±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 617
Total: 617
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Downloads
03: Member Screenshots
04: Downloads
05: Community Forums
06: Home
07: Photo Gallery
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Photo Gallery
15: Photo Gallery
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Member Screenshots
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: CPGlang
26: Downloads
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Downloads
32: Community Forums
33: Home
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Home
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Your Account
42: Your Account
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Home
46: Community Forums
47: Downloads
48: Community Forums
49: Photo Gallery
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Photo Gallery
53: Your Account
54: Photo Gallery
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Downloads
58: Photo Gallery
59: Downloads
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: CPGlang
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: News Archive
71: Photo Gallery
72: Downloads
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Downloads
82: Community Forums
83: CPGlang
84: Photo Gallery
85: Community Forums
86: Home
87: Downloads
88: Downloads
89: Photo Gallery
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Photo Gallery
101: Photo Gallery
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Photo Gallery
107: Photo Gallery
108: Member Screenshots
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Your Account
112: Home
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Home
120: Statistics
121: Your Account
122: Photo Gallery
123: Home
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Home
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Your Account
132: Home
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Community Forums
137: Community Forums
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: CPGlang
141: Community Forums
142: Photo Gallery
143: Community Forums
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: Home
153: Home
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Downloads
158: Photo Gallery
159: Community Forums
160: Home
161: Home
162: Photo Gallery
163: Community Forums
164: Community Forums
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Home
170: Community Forums
171: Your Account
172: Community Forums
173: Statistics
174: Community Forums
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: Community Forums
178: Downloads
179: Member Screenshots
180: Community Forums
181: Community Forums
182: Community Forums
183: Home
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Downloads
188: Community Forums
189: Community Forums
190: Home
191: Home
192: Home
193: Community Forums
194: Photo Gallery
195: Community Forums
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: Photo Gallery
203: Community Forums
204: Community Forums
205: Photo Gallery
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Home
210: Community Forums
211: Statistics
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Community Forums
218: Member Screenshots
219: Downloads
220: Community Forums
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Your Account
228: Your Account
229: Community Forums
230: Downloads
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Home
235: Community Forums
236: Photo Gallery
237: Downloads
238: Community Forums
239: Home
240: Photo Gallery
241: Community Forums
242: CPGlang
243: Community Forums
244: Community Forums
245: Photo Gallery
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Community Forums
249: Home
250: Community Forums
251: Community Forums
252: Home
253: Community Forums
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Photo Gallery
258: Community Forums
259: CPGlang
260: Community Forums
261: Home
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Downloads
269: Community Forums
270: Community Forums
271: Community Forums
272: Community Forums
273: Member Screenshots
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Community Forums
278: Community Forums
279: Community Forums
280: Photo Gallery
281: Your Account
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Photo Gallery
285: Photo Gallery
286: Downloads
287: Photo Gallery
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Photo Gallery
291: Photo Gallery
292: Photo Gallery
293: Photo Gallery
294: Community Forums
295: Photo Gallery
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Photo Gallery
299: Community Forums
300: Community Forums
301: Home
302: Community Forums
303: Home
304: Statistics
305: Community Forums
306: Photo Gallery
307: Community Forums
308: LinkToUs
309: Community Forums
310: Photo Gallery
311: Community Forums
312: Photo Gallery
313: Community Forums
314: Community Forums
315: Community Forums
316: CPGlang
317: Community Forums
318: Your Account
319: Photo Gallery
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Photo Gallery
324: Home
325: News Archive
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Community Forums
329: Community Forums
330: Statistics
331: Community Forums
332: Community Forums
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Community Forums
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Community Forums
340: Home
341: Community Forums
342: Downloads
343: Your Account
344: Photo Gallery
345: Community Forums
346: Community Forums
347: Community Forums
348: Statistics
349: Community Forums
350: Photo Gallery
351: Photo Gallery
352: Community Forums
353: Downloads
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Downloads
358: Community Forums
359: Home
360: Photo Gallery
361: Downloads
362: Community Forums
363: Downloads
364: Community Forums
365: Downloads
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Downloads
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: Photo Gallery
375: Community Forums
376: Photo Gallery
377: Community Forums
378: Community Forums
379: Downloads
380: Community Forums
381: Photo Gallery
382: Photo Gallery
383: Photo Gallery
384: Community Forums
385: Home
386: Home
387: Community Forums
388: Community Forums
389: Community Forums
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Photo Gallery
393: Community Forums
394: Community Forums
395: Home
396: Home
397: Photo Gallery
398: Community Forums
399: CPGlang
400: Home
401: News Archive
402: Community Forums
403: Community Forums
404: Community Forums
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Community Forums
408: Member Screenshots
409: Community Forums
410: Home
411: Community Forums
412: Community Forums
413: Downloads
414: Member Screenshots
415: Community Forums
416: Photo Gallery
417: Community Forums
418: Photo Gallery
419: Photo Gallery
420: Community Forums
421: Community Forums
422: Community Forums
423: Home
424: Community Forums
425: Photo Gallery
426: Community Forums
427: Photo Gallery
428: Community Forums
429: Photo Gallery
430: Community Forums
431: Community Forums
432: Community Forums
433: Community Forums
434: Community Forums
435: Community Forums
436: Community Forums
437: Community Forums
438: Photo Gallery
439: News
440: Community Forums
441: Downloads
442: Your Account
443: Community Forums
444: Home
445: Community Forums
446: Community Forums
447: Photo Gallery
448: Community Forums
449: Statistics
450: Photo Gallery
451: CPGlang
452: Community Forums
453: Photo Gallery
454: Community Forums
455: Community Forums
456: Community Forums
457: Community Forums
458: Photo Gallery
459: Community Forums
460: Community Forums
461: Community Forums
462: Your Account
463: Community Forums
464: Community Forums
465: Downloads
466: Community Forums
467: Community Forums
468: Photo Gallery
469: Community Forums
470: Home
471: Downloads
472: Community Forums
473: Your Account
474: Member Screenshots
475: Community Forums
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Community Forums
479: Community Forums
480: Community Forums
481: Community Forums
482: News Archive
483: Photo Gallery
484: Community Forums
485: Community Forums
486: Community Forums
487: Community Forums
488: Photo Gallery
489: Home
490: Community Forums
491: Community Forums
492: Photo Gallery
493: Community Forums
494: Community Forums
495: Community Forums
496: Community Forums
497: Community Forums
498: Home
499: Community Forums
500: Photo Gallery
501: Community Forums
502: Community Forums
503: Community Forums
504: Photo Gallery
505: Community Forums
506: Home
507: Community Forums
508: Community Forums
509: Photo Gallery
510: Community Forums
511: Community Forums
512: Photo Gallery
513: Community Forums
514: Photo Gallery
515: Photo Gallery
516: Community Forums
517: Community Forums
518: Photo Gallery
519: Photo Gallery
520: Community Forums
521: Community Forums
522: Community Forums
523: Downloads
524: Home
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Downloads
528: Community Forums
529: Community Forums
530: Community Forums
531: Community Forums
532: Community Forums
533: Community Forums
534: Photo Gallery
535: Photo Gallery
536: Community Forums
537: Community Forums
538: Home
539: Photo Gallery
540: Community Forums
541: Community Forums
542: Photo Gallery
543: Downloads
544: Photo Gallery
545: Community Forums
546: Community Forums
547: Photo Gallery
548: Community Forums
549: Community Forums
550: Photo Gallery
551: Community Forums
552: Community Forums
553: Community Forums
554: Photo Gallery
555: Community Forums
556: Community Forums
557: Community Forums
558: Community Forums
559: Community Forums
560: Community Forums
561: Community Forums
562: Home
563: Community Forums
564: Community Forums
565: Community Forums
566: Home
567: Community Forums
568: Community Forums
569: Community Forums
570: Community Forums
571: Photo Gallery
572: Photo Gallery
573: Home
574: Photo Gallery
575: Community Forums
576: Community Forums
577: Community Forums
578: Community Forums
579: Community Forums
580: Community Forums
581: Community Forums
582: Community Forums
583: Community Forums
584: Community Forums
585: Community Forums
586: Photo Gallery
587: Community Forums
588: Home
589: Community Forums
590: Community Forums
591: Home
592: Community Forums
593: Community Forums
594: Photo Gallery
595: Community Forums
596: Community Forums
597: Home
598: Community Forums
599: Your Account
600: Community Forums
601: Community Forums
602: Community Forums
603: Downloads
604: Home
605: Community Forums
606: Community Forums
607: Community Forums
608: Community Forums
609: Community Forums
610: Photo Gallery
611: Community Forums
612: Photo Gallery
613: Photo Gallery
614: Community Forums
615: Community Forums
616: Photo Gallery
617: Photo Gallery

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