"The Tiger Tank That Wouldn't Die"

[SteyrAUG]

One in three never made it home... and IIRC B-24s weren't any better.

I don't know that the planes were so bad so much as formation flying was a pipe dream of a self sustained defense and the Luftwaffe really took it to you when you were over home territory.

P-51s, and to an extent P-38 escorts made those bombers much safer.

It's hard to defend any plane when interceptors are capable of 100 mph+ advantages and don't have to stay on course for a bomb run. Luftwaffe ran into similar problems when they tried to cross the channel in 1940 and bomb England into submission.

Then there is the fact that the US chose daylight "precision bombing" as a strategy in order to hit vital targets effectively, but it came with a cost vs. area bombing at night which is what the English did.

If we had long range fighters from the beginning I don't think we'd have lost nearly as many B-17s and B-24s. But I know my grandfather bailed out of two 24s that were shot to shit during his time over Romania and Germany. Several guys didn't get out. As it was explained to me when the plane is in a flat spin and full of smoke it's hard to get where you are going if you even know what it the correct direction to be going.

[SteyrAUG]

I would argue probably a Tiger then followed by a Stug III or Stug IV (Tank Destroyer). Tiger because it was extremely powerful and chances are they were manned by a better than average crew. Stug III because of low profile, ambush tactics, and again the success rate for the Stug III was one of the best out of all German armor vehicles.

That was an interesting read. I vaguely knew the Stug III even existed much less how effective it was due to effective tactics. While a fan of all things WW II (absolutely fascinating subject) I know the major players and the major events and have an idea of how well this one stacked against that one.

I knew production of German super tanks were problematic, but I didn't know how badly they failed in action. I know lots of guys feared the Tiger because they never even saw a Panther. As noted earlier we had a far more effective strategy of using P-51s and similar as tank killers rather than running armor head to head like they did in the east. Using Shermans as infantry support was probably the most sound but guys like Patton seemed to want to Blitz with them.

[pag23]

From my studies, the Panzer Kampfwagen V (Panther) was a great all-around piece of armor.

Panther was the best overall German tank from my reads as well. Years ago I was commissioned to build a replica scale model Tiger for a German WW2 vet who fought in one on the Eastern front. When he was asked about which tank he preferred, he commented..Panther. He fought in those as well, I still have the thank you letter he sent me. It was probably one of the best models I ever built.

The Tiger and King Tiger were massive tanks but over engineered and required a lot of maintenance, but the heavy armor and that high velocity 88mm were feared by the Allies

Later in the war, the Tiger tank became more of a ambush type of weapon....

[Lefty223]

Shermans ... for all its early flaws, someone in Russia said it best: ”Quantity had a quality all its own!”

For survivability, The Chieftain, as previously mentioned, has an excellent series of videos of all the tanks and in regards to the M4 Sherman, goes into the ‘why they did what they did’, showing the actual military orders or contracts. Bonus info includes the logistics of shipping heavier tanks et al, or ‘waiting’ for the Pershing development, which was fraught full of setbacks.

One of his most interesting videos is where he times himself (albeit a tall man at that) in escaping the various tanks and tank positions and the Sherman was the fastest to escape.

[Coal Dragger]

Okay you tread-head buffs, I have a question: Which would have been the most difficult to fight against (assuming they made it to the battlefield): the Tiger, Panther, or Panzer?

If they’re all working correctly and it’s an armor vs armor fight then Panther all day every day. The 75mm high velocity gun on the Panther had more penetration than the 88mm on the Tiger I, and the angled glacis plate of the upper hull, and angled turret armor on the Panther gave superior protection. Plus it had a better power to weight ratio so mobility was much better.

In the real world we know that maintenance was a huge hurdle for the Germans.

[crusader377]

If they’re all working correctly and it’s an armor vs armor fight then Panther all day every day. The 75mm high velocity gun on the Panther had more penetration than the 88mm on the Tiger I, and the angled glacis plate of the upper hull, and angled turret armor on the Panther gave superior protection. Plus it had a better power to weight ratio so mobility was much better.

In the real world we know that maintenance was a huge hurdle for the Germans.

This is a good read on the Panther. The Panthers reputation among historians post-war is overrated and its actual performance didn't match its reputation.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ins...best-tank.html

This is interesting too. The Sherman may have actually had a better kill ratio than the Panther.

In a study of 30 different tank engagements with between 3rd and 4th Armor division units in 1944, Shermans killed over 3.5 Panthers for every Sherman lost.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/might...eat-wwii-tank/

[Coal Dragger]

Lots of real world factors lead to late war German armor being less effective as noted.

All else being equal, a fully functional Panther with an equally experienced crew would be more than a match for a Sherman. Of course thankfully those other factors were never equal.

However the overall concept of the Panther combining decent mobility (when it was running), with good armor protection via sloped armor, and a gun primarily focused on killing other tanks was the progenitor of the MBT of today. The M26 Pershing, and British Centurion followed the formula of the Panther, with the benefit of being made correctly of appropriate materials and crewed by well trained tankers. Infantry support tanks quickly ceased production post war, and the concept of the MBT started by the Panther’s mobility, protection, and anti-armor firepower were the new norm.

As far as the best tank of WWII, even though it was too late to the party to see action the Centurion was probably the best tank developed before the war ended.

[SteyrAUG]

Lots of real world factors lead to late war German armor being less effective as noted.

All else being equal, a fully functional Panther with an equally experienced crew would be more than a match for a Sherman. Of course thankfully those other factors were never equal.

However the overall concept of the Panther combining decent mobility (when it was running), with good armor protection via sloped armor, and a gun primarily focused on killing other tanks was the progenitor of the MBT of today. The M26 Pershing, and British Centurion followed the formula of the Panther, with the benefit of being made correctly of appropriate materials and crewed by well trained tankers. Infantry support tanks quickly ceased production post war, and the concept of the MBT started by the Panther’s mobility, protection, and anti-armor firepower were the new norm.

As far as the best tank of WWII, even though it was too late to the party to see action the Centurion was probably the best tank developed before the war ended.

In the end while the Me262 might have been more advanced than the P-51 and the Stg44/45 was more advanced than the M1 Garand, it didn't matter. No amount of super tanks, super guns or super planes was gonna tip the balance back towards Germany.

24 guys with Sturmgewehrs were still going to get annihilated by 240 guys with M1 Garands. And it was like that all across the board, closing in on both sides. The only thing German wonder weapons might have accomplished is dragging out the war until late 1945 and the atom bomb being dropped on Berlin rather than Hiroshima. The only other real difference would have been the iron curtain dropping over more German and European territory.

The Germans had an ICBM (non nuclear) and it still didn't matter. They couldn't produce enough V2s for it to make a difference. Even with the industrial wizardry of Albert Speer keeping production at max levels all through the late years of the war, it could still never compete with US production. Hitler effectively lost the war when he declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor on Dec 11.

Japan was actually the greater threat in most ways as they had a Navy that could enforce their will across most of the pacific. But that didn't necessarily mean they would be landing in California, even Japan knew that. They had no need to invade the US, they were after natural resources and those were in Manchuria and the Dutch colonies of the Pacific. They were glad to have the Philippines as well as a staging area to check US dominance of the Pacific, but that was before Midway and the loss of their carrier fleet.

Had Hitler managed to keep the US out of the European conflict, we might have been dealing with a two front Cold War against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Of course if Fuchs still gave Stalin the bomb, he might not have permitted a post war Nazi Germany.

So many things could have gone so many different ways and the actual history turned on unlikely and unexpected events. But rifles, tanks and planes weren't necessarily gonna change the game for anyone. It was more about how many rifles, planes and tanks you could make and get into theater and into the most hands.

[Coal Dragger]

Exactly.

However immediately post WWII every major power took those new and effective concepts and started to refine them. From that point on:

1.) New infantry small arms were developed resulting in today’s select fire intermediate caliber necked cartridges. Aka Sturmgewehr. It had its issues and didn’t turn the tide of the war but anyone with a functional brain could see the potential.

2.) Armored vehicles made to fight other armored vehicles followed the formula of the Panther into what is now the MBT. Again the Panther had operational issues relating to wartime production, reliability issues, lack of numbers, lack of fuel, and lack of good crews. However when it worked and it had a good crew it had the potential to be very deadly.

3.) No one developed another piston engine fighter aircraft from that point on. The turbojet, fickle and delicate was still obviously the way forward.

4.) Also consider that once the type XXI U boats fell into Allied hands no one going forward ever designed a submarine that primarily operated surfaced. A game changer for the Germans? Nope, but post war it sure was.

5.) Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles? Yep V1 and V2 didn’t turn the tide, but we’re still using the concepts today.

6.) Guided bombs or missiles? The Fritz X has entered the chat.

[SteyrAUG]

Exactly.

However immediately post WWII every major power took those new and effective concepts and started to refine them. From that point on:

1.) New infantry small arms were developed resulting in today’s select fire intermediate caliber necked cartridges. Aka Sturmgewehr. It had its issues and didn’t turn the tide of the war but anyone with a functional brain could see the potential.

2.) Armored vehicles made to fight other armored vehicles followed the formula of the Panther into what is now the MBT. Again the Panther had operational issues relating to wartime production, reliability issues, lack of numbers, lack of fuel, and lack of good crews. However when it worked and it had a good crew it had the potential to be very deadly.

3.) No one developed another piston engine fighter aircraft from that point on. The turbojet, fickle and delicate was still obviously the way forward.

4.) Also consider that once the type XXI U boats fell into Allied hands no one going forward ever designed a submarine that primarily operated surfaced. A game changer for the Germans? Nope, but post war it sure was.

5.) Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles? Yep V1 and V2 didn’t turn the tide, but we’re still using the concepts today.

6.) Guided bombs or missiles? The Fritz X has entered the chat.

Well we weren't stupid. Werner Von V1/V2 got us to the moon.

Kalashnikov has a lot of direct assistance from Hugo Schmeisser.

There is the reason the F-86 Sabre and the MiG-15 were virtually identical with first flights in late 1947 and introduction in 1949. In a lot of projects we both had scientists from the same German project teams.

It's almost a shame the Mauser engineers bailed to Spain or we might have gotten CETME rifles instead of M-14s.