Printable View
The Russians had heavy tanks too. The Joseph Stalin series of tanks 1,2,3. These where the Russian answer to the Panther and Tiger. The M4 was obsolete before it left the factory that's a fact, we had no real answer except to up gun and stack sandbags, numerical superiority didn't hurt either. Even more reason to admire the crews who knew they out gunned and out Armored by just about every German AT weapon and of course tank on the field.
I see all the time folks saying things like "it took 5 Sherman's to kill a Tiger" or sometimes "it took 10 Sherman's to kill a Tiger". But you know what, nobody can ever seem to recall where exactly that number comes from. Who was keeping score anyway? I'm sure if you asked the average allied tanker in the ETO in 1944/45 he thought every German tank was a Tiger or Panther. Sometimes you just couldn't be sure, and there's that whole fog-of-war thing to consider. Since so few German tankers survived it is pretty hard to get an accurate accounting from them.
Gen. George S. Patton in a letter published in the March 31, 1945 issue of "The Army and Navy Journal" said:
"Since 1 August 1944, when the Third Army became operational: our total tank casualties have amounted to 1,136 tanks. During the same period, we have accounted for 2,287 German tanks, of which 808 were of the Tiger or Panther variety, and 851 on our side were M4. ..but let me add that the Third Army has always attacked, and therefore better than 70 percent of our tank casualties have occurred from dug-in anti-tank guns and not enemy tanks, whereas a majority of the enemy tanks have been put out by our tanks."
There are without doubt individual instances where a Tiger took out multiple allied tanks, but that doesn't make that the rule.
At the end of two weeks of fighting, the Panther regiments in the Ardennes were shattered, losing about 180 tanks or 43 percent of the starting force of about 415 Panthers. Of the remaining 235 Panthers, only 45 percent were operational, and the remaining 55 percent were dead-line with mechanical problems or battle damage. In the case of the US First Army, which bore the brunt of the Ardennes fighting, by the end of December in had lost about 320 Sherman tanks of which about 90 were M4A1/A3 (76mm), equivalent to about one-quarter of its average daily strength that month. Due to continual reinforcements, First Army had about 1,085 Shermans on hand at the end of December 1944 with about 980 operational and only 9 percent deadline with mechanical problems or battle damage.
One thing I think we can all agree on is for a war machine with total production under 1500 the Tiger earned a fearsome reputation on all fronts.
Wittmanns crew destroyed 119 tanks and numerous field pieces and light skinned vehicles now if every one in charge of a Tiger did that that is 119 x 1200 = 142,800 tanks? ummm sorta out of proportion isn't it then calling Tiffies to kill them that's cheating though Hans Rudel in his twin 37mm armed Stuka destroyed a bucket load of Russian tanks.
This does not include the Hetzers and other purpose built TK's just the Panzer Mk VI
Yes the Allies won over both adversaries thank goodness but you cannot deny the Germans built good kit anyway good thread enjoyable :thup:
I think the Tiger may be a case of the best being the enemy of the good enough. The amount of work, time, and materials necessary to build one complex and rather mechanically unreliable Tiger might have been better employed to make a whole lot of excellent, less complex, and more reliable but not quite as super tanks. Larger numbers of reliable tanks could have made a big difference. The Russian T34 is a good example and it is a great tank.
My Dad's uncle was an M4 commander in the Pacific. He said there were times a shell would go through a Japanese tank and explode behind it, that's how thin it's armor was. He also said he was very grateful he didn't have to come up against a German tank.