Was this tank first and formost designed for propaganda? The Tiger tank had to be its own recruiting tool. Does it not represent Germany's rising fear. Its superiority complex has kicked into a more defensive, but also very heightened mode.
The contradictions of Germany's position are embodied in the tank (or the idea of it) - it was an overkilled design, part because it had to look like overkill, part because it was being charged with protecting the myth of the outnumbered Superman, the myth that had taken Germany to war..
And Tiger today? (Has it, in the long run, won the war for Germany? Do we feel outnumbered?)


tiger hunts in water

Who is this "we"?

There was a bit of ego-centerism to the development of the Tiger, but also a very intentional appreciation for the numerical disparity between Germany and its foes.

I'm alluding to the fact that "we" in the west identify with the German approach to war/war technology - ie "quality" (the the appearance thereof) over quantity.

The German approach to war/war technology is 1st superior leadership 2nd good training 3rd adequate equipment 4th adequate logistics

German arms of WW2 were not focused on superior quality as much as a look at the Tiger alone might suggest.
The whole field artillery was qualitatively inferior to the Russian field artillery, for example.

The German tanks were more refined in details and in some regards better thought-out (due to the emphasis on the human factors mostly) than Russian ones, but not maximized for quality at all.
Guderian's attempts to get a decent 5 cm gun on Pzkw III were fruitless for years, for example.

Gigantic nonsense developments were never representative.
The Pzkw VI Tiger was actually a cost-efficient tank on the HGr Süd's open plains terrain and for North Africa, anyway.

The Germans had a mythic approach to wartime weapons development - they were in search of lightling bolts for gods to fling. The idea of big cats hunting on the steppes, or, at a more propaganda level the story of the Tiger I that took hundreds of rounds but kept going - the unstoppable tank. This story occurred right at the beginning of the Tank's deployment, a bit like the publicity stunts of today - they did it later with the kessel busting crate of MP44s, and then there's the parade of Tiger IIs - it works brilliantly as propaganda, Hollywood has never quite matched that.

Oops commented on wrong Mark. never mind.

I believe you mix up cause and effect.
The tanks were used for propaganda, but that doesn't mean they were built with propaganda in mind.

Clueless.... The Tiger came from the desire to have a Durchbruchwagen which would be immune to the AT guns of the day to enable it to 'break through' enemy defensive lines. This mirrored similar efforts in other countries at the time but the Germans were so late into the Panzer game, they did not even have enough medium (PzIII/IV) tanks to outfit their rapidly expanding panzerwaffe and would have their most spectacular successes with pretty unremarkable and some downright pathetic tanks. A PzII is hardly an uberpanzer by any stretch of the imagination.

The major conceptual difference between the DBW and the Tiger was the mounting of the much more powerful 88L56 cannon. This was a logical step given the problems already encountered by the Germans in 1940-41 (the Tigerprogram was launched days before Barbarossa) in the West and North Africa, specifically the Char B1bis and much more the Matilda II. These were comfortably seen off using FLAK 18/36 88mm AA guns so it was natural to look at this as a caliber for the new heavy tank.

Was there good propaganda and psywar value to the Tigers? For sure and most of this was generated not by the Germans but by the Allies, the western Allies in particular. Their effect was disproportionate because soon every tank was a Tiger even though they were few and far between. Roll in the exploits of Wittmann in Villers-Bocage, and soon you had a tracked bogeyman. Ironically the Panther which was much more prevalent and just as lethal never really gained this mythical status.

Propaganda Panzer? Neubaufahrzeug. Do not try to perceive the actions through modern lenses. One has to apply the same filters as were in place at the time.

If I understand it correctly, original Tiger project (ie the breakthrough panzer) was quite similar to KV-1, main difference being later the 88mm, other than that it had similar armor to uparmored KV-1, ie not THAT much compared to later war standards - AFAIC front armour of Panther was actually better and T-34/85 and late Shermans would come also pretty close, atleast in frontal arc. But it had a ) 88 and b ) Reputation. When it emerged, it was pretty invincible, but so were Shermans later on in Pacific when confronting same weapons that Allies had at first encounter with Tigers, ie small anttank guns.

Actually, in the East as well. Every tank was Tiger or Panther and every StuG or Jagdpanzer was Ferdinand.

Not exactly. Panther wasn't commonly misidentified because of a very characteristic shape. Pz-IV with long gun have commonly got misidentified as Tiger, in no small part because these under battlefield conditions definitely look similar.

Imo, the skirts they put on the PzIV were primarily to make it look Tiger-like at distance. (What, after all, were they meant to protect against? I don't recall ever seeing a pic of a Russian WW2 soldier with a bazooka type weapon..)

I am not saying that the Tiger was primarily a propaganda project, but I do think that all weapon design has a psychological/political/cultural/aesthetic/religious/racial aspect that is often overlooked.

What I find fascinating is the effect German design from that period still has today. In a way, Germany (or at least her armed forces) did win WW2....

IIRC primarily against Soviet 14.5mm AT rifles. And I think as well that in fact first Bazookas captured byGermans were captured in Russia.

Weapon design (practical, scientific, etc): difficult, delicate, expensive as hell

Word play (political, aesthetic, etc): cheaper, relatively damn easy

So IMHO, practical part comes first, then political/cultural/fill-in-the-blank people make do with what is given.
I'm pretty confident Herr Himler can make Pz IVs look mightier than IS-2s

(Throw in any line that might "seem" correct - the Pz IV is: more nimble, sting like wasps, more cost efficient, the epitome of German efficiency, kills IS-2s and other unnecesarilly fat commie tanks like Siegfried kills dragon, etc...)

Goebbels was the propaganda guy, not Himmler.

And "expensive as hell"? Well, the price (and fuel consumption) was quite proportional to the weight, and a Tiger was worth more than two Pzkw IV at the Eastern Front.
It was expensive, but "expensive as hell" is misleading - it was cost-efficient.

Sherman was "expensive as hell" - in relation to the achievements.

Well, actually, I was alluding to the development cost, not the cost per vehicle (and apparently, I assumed development cost to be really high, though hell or not I don't really care)
What I wanted to point out was (now my head got a little clearer) that designing a war-winning machine is already complex enough that anyone wouldn't want to make it any more complex by adding some abstract features.

and BTW, a little derail here: how's Shermans' losses and building cost compared to German panzers? is it that bad?

Are we counting issues such as and armor quality and overmatch? Theoretically, the US 75mm was supposed to be effective at least against Panzer VIe flanks. It always puzzled me that the Pz IV could be killed at battle range but the Pz VI needed point-blank hits even for a side shot, inspite of the same armor thinckness (80mm).

Personally, I feel that the Tiger I/II are generally inferior to the IS-2/3 series as breakthrough tanks. The latter gets the job done, without the outrageous weight, cost and reliability.



It really depends on which Panzer Marks you are comparing the Sherman to. Panther and Tiger killed Shermans easily, but Sherman was the equal to StuG III/IV and Panzer IV which were the most numerous German AFV during the Second Great Unpleasantry, more or less. No model of the Panzer III was a match for the Sherman tank. Another issue to keep in mind; the primary killers of the tank during the war were mines and antitank guns. The point is Sherman might not be the best tank-vs-tank fighter, but in terms of kill ratio armor losses in the war were more or less in favor of the Americans. Numerous panzers were disposed of by airpower, artillery fire and fuel starvation after they were encircled by the more mobile US armored and motorized infantry formations.

Turret armor on the PIV was 50mm.

Yes, but with 80mm on the front hull. Tiger I had about 100-110 mm (don't know why there is a discrepancy between published sources) armor up front and 80mm on the sides. Hence the puzzlement

Well JS-II/III were not fully reliable, these vehicles had their issues as well.
Their ammunition supply and therefore their endurance in battle was very small (well, Tigers weren't always supplied to full ammunition capacity).

Aside from the pure breakthrough role; their ability to kill tanks was smaller than the Tiger's due to significantly inferior rate of fire and hit chance.

Breakthrough tanks don't need to be as reliable as mediums. And if your job is to break a defensive line--I imagine suppresive fire against AT guns and high-explosive firepower is more important. The Tiger is a wonderful tank killer at range, but it has its limitations especially from a cost-benefit perspective. Anyhow, that's really for the IS-2 thread.

Apart from PzVI having relatively weak front turret armor, it had weak side armor - I would expect most kills came from side hits.

EDIT: Duh fat fingers and blind eyes, I wanted to write Pz IV.

Maybe it's just annecdote, but I remember reading about more than a couple of engagements between 75mm Shermans and Tigers went horribly, horribly wrong. One of the first Tigers to be knocked out by American forces in Tunesia survived five 75mm round hits to the side. Another in Roer where the lone surviving Sherman of a platoon knocked out a Tiger with flanking high explosive rounds in a running fight from 2,000 to 25 yards. Both accounts taken from Harry Yeides. I recall that generally a kill required hits to within 100 yards--if memory serves.

This goes to show, no matter how (seemingly ?) confused a thread may start, if it´s about a Panzer, it´ll get replies.


Anyway :





Really, what about Panzer III L and M vs. early Shermans ?

Has any of the gaming ilk tries to compare those ? Like try a set of games with "equal" forces and logistics, reversed roles etc . What are the results ?

No Steel Beasts, so cannot experiment.

Regards

I'd say. I am pretty sure M62 could penetrate Pz III L & M's homogenous base armor and 20mm applique at 500 yards. The L/60 was barely effective against Grants at the same range. So you have a tank that has roughly the same armor killing performance but is less dependable and packed inferior high-explosive rounds. That would make it a less effective machine--or I think so.



There is no maximum word count for a post. If you want to contradict me, knock yourself out but kindly ellucidate your opinion with reasoning and evidence. And a little bit of civility will be appreciated.

I am civility in person.

It was a question. Have any of the gamers tried this out ?

Ah. Sorry. If you mean it as a straight question, yes. My Panzer III got slaughtered.

That is very bad news so close to bedtime.

Historically, Pz III J or better was capable of killing T-34-76 or M4. But the Germans were under no illusions that Pz III had reached the absolute limits of its design and their cutting edge lay in the 75mm L/43 armed Pz IV, L/70 Pz V and of course Tigers.

Well, it's funny you should say that. I've always shared your low opinion of the Pz II until recently, when I compared it to the light recce tanks in service at the time when it was introduced. Compared to, say, a British Mk IV, V or VI Light Tank or the machine gun armed US M1 and M2 Combat Cars it's actually quite a beast. It was much better armed or armoured than any other light tank it was likely to encounter in the recconaisance role.

Of course, subsequent light tanks got bigger and left it the Pz II far behind, but at the time it was designed it was arguably the most formidable light tank in the world...

Not to nitpick, but the Germans had a huge inventory of Pz IIs up to and including the first years of the North African campaign. They are light tanks by weight class but they were frequently used in roles for which it was inadequately armed and armored.

Oh, I agree entirely, but the using the Pz II as the bulk of the Panzer korps was always an expedient matter. IIRC the Pz II was designed for recce and training, but it's early availablity and low cost mean it was inevitable that it would be used as a medium tank until proper mediums were available in quantity.

However, exactly the same could be said about the M3 light tanks when they were used as cruisers in the desert. Being inadequate in a role it was not designed for does not a bad tank make.

I still think that the Pz II was obsolescent in 1939 and obsolete by 1941, even in the recce role, but in the context of 1935-37 when it entered service it was quite the Light tank killer...

So, I let SPWW2 run a series of 30 desert meeting engagemtns between 10 Pz IIIL and 10 M4A1.

Interestingly the Pz won the majority of the engagements with 21:9.

Every time the forces did not meet head on, but started with an exchange of flank shots, the Pz had the upper hand, Winning with 5 to 2 surviving tanks. When the battle started as a head on battle then the M4A1 dominated mostly loosing not more then 4 tanks to wipe out the Pz IIIls.

Crew capability etc. was set to equal.

I have heard referred to the Pz IV as "Rotbart der Dünnhäutige".

( "Redbeard, the thin skinned" )

I don´t know, if "Rotbart" does have anything to do witn "Barbarossa" ( same meaning, and the code name fpr the Invasion of Russia, as you all know ), but it clearly indicates the Pz IV´s weakness: thin armour ( especially at the sides )

Hermann

I have read once or twice a reference that PIV had that nickname.

"Rotbart" being a manufacturer of razor blades. A special trait of razor blades is "thiness", the thinner the better. Rotbart´s slogan was "extradünn" = extrathin.

http://www.rasierladen.de/rotbart-extra-duenn-p-220-2.html

They belong - if at all - to Gilette now. The website notes "for over 50 years" , which is not quite enough.
A real investigator would now have to google a bit more, or look thru old German print mags and newspapers.


Thank you seahawk for your tank trials. Looks like a tank game is good for fun AND education !

Kind of like I implied : P III / M4 a match of sorts, PIII not outclassed, but nothing to write home about either.
Mayby more later. Have to dig out books again.

I gave it another 30 battles. This time M4A1 won 20:10. In the end it seems to depend on the terrain, which must allow M4A1 to use the better range and which it can penetrate the PzIIILs, but mostly it depends on which side gets the first flank shots and is able to reduce the enemy force. In all 60 battles the side which was the first to kill 3-4 of the enemy tanks without loosing a tank (pr just 1 tank) won.

Hi !

Are your Panzer III using standard AP or tungsten core AP ?

I played both sides on a North African Scenario, a rear guard action in Tunisia. The American force had M4s, the Germans a mixed bag of Pz IIIs, two VIs, and StuGs. I did not find Pz III useful. The 75mm L/43 and 88mm L/56 stole the show in numbers of tanks killed. A couple of Pz IIIs managed to kill a Sherman and some half-tracks, but their contribution was minor.

SPWAW is a great game, but I am not sure if all statistics in that game is accurate. I think Pz V kept bouncing 75mm and 76mm hits from the sides at point blank range is pt a likely battlefield occurence.

the defautl setting gives the Pz 10 round of tungsten ammo. Which does make a difference for sure. Take it away and PzIII would be outclassed.