracks from it.
Many pictures taken from KO Tiger in Normandy or en route to the North were victims of aircraft attacks.
Jentz also five proof of that fact. German counterattacks near Vire were stopped by air attacks, so were German breakout attempts of the Falaise pocket near Lambert sur Dives.
In Russia they were frequent marauded by the most numerous type of aircraft built in WWII: The Il2 Sturmovik. After Kursk a German panzer division was attacked solely rom the air
and afterwards it counted 50% less operational tanks!
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Bgile »

VeenenbergR wrote:Bgile.
Is is not ridiculous if you look at the characteristics of the Leopards last version to a Chalenger or Abrahams: the German tank is widely judged by experts to be the best in the word.
If you call this ridiculous ...
What experts? What combat experience? What had the German army done?
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Bgile »

alecsandros wrote:
Bgile wrote:I have a question. How did allied aircraft destroy Tigers? As far as I know, it would be nearly impossible to destroy one using the weapons carried by US or British support aircraft. A rocket probably would if you could actually hit one with it, but that's pretty unlikely.

Next question. How would artillery fire destroy one? A direct hit has a very low probability. So how?
Hello!

I am currently focusing exactly on this topic, and so far I have several accounts of heavy tanks (tigers) destroyed by "jabos". The way in which they were destroyed is not always mentioned, but it's clear that nothing else knocked them out.

Indeed, I read about the very low probability of hit using the old rockets (IIRC one test showed 0.5% probability of hit/rocket. Wiki quotes another test, with 4% accuracy). However, a mass attack by 2-4-8 jabos against a formation of tanks would have had much more chance of success. And they also carried bombs (227-450kg), which needn't hit the tank directly to disable it.

Also, and perhaps this is the most important aspect, some fighter bombers were equiped with AP rounds, specificaly designed to "open the cans". The Hurricane Mk2 in North Africa (2x40mmAT guns) is perhaps the best known example, but also Stukas, Ju-88, Hs-129, Iliushin-2, and others were modified to carry 37/40/75mm guns.

One more thing about guns: the Typhoon/Tempest 4x20mm Hispano2 were capable of penetrating the top-side armor of German tanks (of only 10mm in Pz4, 15mm in Panther).

Finaly, there were at least 2 occasions in Normandy when heavy bombers destroyed great numbers of German armor, by area bombing: Goodwood and Cobra. For Goodwood, I have several sources confirming: 28Mk4, 2Tigers, 10 self-prop. guns destroyed (completely), and 20-25 other tanks severely damaged.

Hope this helps,
All the best,
Alex
1. What is a "jabo"?
2. I said "Tigers", not Panthers, not Mk4s, etc.
3. I asked about US and UK fighterS, not specialized German and Russian fighters.
4. 20mm isn't very effective against HEAVY tanks. That is why there were 37mm specialized weapons. That is why today we have the A10 with the most powerful weapon ever mounted in an aircraft by muzzle energy. It fires depleted Uranium sabot. In Vietnam there were F-4s firing their 20mm guns at NVA T-54s. They blew off all the antenna and exernal stores, but couldn't destroy them.
5. The heavy bombing, where miles of terrain is churned up by hundreds of heavy bombs is not close air support and I consider that irrelevant to a discussion of how Tigers were only destroyed by aircraft (AGAINST THE WESTERN ALLIES).

I've been fairly quiet here, but I really think there are certain German fans like VeenenbergR who have this gospel like faith in anything German ... that is always is the best and nothing can ever hurt it except for "cheating". I'm sorry, but I'm getting really tired of this. An example is the Leapard, which is a good tank, but it is not universally considered to be the best tank in the world, and it has NEVER been tested in actual combat.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by alecsandros »

Bgile wrote: 1. What is a "jabo"?
2. I said "Tigers", not Panthers, not Mk4s, etc.
3. I asked about US and UK fighterS, not specialized German and Russian fighters.
4. 20mm isn't very effective against HEAVY tanks. That is why there were 37mm specialized weapons. That is why today we have the A10 with the most powerful weapon ever mounted in an aircraft by muzzle energy. It fires depleted Uranium sabot. In Vietnam there were F-4s firing their 20mm guns at NVA T-54s. They blew off all the antenna and exernal stores, but couldn't destroy them.
5. The heavy bombing, where miles of terrain is churned up by hundreds of heavy bombs is not close air support and I consider that irrelevant to a discussion of how Tigers were only destroyed by aircraft (AGAINST THE WESTERN ALLIES).

I've been fairly quiet here, but I really think there are certain German fans like VeenenbergR who have this gospel like faith in anything German ... that is always is the best and nothing can ever hurt it except for "cheating". I'm sorry, but I'm getting really tired of this. An example is the Leapard, which is a good tank, but it is not universally considered to be the best tank in the world, and it has NEVER been tested in actual combat.
1. Jabo = jagdbomber - it's german for "assault aircraft" or "fighter-bomber"
2. There were 1700-2100 tanks lost by the Germans in France 1944. Out of those, 200 at the most (so about 10%) were Tigers. Consequently, it was hard to even find a Tiger in Normandy - there were hardly any! And, this implies that the probability of being destroyed by air was remote.
3. The P-47s, P-51s, P-38s, Typhoons, Tempests were used over Normandy as fighter-bombers. They carried 4-8 non-guided rockets or 2x227kg (p-47) or 2x454kg (Typhoon) bombs (acting more like a dive bomber in those situations).
4. I don't know the effect of 20mm shells on Tiger's 26mm thick armored top.
5. If the purpose of the inquiry is to find out how many Tigers were lost to air attack, than you should also look into the losses coming from heavy area bombing. If you're interested only in the ground attack planes, than this is no longer relevant.

I have several accounts of fighter-bombers destroying Tigers. I can post them if you need, but it will take some time.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote: I am currently focusing exactly on this topic, and so far I have several accounts of heavy tanks (tigers) destroyed by "jabos". The way in which they were destroyed is not always mentioned, but it's clear that nothing else knocked them out.
We know what knocked them out because the helpful Allied OR Teams (Operational Research) did a number of surveys on knocked out tanks. Overall AP Pentration was the same % for Allied tanks as it was for German tanks, 40-50% lost to AP shot.

alecsandros wrote:Finaly, there were at least 2 occasions in Normandy when heavy bombers destroyed great numbers of German armor, by area bombing: Goodwood and Cobra. For Goodwood, I have several sources confirming: 28Mk4, 2Tigers, 10 self-prop. guns destroyed (completely), and 20-25 other tanks severely damaged.
SS 101, SS 102 and Heer 503 all lost Tigers to bombing raids. The heaviest hit was 503 in Goodwood when at least 3 were burnt out as a direct result of the bombing and another Tiger (bottom pic) fell into a crater and could not be extricated.

Image
Image
Image
Image

They lost 10-13 Tigers that day the air attack was not the main cause of loss. Goodwood was the first use of the Tiger II in combat and they seem to have achieved very little. At least 2 (probably 3) were pentrated and burnt out.
The most famous one being below.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

There are accounts of the shell shocked survivors from Heer 503 forming up and starting to attack the advancing British tanks. Suddenly 2 Tigers were hit and knocked out and fearing more losses they called off the attack. 20 years after this event one member of 503 (von Rosen) claims to have 'discovered' that they were knocked out by mistake by an 8.8cm battery. He had no evidence just a unshakable belief that no Allied tank could penetrate a Tiger and that it must have been a German gun.
Post Reply