Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Nick, I'll remind you that in the post of mine you quote, I made a point of both distance: 2-300(+) yards/meters, i.e. about 2-3 football field lengths away and also obscured by covering terrain. I was also commenting on relative size, up close, of the Tiger I (not II) versus the Sherman M4. I'm not disputing that side by side, the Tiger I is a bit larger in size than the Sherman. Increased weight is implied, but Shermans would be in the 30-38 ton range (depending upon variant) and Tiger I about 50 tons.

    Regarding silhouette, the lines and contours of the Tiger I (Mk. VIa) and a Mk IV with skirt armor are very similar and at DISTANCE they could be readily confusing, especially if one only has a brief glimpse. The longer barreled 75mm of the Mk IV (F2 onward) also had a near 50% greater range and effectiveness over the short barrel 75mm of the Sherman which makes it as difficult to get up close to as the Tiger I.

    Point is I'm talking about likely combat engagement conditions and ranges, not parade ground or museum side-by-sides. Also I was mentioning the Tiger I. Obviously, the Tiger II (Mk VIb) has a significantly different appearance/silhouette compared to the Tiger I and about 20 more tons in weight. The Panther (weight about 45 tons) also has a significantly different appearance/contour compared to the Tiger I. I was referring to only one "cat", not all of them, and that one having a very similar contour to the Mk IV.

    Either you didn't grasp that my comparison was just between the Tiger I and Mk IV H, AT DISTANCE & within covering terrain, or you are just letting your long-term animosity towards me get the better.

    Whatever ...

    For illustration purpose;

    Panzer Mk IV;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV
    Panzer Mk V - Panther;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
    Panzer Mk VIa - Tiger I;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I
    Panzer Mk VIb - Tiger II;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

    USA M4 Sherman;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
    There was almost no chance that any PBI saw any type of Tiger. They were too rare.

    There was also no evidence any type of Tigerphobia was real. Tigers were far too rare to make an impact in the ETO.

    The only tanks that may have had an actual Tigerphobia effect were the Matilda 2, T-34 and KV-1. These tanks had their effect prior to 1942.






    Leave a comment:


  • Von Richter
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    Who or what is a Mick Kenny?
    He's a bloke who knows more than most about Jerry's big cats.
    As a foot up the arse about my comment, to somebody a lot like our very own RSM who was there... my mate said...

    "We stonked them with 25pdrs and blew the camouflage off, I still wasn't sure what they were till we took the village and found a Tiger broken down and abandoned."

    That old bloke , long dead now, was one of my Heroes.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    In real life and up close, there is no doubt which tank looks more dangerous. Bigger looks better, and Cats can be more than twice the weight of a IV or Sherman.

    Furthermore, I believe you may be ignoring both the IQ and experience of the PBI after a few weeks of combat. While a small proportion of veterans might possibly not know the difference between a 25 ton Mk IV, and a 70 ton Tiger 2, most would.

    There is no evidence that the Cats ever had any real effect on the outcome of WW2, bar make it end a bit sooner.
    Nick, I'll remind you that in the post of mine you quote, I made a point of both distance: 2-300(+) yards/meters, i.e. about 2-3 football field lengths away and also obscured by covering terrain. I was also commenting on relative size, up close, of the Tiger I (not II) versus the Sherman M4. I'm not disputing that side by side, the Tiger I is a bit larger in size than the Sherman. Increased weight is implied, but Shermans would be in the 30-38 ton range (depending upon variant) and Tiger I about 50 tons.

    Regarding silhouette, the lines and contours of the Tiger I (Mk. VIa) and a Mk IV with skirt armor are very similar and at DISTANCE they could be readily confusing, especially if one only has a brief glimpse. The longer barreled 75mm of the Mk IV (F2 onward) also had a near 50% greater range and effectiveness over the short barrel 75mm of the Sherman which makes it as difficult to get up close to as the Tiger I.

    Point is I'm talking about likely combat engagement conditions and ranges, not parade ground or museum side-by-sides. Also I was mentioning the Tiger I. Obviously, the Tiger II (Mk VIb) has a significantly different appearance/silhouette compared to the Tiger I and about 20 more tons in weight. The Panther (weight about 45 tons) also has a significantly different appearance/contour compared to the Tiger I. I was referring to only one "cat", not all of them, and that one having a very similar contour to the Mk IV.

    Either you didn't grasp that my comparison was just between the Tiger I and Mk IV H, AT DISTANCE & within covering terrain, or you are just letting your long-term animosity towards me get the better.

    Whatever ...

    For illustration purpose;

    Panzer Mk IV;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV
    Panzer Mk V - Panther;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
    Panzer Mk VIa - Tiger I;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I
    Panzer Mk VIb - Tiger II;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

    USA M4 Sherman;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    I'm sorry, should have put it in full....'Poor Bloody Infantry' a leave over from the first World War. Cheers, lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
    Being an ex PBI, I am a little indignant at the insinuations of our mental capacity when in close contact with the enemy armour. My remarks dwelled on the fact that if they had a black Cross on ' em they were jerries and were treated as such, what brand they were was not immediately of any great importance. lcm1
    My respects sir.!!!

    If I may ask.... What on earth is a PBI? Best I can come up with is Peanut Butter -- something, but I am sure that's wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Being an ex PBI, I am a little indignant at the insinuations of our mental capacity when in close contact with the enemy armour. My remarks dwelled on the fact that if they had a black Cross on ' em they were jerries and were treated as such, what brand they were was not immediately of any great importance. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Actually, when I place my scale models, either 1/72-1/76 or 1/35 beside each other, the "cats" like the (MK. VI)Tiger I and the basic M4 Sherman, the Tiger only looks about 20-30% larger.

    Now imagine such out about 2-300 yards/meters and size could look close to a MK. V Panther or an Mk. IVH with side armor plates, especially if they have assorted 'brush' attached for camouflage to blend with nearby terrain.

    In the few seconds where one might either be a target and/or hit; or do the targeting and hit the other guy, hasty qualifications might be secondary. "Tiger" could just be generic for a Jerry tank and shoot! ... or scoot.
    In real life and up close, there is no doubt which tank looks more dangerous. Bigger looks better, and Cats can be more than twice the weight of a IV or Sherman.

    Furthermore, I believe you may be ignoring both the IQ and experience of the PBI after a few weeks of combat. While a small proportion of veterans might possibly not know the difference between a 25 ton Mk IV, and a 70 ton Tiger 2, most would.

    There is no evidence that the Cats ever had any real effect on the outcome of WW2, bar make it end a bit sooner.

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Yes, that is what I assumed, a very abbreviated abbreviation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    CW=British Commonwealth, I presume.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    Noise is an effective weapon. The cacophonic effect of 25pdrs was one reason the CW preferred these weapons over the US 105mm.
    Stupid question....... What is a CW? For that matter someone above mentions having been a Mick Kenny.... Who or what is a Mick Kenny? Sorry for asking, but I seem to be missing some of the context of an otherwise interesting discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    After the Salerno Landings British forces came under fire from 88s used in the conventional artillery indirect fire role. The British were firing back using 25 pounders. Later an analysis was made to compare the effectiveness of the two weapons. Things like casualty/rounds fired ratios etc were examined but also men who had been on the receiving end were interviewed. Years later the report was released into the public domain and I've read it. In essence the 25 pounder way physically more effective in the conventional artillery role (which is not surprising as that's what it was designed for) but the 88 had a greater psychological effect because of the noise that incoming rounds made.

    Noise is obviously an effective weapon which is why the Ju 87 was fitted with sirens
    Noise is an effective weapon. The cacophonic effect of 25pdrs was one reason the CW preferred these weapons over the US 105mm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Von Richter
    replied
    An old friend of mine saw two Tiger tanks in Italy, he was in an observation post and saw them through his binoculars. The Tigers were manoeuvring in a hilltop village. I asked him what one looked like, expecting all the 'Kelly's Heroes' type answers, he said...

    "Looked like two blokes running carrying a pair of ladders with a great bush on it."

    He went on to explain that the blokes were the front and back bogies and the ladder rungs the road wheels going round. In those days I was a Mick Kenny and knew everything about Tigers, so I told him that, in fact, they could have been any Jerry tanks and most likely not Tigers.





    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    After the Salerno Landings British forces came under fire from 88s used in the conventional artillery indirect fire role. The British were firing back using 25 pounders. Later an analysis was made to compare the effectiveness of the two weapons. Things like casualty/rounds fired ratios etc were examined but also men who had been on the receiving end were interviewed. Years later the report was released into the public domain and I've read it. In essence the 25 pounder way physically more effective in the conventional artillery role (which is not surprising as that's what it was designed for) but the 88 had a greater psychological effect because of the noise that incoming rounds made.

    Noise is obviously an effective weapon which is why the Ju 87 was fitted with sirens
    Believe me, the sound of incoming 88 shells is something that is hard to explain.Particularly with good crews on the German end, it could be an unbroken shriek. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffdoorgunnr
    replied
    good thread. One of the reasons I keep coming.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    There were only a few hundred German tanks and AG on the Western front from Sept 1944- Nov 1944- compared to the Allies in the West it was an exponential numerical inferiority. There was an uptick in German armor for the Ardennes offensive and then they were transferred east again in Jan 1945. This 10 times, 15 times etc. inferiority was not a trait of the Eastern Front.

    The Waffen SS panzer divisions and a few Army panzer divisions like 2nd Panzer, Panzer Lehr were pulled out of the frontline to retrain and refit.

    Outside of the failed panzer brigades at Arracourt (which were then rolled into the panzer divisions as reinforcements),

    There were only about 4 or so panzer divisions on the Western Front for the most part (9.Panzer, 116.Panzer, 21st Panzer, 116th Panzer) with Lehr making an appearance just before the Ardennes offensive.

    There were brigade sized groups, not really divisions.

    This is a controversial and neglected aspect. The Germans retained the ability to defend the Western Front with scratch armored forces. Their offensive capability was weak but their ability to provide strong Anti-tank defense by shifting armor around and blocking allied units remained.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X