±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 558
Total: 558
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Home
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Photo Gallery
06: Community Forums
07: Community Forums
08: Home
09: Community Forums
10: Home
11: Home
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Home
15: Home
16: Downloads
17: Community Forums
18: Member Screenshots
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Your Account
22: Community Forums
23: Home
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Photo Gallery
28: Community Forums
29: News
30: Downloads
31: Member Screenshots
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Community Forums
35: Downloads
36: Community Forums
37: Photo Gallery
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Home
42: Downloads
43: Home
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Downloads
50: Community Forums
51: Downloads
52: Photo Gallery
53: Home
54: Member Screenshots
55: Community Forums
56: Photo Gallery
57: Home
58: Home
59: Photo Gallery
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Photo Gallery
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Your Account
66: Home
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Member Screenshots
71: Home
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Photo Gallery
75: Photo Gallery
76: Home
77: Home
78: Community Forums
79: Photo Gallery
80: Community Forums
81: Photo Gallery
82: Home
83: Community Forums
84: Home
85: Home
86: Home
87: Home
88: Community Forums
89: Home
90: Community Forums
91: Your Account
92: Home
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Home
97: Home
98: Home
99: Home
100: Home
101: Home
102: Home
103: Member Screenshots
104: Home
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Home
110: Community Forums
111: Home
112: Home
113: Statistics
114: Photo Gallery
115: Home
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Photo Gallery
121: Home
122: Photo Gallery
123: Home
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Statistics
127: Downloads
128: Member Screenshots
129: Photo Gallery
130: Downloads
131: Community Forums
132: Home
133: Downloads
134: Member Screenshots
135: Community Forums
136: Member Screenshots
137: Downloads
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Community Forums
141: Home
142: Photo Gallery
143: Photo Gallery
144: Member Screenshots
145: Home
146: Home
147: Community Forums
148: Photo Gallery
149: Downloads
150: Member Screenshots
151: Home
152: Home
153: Community Forums
154: Member Screenshots
155: Downloads
156: Photo Gallery
157: Member Screenshots
158: Community Forums
159: Member Screenshots
160: Home
161: Your Account
162: Community Forums
163: Member Screenshots
164: Photo Gallery
165: News Archive
166: Downloads
167: Photo Gallery
168: Community Forums
169: Home
170: Community Forums
171: Member Screenshots
172: Member Screenshots
173: Home
174: Member Screenshots
175: Your Account
176: Community Forums
177: Downloads
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Member Screenshots
182: Home
183: Community Forums
184: Downloads
185: Home
186: Home
187: Community Forums
188: Home
189: Community Forums
190: Home
191: Home
192: Community Forums
193: Downloads
194: Statistics
195: Home
196: News Archive
197: Home
198: Community Forums
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Photo Gallery
202: Home
203: Downloads
204: Member Screenshots
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Photo Gallery
208: Community Forums
209: News Archive
210: Photo Gallery
211: Community Forums
212: Home
213: Community Forums
214: Downloads
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Home
218: Home
219: Photo Gallery
220: Community Forums
221: Home
222: Home
223: Community Forums
224: Photo Gallery
225: Community Forums
226: Photo Gallery
227: Member Screenshots
228: Photo Gallery
229: Home
230: Community Forums
231: Home
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Home
235: Home
236: Home
237: Home
238: Member Screenshots
239: Member Screenshots
240: Community Forums
241: Photo Gallery
242: Community Forums
243: Community Forums
244: Home
245: Community Forums
246: Statistics
247: Home
248: Member Screenshots
249: Community Forums
250: Home
251: Community Forums
252: Photo Gallery
253: Downloads
254: Photo Gallery
255: Home
256: Member Screenshots
257: Home
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: Member Screenshots
261: Home
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Home
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Community Forums
269: News Archive
270: Home
271: Community Forums
272: Member Screenshots
273: Photo Gallery
274: Home
275: Photo Gallery
276: Community Forums
277: Statistics
278: Photo Gallery
279: News Archive
280: Home
281: Member Screenshots
282: Community Forums
283: Photo Gallery
284: Your Account
285: Community Forums
286: Community Forums
287: Community Forums
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Downloads
292: Community Forums
293: Community Forums
294: News Archive
295: News Archive
296: Community Forums
297: Member Screenshots
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Community Forums
301: Photo Gallery
302: Community Forums
303: Home
304: Photo Gallery
305: Home
306: Community Forums
307: News Archive
308: Community Forums
309: Community Forums
310: Photo Gallery
311: Home
312: Photo Gallery
313: Community Forums
314: Photo Gallery
315: Home
316: Downloads
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Home
321: Home
322: Photo Gallery
323: Member Screenshots
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Photo Gallery
329: Community Forums
330: Home
331: Home
332: Photo Gallery
333: Home
334: Community Forums
335: Photo Gallery
336: Home
337: News Archive
338: Downloads
339: Member Screenshots
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Home
343: Community Forums
344: Community Forums
345: Photo Gallery
346: Photo Gallery
347: News
348: Community Forums
349: Photo Gallery
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Community Forums
353: Home
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Photo Gallery
357: Community Forums
358: Downloads
359: Home
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Home
363: Home
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: Photo Gallery
368: Community Forums
369: Home
370: Home
371: Home
372: Home
373: Home
374: Home
375: Community Forums
376: Photo Gallery
377: Downloads
378: Home
379: Community Forums
380: Statistics
381: Community Forums
382: Photo Gallery
383: Photo Gallery
384: Downloads
385: Home
386: Community Forums
387: Community Forums
388: Community Forums
389: Downloads
390: Community Forums
391: Member Screenshots
392: Community Forums
393: Community Forums
394: Home
395: Community Forums
396: Community Forums
397: Community Forums
398: Downloads
399: Community Forums
400: Home
401: Community Forums
402: Photo Gallery
403: Downloads
404: Downloads
405: Downloads
406: Community Forums
407: Home
408: Home
409: Home
410: Community Forums
411: Home
412: Home
413: Home
414: Community Forums
415: Downloads
416: Photo Gallery
417: Home
418: Downloads
419: Community Forums
420: Home
421: Member Screenshots
422: Photo Gallery
423: Photo Gallery
424: Downloads
425: Member Screenshots
426: Member Screenshots
427: Photo Gallery
428: Member Screenshots
429: Photo Gallery
430: Community Forums
431: Community Forums
432: Photo Gallery
433: Community Forums
434: Photo Gallery
435: Community Forums
436: Downloads
437: Downloads
438: Community Forums
439: Photo Gallery
440: Member Screenshots
441: Photo Gallery
442: Member Screenshots
443: Member Screenshots
444: Community Forums
445: Photo Gallery
446: Downloads
447: Downloads
448: Home
449: Member Screenshots
450: Photo Gallery
451: Photo Gallery
452: Member Screenshots
453: Photo Gallery
454: Community Forums
455: Community Forums
456: Home
457: Photo Gallery
458: Photo Gallery
459: Home
460: Photo Gallery
461: Downloads
462: Member Screenshots
463: Photo Gallery
464: Home
465: Home
466: Downloads
467: Photo Gallery
468: Photo Gallery
469: Community Forums
470: Member Screenshots
471: Photo Gallery
472: Community Forums
473: Home
474: Community Forums
475: Member Screenshots
476: Downloads
477: Downloads
478: Community Forums
479: Photo Gallery
480: Community Forums
481: Home
482: Community Forums
483: Home
484: Home
485: Community Forums
486: Community Forums
487: Home
488: Home
489: Home
490: Home
491: Home
492: Community Forums
493: Downloads
494: Home
495: Photo Gallery
496: Home
497: Home
498: Photo Gallery
499: Community Forums
500: Home
501: Home
502: Photo Gallery
503: Home
504: Tell a Friend
505: Community Forums
506: Photo Gallery
507: Community Forums
508: Community Forums
509: Community Forums
510: Your Account
511: Home
512: Home
513: Community Forums
514: Community Forums
515: Home
516: Home
517: Home
518: Home
519: Home
520: Home
521: Home
522: Home
523: Home
524: Downloads
525: Home
526: Community Forums
527: Photo Gallery
528: Home
529: Downloads
530: Downloads
531: Downloads
532: Home
533: Statistics
534: Community Forums
535: Photo Gallery
536: Home
537: Home
538: Home
539: Community Forums
540: Downloads
541: Home
542: Photo Gallery
543: News Archive
544: Home
545: Community Forums
546: Community Forums
547: Home
548: Home
549: Home
550: Community Forums
551: Community Forums
552: Home
553: Community Forums
554: Community Forums
555: Home
556: Home
557: Community Forums
558: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Tiger I – pathetic reliability?
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lehr
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:16 pm
Post subject: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

This was posted on a forum on BoardGameGeek (I have the quote below so you do not have to use the link - for some reason BGG web pages can take a long time to download).

Geek List: wargames worth pre-ordering

The game’s designer gives some history of one of the units:

BTW, a little history of that counter....

That counter is schwere Panzer-Kompanie Hummel (K.St.N. 1176(f.g)) and was equipped with 14 PzKpfw VI Tiger Is...

It was formed in July 1944 at the Pz.Ers.Abt.500 in Paderborn, Germany as an "Alarmeinheit". After recovering from wounds in Italy, Hauptmann Hans Hummel was placed in command. Hummel selected his subcommanders available at PzErsAbt 500 from the officers present he knew from fighting in Italy with Pz.Abt 504.

His unit was alerted at around 12:30am on September 18th and was ordered to report to the Arnhem area. The unit arrived at Bocholt station on the morning of the 19th.

With the rail line blocked from allied air interdiction and other traffic proceeding in both directions, and with no tank transporters available, Hummel was ordered to proceed the 80 kms with the Tigers under their own power.

Tigers, as many of you might know, are not the most reliable of tanks under heavy use and all but 2 broke down during the trip. The two lucky tanks to make the trip without braking down were commanded by Leutnant Knaack and Feldwebel Barneki. They arrived around nightfall of the 19th at the Arnhem bridge perimeter.

The entire unit was not fully formed until the 24th - sans 3 Tigers.


Only 2 out of 14 Tiger Is (14%) made the 80km (50 mile) trip without breakdown. Compared with many other theaters of WWII, Holland in September does not seem like it would have the most demanding terrain or weather.

Is this reliability typical of Tiger Is?

What about other WWII tanks?

If 14 Shermans set out on the same trip how many would make it without breaking down?

What about 14 T-34s?

What about 14 AFVs with which you have personal experience (including post WWII)?

I am sure a lot depends on the condition of the tanks at the start of the trip, but the above performance just seems really bad. It seems like reliability like this would greatly reduce the effectiveness of an AFV especially on the offensive.

Any comments, knowledge and experience greatly appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile
Sabot
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 380
Location: Kentucky
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

The Tiger got a bad reputation (mechanically) at Kursk because they were deployed without first working all of the bugs out of them. Additionally, in wintery muddy weather, the mud would freeze between the road wheels overnight and immobilize the tank.

It also suffered from poor fuel consumption. I do not know the range of the tank off hand, but I believe it was less than 100 miles.

The Sherman was a mechanically sound vehicle and a 50 mile trip would have been easy to accomplish. The Sherman came with about four different engine types and fuel efficiency and reliability depended on which engine was being used.

_________________
RobG
Back to top
View user's profile AIM Address
PattonCurator
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

Agree about the Shermans - very reliable - probably 13 of the 14 would make the 50 mile trip (and the 14th would probably make it late after the crew repaired it. The T34 also has the same rugged reliability.

Charles
Back to top
View user's profile
Dubliner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

nt


Last edited by Dubliner on Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

- lehr
Only 2 out of 14 Tiger Is (14%) made the 80km (50 mile) trip without breakdown. Compared with many other theaters of WWII, Holland in September does not seem like it would have the most demanding terrain or weather.

Is this reliability typical of Tiger Is?


The Tiger was a heavy and fairly complicated vehicle which needed a lot of maintenance to operate properly. IIRC the operation manuals for the Tiger states that the crew has to check a number of things on the vehicle for every 15km of road march and fix any problems encountered. So you need crews that know their mount, you need conditions that allows the crew to take care of the vehicle and of course you need spares and maintenance units to fix any problems that occur during the roadmarch. Once you start removing some of those prerequisites for keeping your Tiger happy, chances are there will be trouble.

Tigers of s.SS-PzAbt 101 travelled about 300 kilometers on the road from Northern France to Normandy in June 1944, starting out with 45 tanks on June 7th and was down to 17 operational Tigers on June 12th. Most of the reminder had broken down along the road. It is evident that once tanks start to brake down along a 300 kilometer journey, it is impossible for the maintenance company to help everyone and things will start to fall apart. I has to be said that this battalion did come under allied air attack as well, which clearly didn't help the situation any. AFAIK no Tigers were lossed to allied airpower until June 13th.
A major problem for s.SS-PzAbt 101 was that their new Tiges used the steel-rimmed wheels which were very hard on the tracks, particularily the tracks pins, when travelling on hard surfaces.

IIRC Kompanie Hummel took over their Tigers from Pz.Ers.u.Ausb.Abt 500, a training formation, so they might have been well used vehicles to begin with.

- lehr
What about other WWII tanks?

If 14 Shermans set out on the same trip how many would make it without breaking down?

What about 14 T-34s?


WWII tanks were generally fragile beasts compared with modern equipment, but neither the Sherman nor the T-34 were as heavy and complex as the Tiger I. They would probably suffer a lot less from the strains of a long roadmarch and the Sherman in particular would benefit from its rubber rimmed wheels and rubber-bushed track pins.

That said, T-34s were not really known for their production quality or reliability, at least through parts of the war, so my money would be on the Sherman as the more reliable, everything else being equal.

- lehr
I am sure a lot depends on the condition of the tanks at the start of the trip, but the above performance just seems really bad. It seems like reliability like this would greatly reduce the effectiveness of an AFV especially on the offensive.


Indeed. But I think we have to keep in mind the day and age of these machines. In WWI, you could start with 400 tanks and in a couple of days you would have very few left in operational condition, the rest being mostly broken down or stuck rather than destroyed. That lesson was carried over to WWII which is why early war German armoured divisions had up to 350 tanks. That way they could afford to have half of them out of order and still pack a punch. That was clearly demonstrated during the Battle for France when a division could drop to 50% of its strength in a few days of operation and then raise the figure to 80% after a day or two of maintenance and repair.

My 2 ørers worth anyway

Claus B

PS: Sabot, the Tiger was first employed around Leningrad in November 1942, I think you are confusing it with the Panther, which had some serious issues during its combat debut at Kursk in 1943 (and several months after that as well, but that's a different issue).
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

I rather wonder if it was less a problem with the Tigers and more a problem with German maintenance units. You hear about American tank maintenance units doing heroic work all night long in order to get the tanks back up and running in the morning. Now that i recall, the book "Deathtraps" had some especially nasty things to say about the original Sherman radial engine. In that book I recall he broke-down what proportion of men in a Tank Battalion were involved in vehicle maintenance, and it was a grotesquely large number. By '44 Germany probably couldn't afford the manpower for an effective maintenance section.
Back to top
View user's profile
J.McGillivray
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 149

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

The following is from “German Tanks of World War II� by Dr. S. Hart and Dr. R. Hart.(p.123-124)

“One engagement, during the 1944 Allied campaign in Italy, highlights the difficulties the Germans faced thanks to the poor cross-country performance, mechanical unreliability and the sheer physical bulk of the Tiger I tank. Between 23 and 25 May 1944, the 16Tigers of the 3rd Company, 506th Heavy Tank Battalion fought a costly engagement around Cori. On 23 May, the company advanced across a railway embankment and engaged Allied armour, but during the crossing three Tigers were disabled, two with track problems and one with gearbox failure. The Tiger's 2.02m (6ft Sin) barrel-overhang also proved a problem, as two other Tiger tanks accidentally jammed their guns into the soil as they came down the steep-sided embankment and had to be towed clear. Eventually 13 Tigers continued the advance during which they knocked out six Sherman tanks. During this attack, however, Allied artillery damaged another Tiger which withdrew back to a German workshop. The next day Allied anti-tank fire disabled another Tiger which was blown up by its crew.

“The company was then ordered to withdraw. While five Tigers held back an Allied attack, the remaining six tanks tried to tow away the three disabled Tigers by the embankment. However, the strain caused four of the six towing Tigers to break down. The Germans then had to destroy the three disabled tanks by the embankment and use the remaining two Tigers to tow back the four that had broken down. By the time the company had withdrawn to Cori, two of its five rearguard tanks had been disabled (one by Allied fire and the other because of a gearbox fault) while one of the two towing tanks had also broken down. Hence, while the three operational rearguard Tigers continued to block the Allied advance, back at Cori the company commander could deploy just one working Tiger and six disabled ones. With the rearguard now unable to stop the Allied advance into Cori, and with recovery vehicles unable to reach the company in time, the commander ordered the destruction of the six disabled Tigers to prevent them falling into Allied hands, while his remaining four tanks withdrew north. The company had lost 12 Tigers, but only three had been disabled by Allied fire. Clearly, the Tiger's mechanical unreliability was more of a threat than Allied fire.�
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

As a career Tanker, I can only imagine the utter frustration of the crews. Knowing that they man such a powerful vehicle, but having to 'scuttle' them due to mechanical unreliability.

_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

- J.McGillivray
The following is from “German Tanks of World War II� by Dr. S. Hart and Dr. R. Hart.(p.123-124)

“One engagement, during the 1944 Allied campaign in Italy, highlights the difficulties the Germans faced thanks to the poor cross-country performance, mechanical unreliability and the sheer physical bulk of the Tiger I tank. Between 23 and 25 May 1944, the 16Tigers of the 3rd Company, 506th Heavy Tank Battalion fought a costly engagement around Cori.


In all fairness, this particular example is one of the worst performances of a Tiger unit and hardly typical. The unit was 3. Kompanie s.PzAbt 508 and there are at least two different accounts of what happened.

The company was caught in the middle of a major allied advance and apparently had no backup from the battalion maintenance company which had the heavy recovery vehicles. In the end, tanks with even minor damage, combat or mechanical, had to blown up or left to the enemy as the allies were advancing past the damaged vehicles. In such situations, armour losses are always high, regardless of type.

If you look at the incident, you start with three tanks breaking down on May 23rd. Two threw their tracks, which was not, to my knowledge, a common complaint with the Tiger, so it should probably not be put down to unreliability but rather accident (bad maintenance, bad driving, bad terriain or bad luck). One had transmission trouble, which is more like the kind of fault you would ascribe to mechanical deficiencies.

Then they try to recover the three broken down tanks by towing them after six other Tigers. AFAIK this procedure was actually forbidden unless there was imminent danger of the damaged tank falling into enemy hands. Tigers were not designed for such work, they had enough trouble shifting their own weight around.
Here the stories start to differ. In the Hart & Hart account, four of the towing tanks brakes down with transmission damage and one additional tank brakes down towing while two Tigers are trying to tow four other Tigers - a somewhat dubious claim, I think! In any case, this means that five Tigers broke down with transmission damage from towing.
In the report quoted by Jentz, four tanks of the six towing brakes down and then gets towed in turn by four other Tigers. These four Tigers make it, but later two of them brakes down transmission damage as well and it is tempting to assume that this had to do with the fact that they had been acting as recovery vehicles for most of the day. Another one of these four also brakes down later in the day with unspecified "technical problems".

Hart & Hart mentions another, non-towing Tiger braking down with transmission trouble later as well, which makes it two "unprovoked" transmission failures. In the Jentz account, you can argue that only one tank suffered from "unprovoked" transmission trouble while all the others broke down because of misuse.

When the allied forces neared the collection point for the damaged vehicles, the Tigers were blown up - six according to Hart & Hart, nine according to the Jentz report.

One could argue that if the company had the support from the necessary recovery vehicles, they might have lost between five and seven fewer tanks, namely those that broke down trying to recover the other losses.

During its time in Italy prior to this incident (from mid-february), the battalion managed to keep about 57% of its vehicles operational on average, with a low of 17% and a high of 93%. And it did see a fair amount of combat in the period.

Bottom line is that I think this story is more about the Tigers mechanical fragility than it unreliability. It did not stand up well to abuse, but does that make it unreliable? And of course it speaks of the problems involved in being overrun by the enemy!

Claus B
Back to top
View user's profile
lehr
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 24, 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

Thanks to all for your replies. It's easy to see the importance of firepower, armor and mobility, but now I have a greater appreciation for the importance of reliability and maintenance support.
Back to top
View user's profile
Dirk
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 115
Location: South Africa
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

great thread - interesting discussion .

My 2 cents - The Tiger did the job it was designed for and thus could perhaps be viewed as a success.

Only thing was that the support system for the Tiger was not implemented , IIRC from a post-graduate course in Logistics Engineering I had :

Support the design and design the support .

My humble opinion Wink

Dirk
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

One problem the late Tiger II chassis' had to worry about that I don't think the early Tiger I chassis did was slave labor teams being forced to assemble them. I recall (working of distant memory here) there's an account in the big 653rd book of Jadgtigers leaving the factory near war's en and hardly making it 40 miles out of town before most of them had broken down. It seems the radiators were so shoddily constructed that coolant flow was drastically restricted, quickly causing breakdowns due to overheating. It's tempting to imagine a heroic slave laborer risking death while purposefully soldering the radiators half-shut.

Its funny comparing this discussion with contemporary Allied accounts of German armor. It seems the grass in always greener on the other side. From the U.S. side the German tanks appeared to have better flotation (ground pressure), maneuverability, optics, armor, guns, engines (compared to the old radial), and pretty much everything else! Well, The U.S. tankers did prefer their own radios, turret drives, and HC smoke shell. But that's about it.
Back to top
View user's profile
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

- mike_Duplessis
One problem the late Tiger II chassis' had to worry about that I don't think the early Tiger I chassis did was slave labor teams being forced to assemble them. I recall (working of distant memory here) there's an account in the big 653rd book of Jadgtigers leaving the factory near war's en and hardly making it 40 miles out of town before most of them had broken down. It seems the radiators were so shoddily constructed that coolant flow was drastically restricted, quickly causing breakdowns due to overheating. It's tempting to imagine a heroic slave laborer risking death while purposefully soldering the radiators half-shut.


Or just doing sloppy work due to lack of training, skill, and motivation. But definately a factor - in one German plant (MAN Nürnberg), 55% of the work was made by foreign labour, non-Germans drafted as workers in the occupied countries.

- mike_Duplessis
Its funny comparing this discussion with contemporary Allied accounts of German armor. It seems the grass in always greener on the other side. From the U.S. side the German tanks appeared to have better flotation (ground pressure), maneuverability, optics, armor, guns, engines (compared to the old radial), and pretty much everything else! Well, The U.S. tankers did prefer their own radios, turret drives, and HC smoke shell. But that's about it.


That is really a different issue. Reliability, logistics and production concerns probably becomes a moot point if you are in the field, looking down the barrel of a bigger and badder enemy tank. On the other hand, if reliability, logistics and production does not work, you wont even have a tank, at least not at working one Smile

Claus B
Back to top
View user's profile
J.McGillivray
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 149

PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Tiger I – pathetic reliability?

Robin Neillands in his book “The Desert Rats 7th Armoured Division 1940 – 1945� sums things up nicely as followers:

“At this point it may be necessary to explain to a section of the readership that the successful development of a new weapon is far from being the end of the story. The weapon will have a designed range of technical features and benefits, but at least half the effectiveness of any weapon in battle will depend on how it is used, manned, serviced and deployed in battle….. How a weapon is used is therefore as critical to its success as its designed technical performance.�

People who sing the praises of the German cats often talk of their performance under ideal theoretical conditions; although those conditions were seldom encountered in the field. One must take into consideration the actual conditions there the cats were used, or misused.

For example the Panthers with their excellent gun and well sloped armoured, were often thrown into reckless, rushed, poorly planned and poorly supported counter attacks, in Normandy; which exposed the weaknesses of their design.

The most important fact that one must consider is that the Germans, in spite of their Tigers and Panthers, still lost the war. In other words the big cats failed to get the job done!
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum