Pete Feigal
Former Pro Military Artist for 25 Years Thu
How did the Allies destroy the German Tiger tanks?
It was actually simple once you learned the trick…
Tiger I tank…tough, hard hittin’ tank, in battle almost invincible…
BUT, Actually incredibly fragile and easy to destroy...if you know how:
Here’s just one way to take to destroy Tigers:
P-47 Thunderbolt/IL-2, Typhoon, ground attack aircraft…
P-47 flying at 3,000 feet at 250mph, sees Tiger rolling down the road at
10 mph.
Here’s how it goes: P-47 ignores the Tiger, zooms down the road until it finds the 100% always there and necessary “Tiger “soft” support vehicles”: its fuel tanker trucks as tigers were terrible gas guzzlers
and couldn’t go far without a bunch of these “guys” backing him up…and
shoots/blows them up…
…ammo and food and water “soft” supply trucks…and shoots/blows them up…
…The “soft” mobile repair units…and shoots/blows them up…
…its “soft” recovery vehicles…and shoots/blows them up…
…the “soft” Fries Krans, the massive mobile hoists needed to pull esp. the huge Tiger (11 tons) and Panther turrets as about 75% of what was
broke usually needed the turret pulled… and shoots/blows them up…
…And search for the “soft” Panzer repair depots, sometimes in buildings,
but with the huge cranes/hoists, often out “hidden” in some trees to
kill the factory-trained mechanics…. and shoot/blows them up…
…And the Tiger, starved for fuel,
its final drives broken as they did every 160km (100 miles! Yes,)
its overly elaborate and intricate suspensions broken or jammed with
snow, mud, debris,
its track worn out or thrown because of poor fitting,
the track pins sheared/broken under its own weight,
if it fell through a bridge, into too steep a ditch or a well, cistern
or cellar where it couldn't be retrieved,
if the Maybach engine caught fire, as it did 50% of the time,
if it ran out of fuel, terrible gas guzzler that it was,
without spares/relacements from Henschel that were far and few between
as the Allied heavy bombing blew up most of the factory back in Kessel,
its ammo, fuel, supplies, and all of the resources that the Tiger and
all tanks are 100% dependent on had been blown up in their “soft” vehicles…
…and you simply let the Tiger crews destroy their own tank as they
kindly and courteously did in 60% of the time as The Prime Directive of
the Heavy Panzer Battalion was: Never Let A Tiger Fall Into Enemy Hands,
Or Else.
Game to ground attack aircraft that increasing controlled the Tiger’s
skies in the final years of the war when the Tiger served.
The Allied fighter bombers, the P-47s, Typhoons and IL-2’s were given photos and recon to key on these “soft” targets as the Panzers were 100% dependent on these and without them were nothing more than heavy and expensive “paperweights.”
That’s just one way to destroy a Tiger, there were many more…
Thanks for reading.
68.2K viewsView 2,347 upvotesView shares
"a425couple" wrote in message news:sgiupm02i41@news2.newsguy.com...
Pete Feigal
Former Pro Military Artist for 25 Years Thu
How did the Allies destroy the German Tiger tanks?
It was actually simple once you learned the trick…
------------------------
The upgunned British "Firefly" version of the Sherman could destroy a
Tiger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
The downside of the British gun was reduced effectiveness against softer targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
"...the 17-pounder was the most powerful British tank gun of the war,
and one of the most powerful of any nationality, being able to penetrate
more armour than the 8.8 cm KwK 36 fitted to the German Tiger I."
"Though the 17-pounder had superior anti-tank capabilities, it lacked an effective HE round and was thus inferior to the standard Sherman 75mm
gun against soft targets, such as infantry, buildings and lightly
armoured vehicles. As the war in Europe neared its close, the Allies
found themselves encountering these more often than heavy German tanks. Allied tank units therefore typically refused to completely switch to Fireflies."
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:sgo5a6$1q6$1@dont-email.me...
..
The other problem was that the thing was so heavy it was limited in the
way it could be used. This was a major problem in the Ardennes offensive
when a single broken down or destroyed tank could halt an entire tank
column.
------------------
Excessive weight was the reason given for not deploying a developmental
US heavy tank. They would inevitably have to cross rivers on temporary bridges that couldn't support their great weight. Or so I read.
Interestingly the success of the very fast, lightly armored M18 Hellcat seemed to support the decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat
"The Hellcat was the most effective U.S. tank destroyer of World War II.
It had a higher kill to loss ratio than any other tank or tank destroyer fielded by U.S. forces in World War II."
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:sgo5a6$1q6$1@dont-email.me...
..
The other problem was that the thing was so heavy it was limited in the
way it could be used. This was a major problem in the Ardennes offensive
when a single broken down or destroyed tank could halt an entire tank
column.
------------------
Excessive weight was the reason given for not deploying a developmental
US heavy tank. They would inevitably have to cross rivers on temporary bridges that couldn't support their great weight. Or so I read.
Interestingly the success of the very fast, lightly armored M18 Hellcat seemed to support the decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat "The Hellcat was the most
effective U.S. tank destroyer of World War II. It had a higher kill to
loss ratio than any other tank or tank destroyer fielded by U.S. forces
in World War II."
Excessive weight was the reason given for not deploying a developmental US heavy tank. They would inevitably have to cross rivers on temporary
bridges that couldn't support their great weight. Or so I read.
Interestingly the success of the very fast, lightly armored M18 Hellcat seemed to support the decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat
"The Hellcat was the most effective U.S. tank destroyer of World War II.
It had a higher kill to loss ratio than any other tank or tank destroyer fielded by U.S. forces in World War II."
I have read that P-47's could successfully attack heavy German
armour by bouncing 50 cal BMG rounds {...of which it had many...)
off the pavement and into the tank's underbody.
The U.S. would not not introduce into servive, not would any of the using forces accept, a vehicle that had not been successfully through all
levels of testing. The one exception were the 10 M26 Pershings pushed
out to the ETO as a "Service Test" (and to shut up certain Members of Congress.
A couple of things to consider - Fireflies accounted for about 25% of all British tanks. (And, it turns out, it was a miserable lash-up)
The much-
touted (Postwar) APDS shot was woefully inaccurate - Dispersion was such
that at any range where it might hit a tank-sized target, regular shot
would work as well.
Numbers compiled from British combat reports during the Normandy/Bocage campaign shows that in engagements between 75mm/17# gun tanks and Tigers, most engagements took place at a range of 800m or less, where all tank
types were equally vulnerable to the other's weapons.
What was determined to be the best indicator of a positive result on
combat was who fired first. It didn't matter if you hit or not, it gave
the first shooters teh intiative.
Excessive weight was the reason given for not deploying a developmental US heavy tank. They would inevitably have to cross rivers on temporary
bridges that couldn't support their great weight. Or so I read.
Interestingly the success of the very fast, lightly armored M18 Hellcat seemed to support the decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat
"The Hellcat was the most effective U.S. tank destroyer of World War II.
It had a higher kill to loss ratio than any other tank or tank destroyer fielded by U.S. forces in World War II."
What was determined to be the best indicator of a positive result on
combat was who fired first. It didn't matter if you hit or not, it gave
the first shooters teh intiative.
Peter Stickney wrote:
What was determined to be the best indicator of a positive result on
combat was who fired first. It didn't matter if you hit or not, it gave >>the first shooters teh intiative.
Not only who fired first, but who fired _accurately_ first.
Hence the IDF's Heyl Shiryon policy of putting the best marskmen in the
first tanks of the column, as early as 1967. (1956 I wasn't there)
Peter Stickney wrote:
What was determined to be the best indicator of a positive result on
combat was who fired first. It didn't matter if you hit or not, it gave >>the first shooters teh intiative.
Not only who fired first, but who fired _accurately_ first.
Hence the IDF's Heyl Shiryon policy of putting the best marskmen in the
first tanks of the column, as early as 1967. (1956 I wasn't there)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 82:36:49 |
Calls: | 6,495 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,276,825 |