I’m kinda confused about Tiger 1’s performance during ww2.
Some say it was a highly feared beast with comically high kill ratio, others that it was burning pile of garbage. So which is it? or somewhere in between?
1 Like
Tiger 1 = Only good Germutt heavy
It was a fat box that could punch hard
Had some reliability issues, but within reason
Ridiculous K/D is from punching Soviet giga shitboxes
9 Likes
It was a terrifying beast when it worked, but getting it to work was the difficult part. Also as the war dragged on, it was made with got worse and worse levels of quality, further making it less reliable. The K/D for a tiger is very inflated, but there is a bit of credence to it as between 1942 and 1943, the 88mm out ranged practically every Allied gun, but it was not the wonder weapon everyone claims it to be. By 1944, all sides could deal with a Tiger easily and Germany wasn’t producing enough to make a difference anyways.
8 Likes
Honestly if German hadn’t had made the KT and the panther’s, they might have actually held off a bit longer
1 Like
From my time not necessarily researching the tiger but reading about it from autobiographies, papers and battles it was something that did excel past other tanks in battle, but that’s in battle, it had lots of things wrong with it, the commanders hatch in early models easily gave away their position, engine failures were common, it wasn’t a very cost effective vehicle towards the end of the war since two ( I’m pretty sure two it may be more) could be built per tiger (I forget if it was the panzer 4 or another variant). I’m pretty sure they had problems with the sights (or that may of been the german elephant tank and Jagdtiger) when it moved although I do think it was the other two mentioned.
The high kill ratio was like 314. mentioned was because it could wipe mass produced cheap T-34s and regular Russian tanks with ease save for I’m pretty sure the KV-2 and IS variants which were good tanks themselves, and when it did see use in the western front it was effective against the cheaply made sherman tank with the firefly variant and pershing being effective against tigers although I haven’t read much on the Churchill v. tiger scenario.
Overall good mid-late war tank when it worked since the 88mm was a very good gun at the time and it’s armor could shrug off T-34 and sherman rounds but not enough produced and the maintenance quality was horrid especially if mud was ever involved
(This is from memory from autobiographies and looking over papers and battles with the tiger so there may be some inaccurate statements in my post)
2 Likes
That honestly isn’t completely incorrect, I always like to jokingly say the Tiger was the best of the Gen 3 panzers because it was the only one which worked more than half the time.
2 Likes
I wonder how quickly Germany could have lost if they went with Porsche’s design 
1 Like
The Tiger is subject to a lot of debate. I’ll try and cover some of it in brief, as I’ve studied (100’s of books) a lot, and will never pretend to know everything but I do know a few things and I appreciate it not for being this Feared Killer, or this terrible Lemon, but for the sheer engineering of trying to do everything at once with a tank.
The Good:
Its gun. The L56 88MM was a highly accurate Weapon, with good first hit probability at range against standard targets. It could kill 90+% of contemporary designs it was put up against. There is a documented case in Tunisia where a 88 Shell that had a failed bursting Charge (Which was substantial) went clean through a Sherman. That is uh, quite the feat.
Its Armor. While it lacked sloping (which made the Panther actually much better in frontal engagements) it was more uniform. Therefore getting glancing shots on the side were not always fatal. There are many Tiger Stories of them taking incredible amounts of punishment and yet continuing forward.
Its Wheel Arrangement and Tracks. This is a hotly debated topic at times with other historians, but I will look at it from my own personal perspective. This heavy heavy tank, actually had better ground pressure than the M4 Sherman, which means it was actually just as agile and mobile being so much bigger. Ground pressure for tanks is Highly important for Cross Country performance, and help the tank from bogging down as much as other tanks can. Coupled with the fact that the interleaved and overlapping wheels provided additional side protection to the lower hull. Yes, maintenance was a godforsaken nightmare, but the trade of in survivability was important.
The Bad
The Engine. Because of the rush to get this thing going, it was prone to everything from faulty Water Pumps, to Leaking Seals, to issues with the Fuel System. A lot was ironed out, but they were not reliable engines, and suffered greatly from fires and overheating. (Plus being overworked). The Germans, in all their wisdom because of Beaurocratic Idiocy never put a Proper Diesel engine into any of their Production MBT. And yet, the Puma, with its Diesel Engine, proved Highly Reliable. They could have mitigated some of their Fuel availabilty issues in their Armed forces by relying on Diesel for their Ground Forces (at least in part). I digress though.
Mobility (Deployment). Being as big and heavy as this tank was, meant that a lot of Bridges could not support it. Needing to have dedicated bridging and recovery equipment for this tank means logisticially it is a net loss for its divisions regardless of its killing efficiency.
Material Cost. Estimates range , but its generally accepted that for each Tiger produced, you could make 3-4 StuG III’s, 3 PZ4’s ect ect. In a defensive war (as the Germans were realistically in from 42 onward) it was the wrong weapon, taking up vast resources, needing specialized Cranes to service, it made no sense.
Maintenance. While the Track system mentioned above in the Pro’s , it was also a Con. To repair an inside Road Wheel, you are removing 8 sets on Average. Mud and Ice build up easier in Interleaved, Overlapping Track systems and make it a PITA to deal with. To fix an Engine or Transmission required specialized service shops, that were easier and easier to target once the German Forces lost Air Superiority.
Reliability. Now this one I will back and forth debate with people. It was unreliable, but that wasn’t so much a failure of design (mostly) as it was to Rush it into the field without figuring everything out.
Final Drives could be mitigated with Proper Driver Training (same with the Panther). And the Engine issues did get mostly ironed out over its production development (Minus the fact that the Engine I still believe was underpowered).
The Tiger did one thing well, beyond killing tanks when it worked with a smart crew. Fear. It succeeded in being a Propaganda Piece. And while it had a Absurdly High K/D Ratio, that is a skeewed statistic considering the StuG III killed more tanks in totality in 44’ alone then both the Panther and Tiger (Estimated 20K for 44, numbers always lie in war though).
So, if you can make 3-4 of that TD for every one Tiger, resources were better spent elsewhere.
And if they built tanks based on their logistics train (Like the US Did with the Sherman) and stuck with a Tank that was 'Good enough" and stuck a Diesel Engine in their ground forces, things could potentially be very different, not war winning but potentially stopping the Red Army Short of many of their goals.
Anywho, I could write a novel on this tank but that is a jist of it.
It was cool, it was powerful, it had lots of faults that were both Mechanical, Political, and Operational.
But it was far from being a deciding factor regardless of how many Germany Churned out.
13 Likes
It was a beast, cannon could take on anything by the time of it’s release, fairly armored and way more fast than a thing that size and weight had the right to be, but only about 1300 of the total 50k vehicles Germany produced were a Tiger I, so yeah, even if you don’t consider the logistical problems of using something with that weight and such powerful ammunition it was still not enough to bring any real strategic change to the battlefield.
More damage would’ve being done by formations of later Pz4 variants with HEAT ammo that was rare by the end of the war due to lack of material.
not my meme, but still good.
7 Likes
My German is rusty but I think I get it.
Nice!
1 Like
I recommend Panzer Museum Munster, youtube
1 Like
A bit of a side note to what other guys said.
Tiger was originally meant to use as a breakthrough tank, not as a heavy tank. It was meant to be transported by rail to the place of use, maintained, used, maintained, packed on the train cart and sent to another place.
That’s why it had reliability and mobility issues. Simply it wasn’t designed to drive long wistances with an army like the other vehicles.
Take note that I’m not some hobbyist researcher so I may be completely wrong. I’d be glad if someone could verify what I wrote.
In short:
A doom canon on a reinforced soap box.
Could shoot anything. Just don’t ask it to move too much…
I read a very interesting book by Yes Buffetaut about the Panzer in combat.
The Tiger was not really a good attack tank: too slow, too big.
It was a deadly tank because it was used on the defensive, from well prepared positions. Without it, not sure that its ratio would be as good… But undeniably, even if it was not an excellent tank in the absolute, it had a formidable psychological effect, which earned it a reputation as an invincible tank, even today.
Heavy Tank and breakthrough were basically the same thing at the point when this unit was rolling off the shop floors. Heavy because of its actual gross vehicle weight. But yes, it was designed to be the tip of the spear for the Panzer Divisions.
However the railway usage philosophy was very different from German to US.
For the US, everything had to fit a certain criteria for Rail and Ship movement. It was quite strict, but worked because logistically it allowed the US to not have to focus on extensive measures to move their materials.
The Germans however decided to just build the damn thing first, and then find a way to adapt it to conditions as needed. Its why the Tiger had 2 sets of tracks. Rail Tracks, and Operational Tracks, which in ideal circumstances took about (going by some books 30min or so) to change out.
Mobility, as I stated above was actually very good. That was a result of its ground pressure and Track/Road Wheel configuration.
It blows some peoples minds when they realize in correct circumstances (i.e. a driver who knows how to actually work the gearbox and knows its limits) the tank was just as manuverable and agile as a Sherman.
They commonly see it as a fixed hulking Pillbox.
Lack of Crew training and rushed development and improper tactics deploying it are what doomed the original units.
Its been shown that veteran units with good drivers had much higher operational readiness than green units. Put someone who doesn’t know SFA in it, and you’re gonna wreck the transmission.
Yes the final drives were bad, but not so much so that proper training couldn’t mitigate it.
Reliability is a long story. I could again write a book on it. Maybach had a Monopoly on Engines for Tanks. There were MANY Diesel alternatives that would have made this Tank into a Monster.
But because of politics and idiocy, engines were rushed, materials (Rubber, Vandium ect) were in short supply, there was a plague of problems. That was more of what caused its reliability woes than a tactical doctrine of having a tank to punch through, and then fix it, rail it, and repeat.
Ideally you want your tanks to be Rail transported to the front, and then from there on out, on their tracks moving forward, always moving forward.
*** Personal Thoughts ***
The Tiger, 30+ years back (yeah I am old) had a mystique to it. It was this childhood monster of many books I read. Fast forward a bit and then there are so many accounts of it being this doomed, unreliable, stationary death trap for its crew.
It was both, and neither.
It was unique in the fact that it wanted it ALL. It was designed to be the holy Trinity for a Tank. Armor/Firepower/Mobility.
And in Theory, in the right hands it could occasionally achieve that.
However in later war Germany, with less experienced hands at the controls, and material resources lacking, politics getting in the way of better options, it never could hold onto that fleeting glimpse.
The Panther was better suited overall to the Wehrmachts needs (in terms of Tanks, the StuG III wins out overall), because it made the trade (Protection, sides/rear/top) so it could maintain Mobility and Firepower (lets remember the L70 75mm actually had better characteristics than the L56 88mm, with the sole exception of the HDX Bursting Charge) and potential to Overmatch Armor.
Theory Crafting in some sense, had it had time to mature, and been given a Diesel (which would be better suited to this beast, and were well refined given Germany invented the motor type), and proper training, we might have very different stories about it than we do now.
Its an interesting debate, and one I always welcome.
4 Likes
it was a breakthough tank, not a MBT or a support tank, it was designed to take ground decimate and then all the pz3/4s and panthers would follow up while it fell back, kinda like a vanguard
while it was very effective in combat it was “very upkeep intensive” so when this upkeep was not kept its performance suffered
fun fact the tracks of a tiger weight more then modern tanks
A beautiful tank.
Probably created as an analogue of the KV 1, that is, armored and powerful. At the time of the start of its mass production, it was definitely much more efficient, but later it was not so good.
Its price /quality ratio is terrible, but not as terrible as the royal one.
Well, that’s my unnecessary opinion.
For the above has already been written more clearly and more accurately.
It’s literally any tank.
Sherman once it got its wet ammo racks, and they changed its internal layout and storage, plus added and imporved hatches was really survivable.
Not every tank was a death trap for its crew.
1 Like