I think the production of half-tracks and tanks are different fields. When the war started, Panthers and Tigers were not being built yet. To suddenly switch to building large amount of Tigers and Panthers would have been a very hard thing to do in such a short time. Also many other factors are invovled, such as the lack of fuel, or trained personel among other things. However, I doubt building more Tigers and Panthers would really have tipped the scales, as there would always be more and more T-34's and Shermans. I feel at that stage of the war, it was simply impossible. Just my 2 cents

Bruno Kahl? A search on google doesnt give me very good results. Can anyone direct me to more information about this?

No not Bruno Kahl but Kurt Knispel with 167/168 (depending on source) kills with the Tiger I and Tiger II.

He never recieved a Ritterkreuz, although nominated several times, due to his 'unsoldierly behaiviour'...

Wittmann in reality was the 4th highest scoring panzer ace...

Here's a link to the man himself:

http://www.lg-c.dk/uploads/knis01.jpg

MC

Hi-
Further to the topic of getting your pannzer fixed, here is a page from the Panther manual on that very subject:
http://www.history.jp/wehrmacht/011-13.jpg

MC

I skipped over most of the responses so hopefully I am not reiterating a point. In most cases on the western front Tigers were deployed as sort of mobile pillboxes. Taking in account my modern day Armor training. You never deploy tanks piecemeal, but in groups using good cover, concealment, and above all......OVERWATCH. you never employ just a single tank by itself. If the Germans had more Tigers, they could have deployed them in groups of 3 therby giving them more ability to watch over each other. Going behind them might not have worked so well with one of them at all times watching the back door. That and using combined arms think if hey had a platoon of infantry armed with panzerfausts and PAnzerstrecks (bazooka). I would say more Tigers on the battlefield would have definitely changed things...Normandy would have been much worse then it was, delaying Paris ad perhaps eradicating Falaise.....it almost makes me shudder to think how bad things could have gone for the allies with a bunch more of these beheamoths available

Wll I think that because of Germany's practice of Blitzkrieg warfare they needed something fast to move troops. You must also remember that the halftrack had hundreds if not thousands of variants. It could carry troops, flamethrower, anti-tank weapons, rocket launchers, just about anything you can think of.

If Germany built more Tigers instead of halftracks, the war would have been lost way before 1945.

Wicked Dogload! How did you find this? Looks a lot like the Tiger Fiebel, written in same off-the-wall style! Shame i can't understand it....


Sorry, no slight intended, just used their names to make a point, I thought most people would be familiar with these names. I suppose I could have used Carius. Incidentally there isn't much mention of Hugo Prizovic (spelling!) either, perhaps that's because he was a Luftwaffe member who achieved his victories in a Stug, not nearly as sexy as a Tiger eh? This is despite the fact the original Tamiya Stug 111 had markings for his vehicle...

Hohenstaufen,

I always had a soft spot for the StuG and the antics of Primozic...

"In one single engagement Primozic destroyed seven tanks, fought to the last round of ammunition then calmly called in an artillery barrage on his own position."

By the January 1943 he had 60 kills to his name... He then had the good fortune to become an instructor..

Hermann Bix and his shooting through KV-1 gun barrels is always another favourite! One of the few men brave (or stupid?) enough to use a 38t against KV-1s...

Incidentally the picyure I have of Knispel shows a rather unsoldierly man... goatee beard and longish hair... kinda reminds me of Oddball from Kellys Heroes...

"My Tiger... its a beautiful tank... When I blow up T-34s they make pretty patterns..."

How about this pic.......



Tread.

I was thinking of this one...

...In your pic he looks like he could walk on stage with almost any of the popular musical bands these days, and pass for the lead singer.....

Tread.

HalfYank said:

"..........PS:, I've finally got a decent vehicle reliable enough to drive up to Denver. Ok, my wife thinks it's hers but I paid for it so I'm sure I can have it one weekend. If you care to ever get together, maybe visit a LHS or two up there, let me know........."

That's great news Rodger. I'll start thinking about a good date to do that.

Very interesting topic, Treadhead as evidenced by the number of responses. As for my humble 2 cents, the choice between Tigers and halftracks wouldn't have changed the outcome, delayed it at best. Even if Germany had the economic muscle to produce the numbers which they didn't, their losses in experienced crew to man them could not be replaced. A tank for all its merits can only be as good as the crew that mans it.

Nevertheless, the Tiger especially the King Tiger was well suited for its role during the ending phases of the war. Given its size, weight and necessary logistic tail, it was suited for ambushes and a defensive role which was what it did fairly well. However, the Sherman as most of the guys have pointed out won largely by the numbers and not technical superiority.

Personally I think the Panther is far more superior to the Tiger but as with most of German great inventions, they saved the best for the last, which strategically spelt disaster.

Yeah, I've constanly though of that question. If they were able to produce tanks like the PZ IV, why could they not produce a tiger that was more reliable?

The problem is that (Hitlers) obsssesion with ever bigger tanks didn't extent to the fixtures and fittings of those tanks. The 60 ton Tiger was in essence only using the same engine and gearbox as the 28 ton Pzr IV.... The war didn't leave enough time to fully develop and test the new tanks Germany put in the field. The first Tigers and Panthers which were deployed in Russia had many technical problems, largly because they were rushed into service.
In comparison, the Halftracks, and most of the early, well developed equipment, were reliable if not exciting.
The Germans used the years inbetween the wars to test and develop these vehicles, and when the war started these vehicles were proven and reliable.
The Allies responded by building two distinct replies ( I know there are many more, but for the discussion I'll concentrate on these two) the T-34 and the Sherman. Both were simple to build, relativly easy to upgrade and could be produced cheaply in great numbers.
The Germans simply had neither the time to develop new, bigger reliable tanks nor the resources to keep building them.

The point made by Beachbum is also very valid, as by the end of the war the Germans were simply running out of men to use in the army, let alone to train as tank crews.

Cheers
Henk

"........Very interesting topic, Treadhead as evidenced by the number of responses........"

Thx, and reading the responses has been very enjoyable for me, and I hope everyone else who has taken the time to stop by and read them (even you lurkers ).

And, as the already confessed "devil's advocate" here I need to perform my solemn duties and 'stir the pot'.
So here it goes......

There has been at least a couple of mentions of fuel shortages being an important issue for the Germans, and to some degree this is true. But to illustrate a more accurate picture of the German fuel 'issue' I will quote a passage from Charles B. MacDonald's excellent book on the Battle of the Bulge entitled 'A Time for Trumpets', Chapter One, Page 46;
" The (Allied) campaign against oil had it's effect, although not nearly to the extent that Allied analysts perceived. By stringent rationing, by drawing on stockpiles, and by taking extraordinary measures to bring oil from Hungary (except for synthetic oil plants, the only source remaining), Keitel managed to meet the anticipated requirement of not quite five million gallons, but about half of that would still be on the east bank of the Rhine as the offensive began. There was no intent to rely on captured Allied stocks of gasoline -- any such stocks would be a bonus -- for sufficient supplies were on hand. Yet that was not to say that there would be no problems in getting fuel forward to the troops who needed it. "

So, in Mr. MacDonald's exhaustive research on the German side of the equation, it was found that the problem wasn't necessarily that the Germans didn't have the fuel, only that they were found wanting (literally) when it came to having the fuel 'on-hand'.
(This could be the subject of a completely new thread!)

So assuming for the moment that the Germans had sufficient fuel at the start of the offensive, and that the Tigers were almost static 'pillboxes' (a view I don't necessarily agree with), the question remains. What if the Allies had gone up against an EQUAL number of German Tiger I's , King Tiger's and Panther's??
Taking, of course, into account our own blaster76's excellent point about not being required to deploy their tanks "piecemeal" but rather in hunter/killer 'packs' or groups'.

Also another extremely interesting observation that has been repeated within this thread regarding taking on the German Tigers and Panthers that needs to be made.
The general consensus seems to be that one of the main reasons the German tanks were simply overwhelmed is; that no matter how many Allied Sherman's and/or Soviet T-34's were destroyed, there was always "more where that came from" (which actually supports my original observation BTW).
People.......we need to remember that, for each of these Sherman's and T-34's that were destroyed willy-nilly, a brave tank crew was also killed! I'm quite sure that the honourable ex-tankers that we are all so very fortunate to have here with us at Armorama would agree that being part of a deployment that embraces the idea that there's "more where that came from" idea does NOT work in their favour....now, does it?
(again, a discussion about the decision to utilize Sherman's instead of the Pershing's (or some other choice) would fill yet another thread).

O.K......I'm done for now. That should be enough "pot-stirring" for the moment.
You guys (and gals) can start throwing things now..........

regards,

Tread.

Thank you Tread for the mention...I'll stand pat by what I've said earlier and add this comment to the mix. The Germans loved the Tiger because....the vast majority of the time the crew walked away from the vehicle. Most kills on a Tiger were mobility kills. If the Germans had control of the field they recovered and repaired these beasts and you might be facing the same one again the next day that you knocked out today. To a tanker, the qualiy of a tank is survivablity. I never crewed one, but I think the M1a1 is the greatest tank in the world. I think in its combat history 1 crewman has been killed. We never did combat in the M-60a1's that I served on, but I'll bet our ratio wouldn'thave been real bad either

A few further remarks..

about: more where they came from: compared to the German tankers, US, British and Russian tankers were relatively green. Yes, for every tank destroyed, lives would be lost.. but there were literally more tankers waiting, and without all that much combat experience, it wouldn't have mattered that much.

2: people tend to forget that there were a lot more soldiers and vehicles involved in the war. Artillery and infantry played just as big a role.
While the tankers played their battle, they forgot about the infantry men with panzerschrecks and bazookas!, and if that wasn't enough, a barrage of 155 mm shells can definately devastate an area, tanks included.

Howdy Snowhand,

Thx for stopping by, but your comment;

"....and without all that much combat experience, it wouldn't have mattered that much. ....."

is something I very strongly disagree with, as I'm sure most of the 'live' ex and present tankers here on site would as well.
Being inside the body of a tank when a round pierced it has to be an extremely horrible death indeed. I shudder to even think about it. Hopefully our deployment 'doctrine' did not embrace that type of sterile justification.

But....to move on. What?......nobody wants to comment on my fuel statement? Everybody out there afraid to even think about the Normandy countryside swarming with hunter/killer packs of Tigers and Panthers??..........buc, buc...bucccc!

Tread.

Just to respond to a part of the discussion ( I would not like to pretend I have an indept knowledge about the Bulge, although my knowledge is increasing as I'm reading 'Battle of The Bulge' by Danny S. Parker at the moment )




A few points here;
if the Allies would have had to go up against an equal amount of Tigers Panthers etc, and fuel would not be an issue, the war would have lasted many years longer. If the Germans would have been able to repel any attack on their occupied territories, the only way to end the war would have been negotiation or a economic stranglehold (blockade).
Negotiation would have meant that I would have grown up, not speaking Dutch but Hoch Deutsch....
Blockade would have taken years, and might not have worked. See recent history for examples of that.

I don''t think the Germans deployed their Tigers etc. piecemeal as it was. Most reports state that troops of three to five tanks engaged the enemy, untill two to four would be knocked out, the remaining one or two( or so) covering the retreat of the surrvivors.
The prefered German tactic involved a large number of Tanks, using speed and fire power, to 'punch' themselfs through the enemy lines, destroying armour as they went along. This is of course where the Panzer Grenadiers in their 251's came in, to follow hot on the Panzer's heels to mop up and secure the area's gained by the Panzers. This is one tactic where the Germans were good at, but the heavy and slow new tanks were unable to deploy at speed. They were slow, and therefore (relativly) easy prey for Bazooka's and AT guns etc. All you had to do was knock a wheel or the track ( always a weak point, no matter how thiick your front armour) off, immobilise the monster and knock it out at your leisure.

The idea of a German ability to match the Allies in output is a scary one though. Or imagine if Rommel had his way, and would have deployed his Panzers on the beaches in Normandy.....


Cheers
Henk

After Kursk, the Germans went defensive. On the fields of Normandy they were not mutually supporting as there were not enough to go around. Oh once in a while they did muster up enough for a brief counterattack ..which was devastating to our side. As I am the one who purported the theory of the Hunter -killer teams, I invite you to read the Tiger 1 book by Feist and Culverwhich as well as being an excellent technical reference also goes into detail a lot of the actions involving the Tigers. These are really scary weapons especially if you are in a Sherman

Ah, the joys of a "what if" thread! The problem with all these sort of forums is they can't help but get more wide ranging.
Let's look @ the fuel factor first. Yes the Germans just about managed to scrape together enough fuel for the Ardennes Offensive, however they had underestimated the amount of fuel that would be wasted sitting in massive traffic jams in the Ambleve valley, nor had they factored in the increased consumption as the poor roads got more & more cut up requiring tracked vehicles to tow the transport vehicles. Once the skies cleared, it didn't matter how much fuel they had, they would be in the same position as in Normandy, their supply trucks would be shot up by the Allied airforces. This was also a one shot operation. When it failed, the German forces were desperately short of fuel on every front, to the extent of needing "tank trains", where the first vehicle, with fuel towed others , without it.
This brings me onto another factor. The Germans had lost control of the skies in Europe by 1944, this was a significant factor in the Normandy battle. If you leave aside the trucks & tanks rocketed on the roads, for which Allied airmen frequently overclaimed, there is the inability to get infantry reinforcements forward to replace the Panzer units being burnt out in positional warfare (for which you needed infantry & alot of them), because all the infantry divisions were horse-drawn & needed the trains which the Allies had put out of action. So this really begs the question that shouldn't they have concentrated on the jets..?
There was no shortage of tanks in Normandy. A Panzer division theoretically could still field 170 tanks & up to 30 assault guns. If used in a massed attack, they would have been devastating. II SS Panzer Korps was brought back from the East to deliver precisely such an attack, but they were sucked into the hedgerow battles piecemeal, & instead of massing for an attack, their tanks were lurking in cover to prevent themselves becoming targets for Allied aircraft & artillery.
As regards the tank versus half track debate, the German never had enough of ANYTHING, including half tracks. They had intended that all their armoured infantry (Panzergrenadiere) should be carried in tracked carriers, but this never happened. Even SS Panzer divisions only had one battalion out of six in half tracks. Panzer Grenadier divisions with few exceptions did without altogether. Indeed the only division in the entire German forces to be fully equipped was Panzer Lehr, & when they went into the line opposite the Americans they stockpiled their halftracks elsewhere, they were of no use in the Bocage!
The intention was also that all the Panzer divisions should have a 2 battalion Panzer Regiment, one each of TigerII & Panthers. They never even got close to this. However they had cut the cake, the Germans could not win against the combined industrial might of America & Russia. They were just outproduced.

Steve (Hohenstauffen) has made mention of a key point. Air superiority. Definitely the major factor in the campaign for Normandy. As stated, the Germans had to deploy the Tigers piecemeal hidden in the bocage or whereever they could. Once "found" by the allies, they (allies) woud attack using several tanks and get around behind, or infiltrate with infantry. Now picture what we call defense in depth. You have two Tigers in front mutually supporting along with an infantry platoon to "greet" the allied forces. Behind them 400-500 meters would be another Tiger in overwatch. Behind him 1000 m or so would be a second platoon of three deployed similar to the first. Had there been sufficient Tigers with their longer range and far superior armor and gunnery skills....think how bad it was for the allied units, now multiply it 10 times because this is what a defense in depth can do for you. The Germans using cover and concealment to overcome the air-superiority might haave extended the war by a year until we would have fielded eough Pershings to fight back on an even playing field. Oh and throw in say double or (gulp) triple the ME 262's well...that's another nightmare isn't it

If the Germans would have been able to extent the war by a year, I wonder if we would have been in a position to use those Pershings? As you mention, the Germans had already the first jetfighter, but in insufficiant no's. But when they managed to deploy these 262's, they were devastating. The Germans were also close to creating the A bomb and a long distance multistage rocket (intercontinental) which would have probably ended the war in Germany's favour.
Would a larger no. of Panzer IV's (which could be build at twice the no. of Tigers) and the AFV's using that chassis have been able to use the defense in depth tactic, and thus held back the Allies longer ?. The IV, being smaller and more reliable aswel as using less fuel, would have been better suited to the fighting in the boccage. If the Panthers and Tigers would have been deployed in Russia, where the terrain was in their favour, and smaller but larger no's of Pzr IV's in the west, that might have lenghtend, if not changed the war.

Cheers
Henk

You are absolutely right Henk. However with the higher velocity 75 on the Panthers and 88 on the Tigers they had pretty much a one shot, one kill capability. Couple this with the nearly impenetratable armor on the Tiger and the excellent sloped armor on the Panther made them extremely hard to kill unless you were very, very close..given the range of their gun systems this becomes unlikely. I feel that the PZR IV later models though superior to the Shermans, were not that superior and quite capable of being taken on one to one. I am just glad that this is a what if rather tha a reality. I kinda feel sorry for the Iraqui tankers having to face our devastating M1a1 in those sh*tty T-62's / 72's. I had the opportunity to be on the evaluation team of the T-62 back in early 70's...I can tell you now that it totally reshaped how we planned to fight the "hordes " along the Inter-German border. All I can say is these tanks were a joke compared to our M-60a1 Rises