The Tiger Tank

[Me. 262]

I saw something last night on the history channel on tanks and at one point it was Telling about about the Tiger 2 Tank, I'm curious about it and I would like to know If The Tiger 2 Tank it is in Combat Mission smile.gif

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Me. 262:
I saw something last night on the history channel on tanks and at one point it was Telling about about the Tiger 2 Tank, I'm curious about it and I would like to know If The Tiger 2 Tank it is in Combat Mission smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, its called the King Tiger.

--Chris

[Stacheldraht]

Yes, also known as the Königstiger (King Tiger) or Royal Tiger.

[Panzer Leader]

If you're talking about the History Channel last night, that show was RIDDLED with errors. They said the Tiger II came out in '43 in the Russian battles, they nevr mentioned the original Tiger, and they said the Panther came out before the Tiger.

Of course they also said that it was the Jeep that won the war. Now don't get me wrong, I like jeeps and all, but come on!

Never mentioned the SPW 251 as the definitive infantry vehicle of blitzkrieg, but gave a big long discourse on the kubelwagon, I guess because it was most like the jeep.

That show drove me crazy!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Of course they also said that it was the Jeep that won the war. Now don't get me wrong, I like jeeps and all, but come on!

That show drove me crazy!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whaddya mean? Of course the Jeep won the war. Didn't you ever watch that highly accurate TV series called Rat Patrol set in the Western Desert? Those 50 cal. armed Jeeps tore through assorted PSW's, tanks halftracks and generally everything that moved.

SHEESH! Talk about poorly informed.

Jim R.

[Wilhammer]

The History Channel stopped being serious awhile back.

They now sell ridiculous history in order to generate sales of videos, etc.

The desire to do questionable history drags the audience to the website for more sales.

They have not gone completely off the deep end, its just that the historical integrity from show to show is hit or miss, no consistency.

Oh well, if it helps generate more interest in history to the general public, maybe it is a good thing. But, increasingly its version of history is just as bad s Hollywood's.

[gunnergoz]

With regard to the History Channel, I don't get the impression that it produces inferior documentaries as much as it tolerates the showing of poorly-researched "history lite" shows produced by less-professional outfits.

I'm not basing this on hard knowledge, but I watch it a lot by default (it's the only TV that remotely interests me a lot of the time) and I put up with it's foibles for that reason.

Unfortunately, two truths apply:
1. The bulk of the TV watching public doesn't know and doesn't care about history, let alone military specifics;
2. The media industry is absolutely clueless about things military, when it is not outright hostile about such issues.

[Gen-x87H]

BTW does anybody have an idea on when the Panther II would have made a debut?

I also understand some military museum in Europe has a display of the Panther II.

Gen

[Panzer Leader]

The Panther II (IIRC) was only a prototype with one made. The one on display I believe is just the hull with a Tiger 2 porsche turret.

My guess would be the Panther 2 would have debuted late August, but everyone knew that it wouldn't be made - no raw material, no workers, no country left. Basically, by the time development ended on the Panther 2, the war was over.

I hope someone more informed than me with my educated guesses comes along.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:
BTW does anybody have an idea on when the Panther II would have made a debut?

I also understand some military museum in Europe has a display of the Panther II.

Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Panther II was canceled in May 1943 as it was decided the Panther Ausf D was adequate & could be improved upon w/o interupts in production. 2 factors that influenced this decision were the problems with producing steel rimmed roadwheels needed to supt the II's increased weight & it was found with the addition Schurtzen the Ausf. D was sufficently protected vs 14.5mm AT Rifle ammunition. Had the Schurtzen not worked, the II would have been produced.

2 prototype chassis were completed. No turrets were produced. The US had 1 of the Panther II chassis, fitted with an Ausf. G turret & shipped to Aberdeen, which was later transfered to the Patton museum for restoration & display.


Difrences between the Panther Ausf D, & Panther II were weight & armor protection, with the Ausf.D being lighter & the II haveing better armor.

Panther D armor thickness,proposed Panther II changes in ( )'s

Turret Roof front - 16mm (30mm)
Turret Roof rear - 16mm (30mm)
Gun mantlet - 100mm (150mm)
Turret front - 100mm (120mm)
Glacis - 80mm - (100mm)

Turret side - 45mm (60mm)
Pannier Side - 40mm (60mm)
Hull side - 40mm - (60mm)
Turret rear - 45mm (60mm)

The Panther Ausf F. would have been the next model after the G & was gearing up for production when the war ended.


Regards, John Waters

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[MikeyD]

As to the original question, the KT is in CM and looks good, but it has this nasty habit of getting knocked out by lucky penetrations against the turret front, which simply never happened in real life!

I've tended to give up on most cable TV history. Much of the time the narration is just filler, and the film clips are often thrown together in random pieces. For instance, the narrator is talking about the Bulge while a clip of an early (1940?) PzIV rolls by... followed by a T34 blowing up... followed by an AA battery firing into the night... followed by a shot of Hitler speechifying circa 1938!
:mad:

[jshandorf]

I too caught that show last night. I had it on in the back ground when I was playing WWII Online. (Game rocks!) Anyway....

I noticed that show was riddled with errors also. They talked about the battle in and around Bastogne(sp?) and the line that cracked me was "The Germans attacked Bastogne with hundreds of tanks consisting of the feared Panzer IVs and Tiger 2s"

LOL! PzIVs feared? Ha! Also they screwed up the Tigers 2s like someone mentioned above. The show pictures of Panthers and Tigers and mentioned Tiger 2s plus they gave the wrong dates for many things.

I remember when the History Channel's war docs, in such a way that, when you did see a war documentary, since they seemed to be rare, they were good. Now there are so many on in one week that you couldn't swing a dead cat and not hit one. Seems to be affecting the quality if you ask me.

Jeff

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Had the Schurtzen not worked, the II would have been produced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, I've been wondering why the Panther G does not have the Schrurtzen. Did the Russians stop using the 14.5mm AT or something?

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:


John, I've been wondering why the Panther G does not have the Schrurtzen. Did the Russians stop using the 14.5mm AT or something?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean in game Vanir? as I have photo's of M.A.N. produced Ausf G's with schrurtzen in Jan 1945.

One problem was the schrurtzen tended to get ripped off operationaly, so you can see alot of photo's w/o schrurtzen as well with, and the empty mounting brackets.


Regards, John Waters

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Stacheldraht]

Speaking of war documentaries, PBS did a great one on the Blitz, with extensive interviews of the people who were there. A very interesting and moving oral history.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So you say the Gs did have the Schrurtzen? I wonder why BTS left them off in the game. I know the As have them.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
So you say the Gs did have the Schrurtzen? I wonder why BTS left them off in the game. I know the As have them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the Ausf.G had schrurtzen, they had to have them to operate in the East. No idea why it's not modeled in CM. Look at some side shots of Ausf G's vanir if they dont have the schrurtzen, look for the mounting rail (it runs down the side hull a thin metal strip) & brackets on the side hull.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:


Yes the Ausf.G had schrurtzen, they had to have them to operate in the East. No idea why it's not modeled in CM.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jagdpanthers had them too, but the CM vehicles lack them. I want them put on because I want to make a mod of an airbrushed model I have at home. Unfortunately without the Schurzen there isn't a whole lot of side surface area to play with. It nearly doubles the paintable area on the side.

[jshandorf]

Pretty typical... Get an interesting topic going and you can expect it to be hijacked by some grogs who take it kicking and screaming down some dark, boring corridor filled with big german words that refer to "metal skirts".

Bah.

Jeff

[gunnergoz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:
Pretty typical... Get an interesting topic going and you can expect it to be hijacked by some grogs who take it kicking and screaming down some dark, boring corridor filled with big german words that refer to "metal skirts".

Bah.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is...? So take it back with some interesting observations of your own! Captivate us! Get us fired up! Grogs will blather on unless you seize their (limited) interest beyond such minutiae.
:D

[Panzer Leader]

I hear ya Jeff, I was having a great time going on about that ignorant show on History Channel last night.

"I am certain that without the Willy's GP the Allies couldn't have won."

What a load of crap! And then they go on to say "No one knows where the name came from, but some think from the Popeye character "Eugene the Jeep".

WTF?????

How about from <big> G - P</big>

Stupid show...

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:
Pretty typical... Get an interesting topic going and you can expect it to be hijacked by some grogs who take it kicking and screaming down some dark, boring corridor filled with big german words that refer to "metal skirts".

Bah.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If schurzen is such a big word why is "metal skirts" taking up more space?

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz:


And your point is...? So take it back with some interesting observations of your own! Captivate us! Get us fired up! Grogs will blather on unless you seize their (limited) interest beyond such minutiae.
:D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I was havin' a groovy time rippin' on History Channel, next thing you know I am picturing Amored Skirts and Panther IIs. WTF?!

BTW, PL, I always liked the thought that they named the jeep after that cute little bugger on popeye.

"Geep! Geep!"

The jeep won the war... yeah right, whatever. Next thing ya know they are gonna tell us the French Resistance made a difference.

Shaaaa, right.

Only differences the French made in the war were the STDs they passed on to the German troops, and then eventually our soldiers. Smelly bastards.

Jeff

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

If schurzen is such a big word why is "metal skirts" taking up more space?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you see what I mean people?

Please...someone shoot me.

Make the bad man stop.

Jeff

[MikeyD]

It seems jshandorf finds cable TV to be a more interesting topic than either the history of German armor development or the French resistance to the Nazi occupation. Socre one for cable TV.

As for skirts on Gs, they may have simply been left off as an aid in identifying the vehicles while playing. Cover up that redesigned upper hull side and all Panther types tend to look the same.

[PzKpfw 1]

Nothing new their Jeff has never liked groggy armor detail specific discussions. Which is fine, to each his own. BTW Jeff it was Panther Ausf.G skirts not Panther II :D. We will all try to remeber not to answer any question's you define as grog related in any threads your involved in so we don't disturb you, from now on. :rolleyes:

Mike, if anything the skirts were just lost in daily operations, the mountings wern't that strong. OOPs did it again.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

oops

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Dunnee]

The history channel, where do I start? How bout here: I started watching it about 5 yrs ago, they still show the same damn footage on shows they put out now. Get some new material, the channel's like Kevin Meaney, been using the same act for a decade.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD:

As for skirts on Gs, they may have simply been left off as an aid in identifying the vehicles while playing. Cover up that redesigned upper hull side and all Panther types tend to look the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno. Those skirts on the A are functional, tho not very effective. I once shot a whole bunch of bazookas at some Panthers (in the game that is) and the skirts on the A deflected about 3% of the hits.

[Jhereg]

That show was totally riddled with errors, the one that tuned me out was, "The T34 when introduced had an 85mm main gun.....". Sheesh get a clue. That was early on before the King Tiger SNAFU's. So I went back to stopping the XXX Corps breakout LOL. :D

[offtaskagain]

I didn't like the mention of the Panther 4s either.

[gunnergoz]

You guys obviously need a life, dreaming and ranting on about tanks wearing skirts...IT'S THE WOMEN WHO WEAR THE SKIRTS GUYS. Next thing you'll tell us, your Kubelwagen has a bra... :D

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:
Never mentioned the SPW 251 as the definitive infantry vehicle of blitzkrieg, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well at least they got one thing right then! There weer sweet f/a 251's about in 1940-41, and there was no Blitzkreig after that.

In an old S&T mag they compared the movement rates of the Germans from the Belgian border to teh Marne in WW1, to Paris in WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Siniai in 1967.

The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1!

[Gen-x87H]

Hey thank you John.

Where is the Patton museum located anyways?

I want to take alook at this thing.

Gen

[Panzer Leader]

Stalin's Organ:

I do not agree with your assesment. The SPW 250 and 251 were around since the mid thirties, and they DID have a deep impact on the speed of attack, allowing the infantry to move alongside the tanks at great speed and only dismount in times of need.

I think there is also no dispute that during the invasion of France, Germany broke ALL PREVIOUS RECORDS of speed of advance. There were many days when the spearhead formations would thrust over 125 miles.

There is no other time before when such a thing was possible, and they did it through enemy territory while engaging the (albeit broken) enemy.

I do not know much about the Six Days War, but it's definitely possible that they moved faster, however your contention about WWI is ludicrous.

My point, though, was that the History Channel made out the Kubelwagen (of all things) to be THE German infantry unit of most note, probably because it was most like the Jeep.

[heckler_rider]

When riding on the tanks and wearing skirts, did the infantry ride side-saddle?

According to Historychannel.com the Russians invented this tactic in Finland against the Swedes in 1948. You can go buy the video documenting this for only $19.95......

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: olebooya ]

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:


... The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My source is lost in the mists of time, but IIRC the Mongols hold the record for the Army with the fastest sustained rate of advance. I believe the record was set while advancing from Mongolia, through Russia and into Eastern Europe somewhere around 1200.

Upon reflection, maybe it was the fastest-longest advance. I supose it really depends on how you choose to measure it. egs:
*Fastest advance carried out (foot)
*Fastest advance carried out (horse)
*Fastest advance carried out (motorised)
*Fastest advance carried out (retrograde movement)
*Fastest advance carried out (opposed)
*Fastest advance carried out (no-opposition)
*Fastest advance carried out (against the French)
*Fastest advance carried out (under the influence)
*Fastest advance carried out (whilst singing)
*Fastest advance carried out (whilst singing badly)

a bit like the oscars really - think of your favourite advance and there's bound to be a category you can dream up to make it the winner of :D

JonS

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

oops

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Panzer you missed at least half my point, which was that on a long term basis the WW2 advance was no faster than the WW1 one.

Sure the WW2 types might have done better on a particular day, but overall they were withing a km per day of each other, with WW1 being the faster!

In 1939/40 there were precious few armoured half tracks - the vast majority of infantry walked and guns were mostly animal towed, even in the German army.

In the Panzer divisions the vast majority of infantry rode in trucks, which gave them strategic mobility.

Even later on IIRC only 1/3rd of Panzer-Grenadiers were supposed to ride in half-tracks.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
In 1939/40 ... the vast majority of infantry walked and guns were mostly animal towed, even in the German army.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emphasis mine.

Ahem. The Brits had a fully mechanised army by the outbreak of WW2, the first army in the world to do so.

JonS

[Panzer Leader]

Sure JonS but then they lost it two weeks later at a little beach house called DUNKIRK!!!

And Organ-grinder, I was referring to the Armoured BLitzkrieg spearhead divisions, whose tactic was to bust through enemy lines, and these troops had the half-tracks.

Sure the line infantry and cannonade had trucks and horses, but the Germans had BLITZKRIEG and it was dependant on half-tracks as much as tanks.

It is not the quantity of HTs they had that is so important, it was the method in which they used them.

[offtaskagain]

Halftracks had little to do with the early blitzkriegs. %99 of panzergrenadiers were carried in trucks. There was a whopping 232 251s built in '39 with no 250s. 337 more in '40. 813 of both types built in '41.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

My point, though, was that the History Channel made out the Kubelwagen (of all things) to be THE German infantry unit of most note, probably because it was most like the Jeep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong with that contention? Just mount an MG 34 on it and it suddenly becomes an uber vehicle. Is there a problem here?

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious?

Regards

Jim R.

[jgdpzr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:
BTW does anybody have an idea on when the Panther II would have made a debut?

I also understand some military museum in Europe has a display of the Panther II.

Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Patton Museum at Fort Knox has the Panther II hull on display. A late G turret is mounted on it, however, as the hull was never mated with the intended turret AFAIK.

[Kobalos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:
The jeep won the war... yeah right, whatever. Next thing ya know they are gonna tell us the French Resistance made a difference.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the jeep won the war, but I was impressed with how quickly the jeep was designed and manufactured. No matter what anyone thinks of American stategy/tactics/skill in combat (good or bad), the U.S. economy/war production is the engine that powered the Allied war effort, even on the eastern front, to a larger degree than might be expected.

As for the French...well, they haven't been able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag since Napoleon; and even he got his behind kicked...

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
In an old S&T mag they compared the movement rates of the Germans from the Belgian border to teh Marne in WW1, to Paris in WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Siniai in 1967.

The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Apples and oranges - what matters was how fast they got to the channel coast in WW2. Paris was irrelevant as a military objective (unlike in WW1).

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:
Sure JonS but then they lost it two weeks later at a little beach house called DUNKIRK!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then they rebuilt it. But what matters is that they really took an awful long time to understand how to use it.

It is not the size of your mechanised forces that matters, it is how you use them :D

The Wehrmacht stood head and shoulders above the rest in the early war in that respect.