*blocks your path*

Newfag here, what is this odd obsession with the fucking Tiger?

We have a lot of Wehraboos.

>teleports behind
>unsheathes sherman
>shell bounces

70 year old American memes

/k/ spillover.
/k/atamites are not exactly the smartest folks on Veeky Forums and have a very narrow mind and knowledge. So when the come to Veeky Forums you get shitty tank threads and shitty WW2 everything threads. You can just ignore them, as not actually knowledge will come from them and they just recycle old /k/ memes.

It's just a GOOD SOLID [spoiler]maintenance queen[/spoiler]

The Tiger was a solid design, especially in 1942, with excellent handling both on and off road, that was surprisingly fast for its weight and well protected against any threat it would be expected to face.
Its issues were almost entirely in the realm of its reliability. If you were regularly replacing parts and maintaining the engine and transmission it would handle beautifully and reliably for its designated operating range. If it could not be serviced regularly, either due to a lack of parts, a lack of machinery big enough to disassemble the engine compartment, or a lack of time, then you have a problem. It was also a bit of a gas guzzler which shouldn't be a problem except that America and England just firebombed every single synthetic oil plant in Germany and Romania oops that's where you get most of your oil from and now you can't supply the Luftwaffe with enough gas to stave off the bombers and give your tanks enough gas to fight the Russians.
Replacing a damaged road wheel on the inside, due to the interleaved wheels, also takes three times as long as traditional wheel design replacement. And replacing treads also takes twice as long.

When it worked, it worked well. It just didn't work that much.

Thanks for the info /k/.

*ahem*

I always forget most boards don't have spoilers.
You think i would have picked up on that 5 years ago at least but no.

*blocks YOUR path*

Not a problem citizen.
While a Tiger that worked more often and required less maintenance wouldn't have won the war for Germany in any realistic scenario, a Germany that prioritizes shit that works instead of gas guzzling wunderwaffles would have put up a much better fight.
And likely had the foresight to not start a war with half the world. So they probably wouldn't have been Nazis, since almost every Nazi official was stupid or short sighted or both.

>well protected from any threat

Not exactly. Maybe in 1942, but that very quickly changed.

The Sherman 75 was deemed sufficient by the Allied forces for operations in Normandy. The vast majority of German tanks, including the Tiger, was easily handled by the 75 at most combat distances enaged.

Sprinkle in some 17 pdr, and 3-inch guns, and the Tiger's front glacis was swiss cheese.

>especially in 1942...[the Tiger was] well protected from any threat
>not exactly. Maybe in 1942

user, I...

But it's not so clear cut.
The 75 Sherman was deemed combat capable for Normandy due to a mistaken belief Germany was still relying mainly on medium tanks and assault guns for its armored formations, with the Tiger being a rare heavy that would be rarely encountered and could ultimately be ignored on a strategic scale.
The shocking realization was that Germany was deploying Medium tanks with the protection of a Heavy in the Panther, and were moving to mass produce them. The majority of tanks encountered in Normandy were actually Panther tanks that the Sherman could in no way engage in a fair fight.
Tiger scare was real, but an imagined threat. It was the new Panthers that were dangerous.

Well they would have been, except for . That and Hitler mandhandling his panzers and ordering them to attack a force with 3 to 1 numerical superiority, artillery and aircraft support, during the day, while being encircled from the north and south, leading to Falaise.

The Tiger saw most of its combat in the East, it ultimately was, as Allied High Command expected, a non factor in the West, but the Panther was an unaccounted for factor. While the 17pdr was overkill, unwieldy, and ultimately not mass produced because of it, the 76mm was ultimately deployed because of the Panther. And according to most combat reports, still quite inadequate at dealing with Panthers from the front.
It is quite telling of the importance of support, strategy, and supplies that the Allies still managed a positive kill ratio in armor despite the discrepancy in armor and armament. Also telling that the lowly StuG was Germany's highest scoring AFV, and neither the Tiger or the Panther that Germany so heavily counted on.

>Also telling that the lowly StuG was Germany's highest scoring AFV, and neither the Tiger or the Panther that Germany so heavily counted on.

Not him, but it's probably usage: In large part because of the strategy, support, and above all recon that you mentioned, maneuvering armored warfare in France just didn't work. When the Germans got localized "tank victories" (and I'm counting all AFV vs AFVs here, not just tank to tank), it was usually ambushes at long ranges in static positions.

Stugs were considered artillery pieces and due to their casemate guns, more often employed in those kind of ambush and run away roles. Tanks were, at least in theory, supposed to be able to engage in a more nimble, maneuvering, attack and counterattack sort of fighting, where they usually got pounded.

Quick note that the 75mm Sherman could fire Phosphorous rounds and effectively gas the crew of the tank, forcing them to leave it.
Of course this wasn't widespread because Phosphorous rounds were not in every tank.

It's most entirely usage, yes. A StuG had a small profile and could be easily hidden. It and other anti tank guns inflicted massive casualties on armored columns and could often effectively withdraw as the column attempted to organize against the fire. Jumbo Shermans were created specifically as column heads because of the massive amount of armor being lost to ambushes, as a lead tank being knocked out or not was the difference between destroying the ambusher or losing another 2-4 tanks due to a lack of mobility and confusion.

In head on fights the Germans might have had bigger guns and thicker plates, but they almost always had inferior numbers, inferior information, and inferior support. That 140mm of effective frontal armor is worth exactly nothing when your tank gets flanked and penetrated through your thin side armor.
And as much havoc as German anti tank and assault guns inflicted on American armor, American tank destroyers gave it to German armor just as much. At the Battle of the Bulge in particular most of the German tank casualties came from, well, abandonment as they ran out of fuel, but of the ones destroyed or knocked out by cannon fire, M10s and M18s had the lion's share of kills. M36s also proved to be more than a match for Panthers even at range from the front, although they were still few in number by December of 44.

>The majority of tanks encountered in Normandy were actually Panther tanks that the Sherman could in no way engage in a fair fight.

Not true. The vast majority of German vehicles in Normandy, like they were in all theatres, was their mainstay of Panzer III, IV, and StuGs, although by this point in the war it would be mostly Panzer IVs and StuGs, I think.

The 75 was deemed capable to deal with these tanks, and even, as you said, in the face of Tigers and Panthers the Allies aptly dealt with Panthers.

By the end of the war, only half of the Shermans deployed had the 76. Throughout all of the engagements in Normandy and France, the vast majority of Allied armour had the 75, and even still, they completely annihilated the German armour, including the Panther.

The Tiger and Panther both were formidable tanks (when they worked) but even so, the Allied armour, even with 75s, wrecked them.

But extending from this, especially when a lot of the development of the heavier German tanks was done in 41-42, when the overwhelming allied advantages were not yet so apparent, designing an ambush vehicle isn't in line with what they thought their strategic position was. You can't go on a grand offensive or exploit a breakthrough with Stugs.

Now, that more points to the Germans not having a firm grasp of their strategic situation, but it seems more like they were the right tool on hand for the job that the Heer had, rather than they were of a superior design.

No, the Germans had almost no armor at Normandy. The vast majority of armor they encountered was Panthers, even more than they encountered AFVs like StuGs.
I am ONLY talking about Normandy, not the entire 6 month period of the liberation of France. In the opening stages of the battle most of the armor on hand were captured French tanks and obsolescent vehicles mostly used for anti partisan operations. The first panzergrenadier divison to arrive was almost exclusively supported by Panther formations. StuGs and IVs arrived later in reinforcing divisions, but the first responders and opening week of Normandy was marked with the Americans engaging numerous Panthers and the British engaging all manner of German armor from IIIs to Tigers, but mostly Panthers, at Caen.

...

>that implies that the Tiger II is somehow designed for Blitzkrieg
>at 25.8 Mph sustained on Road.
Ardennes.

Speaking about Normandy before Caen only, the Germans most certainly did *not* have a vast majority of Panthers. On June 6th, there were only 2 Panther-equipped Panzer battalions in Normandy, having only 156 Panthers between them. In the Battle for Caen, there were a total of 8 Panzer divisions present.

By the end of Operation Martlet, the 3 German Panzer Divisions between them reported 58 tanks unserviceable.

In Operation Epsom, the 2nd Panzer Division, equipped with panthers, counter-attacked against the British, losing most of their vehicles. They were completely crushed by August.

In Operation Windsor, the I SS Panzer Corps DID have Panthers, losing 20 AFVs to the Anglo-Canadian forces on July 5th. The previous day they lost 13. The Anglo-Canadians had tank support from Churchills and Shermans.

On July 8th, during Operation Charnwood, the 21st Panzer Division had mostly Panzer IVs, reporting the casualties of 54 PzIV by July 8th. Notice that *no* Panthers were reported as being destroyed? Yeah. That's because they didn't have any.

On June 7th, the 25th SS Panzer Division arrived in Normandy, with 50 Panzer IVs, along with support from the 12th SS Panzers

In Operation Jupiter, the defending Germans had support from the 102nd SS Heavy Panzer Battalion. With Tigers.

In Operation Goodwood, the defending 1st SS Panzer Division had 59 Panzer IVs, 46 Panthers, and 35 StuG IIIs

The Panzer Lehr Division reported 12 Panzer IVs and 16 Panthers fir for action by early August.
This is just what I'm finding with some light browsing (Wikipedia). Yeah, the Germans had Panthers, but by no means were they the vast majority. In any case, this is taking me away from my point that the Allied armour was more than capable of dealing with Panzers, Panthers, and Tigers. The 75mm gun was thought to be capable of dealing with whatever the Germans had. Combat reports show that the 75 was more than capable of knocking out a Panther or Tiger.

I believe the massive loss of Panthers and armor in general can be attributed to the fact that many of the German tankers were green, and the British at least were made up of veterans from North Africa and Italy. The US divisions were a mix of veterans and fresh units, but ended up facing off against a smaller portion of the armor, and the experienced armor mostly fought against the British as well.
Reading and watching stuff on tank engagements in Normandy gave me the impression the German tankers were either seasoned veterans or running around like a chicken with their head cut off. The first tank on tank battle between Americans and Germans in Normandy ended up with every Panther destroyed and the Shermans who found them completely untouched. Drove up a bank and found a column of Panthers oblivious to their presence.

It makes me wonder whether those tankers were lost or order to a position by a commander unaware of the battle lines.

21st Panzer Division was also a Jugend division.
You can imagine how that went down in hospitals.

>*blocks your path*
Which is about all it's going to do since it broke down and was encircled.

This.

I left /k/ because it is utterly retarded. Genuinely one of the single dumbest boards, the decade has been... rough for them.

>The 75 Sherman was deemed combat capable for Normandy due to a mistaken belief Germany was still relying mainly on medium tanks and assault guns
They were
It could and did kill the tiger frontally at the most common combat ranges.

The tiger aged very fucking poorly.

*misses*

>what's with the obsession with the most iconic tank of world war 2

Gee, dunno.

>Hey Hans, did your overweight tank run out of fuel again? We gotta get moving and attack the Russians!

>Panther tanks that the Sherman could in no way engage in a fair fight.
the shermans fared better against panthers than vice versa

The point is, and many posts here agree, that the shermans fought with larger numbers and better support from artillery, aircraft, etc. Hardly a fair fight.

Not him, but the Panthers fought on the defensive and with more support from fixed and towed anti-tank weapons, or casemate SPGs, which killed far more, percentage wise, of American tanks than artillery or airpower killed German tanks.

What support there was was primarily in the realm of reconnaissance and logistical function, which means a big deal in maneuvering into a good position before the shells fly, but not so much once they do. Shermans were quite capable of killing Panthers when it got down to it.

>which killed far more, percentage wise

Even taking away those percentages, the Americans still had numerical superiority, don't they? I suspect they do.

At least we can agree it wasn't an "equivalent" fight.

>Even taking away those percentages, the Americans still had numerical superiority, don't they? I suspect they do.

American numerical superiority was enormously less in the context of individual tank engagements than it was for overall vehicle count. Remember, American doctrine (and most people's armor doctrine in general at the time) was that armor should be concentrated at the weakest segment of the enemy line, break through rapidly, and exploit.

Where the panther concentrations happened to be was not usually the "weak point".

>At least we can agree it wasn't an "equivalent" fight.

I don't even know what that means.

I meant sherman and panthers didn't have gentleman duels, they were fighting with different advantages and disadvantages around them.

Well of course, but a lot of the time, those advantages are going to be ones of terrain and local maneuver, not anything particularly endemic to the tanks themselves. Your side shoots first, you're very likely to badly harm the enemy with little loss yourself. You see them first, you're likely to shoot first.

Shermans could not penetrate Tigers frontally. Not a 75mm.

No. Read actual combat reports. Read the demands from tankers and commanders alike demanding a gun that could knock out a Panther from the front.
Battle is messy and combat is not a 1 to 1, but there was a very real problem in that the vast majority of Shermans could not engage Panthers from the frontal aspect. This was demanded to be rectified, and why in spring of 44 everyone was saying 75 is good enough and why by summer's end most everyone was now say we need more than 75.

The US beat the Panther in spite of their inability to engage in frontally. Mostly because of most Panther crews being green and consistently putting their tanks in disadvantageous positions. Or their incompetent commanders doing it for them.
Most German armor was abandoned at Falaise, not knocked out by gun fire. Still a loss for the Germans, a captured tank is as good as a killed tank, better actually, but US armor did not beat German armor in a fair fight. Only fools fight fair.

>Read the demands from tankers and commanders alike demanding a gun that could knock out a Panther from the front.

What about the ones that didn't ask for those? You had far more requests for 105mm Sherman variants which were pretty useless for anti-tank fighting than you did for the 76mm one. You have pretty blatant, black and white statements, such as

>The 6th Armored Division has received no 76mm tanks and have no great desire for them

From surveys conducted in October of 1944.

>This was demanded to be rectified, and why in spring of 44 everyone was saying 75 is good enough and why by summer's end most everyone was now say we need more than 75.

This is completely untrue. Demand for the 76mm gun upgrade almost entirely comes from the winter of 44-45, not 44 in the summer.

*explodes*

This triggers the wehraboos.

Ah yes, you're right, the real demand for the 76 came from the Battle of the Bulge. A bit too little too late seeing as heavy, offensively employed German armor was mostly eradicated in that thrust.

And it makes perfect sense for a demand for more 105 Shermans. Tanks spend most of their time shooting at things that aren't tanks, due to an overabundance of men and buildings relative to tank populations.

>those shots on a Tiger
Boggles the mind every time I read it. Not one but two improbable bouncing shots to penetrate it.

>production start 1943
>made for blitzkrieg
boi

also how does the pic imply that in any way ? there is not even a Tiger II on it !?

Interesting that those 10 Panthers breaking down were attributed to human error on the part of the green drivers by Speer. Wonder how often that was actually the case and how much of the reputation of later cats being mechanical unreliable is due to that. Impossible to know I imagine.

*devastates and disorganizes your forces not only at the front but throughout the entire depth of the battlefield in a surprise assault after extensive denial and deception campaigns*

PPsH... nothin personnel, ditya.

lol

>"Germany would have won if I was Führer"
I see this meme was already present in the 1940s.