German tank superiority!?

[Zinegata]

Did you ever watch a doku about the battle of the bulge. A canadian tank (M4) hided behind a hedge and tried to drive through the hedge, on the other side a Tiger I was waiting, the canadians spotted the Tiger first. They shot 4 times at point blank on it. The Tiger fired one shot, the APC went straight through the turret. Luckily no one got killed and the canadians escaped the Tiger. The guy who told the story was in the canadian tank.

There was only one company of Tiger Is in the entirety of the Bulge to begin with, attached to 9th Panzer Division which as far as I know never fought the Canadians - whose entire participation in the Bulge by the way consisted of a single battalion of paratroopers with no tank support.

In short, your "incident" never happened. There were no Canadian tanks that participated in the Bulge in the first place.

And really this is your typical level of research for a documentary - which is close to non-existent. Documentary makers are not historians and typically leave much of the real history on the cutting room floor.

Still, I quite enjoy tearing little myths like these to shreds. Please share more.

 

[Sid Meier]

There was only one company of Tiger Is in the entirety of the Bulge to begin with, attached to 9th Panzer Division which as far as I know never fought the Canadians - whose entire participation in the Bulge by the way consisted of a single battalion of paratroopers with no tank support.

In short, your "incident" never happened. There were no Canadian tanks that participated in the Bulge in the first place.

And really this is your typical level of research for a documentary - which is close to non-existent. Documentary makers are not historians and typically leave much of the real history on the cutting room floor.

Still, I quite enjoy tearing little myths like these to shreds. Please share more.

It could have been a Canadian Sherman that was reborrowed.

 

[f1nalstand17]

I'm getting very tired of your posturing and attempts to sneak in personal attacks when your knowledge of the war is so lacking that it's probable that you have no idea what those three things I named are.

Lel, hypocritical posturer cries about "personal attacks" and "posturing" when he is the one clearly doing so.

Bonus Example:

Still, I quite enjoy tearing little myths like these to shreds. Please share more.

 

[Dark Jakkaru]

It does mean here that it had good cross country driving abilities. Check Spielberger for more detail if you like.

Problem was that I was asking you what really constituted as "good" cross country driving abilities.

And I'm not sure I understand what you seem to say with the follwoing after: "This is not technically sounds like in the right order for this to be possible. "?

It was the development order of the Panther.

Panther should have been better armoured as PzIV, but it was also seen that in future you can't do that game that much more. Same to what happend later when "MBT-design" was inroduced in the 50'ies. As you can't build good enough amrour to prevent the current guns to be not dealy and have still a very mobile vehicle.
That was also seen already back then, and the focus was also put on having a high mobility with the Panther. That resulted in good driving capabilities as also in good engine HP/ton.
The "joke of history" is, that it was so bad in that mobility later on because of the final drive and the fire catchin' engine.
I'm sure and we see that form E-50 sepcs we know, that more armour was not the main focus for tank design.

Sorry, no one in the military popped a bottle of champagne and christened a tank the "MBT-design" forever setting the standards like the Dreadnaught did. Since it is derived from English usage, the whole "main battle tank" came about using plain English to come across the intent. This isn't a really in a true literal sense a specific class determination but rather an appellation being applied on a concept.

So, no, the Panther was not the first MBT and it's one technical feature of armor being increased isn't what really brought about the truer sense of "main battle tank". IMHO, it's rear engine deck needed work having such a poor slope in the back, it was way too heavy, the armor configuration needed work, and there was needed better balance with the vehicle as a whole so that it was actual capable of being actually the main battle tank. This mainly has to do with what was expected with the fighting compartment as it isn't really clear how much internal volume you would actual need which leads to bigger tanks that get very much heavier than they probably needed to be. Large tanks also tend to be bigger targets to hit and trying to create a harder to hit turret when the vehicle's hull is already quite big isn't really increasing the odds in any dramatic way. This is because you are trading internal volume in the turret making any degraded mode really difficult for the crew to operate in. Again, the problem isn't completely due to bat turret design as it leads back to the whole space created in the first place. If there is no discussion about the fighting compartment then I'm not all that interested about how well "the best tank of WW2" is as it will just compare only 3 technical things and sloppy mention crew skill to make up for any short falls in the discussion..

Sorry for not being clear on Rommel:
I didn't ment Rommels earlier engagements where he used 88mm AA guns and 105mm Art to fight of enemy tanks..
I mentioned Rommels Ghost Division just because it rushed deep in the Hinterland leaving the rest of Div way behind. And if you look at how much tanks were in running conditions along that march..

Not sure what you are really referring to since you haven't really provided any specifics. Was that the time when he had tanks blare out with loud speakers "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" stealing all of the gold from France?

Fort Knox is for tourists!
- Erwin Rommel

 

[Zinegata]

It could have been a Canadian Sherman that was reborrowed.

He specifically said the crewmen were Canadian. No Canadian unit fought in the Bulge aside from 1 paratroop battalion.

Luckily no one got killed and the canadians escaped the Tiger.

Again, it's yet another prime example of easily disproven hearsay that keeps not getting questioned.

 

[scroggin]

[SIZE=4






[B]@scroggin[/B]
The behemoth will hold ground and many shots may bounce without taking the tank out or even scratch it.
In the extreme thinking of Maus getting hit from 100m distance with 75mm Sherman gun.. Maus would have a lucky day..
Same happened with early KV tanks and later Tiger/IS.
Green units will maybe bail out under hvy fire, but crews that know their tanks will not and inflict serious dmg. like it happend historically.
The light tank will be only that good/bad as its main gun cantake out other tanks.
So if that one is around enough times and has a good gun, then you can knock out even more heavy armoured ones and your loss rate will be less if you can outnumber/outmaneuver them.

But even then, from today we know that this is not the route to go, as "wheeled tanks" are not seen that good as a tracked tank. Wich has the main benefit of better protection and cross country capability.
The same as we know that fielding Maus might have only bring up some aerial/artillery gifts coming along shortly after the locations are reported..

A middle way is maybe the best route.




@Darkrenown
Spielberger has comparisons in his book. Panther was way better as any other tank, and Second was Sherman.





@Mjarr
In the West some sources writes about that Shermans often scored the first hit but it didn't hindered the return fire of the enemy. We see that incorporated in the advice to fire white phoshorus right after such things happening. Afaik I quoted Pattons statemenst about it somehwere in this thread alraedy.

i
I agree that a middle way is best I were just using the term semi-invincible to make a point that tank crews need enough armour to be protected against the likely dangers they will face if they are going to advance. The ideal tank has enough gun to give a one shot kill at a range which your armour prevents your enemy from doing the same to you.

 

[Zinegata]

Lel, hypocritical posturer cries about "personal attacks" and "posturing" when he is the one clearly doing so.

Was there an actual error anywhere you'd like to point out in anything I shared about how the US Army operated?

Because I don't see any specific objections; just you pretending your opinion of me matters.

 

[Zinegata]

i
I agree that a middle way is best I were just using the term semi-invincible to make a point that tank crews need enough armour to be protected against the likely dangers they will face if they are going to advance. The ideal tank has enough gun to give a one shot kill at a range which your armour prevents your enemy from doing the same to you.

The ideal tank protection is not being seen in the first place.

 

[Fyrhawk]

Did you ever watch a doku about the battle of the bulge. A canadian tank (M4) hided behind a hedge and tried to drive through the hedge, on the other side a Tiger I was waiting, the canadians spotted the Tiger first. They shot 4 times at point blank on it. The Tiger fired one shot, the APC went straight through the turret. Luckily no one got killed and the canadians escaped the Tiger. The guy who told the story was in the canadian tank.

I'm assuming you're talking about the show 'Greatest Tank Battles', as I believe I remember having watched an episode about this incident.

I tried searching for the episode, but of the episodes I watched I didn't find anything. There is one episode that I can't find/watch, about the Battle of Normandy and the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade, maybe that's the episode with the incident.

 

[crabby]

People have this romanticized view that all tanks did was fight other tanks. When in reality only something like 20% of tank combat was against other tanks.

 

[Zinegata]

I'm assuming you're talking about the show 'Greatest Tank Battles', as I believe I remember having watched an episode about this incident.

I tried searching for the episode, but of the episodes I watched I didn't find anything. There is one episode that I can't find/watch, about the Battle of Normandy and the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade, maybe that's the episode with the incident.

See, that makes way more sense. 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade did fight the 12th SS Hitlerjugend Division, which had 501st SS Heavy Tank battalion attached.

The thing is, the 501st was down to nine working Tigers after the battalion "won" Villers-Bocage - it was really not in fighting condition anymore until late July.

So I'm still terribly doubtful whether or not the Canadians really faced a Tiger I - it could have easily been a misidentified Panzer IV. As for the tank supposedly bouncing 4 shells - I'm doubtful. The action implies close-quarters combat under 500 meters - and at that range even the 75mm Sherman can penetrate the Tiger frontally (don't believe me? Read the Tigerfiebel); nevermind a Panzer IV.

Much more likely is that the crew panicked and was missing, or they were firing HE rather than AP shells - which is a fairly common mistake by Allied tank crews who fired HE 99% of the time since they encountered enemy armor so rarely (some tankers even ditched most of their AP shell loads). HE isn't going to kill an enemy tank, although it would probably shake up the enemy crew which would account for how the Canadians got off four shots before getting one fired back at them in return.

 

[Fyrhawk]

So I'm still terribly doubtful whether or not the Canadians really faced a Tiger I - it could have easily been a misidentified Panzer IV.

That's what I was wondering. I hear about how Allied troops (likely) misidentified types of German tanks, and this encounter supposedly took place along a hedgerow (which also points towards Normandy, making want to find the episode just that much more), so I believe there's a good chance of mistaking the type of tank.

As for the tank supposedly bouncing 4 shells - I'm doubtful. The action implies close-quarters combat under 500 meters - and at that range even the 75mm Sherman can penetrate the Tiger frontally (don't believe me? Read the Tigerfiebel); nevermind a Panzer IV.

This encounter, from what I remember from the show, had the tanks placed just a couple of feet from one another. Is that close-quarters enough? lol




And also, I'm not saying that the incident did occur. Just saying that I do remember watching a WWII documentary episode, which I firmly believe it was "Greatest Tank Battles" (as I do not remember/know any other WWII docu that uses 3d animated tank battles), that involved a sherman tank stopping just a stone's throw away from a Tiger I and firing away. I would like to see the episode again though, just to try to find more information on the incident. One of the "guest" tankers was supposed to be in the sherman. I also never really cared for the show, but after reading one of the recent posts I remembered it.

 

[Zinegata]

This encounter, from what I remember from the show, had the tanks placed just a couple of feet from one another. Is that close-quarters enough? lol

More than close enough. If you had seen the movie Fury the US Shermans should have been penetrating the Tiger frontally already using 75mm guns from the range the fight was depicted - and that's much more than a stone's throw away. In fact somebody tried to simulate the Fury engagement in a wargame and the Tiger literally died on the first round of combat before it could kill even one Sherman.

My guess really, if the incident occured as stated, is that the Canadian crew was firing HE rounds at a Panzer IV. That knocked the Panzer IV crew around a bit but didn't kill them, which is why they only got to fire a shot back after getting hit 4 times.

I actually read a somewhat similar account from a Panzer IV gunner from the 12th SS who faced the Canadians in the same sector; albeit what struck him most in the close-combat battle was very different. To him, the best thing he had ever seen in the war was the actions of a Canadian tank officer, who dismounted his Sherman, ran to a damaged Panzer IV, and helped its crew escape from the vehicle while signalling the rest of the Canadians to cease fire.

 

[Had a dad]

I've been watching this thread on and off for a while, not wanting to step in, but after the last few pages it seems I must. Since it's quite late my time, I'm just going to close it for now. That said it won't be all I do.