Jump to content
Playing in the Sandbox Group Build Sept 1, 2024 - Jn 1, 2025

What do you consider is the meanest tank in history?


Recommended Posts

On 1/14/2020 at 9:12 AM, GazzaS said:

I'm sorry guys, but the baddest ass of them all was the Tiger I

16589ba3bfec8d2201d48c8b1690c98e

Armor to defeat the best anti-tank belts...  yes, anti-tank belts, not some lonely Ratch-bum hiding behind the only bush on the Steppe.  And a gun and optics made to reach out and touch someone.  No tank will ever mete out as much punishment or have a greater kill to loss ratio.  When people think of tank, 70% or better think of this very baddass machine.

 

Gaz

The kill to loss ratio of a Tiger only stands up as a figure if you discount the numerous ones abandoned and lost from break-down (and that in turn omits all those which broke-down on the way to the battle!) I'm with Clunk, the last decent tank Jerry built in WW2 was the PzIII, the only exception, I think, being the Jagdpanther which had improved transmission over the Panther, and mounted a fearsome weapon, whilst being light enough to be generally employable, and reliable. Which certainly can't be said of the Tigers I or II, or indeed the standard Panther!

As to tanks being employed to break through ATG screens, that's the infantry's job. As Nelson said: "A ships a fool as fights a fort" - ie using a ship to attack a fort expressly designed to both withstand ships cannon, and possessing far more powerful and long-ranged cannon than the ship, and invariably both a height advantage and "resistance to sinking", it follows it's daft to use a ship to fight a fort. Even a 6pdr could knock-out a Tiger at 500 yards or so iirc, and at much greater ranges from the side or rear.....

As an overwatch weapon, it was good, however, provided it didn't have to move about, or travel far to get to the battle. Or have to retreat. Or rely on uncertain fuel resupply. Or cross bridges. (I could go on)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fidd88 said:

The kill to loss ratio of a Tiger only stands up as a figure if you discount the numerous ones abandoned and lost from break-down (and that in turn omits all those which broke-down on the way to the battle!) I'm with Clunk, the last decent tank Jerry built in WW2 was the PzIII, the only exception, I think, being the Jagdpanther which had improved transmission over the Panther, and mounted a fearsome weapon, whilst being light enough to be generally employable, and reliable. Which certainly can't be said of the Tigers I or II, or indeed the standard Panther!

As to tanks being employed to break through ATG screens, that's the infantry's job. As Nelson said: "A ships a fool as fights a fort" - ie using a ship to attack a fort expressly designed to both withstand ships cannon, and possessing far more powerful and long-ranged cannon than the ship, and invariably both a height advantage and "resistance to sinking", it follows it's daft to use a ship to fight a fort. Even a 6pdr could knock-out a Tiger at 500 yards or so iirc, and at much greater ranges from the side or rear.....

As an overwatch weapon, it was good, however, provided it didn't have to move about, or travel far to get to the battle. Or have to retreat. Or rely on uncertain fuel resupply. Or cross bridges. (I could go on)

While everything you said is true from the viewpoint of efficiency and reliability, you can't deny that the idea of the Tiger put panic in the hearts of the Allies, so much so that infantry were spooked by the idea of encountering one. What other tank has had that effect on its foes?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, [CAT]CplSlade said:

23 were damaged/destroyed during the Persian Gulf War.

I probably should have researched before i spoke. I meant destroyed by enemy tank or aircraft, all M1s lost in the Persian Gulf war were by friendly fire, four by Apache and the rest destroyed to keep from being salvaged later after breaking down.
 

I do believe that two were destroyed by shoulder fired anti-tank missile in the latest war in Iraq.  So I guess that two were lost in battle, but not by another tank.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, [CAT]CplSlade said:

While everything you said is true from the viewpoint of efficiency and reliability, you can't deny that the idea of the Tiger put panic in the hearts of the Allies, so much so that infantry were spooked by the idea of encountering one. What other tank has had that effect on its foes?

Hmm, that may be true, but then it's the "idea" of the Tiger, not the reality of it's actual effectiveness. The simple fact is that other tanks, especially the Mk IVH were frequently misidentified as the Tiger, and that any Flak 88 employed in the direct-fire AT role sounded exactly the same as the Tiger's 88, further adding to confusion. At typical ETO engagement ranges, both the Mk IVH and the Flak 88 (or come to that the Panther) could easily destroy any allied tank with the exception of a Mk VII Churchill. At which point, whether or not it was actually a Tiger becomes somewhat academic, although it added to the myth.

Precisely the same 'escalation of threat' was seen in Luftwaffe AAR's, in 1940, where the preponderance of Spitfires being ID'd as the type engaged was out of all proportion to the numbers employed relative to the Hurricane. In fact the Hurricane was both far more numerous, and, arguably, the better weapon, in respect of it being an excellent gun-platform for less experienced pilots but also because the types more basic construction permitted repairs to be done on station, rather than the factory repairs the Spitfire generally required. 

Simplicity, reliability, survivability, offensive capability, ease of repair, upgrade potential, cheap cost, ease and flexibility of use - these are all virtues in military equipment. Frankly the Tiger only has two of them, and then only if it arrived in working in order in the Battle Area...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2020 at 1:12 AM, GazzaS said:

I'm sorry guys, but the baddest ass of them all was the Tiger I

16589ba3bfec8d2201d48c8b1690c98e

Armor to defeat the best anti-tank belts...  yes, anti-tank belts, not some lonely Ratch-bum hiding behind the only bush on the Steppe.  And a gun and optics made to reach out and touch someone.  No tank will ever mete out as much punishment or have a greater kill to loss ratio.  When people think of tank, 70% or better think of this very baddass machine.

 

Gaz

I have to admit that this thing would have made me crap my pants if I saw it coming after me.  There's just something really mean looking about it, and after the wussy little tanks that preceded it, this would have been a butt-puckering shock to the system. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...