Help support TMP


"Tigers" Topic


19 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board



848 hits since 18 Apr 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP18 Apr 2017 1:13 p.m. PST

Of possible interest?

link


Hope you enjoy!


Amicalement
Armand

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP18 Apr 2017 1:33 p.m. PST

over rated tank. it was too unreliable

Davek0scale18 Apr 2017 2:18 p.m. PST

overrated and unreliable…
Tiger is the first thing I think of.

heck I am afraid to type it…

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP18 Apr 2017 2:59 p.m. PST

;)

langobard Supporting Member of TMP19 Apr 2017 4:24 a.m. PST

Thanks Armand, great pics of what every Airfix enthusiast (and who cares about history???) knows to be the best tank in the universe.

Ever!

:)

Vigilant19 Apr 2017 4:28 a.m. PST

I doubt that the allied tank crews in western Europe thought it was over rated at the time. Threat value alone was probably worth more than the actual vehicle. 20/20 hindsight is wonderful. It is overrated in wargames terms because too many gamers field more Tigers than were locally available.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP19 Apr 2017 4:48 a.m. PST

The Tiger was a great tank in 1943 at a time where it could shoot enemy tanks in all impunity at long range, by 1944 the tables had turned and more tanks were equipped with weapons that could kill a Tiger at longer distances. By the end of 1944 Tiger was obsolete in the face of newer designs like the IS-2 and the Pershing who were lighter and had a more versatile main gun.

The Tiger was unreliable and the true Tiger heroes were the repair crews who performed strings of miracles to keep these tanks going.

The one factor that made Tiger so dangerous was not the gun or the armour, but the crews in 1943 Germany still had a large pool of well-trained tankers who knew how to exploit the strengths and weaknesses of the Tiger, they were slowly decimated in 1944 and their replacements could hardly take up the slack.

Another major failure was that the Tiger hardly made up for the effort that went into making it. The obsession with building ever bigger tanks and the failure to rationalize production even further exposed the fallacy upon which the Germans were basing their military thinking, they tried to use superior tactical means on the battlefield to fight a war that would be decided in the factories and on the strategic level. Yes, the Germans seemed invincible because they won so many battles, right until the very end, but they were utterly curb-stomped on the strategic level.

But despite all those shortcomings the Tiger remains infamous as one of the most feared tanks of the war. Used properly it could be a devastating weapon.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP19 Apr 2017 6:41 a.m. PST

Vigilant: +1

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP19 Apr 2017 7:36 a.m. PST
Skarper19 Apr 2017 8:23 a.m. PST

If they had thought ahead and built a tractor that could recovery breakdowns on or near a battlefield and a logistics/strategic situation that could supply the fuel and spare parts etc the tank would have performed more in step with the effort/resources sunk into the program. The crews were the elite and would have been effective in StuGs or Panthers too…

Still one of my favourite beasts of WW2 and a fun tank to play with, though I abhor the tendency to field large numbers in non-scenario based games.

If you get to field Tigers then you should have a lot to accomplish with your OB or some quirky special rule that makes it interesting.

Thomas Thomas19 Apr 2017 9:12 a.m. PST

For a heavy tank the Tiger I was reasonalbly reliable. Shorter of spare parts was a major problem for all German tanks as they were neglected to increase new tank production.

Pershing and Tiger I had almost the same overall combat effectiveness. But the Germans were able to put signifigant numbers into the field (though not enough of course) by the summer of '43 while the US with much larger manufacturing base (not being bombed) got only about 10 Pershings in action in '45. Pershing also a maintance problem causing M4's to be prefered in Korea (provided no T34's were about).

Decision to assemble each Tiger one by one – near hand crafted – with changes that averaged 1 per every 7 tanks built limited production.

TomT

Fred Cartwright19 Apr 2017 10:41 a.m. PST

The Bovington Tiger always draws a huge crowd when it taken out for a run around the arena. It is a major draw for the museum. Enough said!

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP19 Apr 2017 11:08 a.m. PST

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile)


Amicalement
Armand

Martin Rapier19 Apr 2017 11:10 a.m. PST

As above, it was a heavy tank and did what heavy tanks do well (heavy armour, big gun, very scary) and also what they did badly (reliability, cost to build, logistic support).

Just like the Chieftain, the British Tiger.

The weapons push factor was worth the cost alone.

Legion 422 Apr 2017 7:34 a.m. PST

My favorite "war story" about the Tiger I. Was relayed to me by a relative of one of this unfortunate M5 Stuart's crew operating in France. They saw a Tiger breaking thru the wood line and advancing in their direction. They immediately abandoned their M5 "Light Tank". And ran for cover. The Tiger fired. Followed by the M5 being KO'd. With some pieces of it flying thru the air.

Some of the crew was WIA'd by the flying metal, etc. They knew they could not outrun the Tiger's 88mm's range. And their armor would be easily penetrated by the 88. And of course their 37mm would most likely have no effect on the Tiger.

christot23 Apr 2017 3:08 a.m. PST

Too heavy, too complicated, too expensive, over-engineered, unreliable.
All true.
However none of the above would be what went through the mind of an Allied tanker when facing one.

Legion 423 Apr 2017 6:03 a.m. PST

Oddball: It's a wasted trip baby. Nobody said nothing about locking horns with no Tigers.
Big Joe: Hey look, you just keep them Tigers busy and we'll take care of the rest.
Oddball: The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to LET THEM SHOOT HOLES IN ME!

spontoon23 Apr 2017 2:51 p.m. PST

I've recently read articles concerning the Tiger and German 88's in general. Basically they said that the Allied guns in heavy tanks like the IS and Pershing may have had better HE performance than the German 88 PAKs, but they were nowhere near the 88's penetration.

When going through the charts developed from post-war range testing of Tigers vs. various Allied tanks, only the 17pdr. would penetrate the Tiger's front armour at useful battlefield ranges. Whereas the Tiger's 88/L56 gun would penetrate all Allied tanks ( perhaps not the Tortoise, etc.) at over 1km.

mkenny23 Apr 2017 6:39 p.m. PST

When going through the charts developed from post-war range testing of Tigers vs. various Allied tanks, only the 17pdr. would penetrate the Tiger's front armour at useful battlefield ranges. Whereas the Tiger's 88/L56 gun would penetrate all Allied tanks ( perhaps not the Tortoise, etc.) at over 1km.

The '88' was just being introduced as a towed AT gun in mid 1944. Prior to then there were only 12 '88s in a Panzer Division and all were AA Guns.-1944. A mid 44 Panzer Division had over 200 75mm AT Tubes v 12 '88's.
For all its mention as the standard German gun it was just a small part of the Germany artillery park

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.