# Why Was The German Tiger Tank Such a Shock to the USA/British Tank Forces? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 16, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174 "2011-11-16T22:16:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/41 "2011-11-18T04:35:59Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > i question the 1:1 kill ratio between US fighters and japanese zeros up to the end of 1942. the biggest loss of fighters the japanese incurred was at midway (around 150) and most of those were ditched because their carriers were lost in mid-ocean. in the air war over new guinea, the americans took a severe beating against the lae airwing. most zeros lost were due to bombing attacks. in java, it was even worst for the allies. It wasn’t just the Americans flying against the Japanese. The Australians were there, too. Somewhere I have a book that goes into the air war against the Japanese. The squadrons were mostly equipped with P-40s. (I think there were some Brewster Buffalos as well.) The Brewsters were hopelessly outclassed, and the P-40s did take a pounding. But using the strengths of the Kittyhawks, the Australians gave as good as they got and did in deed ‘hold the line’. I grew up watching _Baa Baa Black Sheep_, and t F4U had been a favourite of mine growing up. It seems to me that it got a lot of glory. But the F6F shot down more than twice the number of Japanese planes. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/42 "2011-11-18T04:53:40Z")
The fact that a Tiger existed was not a surprise. nor the Panther. The numbers that were faced in Normandy certainly was. The Allies expected to be facing mostly up gunned Mark IV (still superior to the Sherman, but beatable) with the occassional Tiger and Panther. What they faced in actuality was a Tank force comprised nearly half of Panthers, with hundreds of Tigers (some King Tigers), in addition to the Jagedpanther Tank Killer. These made mincemeat out of Allied formations, the 3rd Armoured Division for instance, had losses of 300 percent. The British and the Canadian who faced the majority of the armored force (6 out of eight divisions) suffered the loss of about 4000 AFVs. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/43 "2011-11-18T05:25:56Z")
“But the Panthers had the same problem the Tigers had - there weren’t enough of them. Germany only built about 6000 Panthers. Fifty thousand Shermans are better than six thousand Panthers.” Which was partly about design choices but mostly because the US simply had vaster manufacturing capabilities. It was never really in doubt that the US was going to have a much greater number of tanks than Germany, even if they’d built nothing but Pershings (not that this would have ever bene practical due to the Pershings weight etc). The UK decision to make Fireflys seems to have been an extremely reasonable middle ground between the extremes that the US did not take up. The US/USSR was going to win no matter what, the only question is whether more people died than was necessary. There seems to be some disagreement between historians which choice was better, but it seems inarguable that there was some level of mistaken belief about the capability of the Sherman vs late war German tanks and expected numbers to be faced, and that there was a change in priorities immediately after the Battle of the Bulge to fast-track the M26 Pershing, which before had been deliberately delayed and fought against. By then of course it was largely irrelevant, given the stage of the war. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/44 "2011-11-18T05:43:11Z")
> [@](#): > > These made mincemeat out of Allied formations, the 3rd Armoured Division for instance, had losses of 300 percent. The British and the Canadian who faced the majority of the armored force (6 out of eight divisions) suffered the loss of about 4000 AFVs. See my previous post. German tank formations did NOT “make mincemeat out of Alliied [tank] formations”, their armour explicitly avoided Allied armour as the German army correctly understood that the best counter to tanks was dedicated anti-tank weaponry. The single biggest Allied loss of tanks during WWII was Monty’s Goodwood operation out of the Normandy beachhead. Now granted the main aim was not to make a breakthrough but just to grind up the opposing German forces (and so prevent them transferring to the less dense US frontage where a single extra German elite division could have made a real difference) but those 500 (!) tank kills were almost entirely due to the German AT units, substantially the emplaced 88s and wide availability of panzerfausts. The Brits basically charged around looking for opposing tank units to engage, and “flanked” the German hedgehogs - as they thought of it, bypassing the main centres of resistance as the Germans had done so often and so successfully in North Africa and Russia. The flaw being that these hedgehogs were explicitly designed to be bypassed and to inflict crippling losses on the sides and rear of the British tank units as they went by - they still hadn’t absorbed that tanks and infantry needed to be co-ordinated, like in WWI the Brit infantry would hang back and wait for the armour to make a breakthrough, which was 1940 thinking not 1944. But of course this was not enough for the Germans to win. The Brits still eroded the German units quite substantially, and the majority of the crew of those 500 killed tanks made their way back to the Allied lines - _where there were 500 empty tanks just sitting in fields waiting for crews_. That was what killed the Germans in Normandy; they inflicted staggering losses on Allied materiel in particular, but it just wasn’t enough. The 100 or so tanks the Germans lost were irreplaceable, the 500 Allied losses _had in effect already been replaced before they were lost and so the battle cost the Allies nothing_. The western Allies waged war at a level of luxury (that is, tolerance for their own mistakes, and profligacy of resources) unmatched in warfare up to that time. There’s a story of a German small unit commander who captured a US position in Normandy. While surveying the booty he found an ice-cream making machine. In the front-line trenches of an unremarkable US military unit there sat an extravagance of supply and availability and materiel of a level inconceivable to any other combatant; at that point he knew the war was lost. There was simply no way the Germans could fight such a level of resources and ability to deliver them to the front. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/45 "2011-11-18T05:59:11Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > There’s a story of a German small unit commander who captured a US position in Normandy. While surveying the booty he found an ice-cream making machine. In the front-line trenches of an unremarkable US military unit there sat an extravagance of supply and availability and materiel of a level inconceivable to any other combatant; at that point he knew the war was lost. There was simply no way the Germans could fight such a level of resources and ability to deliver them to the front. but then, when patton’s 3rd army was driving towards the rhine, they often captured german booty considered way above that of the typical dogface: frozen steaks, P-08 lugers in mint condition, cermonial daggers, and other valuable souvenirs that continued to be traded 60 years afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/46 "2011-11-18T06:08:41Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > but then, when patton’s 3rd army was driving towards the rhine, they often captured german booty considered way above that of the typical dogface: frozen steaks, P-08 lugers in mint condition, cermonial daggers, and other valuable souvenirs that continued to be traded 60 years afterwards. I think that was because the German supply lines were getting shorter and shorter. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/47 "2011-11-18T06:26:33Z")
And since we’re talking tanks here, let me ask this (even though it’s a hijack): Why were most tank destroyer guns sponson-mounted instead of being on a traversible turret? Sure, the M36 Slugger and the M10 had a turret-mounted cannon, but most others were mounted in a sponson. Think, Stug 3, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, etc. Even most Soviet tank destroyers were this way: SU-100, ISU-152, etc. Was it a physical limitation brought on by the tank having to deal with a bigger gun? Or was it simply their role - they’re part of an emplacement, and they generally don’t move very much, so they don’t need a turret. Besides, fewer moving parts, etc…? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/48 "2011-11-18T06:33:39Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > but then, when patton’s 3rd army was driving towards the rhine, they often captured german booty considered way above that of the typical dogface: frozen steaks, P-08 lugers in mint condition, cermonial daggers, and other valuable souvenirs that continued to be traded 60 years afterwards. Obviously German soldiers were going to have German military equipment like pistols and knives. But where did you come up with the idea that German soldiers had more food than American soldiers did? Germany had set up strict rationing by 1942 and meat was scarce throughout the rest of the war. This [article](http://www.dererstezug.com/German_Rations_at_the_Front.htm) talks about how German soldiers ate during the war. More talk about looting dead bodies for bread and less about frozen steaks. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/49 "2011-11-18T06:37:24Z")
The Americans had heavy tanks like the M26 Pershing ready to be put into production. They didn’t because American doctrine didn’t think tanks should be fighting other tanks, so saw no need for such things. > **[Lesley J. McNair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_J._McNair#Tactical_doctrine_controversies)** > > Lesley James McNair (May 25, 1883 – July 25, 1944) was a senior United States Army officer who served during World War I and World War II. He attained the rank of lieutenant general during his life; he was killed in action during World War II, and received a posthumous promotion to general. > A Minnesota native and 1904 graduate of the United States Military Academy, McNair was a Field Artillery officer with a background in the Ordnance Department. A veteran of the Veracruz occupation and Panch... > **[Tank destroyer battalion (United States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer_battalion_(United_States))** > > The tank destroyer battalion was a type of military unit used by the United States Army during World War II. The unit was organized in one of two different forms—a towed battalion equipped with anti-tank guns, or a mechanized battalion equipped with armored self-propelled guns. The tank destroyer units were formed in response to the German use of massed formations of armored vehicles units early in WWII. The tank destroyer concept envisioned the battalions acting as independent units that would... Note that the Germans thought largely the same thing early in the war - the early German tanks were also designed more for fighting infantry than other tanks. If you think of tanks as being a modern Cavalry arm, then what you want in a tank is speed and range, so they can blitzkrieg all day and plunge deep into the enemy rear. Huge gas guzzling mobile fortresses are exactly the wrong thing to have. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/50 "2011-11-18T06:45:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Obviously German soldiers were going to have German military equipment like pistols and knives. But where did you come up with the idea that German soldiers had more food than American soldiers did? Germany had set up strict rationing by 1942 and meat was scarce throughout the rest of the war. > > This [article](http://www.dererstezug.com/German_Rations_at_the_Front.htm) talks about how German soldiers ate during the war. More talk about looting dead bodies for bread and less about frozen steaks. i didn’t say germans ate better. for all you know, those steaks were for senior officers or some ranking civilians in france. but various patton books mentioned it, and georgie always made sure that, once checked, the meat would be distributed to the troops so that they could enjoy a sit-down steak dinner (God knows when the next one will come.) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/51 "2011-11-18T06:53:16Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Though their armoured units had very good support logistics. They had tank carriers that could remove damaged tanks from the field for repair. Earlier in the war at least, the Allies had nothing like that, so in most cases immobilized tanks were as good as destroyed. I’m assuming this got better later in the war, but I was immediately able to see any evidence one way or another (about 50% of the internet seems to be taken up with discussion of WW2 tanks of one sort or another, but I guess this kind of thing isn’t sexy enough to be worth discussing 🙂 ) . I know nothing about this topic but on reading the Wikipedia entry for [Tiger tanks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I)it says: > [@](#): > > The infrastructure to support such a heavy vehicle was found wanting. For example, the standard German Sd.Kfz. 9 Famo heavy recovery half-track tractor could not tow the tank; up to three tractors were usually needed to tow one Tiger. If that’s right, while what you say may have been generally correct, it seems that Tigers in particular were bigger than their support logistics could handle. In other words, what others are saying about Tigers being a good way to win a specific tank-on-tank encounter but lose a war seems bourne out on this point. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/52 "2011-11-18T07:02:31Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Why were most tank destroyer guns sponson-mounted instead of being on a traversible turret? Sure, the M36 Slugger and the M10 had a turret-mounted cannon, but most others were mounted in a sponson. Think, Stug 3, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, etc. Even most Soviet tank destroyers were this way: SU-100, ISU-152, etc. > > Was it a physical limitation brought on by the tank having to deal with a bigger gun? > > Or was it simply their role - they’re part of an emplacement, and they generally don’t move very much, so they don’t need a turret. Besides, fewer moving parts, etc…? lighter, cheaper to make. the recipe for a good tank destroyer / AFV is low front and side profile, good frontal armor, and high speed. if you emplace well and alert, you’ll be able to take on a MBT, and scoot away. battle tanks and even light tanks / infantry fighting vehicles require fully traversing turrents and have armor requirements for front, side, rear and turret. ---
**Author:** ![Walther\_Ego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8dc957/32.png) [@Walther\_Ego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walther_Ego)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/53 "2011-11-18T07:43:09Z")
The turret is a big part of the manufacturing effort. Particularly for the Germans, being able to put a huge gun on the kind of small platforms they could mass-produce easily (or had confiscated from conquered armies) was a big advantage. Not being able to turn the gun was a serious draw-back, but they just had to accept it. The German tank designs were driven by war against Russia. They faced a huge army of medium tanks (T-34s) and a smaller number of heavy tank killers (like Josif Stalin tank). Thus the concept of Tiger tank is not stupid in itself. It just failed as a design process because of too tight schedule. The Germans were desperate, because they knew they were losing. So they tried to pull of engineering miracles, like jet fighters, never surfacing submarines, killer tanks and rockets. It didn’t make the difference, but it is logical that they tried. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/54 "2011-11-18T07:48:46Z")
there was that secret underground complex (czechoslovakia?) manned by thousands of slaves tasked to crank out panther tanks and AFVs on a regular basis. with more than 3,000 slaves, one can’t avoid some deliberate sabotage, ommissions, poor- and mis-fitted parts (even though the penalty when caught was summary execution.) that’s why it required 5 panthers to knock out one sherman. the first 4 would break down in the ditch long before they reached the sheman. the fifth would manage to make it and the american tank won’t stand a chance. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/55 "2011-11-18T09:18:24Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > i didn’t say germans ate better. for all you know, those steaks were for senior officers or some ranking civilians in france. No, that is pretty much what you said. You didn’t say that a handful of steaks that belonged to the higher ranks were found on one occasion. You said _“they often captured german booty considered way above that of the typical dogface”_. And I pointed out that the typical American soldier was eating better than his German counterpart. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/56 "2011-11-18T09:20:18Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Why were most tank destroyer guns sponson-mounted instead of being on a traversible turret? Sure, the M36 Slugger and the M10 had a turret-mounted cannon, but most others were mounted in a sponson. Think, Stug 3, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, etc. Even most Soviet tank destroyers were this way: SU-100, ISU-152, etc. > > Was it a physical limitation brought on by the tank having to deal with a bigger gun? > > Or was it simply their role - they’re part of an emplacement, and they generally don’t move very much, so they don’t need a turret. Besides, fewer moving parts, etc…? Larger guns could be mounted on the same chassis when sponson mounted rather than turret mounted. Using German AFVs for comparisons: StuG III mounted a 75mm gun on a Pz-III chassis which generally mounted a 50mm gun by the end of the war Jagdpanther mounted an 88mm L/71 vs a 75mm L/70 on the Panther Jagdtiger mounted a 128mm while the Tiger I mounted an 88mm L/56 Jadgpanzer-IV a 75mm L/70 vs Pz-IV a 75mm L/48 Hetzer a 75mm L/48 vs Pz 38(t) a 37mm The lack of a turret also made production easier and also generally allowed thicker and/or more sloped armor on the glacis. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/57 "2011-11-18T09:21:28Z")
> [@Walther\_Ego](#): > > The German tank designs were driven by war against Russia. They faced a huge army of medium tanks (T-34s) and a smaller number of heavy tank killers (like Josif Stalin tank). Thus the concept of Tiger tank is not stupid in itself. It just failed as a design process because of too tight schedule. > > The Germans were desperate, because they knew they were losing. So they tried to pull of engineering miracles, like jet fighters, never surfacing submarines, killer tanks and rockets. It didn’t make the difference, but it is logical that they tried. Which emphasizes the point many of us have been saying. Having a lot of good tanks is a better strategy than having a few great tanks. Why should the Americans have switched from a strategy that was winning the war to one that was losing it? ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/58 "2011-11-18T09:21:56Z")
how good are you at comprehending? does a GI eat steak everyday? no, and neither do wermacht recruits. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/59 "2011-11-18T09:46:50Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > how good are you at comprehending? does a GI eat steak everyday? no, and neither do wermacht recruits. Then explain to me. How do you reconcile your claim that German food was “considered way above that of the typical dogface” with the fact that Americans ate more food and better food? ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174/60 "2011-11-18T09:54:30Z")
I thought it’s already clear when I said neither GIs nor soldats eat steak everyday. Now I don’t know why you like splitting hairs. Was it the word dogface? Notice I’m capitalising just for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-german-tiger-tank-such-a-shock-to-the-usa-british-tank-forces/603174.md?page=4)