Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All in the Mind? The psychological effect of Tiger Tanks and 88’s

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    There was the equivalent of about 1 or half a battalion operational at any time in that sector. Still, they were dwarfed by other AFV types.

    Tigers are prevalent in American accounts and it comes to me as just a "catch all" term for "tank". They see a german tank and just call it a tiger.
    HI CI, as I remember, it did not matter one bloody bit what brand of tank it was, if it was German you fired at it or got out of the way of it, depending on the circumstances. Light infantry were not always prepared to take them on. It is only the post war experts with their books that have made a big thing of it. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • Von Richter
    replied
    What the fook's 'outstanding' about cabbaging a dozen Bren Gun Carriers then...getting the best tank in Normandy blown out from under yer...
    by a PIAT bomber!!!???

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    Originally posted by the ace View Post

    Considering it took the Western Allies AND the Soviet Union 6 years to beat them, I think we can take that as read.
    Well of course we should.
    However some posters and WWII pundits still aren't (and probably never will be) comfortable with the idea.
    Witness attempts to minimise Wittmann's outstanding achievements in the East and West (and for the umpteenth time he served a vile cause!) and the ignoring of the reality that the Germans were vastly under resourced.

    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    There was the equivalent of about 1 or half a battalion operational at any time in that sector. Still, they were dwarfed by other AFV types.

    Tigers are prevalent in American accounts and it comes to me as just a "catch all" term for "tank". They see a german tank and just call it a tiger.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    The "Tiger Tank" from the allied POV was in reality the Panzer IV and the Panther.

    In "Tigers in Normandy", effectively there was only up to one tank battalion of Tigers operational on the Western Front (there were 3 x Tiger battalions deployed there with understrength operational numbers). The Germans deployed the Tigers mainly in the East.

    Considering all the Tigers were deployed on the British/Canadian front in Normandy, density there was often better than 1 Tiger per mile of front.
    The battalions were understrength because they kept getting hit by the Allies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    The "Tiger Tank" from the allied POV was in reality the Panzer IV and the Panther.

    In "Tigers in Normandy", effectively there was only up to one tank battalion of Tigers operational on the Western Front (there were 3 x Tiger battalions deployed there with understrength operational numbers). The Germans deployed the Tigers mainly in the East.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    While I'm at it ....
    Which one's Willy, which one's Joe?
    Great stuff!

    Have you really done 17000 + posts in eleven years? That's amazing.
    I've only managed 2770 in fourteen years.

    lodestar handy hint:
    DISAPPOINT wasps this summer by smearing cold tea on your ears instead of honey

    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    While I'm at it ....

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • the ace
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post

    Yes granted.

    However I think we should also appreciate how well the 88 and Tiger tank crews fought.
    Especially in the West, so late in the war against overwhelmingly superior numbers of allied tanks and other resources, total allied air supremacy and a hopeless overall situation.

    Perspective guys and gals, with a lodestar topic it's nearly always about perspective.




    Regards lodestar


    Considering it took the Western Allies AND the Soviet Union 6 years to beat them, I think we can take that as read.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    Originally posted by the ace View Post
    What got me was that Allied troops could still find the courage to face and defeat them, while I'd probably be burying myself in a pile of sh!te to avoid capture (believe me, it'd be there).

    LCM1 has hit the nail on the head, we're lucky that we'll probably never have to face such things, and I have nothing but the deepest respect for those who did.
    Yes granted.

    However I think we should also appreciate how well the 88 and Tiger tank crews fought.
    Especially in the West, so late in the war against overwhelmingly superior numbers of allied tanks and other resources, total allied air supremacy and a hopeless overall situation.

    Perspective guys and gals, with a lodestar topic it's nearly always about perspective.


    My wife knows full well how lucky she is ....wedded for 35 years to a cosmic entity.
    On occasion she has looked away from me shielding her eyes and saying "Forgive me Highness, one can only look at the son of the sunne for so long before one begins to be blinded by your brilliance. I must rest mine eyes".


    Regards lodestar



    Leave a comment:


  • the ace
    replied
    To me it's a similar effect to the bayonet;

    A psychological weapon that got that way by having real effects.

    The Tiger was a superb tank by anyone's standards, more than capable of turning any opponent to blazing scrap, and the 88mm's fearsome reputation was also thoroughly deserved.

    What got me was that Allied troops could still find the courage to face and defeat them, while I'd probably be burying myself in a pile of sh!te to avoid capture (believe me, it'd be there).

    LCM1 has hit the nail on the head, we're lucky that we'll probably never have to face such things, and I have nothing but the deepest respect for those who did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    There were two principle types of 88s used for anti tank work, the original l56 that was used an an AA gun and was fitted to the Tiger Is and the longer L71 that was in the Tiger 2s.
    Last edited by Surrey; 20 Aug 18, 09:07. Reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43#/media/File:Tiger_II_mg_7800.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Von Richter
    replied
    Certainly had an effect 'in my mind' when I first saw one of the bleedin' things!
    Like all of us (present company excepted RSM!) I knew it all from books, till I saw it... much, much 'larger than life'. Bovvy Tank Museum, spring 1975. On a massive rack were displayed tank guns ranging from the 2pdr., which you could just about carry, a 6pdr. that looked summat like, to a 17pdr. which ticked all the boxes as to what I'd imagined a tank killing gun to look like.
    As I edged in to get a closer look I stumbled over something big, and cursed the idiot who'd left a fing great telegraph pole, laying about on the floor... said telegraph pole, on closer inspection, was an 88mm Tiger tank gun.
    Trust me on this... it's not all in the mind!

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post

    Yes, if there’s one factor which the Western allies always recognised about the way the Germans fought in 1943-45, it was how they were so often able to get the absolute most of what little they had.

    Not just their small arms but anti-tank guns like the 88, mines, support artillery, and of course AFV’s like the Tiger.

    This coupled with their generally high levels of training and proficiency and that overall excellent unit cohesion under sometimes tremendous pressure made them formidable opponents.

    My father said that his father who fought them for four years in the trenchs 1914-18 including Verdun had always said of the Germans that they were ‘hard to shift’ when defending and ‘hard to stop’ when attacking’.

    Same could be said about them in WWII.

    But back to the 88:
    Ian Hogg the noted artillery writer said of its use in Normandy in issue 2 (May 1974) of the old ‘War Monthly’ magazine;
    By this time, too, the 88 was a standard tank gun. Its threat was greater than it had been as an anti-tank gun - now, the 88 could come looking for you.
    But by this time also the Allies were in a better position; their tank armor was thicker – though not enough to survive a short-range encounter with an 88. And their tank and anti-tank guns were of equal greater power.”
    He also notes:

    “In summary the potency of the 88 was that it was present in reasonable numbers, when it was needed. ‘They’ had them, ‘we’ didn’t. And anything an enemy has which makes life unpleasant for you tends to earn a larger-than-life reputation.”

    lodestar was neither liked nor trusted. Not by those who raised him, those he grew up with and went to school with, those he worked with and associated with as an adult, nor those who know him now.
    One woman told him she felt uneasy around him because: 'Your eyes are the colour of dirty coins.'


    Regards lodestar
    Larger than life?? it's easy to dismiss it as such now that you are never likely to suffer the arrival of the unwanted guest. lcm1

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X