PDA

View Full Version : Check THIS out!!! the SturmTiger



Ankanor
12-10-2005, 10:48 AM
The ultimate street fighting vehicle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger

I bet the Germans regret not having a dozen of those monsters at Stalingrad...

DrHerb
12-10-2005, 10:52 AM
the German equivelant of the BFG

Waldo.Pepper
12-10-2005, 01:15 PM
I bet the Germans regret not having a dozen of those monsters at Stalingrad...


Wouldn't have helped.

HayateAce
12-10-2005, 01:41 PM
What, they made like 8 Sturmorsers (Sturmtiger), and around 754 of these:

Churchill AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) - This was a Churchill MK III or MK IV equipped with a 290 mm Spigot (Petard) mortar, throwing the 40 pound (18 kg) "Flying dustbin" with its 28 pound high explosive warhead. The weapon was designed for the quick levelling of fortifications, after the Canadian failures at Dieppe. The basic tank could also be equipped with numerous other attachments, such as mine flails, fascine rollers, explosive placers, etc.

http://www.germansoldiers.com/Bilder2/Normandie/avre.jpg

HayateAce
12-10-2005, 01:46 PM
But yes, the sturmtigger was an impressive, if not useful weapon. The crew were sniper fodder, while they tried to load the durn thing.

The "shell" was a naval mortar, which was rocket propelled. 760 pound projectile, so rate of fire is pfft. Kind of like the Paris gun, big on wow factor, nil on military effectiveness.



http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/31/250px-Sturmtiger_4.jpg

http://www.737thtankbattalion.org/sturm_1.jpg

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
But yes, the sturmtigger was an impressive, if not useful weapon. The crew were sniper fodder, while they tried to load the durn thing.

The "shell" was a naval mortar, which was rocket propelled. 760 pound projectile, so rate of fire is pfft. Kind of like the Paris gun, big on wow factor, nil on military effectiveness.



http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/31/250px-Sturmtiger_4.jpg

http://www.737thtankbattalion.org/sturm_1.jpg
Sniperfodder?? that thing is loaded from inside
of the tank that crane is for help to get ammo in

Copperhead310th
12-10-2005, 02:22 PM
that's what he means. lol WHILE THE CREW IS RE-ARMING. ie while they're out side of the battle compartment re-equiping the thing.

Hayate..

hehhee i like that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
"....big on wow factor, nil on military effectiveness."
Kinda like the big bombs the HE-111 carries in FB. lol Shock 'n Y'all. lol

HayateAce
12-10-2005, 02:24 PM
Yes, I am incorrect.

For some reason I remembered only one round at a time would fit inside the superstructure. In fact, 13-14 rounds could fit, so the crew could fire a few shots before having to rearm or withdrawal. And in another poo-poo, they made 18 instead of 8. Whoo-Hoo!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks for reminding. At any rate, I don't think German afvs were the best from an armament procurement standpoint, but they certainly are by far the most interesting vehicles of WW2.

p1ngu666
12-10-2005, 02:31 PM
shoot the shell before they fire it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, I am incorrect.

For some reason I remembered only one round at a time would fit inside the superstructure. In fact, 13-14 rounds could fit, so the crew could fire a few shots before having to rearm or withdrawal. And in another poo-poo, they made 18 instead of 8. Whoo-Hoo!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks for reminding. At any rate, I don't think German afvs were the best from an armament procurement standpoint, but they certainly are by far the most interesting vehicles of WW2.
May be this should be good book you to read
John Wilcox Masters of the battle
Brochampton press enjoy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

sparty7200
12-10-2005, 02:41 PM
Taken from 'German Tanks of World War Two' by George Forty :

Sturmmorser Tiger - Under 20 of these enormous 65-ton heavy assault mortars were built in the latter half of 1944. They were based on the Tiger E chassis and mounted a 38cm mortar, plus one MG 34 in a separate ball mounting. The SturmTiger came about as a result of a stated operational requirement from the infantry, after fighting in built-up areas in Russian cities such as Stalingrad, for a heavy SP howitzer to provide high angle support during street fighting. The original requirement was for a mortar of about 20cm calibre, but nothing was available. It was eventually decided to adapt the massive 38cm rocket-assisted RW 61 (Raketenwerfer 61) developed by Rheinmetall-Borsig for the German Navy for use in anti-submarine warfare. The Tiger chassis was used, with a large box-like superstructure fitted on to the hull and running gear. Armour was up to 150mm thick on the steeply angled (45Ô?) front plate, while the sides and rear were 80mm and the top plate 40mm. The breech-loaded mortar was slightly offset to the right of the fighting compartment. The projector could traverse 10 Ô? either side of centre and elevate from 0Ô? to 885Ô?. Captured range tables showed its maximum range varying considerably with charge temperature, from 5,900m (6450yd) at +50Ô? C to 5,150m (5,630yd) at 0Ô? C and down to 4,200m (4,590yd) at - 40Ô? C. The 38cm RW 61 auf Sturmmorser Tiger, to give its proper nomenclature, was produced by Alkett in their Berlin factory. Its crew was seven - a tank commander, a forward observer and five men to operate the vehicle and man the mortar.

Regards

Sparty

Ankanor
12-10-2005, 02:48 PM
you seem to forget that the shell could penetrate 2.5m, that's 8ft for you old fashioned non-conformists http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif of bunker concrete. With 125 kg(280lb) of explosive the shell would be more than enough for the destruction of a whole 5 storey building. Infantry encounters an enemy strongpoint, calls in the SturmTiger, SturmTiger shoots, Infantry waits until the smoke and flying rubble clears, then proceeds until they encounter another too strong building. Kinda the way Marines advanced in the pacific, they called the battleships, only that this is better and the crew can aim the darn thing at point-blank range, not like the crews on the battleships that were shooting "blind". With 150 mm of sloped armor, the only thing you can fear is someone shooting down your barrel

Zeus-cat
12-10-2005, 04:15 PM
Fully loaded, the beast could carry 13 shells. It had racks for six shells on the left and six on the right and you could put one in the gun.

As others have expressed, not very useful in reality. It had massive destructive power, but with only 18 of them built, the odds of actually having one where you needed it were close to nil. A Stuka or two would be just as effective and a lot more versatile.

Zeus-cat

chris455
12-10-2005, 05:35 PM
A Stuka or two would be just as effective and a lot more versatile.

True that.

Xiolablu3
12-10-2005, 05:42 PM
Impressive! But very hard to load and a very specialist weapon.

Have you seen the Karl mortars Adam and Eve?

They are even bigger and were used at the siege of Servastapol, they blasted the Russian bunkers to pieces.

But they are very hard to transport and take a lot of getting ot the battle.

They are only useful to a winning army, because if oyu have to retreat, they are very hard to take with you, you would have to leave them behind.

Lucius_Esox
12-10-2005, 07:13 PM
HayateAce,, Did you take that picture? I ask because I went over to Normandy last year and it looks like a Churchill parked behind Juno beach (I think it was Juno)that I saw over there.

I cant remember the exact story behind it but I believe it was knocked out just after it came off the beach (I also think most of the crew died http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )

jarink
12-10-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
The crew were sniper fodder, while they tried to load the durn thing.

Actually, that could be more true of the AVRE. The 290mm Petard mortar main armament was muzzle-loaded. (A Petard mortar places the projectile onto a stick intead of inside a tube). The co-driver's hatch in the front hull was enlarged for this reason. To reload, first the turret had to be rotated to approx. the 11 o' clock position. Then, the co-driver popped his hatch, reached out and placed a new shell over the Petard's rod.

Still, it was a far more useful tank than the Sturmtiger.

HayateAce
12-11-2005, 01:26 AM
Lucius_Esox,

No that particular shot I did not take, but yes it is the one in Normandy. Jarink, yes we straightened out that sniper bit. Interesting info on the loading procedure for the AVRE. Someone above mentioned something about the John Wilcox Masters of the battle book.

I stand by my comment, and someone just mentioned this the other day that German arms, and specifically AFV PROCUREMENT was a failure. As far as individual cases, stick me in a Tiger I on the 1944 battlefield any day of the week. Those guys had a terrifc survival rate.

I believe Tiger I "Ace" Otto Carius is still alive along with many others.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/did.panzer/Portraits/carius.jpg

http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/german/tigers_in_mud.jpg

alert_1
12-11-2005, 04:20 AM
Naaah..stromTiger or not a few 0.50s bounced from a road and it's done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Feathered_IV
12-11-2005, 04:28 AM
Funny thing, I've never seen any photographs taken up close from the ground of a tiger that has been destroyed that way....

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 04:35 AM
Yeah it takes TIFFIE to destroy Tiger ..TIFFIE...TIFFIE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Xiolablu3
12-11-2005, 05:23 AM
Is it just me or does he look like he should be in German version of 'Dads Army' or starring in 'Carry on Hitler'?




Originally posted by HayateAce:
Lucius_Esox,

No that particular shot I did not take, but yes it is the one in Normandy. Jarink, yes we straightened out that sniper bit. Interesting info on the loading procedure for the AVRE. Someone above mentioned something about the John Wilcox Masters of the battle book.

I stand by my comment, and someone just mentioned this the other day that German arms, and specifically AFV PROCUREMENT was a failure. As far as individual cases, stick me in a Tiger I on the 1944 battlefield any day of the week. Those guys had a terrifc survival rate.

I believe Tiger I "Ace" Otto Carius is still alive along with many others.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/did.panzer/Portraits/carius.jpg

http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/german/tigers_in_mud.jpg


'Ooo I say missus'

Feathered_IV
12-11-2005, 06:18 AM
Give the wee fellah a break. He's only 1/35 scale after all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

nakamura_kenji
12-11-2005, 07:33 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/sturmtiger_3_of_3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/sturmtiger_1_of_3.jpg

LW_lcarp
12-11-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Lucius_Esox,


I believe Tiger I "Ace" Otto Carius is still alive along with many others.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/did.panzer/Portraits/carius.jpg

http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/german/tigers_in_mud.jpg

Lust finished reading Tigers in the Mud very good book

Xiolablu3
12-11-2005, 11:20 AM
Excellent photos! Did you take them?


Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/sturmtiger_3_of_3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/sturmtiger_1_of_3.jpg

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 11:42 AM
Wherever those were taken - the largest collection of armoured vehicles is in Kubinka near Moscow.

fighter_966
12-11-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/sturmtiger_3_of_3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/sturmtiger_1_of_3.jpg
WAU!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Xiolablu3
12-11-2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Wherever those were taken - the largest collection of armoured vehicles is in Kubinka near Moscow.

Yes I think they ahve the only Maus tank there dont they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

http://members.aol.com/kubinka/kubin4.jpg

http://members.aol.com/kubinka/kubin3a.jpg

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Wherever those were taken - the largest collection of armoured vehicles is in Kubinka near Moscow.

Yes I think they ahve the only Maus tank there dont they?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup, but with the note, that its just an empty hull of one prototype with turret from another one...

Ob.Emann
12-11-2005, 01:30 PM
"Tigers in the Mud" is an excellent book.

The Sturmtiger is a very intersting design, particularly the 90mm "near-defense weapon". The whole thing seems to be a pretty effective design for urban combat.

Jagdtiger
12-11-2005, 04:57 PM
Those photos are from pansermuseum Munster in Germany, they have it on loan from Sinsheim.
One anectdote about this vehicle is that it ambushed 10 Shermans during spring 1945, it fired ONE rocket and destroyed 5 Shermans, put 3 out of action and only 2 Shermans got out of there unscathed, thats quite awesome I believe...

And FYI the most effective AFV to this day, that have seen real combat service that is, is the Panzerj├┬Ąger Tiger, or better known as Ferdinand/Elefant, 14:1 in kill ratio, beats the Tiger I with 4.5 kills.

Regards,
Kris

Xiolablu3
12-11-2005, 06:46 PM
And FYI the most effective AFV to this day, that have seen real combat service that is, is the Panzerj├┬Ąger Tiger, or better known as Ferdinand/Elefant, 14:1 in kill ratio, beats the Tiger I with 4.5 kills.

Regards,
Kris

Is that kill ratio definitely true Kris? The stuff I have seen on the history channel talks the elefant down, saying how simple it was to disable as it had no Machine gun, Russian troops sneaked up to them and planted explosives on them.

Of all the programs on the history channel about WW2 not ONE has said anything about it having a great kill ratio. Sad.

I guess its not really fair to compare them with tanks as they were assualt guns really, made to be quite a way back from the leading tanks, whereas the Tigers (or the heaviest tanks) were sent in at the spearhead of the battle, to have a 4.5 KD is quite phenomenal to say how few there were and the situation they were in.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
The ultimate street fighting vehicle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger

I bet the Germans regret not having a dozen of those monsters at Stalingrad...


They only had a dozen of them anyway. That 380mm naval rocket-mortar was a monster of a weapon, but it was wildly inaccurate.

MLudner
12-11-2005, 08:14 PM
So was the Petard mortar, though...

Badsight.
12-12-2005, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Is that kill ratio definitely true Kris? The stuff I have seen on the history channel talks the elefant down, saying how simple it was to disable as it had no Machine gun, Russian troops sneaked up to them and planted explosives on them.

Of all the programs on the history channel about WW2 not ONE has said anything about it having a great kill ratio. Sad. well i believe the History Channel as much as i believe stories about Santa Claus at times . ..

i forget the exact numbers but the King Tigers were pulled to Berlin to defend the city in 1945

they destroyed an enormous amount of Enemy Tanks , there was around 13 of them IIRC but i dont have the exact details on hand here . in any case they went down fighting

Jagdtiger
12-12-2005, 01:29 AM
Yes, as far as I'm concerned the numbers are correct, the Tiger I's had a kill ratio of 9.5, not 4.5, 4.5 was just the difference from 14.
The Ferdinand had no machine gun, but the upgraded Ferdinand, later called Elefant, had a machine gun.

I believe that Discovery and the History Channel, can be very biased towards allied equipment most of the time, and not look at this issue as they should.

It's true that the Tiger II's (K├┬Âningtigers) in the Berlin area, destroyed huge masses of russian tanks, but the desperate situation makes it impossible to get correct info about kills and so.

HTH,
Kris

MC202zipper
12-12-2005, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Is that kill ratio definitely true Kris? The stuff I have seen on the history channel talks the elefant down, saying how simple it was to disable as it had no Machine gun, Russian troops sneaked up to them and planted explosives on them.

Of all the programs on the history channel about WW2 not ONE has said anything about it having a great kill ratio. Sad. well i believe the History Channel as much as i believe stories about Santa Claus at times . ..

i forget the exact numbers but the King Tigers were pulled to Berlin to defend the city in 1945

they destroyed an enormous amount of Enemy Tanks , there was around 13 of them IIRC but i dont have the exact details on hand here . in any case they went down fighting </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, actually the Ferdinand (call it Ferdinand! as Elephant was the latter renewed version of it...) story is true.
During the first engagements in Kursk battle, the schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 fitted hastly maked wooden shelves on the back of his Ferdinands to carry panzergrenadieren along... some of the crew were so desperate for a machine gun support that they fired the AA MG34, normally internally stowed, trough the main gun barrel to mow down russian infantry.
In fact after Kursk the surviving Ferdinands were withdrawn and factory fitted with bow machine gun and different crew hatches (and some other mods I don't recall without checking my books) and then sent to the much quieter italian front, just to be involved in Anzio & Nettuno landing combats. Their main role in Italy, tough, was not of a crack tank as was wrongly used in Kursk, but used as long distance self propelled artillery, a role best fitted for its deadly & precise 88mm PaK 43/2 L/71 gun.

See more here:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

S!
MC202zipper

neural_dream
12-12-2005, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I believe Tiger I "Ace" Otto Carius is still alive along with many others.
He is 83 and Hayao Miyazaki has done an all-watercolor manga based on "Tigers In The Mud"
http://mangascanlations.kommiekomiks.com/

nakamura_kenji
12-12-2005, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I believe Tiger I "Ace" Otto Carius is still alive along with many others.
He is 83 and Hayao Miyazaki has done an all-watercolor manga based on "Tigers In The Mud"
http://mangascanlations.kommiekomiks.com/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

incase problem read you need read right -> left

Kocur_
12-12-2005, 05:07 AM
Their main role in Italy, tough, was not of a crack tank as was wrongly used in Kursk, but used as long distance self propelled artillery, a role best fitted for its deadly & precise 88mm PaK 43/2 L/71 gun.

I understand you mean self propelled anti-tank artillery? For Ferdinand/Elefant was the ultimate tank destroyer, or moving anti-tank fortification http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif with 8,8cm L/71 and 200mm frontal armour.

HayateAce
12-12-2005, 09:15 AM
Wow, lots of misinformation here. This is usually the sad result when aircraft guys try to discuss armor. These kill ratios and anecdotal babblings about one sturmtigger shell wiping out legions of enemy tanks are full-on fantasy.

As with a number of other german projects, the elefant was also a failure in the end. Too cumbersome and too easy to outflank. No, if you want to see 2 of the best tank destroyers of the second world war:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tank_hunters/jagdpanther/JagdPanther_5.jpg

http://image14.webshots.com/15/5/58/84/159755884ZoPWmO_ph.jpg

But as is always the case, once the luft was swept from the sky, the tiggers and panthers were no match for this fella:

http://www.avionesclasicos.com/usaf/p47.jpg

Ankanor
12-12-2005, 09:32 AM
No image on the first, which explains a lot The second... Any battle Specs like enemies destroyed, kill-to-loss ratio, conditions of engagement(like was the enemy superior in numbers, what makes it "one of the two best tank destroyers")? Please, enlighten us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Plus, dude, even the Buecker-131 and the Storch would be terrible tank destroyers if the enemy aviation was wiped out. Sorry, can't see what you're trying to prove here...

Jagdtiger
12-12-2005, 09:57 AM
HayateAce: first of all did you see me write legions, no I guess not, so stop babbling about me making up full-on fantasys... whine whine, get your **** together.
I wrote ANECDOTE, not that it was a proven fact...
Before you call me an airplane guy, you should know that I've studied german armor for the last 20 years...
The other AFV's you are trying picture here were good vehicles, especially the Jagdpanther, but as we all know, the allied air supremacy was a great hindrance to them the last year, so it was kind of hard showing the true potential of it.
The Ferdinand/Elefant, was as you say a failure, but as the germans used it expertly, they got the most out of it anyway, imagine 90 Ferdinands destoyed 1310 tanks and lots more equipment... or wait, am I babbling again ?

Sincerely yours,
Kris

Kocur_
12-12-2005, 10:00 AM
But as is always the case, once the luft was swept from the sky, the tiggers and panthers were no match for this fella:

Ehm... If 'luft' i.e. air was swept out of the sky, how would it fly anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ankanor
12-12-2005, 10:46 AM
on propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I mean, the Jug doesn't need air to fly, it's so perfect, you know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Xiolablu3
12-12-2005, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Wow, lots of misinformation here. This is usually the sad result when aircraft guys try to discuss armor. These kill ratios and anecdotal babblings about one sturmtigger shell wiping out legions of enemy tanks are full-on fantasy.

As with a number of other german projects, the elefant was also a failure in the end. Too cumbersome and too easy to outflank. No, if you want to see 2 of the best tank destroyers of the second world war:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tank_hunters/jagdpanther/JagdPanther_5.jpg

http://image14.webshots.com/15/5/58/84/159755884ZoPWmO_ph.jpg

But as is always the case, once the luft was swept from the sky, the tiggers and panthers were no match for this fella:

http://www.avionesclasicos.com/usaf/p47.jpg

Two little red crosses were better than a Elefant? Wow.

I think anything with a 14 to 1 KD ratio was pretty much a success, as long as the 14 were tanks like the T-34 or KV-1 and not Bren carriers. remember the Elefant was there in 1942, I am guessing whatever you posted was much later in the war.

And that P47 was no match for a Me262, so just what are you saying? Sort of Off topic.

MC202zipper
12-12-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Their main role in Italy, tough, was not of a crack tank as was wrongly used in Kursk, but used as long distance self propelled artillery, a role best fitted for its deadly & precise 88mm PaK 43/2 L/71 gun.

I understand you mean self propelled anti-tank artillery? For Ferdinand/Elefant was the ultimate tank destroyer, or moving anti-tank fortification http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif with 8,8cm L/71 and 200mm frontal armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Kocur, that's what I meant... and for the rest of comments about its worth... being a 1941 project and still in service at the Berlin Defence in April 1945 (4 Elephants fighting with Kampfgruppe... vonSomething... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) I wouldn't call the Ferdinand/Elephant a failure at all... of course it was tall, cumbersome, with early defects in its electro-mechanic transmission & encines, with many shot traps (many of the Ferdi had to be fitted (and some retrofitted later in the field) with a 3,5 ton flat plate that was bolted in two pieces as a collar at the root of the barrel, as a shield for the spherical and unprotected ball-mount of the gun, that tended to jam when was hit from enemy AT fire) because the engineers used flat box shaped superstructure design for easy production & assembly and for better internal space management...(the mighty russian T34 was still to be encountered when dr. Ferdinand Porsche designed his creature).
As a matter of fact the contemporary design of german heavy tank destroyers were nearly as cumbersome as Elephant; just like the Nashorn that sported the same gun of Ferdinand in an open topped superstructure on a special Pz.III & Pz.IV body & transmission mix...).
The Pz.III derived Sturmgeschutzes, even in the long barreled version with the PaK40 derived KwK 7,5cm L43 or L/48, was certainly better balistically profiled, but much, much weaker as both armor & firepower and definitely in a different class (the fact that the StuG IIIs & IVs will became the real backbone of german self-propelled artillery speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the medium german SP gun, but it's a different matter... again, the correct role of Ferdinands should be defensive, in ambushes just behind the first line, while StuG were conceived both as an offensive & defensive machine in antitank role or, for the 10.5cm SturmHaubitzes, like SP infantry support artillery with AT capability).
In fact, the Ferdinand equipped sPzJagAbt 653 & 654, after extensive use of it, were assigned JagdPanthers as soon as the mighty vehicle
was available (same gun on a magnifically shaped Panther body, will be the standard heavy AT gun for germans up to the end of war....

About SturmTiger, the story/legend of a StuT knocking off a couple of Shermans with a single "bullet" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif... is a well known legend and I have seen it cited along with units numbers in more than a forum post (Axis History IIRC...). Whether it was true or not I never checked, but let's say that it COULD BE posiible: if one of those big pills (with 12 times the high explosive load of an heavy artillery round) lands in the middle of a group of Shermans closely parked in a second line area house yard, it would definitely damage anything in a radius of a couple of meters...even if armoured...

S!
MC202zipper

Xiolablu3
12-12-2005, 06:40 PM
Its the history channel (propaganda? you could easily call it that) where everyone learns it was a failure and too cumbersome, they never tell you about it KD ratio. I believed it without question before I learned that it wasnt QUITE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif as bad as they said it was from reading up some more (after reading this thread) These heavy tank destryers were actually a very good idea as dispensing with the turret meant you could house a larger gun.

Having something that heavy early in the war was definitely an advantage if you have no Sea to cross. Maybe it was hard to get places but you could say that about ANY heavy tank/tank destroyer. Surely its less cumbersome than a towed gun on a truck?

The Jadgpanther which was the idea developed further, was one of the best tanks/self propelled guns of the war.

jarink
12-12-2005, 08:07 PM
Was the Elephant a failure?

Well, the allies saw enough merit in the idea that they designed their own versions:

Tortoise (UK):
78 Tons, 32 pounder AT gun http://www.strange-mecha.com/vehicle/track/a39.jpg

T-28 (USA):
95 tons, 105mm cannon
It used 4 sets of modified Sherman HVSS suspension; the outside sets were detachable to make it fit on a railway car.
http://www.strange-mecha.com/vehicle/track/t28.jpg

ISU-152 (USSR):
46 tons, 152mm gun
It was the only one of these three that was used operationally. http://www.2iemeguerre.com/blindes/images/isu152o.jpg

ImpStarDuece
12-12-2005, 08:36 PM
Well, the Tortise was actually in development in various forms before the start of the war. It had a tortuous history, as did most British armour of the period. It was not a British development of the Fredinand, or even inspired by it. It does share some basic design features, but then so do most heavy assault guns.

It and the T-28 were not designed as anti-tank vehicles like the Gereman vehicles, but rather as super heavy assault tanks, used to overcome fixed fortifications and entrenched troop positions. Completely different philisophy and reasoning behind their development. Neither went further than limited prototype production.

I wouldn't call the Ferdinand a failure either. It just just sucessful in a narrowly defined role: it was designed to kill enemy tanks at long range from static positions. In that role there were few better vehicles. Once you take it out of that role its utility is diminished.

Badsight.
12-12-2005, 09:09 PM
so is the story of what the King Tigers did during the defense of berlin hard to confirm ?

i dont have the info on it here , i caught the last of an online discussion a long time ago - it sounded like the King Tigers were few in number & totally owned the advancing russians

Xiolablu3
12-13-2005, 06:35 AM
I would have thought these types of super heavy weapons were very good for defensive warfare.

Its when you are trying to move fast that they become an annoyance.

Surely if the Germans had some Ferdinands in the ranks at the time, the famous T34 breakthrough would never have happened. (it was stopped by 88's in the German rear at the time) I'm sure it was this that spurred them on to develop much heavier tanks.

I totally understand there are troubles with super heavy weapons, but thats just obvious really, they cannot go everywhere you would like them too, more chance of breakdown as the engine has to carry such weight, but being without them when you need them is much worse.

The main reason the Allies stuck with medium tanks was they could transport them across the channel and to the front much easier. As the front got pushed back the heavy weapons became very useful to the Germans.

MC202zipper
12-14-2005, 07:31 PM
I THINK to remember about King Tigers in Berlin defence, at a glance I would say it's very likely & very possible...IIRC there was a Kampfgruppe north east of Berlin that had some up to the last days...

Will check the books in two days time max (I have them at my parent's...) if still interested...

S!
MC202zipper

jarink
12-14-2005, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Well, the Tortise was actually in development in various forms before the start of the war. It had a tortuous history, as did most British armour of the period. It was not a British development of the Fredinand, or even inspired by it. It does share some basic design features, but then so do most heavy assault guns.

Yes, but I was getting at the idea that the Germans weren't the only ones who thought there was value in superheavy, turretless AFVs with huge guns. The Tortoise design team did include a single MG for infantry defense, but put it in a ridiculour place; it couldn't bear to the right at all! The T28 and ISU-152 did not even have a fixed MG, though they did sport externally mounted .50 cal MGs.


It and the T-28 were not designed as anti-tank vehicles like the German vehicles, but rather as super heavy assault tanks, used to overcome fixed fortifications and entrenched troop positions. Completely different philisophy and reasoning behind their development. Neither went further than limited prototype production.

I've heard that story and I think it's complete bull. The high-velocity 105mm cannon it mounted was a tank killer, plain and simple. British research (especially the Birney recolless guns and the squash-head ammo developed for them) showed that high-velocity guns were actually worse at taking out concrete fortifications than medium or low velocity guns (over penetration issues, plus lower weights of explosive charge were the main issues) I don't know why it being designed for AT duties would be covered up, but the given story doesn't fit the vehicle, in my opinion.


I wouldn't call the Ferdinand a failure either. It just just sucessful in a narrowly defined role: it was designed to kill enemy tanks at long range from static positions. In that role there were few better vehicles. Once you take it out of that role its utility is diminished.

Pretty much the same story for any AFV or airplane!

Jagdtiger
12-15-2005, 08:56 AM
The Tiger II's success in the defensive role in the last part of the war is well
known, what I meant with saying that it was/is hard to determine the precise
numbers of tank kills during the fighting in the Berlin area, is that during
such extreme conditions you cannot have a true and reliable source/judgement telling you if it was a kill, nor was
it possible to get all kills officially confirmed, as often was the case
before.
The Wehrmact communique mentioned on 10.04.45, that Untersturmf├╝hrer
Bromann,belonging to s.SS.Pz.Abt 503, destroyed 66 tanks and 44 AT guns from
02.02.45-18.03.45 around Gotenhafen. There are plenty more info about similar
successes with the Tiger II.

HTH,
Kris

Xiolablu3
12-15-2005, 12:34 PM
You are correct, who can say how many Russian tanks these crews knocked out before they were killed? They dont live to tell the tale.

There were so many fanatical German soldiers defending Berlin to the death at the time.

I know that the battle of Berlin, although not that big in scalle (nothing like Kursk etc) was, however, very costly for the Russians.

HayateAce
12-15-2005, 01:43 PM
Yes, Tigger II was so effective that in the December 16 Ardennes offensive, Obersturmbannfuhrer Joachim Piper placed them at the rear of his columns near the horse-drawn kitchen wagons. Pz IVs and Vs led the way.....

Tiger II commander's view:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/germans/apc.sized.jpg

Fate of 99% WWII Tiggers:

http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/00116.jpg

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger-2-2002-Picz/KTiger-506-Captured-Big.jpg

http://klub.chip.pl/krzemek/tiger2/tiger2_30d.jpg

http://v4.valkiria.net/skin/historia/druga_wojna/img/uzb/tigerii/ktiger6.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_5.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_6.jpg

Xiolablu3
12-15-2005, 02:09 PM
So errm what does that prove? That the Tiger 1's and Panzer 4's could negotiate the small roads they were using better than a massive heavy tank?

I think you will find that it was the Sherman that performed very badly in the Western theatre, not the Tigers. Wasnt it 4 Shermans to one Tiger that the Allies estimated?


Most King Tigers were abandoned thru lack of fuel and ammunition or were destroyed by aircraft, hardly any were destroyed by enemy tanks.

Quote - "On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner,
schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,
East Germany, April of 1945.

Quote - 'The Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B "K├┬Ânigstiger" (Sd.Kfz.182) / VK4503(H) was the most powerful combat tank of World War II. Up to the end of the war, the Allies did not introduce anything that could effectively counter it. The Tiger II combined a powerful and effective gun with armor that was virtually impervious to any Allied tank or anti-tank gun. The result was battlefield history.'



I understand there were drawbacks to this heavy weapon, such as expense and fuel consumption (wasnt it 4 gallons to the mile?) but which would you rather be in on the battlefield? A Sherman or a King Tiger?

Jagdtiger
12-15-2005, 02:31 PM
HayateAce... please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
It's obvious that your knowledge on german tanks is limited.
Ever heard that the terrain in the Ardennes area is quite tricky for a heavy tank, and one of the main reasons for PEIPER in doing that was to get a good flow in the advance.
Many of the vehicles you show us here is actually abandoned by their crew, and when you lose a battle or a war you don't always get to take your TIGER (that's how you spell it) or any other weapons home with you...
For instance the Tigers that Peiper had in command from s.SS.Pz.Abt 101(501) lost 6 Tiger II's to enemy action and 9 were abandoned and destroyed by their own crews.
I went to La Gleize and had a look at Tiger 213 from the 501st, I have yet to see a Sherman, IS-2 or any other tank absorbe so much punishment and still keep it's crew alive.

Just my thoughts,
Keep in touch if you want to know more...
Kris

Zeus-cat
12-15-2005, 04:03 PM
Actually, the most effective AFV to date would be the US M1 Abrams in Iraq. No M1's were lost to enemy fire in the Gulf War.

Zeus-cat

Xiolablu3
12-15-2005, 05:02 PM
But the Gulf war was exactly that. There was a massive 'Gulf' between the forces. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It was hardly a fair fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Its like saying the Henry Martin rifle was the best rifle in the world because it killed 1000's of Zulus in the 19th centry battles!

No Challenger 2's were lost either, so why is this any less succesful?


Anyway, back on topic, In WW2 the Western Allies found an abandoned King Tiger and used it for bazooka practice, they fired endless rounds at it, and not one penetrated the tank!


The History Channel/Western books like to emphasise the drawbacks to the King Tiger, but most of these can be attributed to all heavy tanks of the period, if you take it for what it is, ie a Super Heavy Tank, then there are big benefits to having this weapon in your portfolio.

It is a very nice 'club to have in the bag' so to speak.

Messaschnitzel
12-15-2005, 05:30 PM
Several years ago I downloaded a Quicktime file that features the Sturmtiger firing at a building. It lasts maybe 10 seconds, but at least you do get to see it firing. Has anyone ever seen this footage at all?

fighter_966
12-16-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, Tigger II was so effective that in the December 16 Ardennes offensive, Obersturmbannfuhrer Joachim Piper placed them at the rear of his columns near the horse-drawn kitchen wagons. Pz IVs and Vs led the way.....

Tiger II commander's view:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/germans/apc.sized.jpg

Fate of 99% WWII Tiggers:

http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/00116.jpg

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger-2-2002-Picz/KTiger-506-Captured-Big.jpg

http://klub.chip.pl/krzemek/tiger2/tiger2_30d.jpg

http://v4.valkiria.net/skin/historia/druga_wojna/img/uzb/tigerii/ktiger6.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_5.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_6.jpg
Second Third and Fourth picture are actually
Panther IV,s

Jagdtiger
12-16-2005, 11:33 AM
Fighter_966, what are you talking about...?

None of these tanks pictured here are Panthers, by the way the Panther were V not IV.

Kris

HayateAce
12-16-2005, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:

Second Third and Fourth picture are actually
Panther IV,s

No, all are Tiger IIs, B's, Royal Tigers....whatever you prefer. A mixture of "Henschel" and "Porsche" turrets, but all Tiger IIs nonetheless.

Invincible, no. Would I want to be in one if I had to serve in a WW2 tank?

Ubetcha.

HayateAce
12-16-2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Jagdtiger:

It's obvious that your knowledge on german tanks is limited.
Kris

Terrific, thanks for the tutorial. If you really do want to learn about German AFVs, send me a PM and I will take you to university.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

telsono
12-16-2005, 12:57 PM
The Porsche turret for the Tiger II was flawed. In its design there was an area just below the gun that allowed for rounds fired there to deflect down and penetrate the less armored decking.
Porsche was so confident that he would get the contract to build the Tiger II that he manufactured his turrets ahead of time. They were used on earlier versions of the Tiger II with the Henschel body.
Most of the roads through the Ardennes were dirt and very narrow with a few paved ones. The ground pressure of the Tiger II would have caused it to sink and bog down in those conditions. Piper didn't want these tanks blocking his advance if they got stuck in the mud. Also, there were few bridges able to suport their weight in this area.
Sherman tanks had a lot superior off road capacity than its German counterpoints.
"A Timer for Trumpets" by Charles McDonald is a great read about the Battle of the Bulge.

Jagdtiger
12-16-2005, 01:19 PM
The Krupp factory was the designer and manufacturer of the "Porsche" and the production (Henschel) turrets, not Porsche.
Perhaps the hurry you mention, is about the race between Porsche and Henschel during the Tiger I development ?

Furthermore, the Sherman had worse off road capacity than the Tigers and Panthers, due to a higher ground pressure, even a 30 ton tank can get stuck quite easy. One advantage the Sherman had and all tanks lighter than the Tiger, was that it was alot less tricky to recover if you had the right equipment.

HTH,
Kris

Sintubin
12-16-2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
So errm what does that prove? That the Tiger 1's and Panzer 4's could negotiate the small roads they were using better than a massive heavy tank?

I think you will find that it was the Sherman that performed very badly in the Western theatre, not the Tigers. Wasnt it 4 Shermans to one Tiger that the Allies estimated?


Most King Tigers were abandoned thru lack of fuel and ammunition or were destroyed by aircraft, hardly any were destroyed by enemy tanks.

Quote - "On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner,
schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,
East Germany, April of 1945.

Quote - 'The Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B "K├┬Ânigstiger" (Sd.Kfz.182) / VK4503(H) was the most powerful combat tank of World War II. Up to the end of the war, the Allies did not introduce anything that could effectively counter it. The Tiger II combined a powerful and effective gun with armor that was virtually impervious to any Allied tank or anti-tank gun. The result was battlefield history.'



I understand there were drawbacks to this heavy weapon, such as expense and fuel consumption (wasnt it 4 gallons to the mile?) but which would you rather be in on the battlefield? A Sherman or a King Tiger?

No it was 10 shermans vs 1 tiger

Sintubin
12-16-2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, Tigger II was so effective that in the December 16 Ardennes offensive, Obersturmbannfuhrer Joachim Piper placed them at the rear of his columns near the horse-drawn kitchen wagons. Pz IVs and Vs led the way.....

Tiger II commander's view:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/germans/apc.sized.jpg

Fate of 99% WWII Tiggers:

http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/00116.jpg

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger-2-2002-Picz/KTiger-506-Captured-Big.jpg

http://klub.chip.pl/krzemek/tiger2/tiger2_30d.jpg

http://v4.valkiria.net/skin/historia/druga_wojna/img/uzb/tigerii/ktiger6.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_5.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_6.jpg


First its Joachim Peiper not piper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


Second you dont now **** of tanks i see http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Now some facts

Michael Wittmann SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer comander of the SS-panzer abteilung 101

Destroyed at normandie

A britisch panzerconvoi neare villers-Bocage 54 tanks , Halftracks and panzerverhicles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


SS-Untersturmfuhrer Walter otto

From division SS-leibstandarte "the same where Joachim peiper is from"

killed 24 tanks and fendedof one atack from infrantry neare kursk http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I have more but for you i wont dig it al up .. Utherwise you would be crying that the treuth was not like your simple minds fantasy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ploughman
12-16-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, Tigger II was so effective that in the December 16 Ardennes offensive, Obersturmbannfuhrer Joachim Piper placed them at the rear of his columns near the horse-drawn kitchen wagons. Pz IVs and Vs led the way.....

Tiger II commander's view:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/germans/apc.sized.jpg

Fate of 99% WWII Tiggers:

http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/00116.jpg

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger-2-2002-Picz/KTiger-506-Captured-Big.jpg

http://klub.chip.pl/krzemek/tiger2/tiger2_30d.jpg

http://v4.valkiria.net/skin/historia/druga_wojna/img/uzb/tigerii/ktiger6.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_5.jpg

http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/destroy_tanks/tiger2_6.jpg


First its Joachim Peiper not piper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


Second you dont now **** of tanks i see http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Now some facts

Michael Wittmann SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer comander of the SS-panzer abteilung 101

Destroyed at normandie

A britisch panzerconvoi neare villers-Bocage 54 tanks , Halftracks and panzerverhicles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


SS-Untersturmfuhrer Walter otto

From division SS-leibstandarte "the same where Joachim peiper is from"

killed 24 tanks and fendedof one atack from infrantry neare kursk http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I have more but for you i wont dig it al up .. Utherwise you would be crying that the treuth was not like your simple minds fantasy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not related to Hristo are you?

MC202zipper
12-16-2005, 03:06 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
There were so many fanatical German soldiers defending Berlin to the death at the time.

QUOTE]

Weell.. it din't even take to be a fanatical soldier to the last Berlin defendant... you just drop your gun & try to find civilians clothes and you are going to be hanged at the nearest lamp post from the REAL fanatical ones... you keep fighting and you are going to be shot dead from the overwhelming russian infantry... looks to me that anybody that was encircled in a pocket, end even more the people trapped in Berlin had to keep fighting trough their retreats toward american or british forces (I am not going to whine about this, but the fact is that russian forces used VERY often to shoot german soldiers when they surrendered, SS were granted a bulled in their back heads, but also Wermacht or Lufwaffe guys were not more lucky sometime...)

S!
MC202zipper

Sintubin
12-16-2005, 03:19 PM
You're not related to Hristo are you?[/QUOTE]

No you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MC202zipper
12-18-2005, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by telsono:
The Porsche turret for the Tiger II was flawed. In its design there was an area just below the gun that allowed for rounds fired there to deflect down and penetrate the less armored decking.
Porsche was so confident that he would get the contract to build the Tiger II that he manufactured his turrets ahead of time. They were used on earlier versions of the Tiger II with the Henschel body.
Most of the roads through the Ardennes were dirt and very narrow with a few paved ones. The ground pressure of the Tiger II would have caused it to sink and bog down in those conditions. Piper didn't want these tanks blocking his advance if they got stuck in the mud. Also, there were few bridges able to suport their weight in this area.
Sherman tanks had a lot superior off road capacity than its German counterpoints.
"A Timer for Trumpets" by Charles McDonald is a great read about the Battle of the Bulge.

Actually the "Porsche turrets" & "Henschel turrets" are wrong definitions as JagdTiger pointed out in his post.
The Tiger II turrets were manufactured by Krupp that produced them for Porsche and for Henschel.
What I want to underline is that the shot trap flaw in the "Porsche design" turret was actually more theorical than real. If we compare it with another tank with the same problem, the Panther G early model (it had a "chin" added in later production to avoid the rounded shot trap) we will notice that Panther armour in crew hatch area was 15mm. vs 40mm of Tiger II (2.6 times!).
It is quite difficult that a bouncing shot (that has already lost part of its kinetic energy and is ricochecting at odd angle into the body) will manage to pierce 40mm & plus armour (in fact it is more than 40mm. To be 40mm. the shot has to be perpendicular to the armour, while if entering at an angle the relative thickness of the plate is greater. This is why, together with the tendence of shots to be deviated, a sloped armour is more efficient than a perpendicular armour...).
In fact the shot trap of Tiger II was an allied annotation in evaluation of Porsche designed Tiger II (a lot of misinformation about german WW2 tanks cames from early allied intelligence reports guessing about their design... Schurzen armour plates just to cite one..), and it was never complanied about from german crews...
AFAIK I have never seen a photo of a Porsche designed Tiger II killed from a mantlet ricichet...

S!
MC202zipper

MC202zipper
12-18-2005, 12:23 AM
Earlier in this thread somebody was asking about Tiger II in Berlin defence...this is what I have for now:

In the last days of the Third Reich, six King Tigers from sSSPzAbt 503 attached to 11th Waffen SS Panzergrenadier "Nordland" took part in the defense of Berlin.
See the cached page
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ONR49P6uUusJ:www.ac...en10.htm+King +Tiger+Berlin+defence&hl=it (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ONR49P6uUusJ:www.achtungpanzer.com/gen10.htm+King+Tiger+)
(sadly achtungpanzer is not on line anymore... so no photos, but thank god for Google cache!!)

QUOTED from achtungpanzer page:

SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner and SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer Karl Brommann

SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner and SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer Karl Brommann are both Panzer aces who started and finished their careers on King Tigers. They both served in schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503, which became part of III SS Panzer Corps (Germanic). sSSPzAbt 503
originated from the 8th company of 3rd Waffen SS Panzergrenadier Division "Totenkopf", which
was equipped with Tigers from July of 1943 to March of 1944. On October 17th of 1944,
sSSPzAbt 503 received their King Tigers and on January 27th of 1945 was transferred to the
Eastern Front. Following their arrival to the front, unit saw heavy combat in the Neu
Stettin (Szczecinek) area, allowing the escape of refugees from East Prussia. During the
night of February 17/18, sSSPzAbt 503 was loaded on train and moved to Danzig (Gdansk).
During the combat in Gdansk (Oliwa and Wrzeszcz districts) and Sopot, SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer
Karl Brommann (commander of the 1st Company) destroyed 65 tanks and self-propelled guns
along with 44 artillery pieces and 15 vehicles (including some T-34s from 1st Polish Tank
Brigade "Heroes of the Westerplatte"). Following his outstanding score, Brommann was awarded with Knights Cross. After the war, Brommann became and remained until his retirement a dental laboratory technician at the university clinic in Germany. Following heavy losses the remnants of the unit were evacuated to Swinemunde (Swinoujscie) and took part in combat in Stettin (Szczecin) area.
In the last days of the Third Reich, six King Tigers from sSSPzAbt 503 attached to 11th
Waffen SS Panzergrenadier "Nordland" took part in the defense of Berlin, these were the only
six tanks that managed to escape Danzig trough seatravel to Swinemunde (see Schw SS PzAbt503
page in "Der Koenigtiger" from Waffen Arsenal - Podzun Pallas Verlag GmbH, were you can find
a photo of Abt. commander & Bromann along with one of Bromann, both with 503's tanks).

In April of 1945, SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner (platoon commander from the 2nd Company)
was supporting an infantry counterattack in the Bollersdorf area (east of Berlin), when he
encountered two Soviet JS-II heavy tanks at a distance of 200m. He quickly destroyed the
first one and second one trying to reverse in order to take a firing position drove into an
anti-tank ditch and was abandomed by the crew. On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg,
K├┬Ârner observed additional 11 JS-II tanks and around 120 to 150 enemy tanks in the process
of being refuelled and re-armed on the egde of the village. He then fired and destroyed all
11 JS-II tanks on the road and attacked the rest of the tanks and their suprised crews.
Number of fuel and ammunition trucks exploded causing even more panic among the Russian
tankers, while K├┬Ârner fired all 39 rounds he had left and knocked out 39 enemy tanks before
he withdrew. Following this action, sSSPzAbt 503 and other units were falling back to defend
Berlin. On his way to Berlin, Karl K├┬Ârner destroyed over 100 Soviet tanks and 26 anti-tank guns in total, achievement for which on April 29th, he was awarded the Knights Cross in the bunker of Reichs Chancellery. After the ceremony, K├┬Ârner returned to his unit on the
frontline at Charlottenburg district of Berlin. On May 2nd, last King Tiger from sSSPzAbt
503 was destroyed during an attempt to break out of the city on the Spandau Bridge.

A Tiger II from schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 was also the last German tank to be destroyed
in the war. It was blown up by its crew in Austria on May 10, 1945."


A beautiful photo of SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer Karl Brommann wearing a leather italian U-boot jacket (quite common in late war tank crew e.g. 12th SS PzDiv HJ. They were first worn from crews of LSSAH, the 1st SS PzDiv that was refitting in Italy at the time of armistice in September 1943: at the time most of italian army supplies were confiscated by germans and Dietrich, commander of LSSAH thought that it was a good flame proof garment for his crews. It is seen on almost HJ staff in Normandy because 12th SS PzDiv Hitler Jugend was formed around a cadre of experienced crew from LSSAH) and a bandaged head is on a chinese site here:

http://tuku.history.china.com/history/html/2005-11-09/2024241_514524960.htm

A photo of Bromann (distictly wounded at the head in this photo like the previous photo on
chinese site) and his crew in front of their Tiger II (that has an IMPRESSIVE killring mark
count on gun barrel...Bormann was a renowned ace with 66 tanks in his bag...meaning some
200-250 dead enemy crew...) is here

http://www.hotlinecy.com/BrommannKarl2Front.jpg

About his tank, there is a photo in "Tigers in Combat II" by Wolfgang Schneider which is
claimed to be of Bromann's immobilized Tiger II in Arnswalde. On 04.02.45 it was immobilized
by an AT gun, the tank was then towed and later photographed in front of the Arnswalde
church. The only markings visible is the balkenkreuz on the turret.
Schneider also shows the organiztional chart as of 25 Jan 1945.
The only Tiger II's with numbers are from the 1st company with usual arrangement of double zero (100) for Company Command tank and three platoons of four tanks each (111-114 First platoon, 121-124 Second platoon, 131-134 Third platoon)

In "Tiger-The history of the Legendary Weapon 1942-45" by E Kleine & V K├╝hn Bromann is reported with the 2nd company in Jan 1945.
Seems that 2nd company tanks were not wearing turret numbers... the photos I have on my books never show the related area, so I will take that until different proof.

Here we can see a nice portrait of a young guy...Karl Brommann in SS standard field grey
uniform.. he looks so young... but that young handsome smiling guy has already seen a lot of
bloody & fierce action, in fact he is wearing the infantry assault badge, the Iron Cross
Second class ribbon and the "Frozen Meat Order" ribbon, the ribbon of "1941-1942 Russian
Winter" award... here:

http://www.hotlinecy.com/BrommannKarlFront.jpg

"Armour Battles of the Waffen SS 1943-45" by Wey has an interesting section regarding
sSSPzAbt 503 and Berlin escaping Tigers
SS-Obersturmf├╝hrer Fritz Kauerauf noted almost no Tiger escaped the fate of being knocked
out. He noted it was too large a target and was frequently at the centre of the action.
This can be confirmed by the report of Sturmmann Lothar Tiby (driver) whose Tiger went
through 6 commanders , 3 radio operators and 2 loaders. Only Tiby and the gunner Kl├┬Âckner
were in action from the beginning.
On a further note Tiby was with the first company and further reports the Arnswalde action in which Bromann's Tiger was disabled.
It would also appear from this book that Bromman was now with the first company, possibly in charge of commanding it.
In the same book there is a report stating that on 2nd of May 1945 the Tiger commanders
K├┬Ârner and Stolze still had operational tanks and were to join a Kampfgruppe planning a
breakout from Berlin. A third Tiger commanded by Untersharf├╝hrer Georg Diers joined this
group.
Interestingly there were two other operational Tigers with another group also breaking out
of Berlin and trying to reach the Wenck Army and thus cross the Elbe River. Maybe sPzAbt 502 (Heer)? I have found some reference about 502 in Berlin... see later comment...

"Tigers in Combat II" by W Schneider reports that of the 39 Tigers of sSSPzAbt503 44% were
lost in action, 56% of them destroyed by crew.
15 of the Tigers lost in April-May45 are unaccounted as whether enemy or crew destroyed.


Researching the net for extra infos I discovered that also Heer sPzAbt 502 had some Tiger II in the Berlin battle, I will have a better look at it in the next two days, in the meantime...

I quote this page:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/05/stuff_eng_canfora_tiger_ii.htm

in the lower part of the page is reported:

"555" was a tank that served with 502. Schwere Panzerabteilung during Battle of Berlin,
1945. It were the tanks of this unit that lead the breakthrough at Halbe, which went into
history as one of the bloodiest fights in the collapsing Third Reich. In preparation of the
Soviet offensive across Oder, the sPzAbt. 502 was deployed in the area of Diedersdorf-Litzen
together with the 9th Army.
Although the army could hold the Oder-front near Frankfurt am Oder, other segments of the
defense soon collapsed under enormous Russian pressure. By end-April the 9th Army was
bypassed and encircled by the 1st Ukrainian and 1st Belorussian fronts. The last five Tiger
IIs of sPzAbt. 502 were used to lead a desperate breakout, followed by tens of thousands of soldiers and refugees. In three days the enormous column moved through woods and villages, constantly attacked and fired upon by waiting Russians on both flanks. Despite all the fire from Russian artillery, T-34s and anti-tank guns, the five Tigers were able to establish a breakthrough, however, almost 60 thousand German soldiers and civilian refugees perished in the exodus. The Reich outlasted their sacrifice for another nine days.

For the moment this is all I have about the Tiger II in Berlin last battle...

S!
MC202zipper

HayateAce
12-18-2005, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
Furthermore, the Sherman had worse off road capacity than the Tigers and Panthers, due to a higher ground pressure, even a 30 ton tank can get stuck quite easy.

Yes, jt is actually correct about this, UNTIL the "Easy 8" M4A3E8.

http://www.normandy1944.org.uk/sherman%2003w.jpg

Oh, and just for fun, this bad boy could soak up anything the german tanks could even think of dishing out.

http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/Productspotlight/jumbo_2.jpg

It also sports extended tracks which negated the ground pressure issue. Czech out the super-thick mantlet, turret, tranny cover and doubled up armor on glacis and sides.

Kocur_
12-18-2005, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:

Oh, and just for fun, this bad boy could soak up anything the german tanks could even think of dishing out.

http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/Productspotlight/jumbo_2.jpg

It also sports extended tracks which negated the ground pressure issue. Czech out the super-thick mantlet, turret, tranny cover and doubled up armor on glacis and sides.

Well in case of this bad boy, weighting 42t wider tracks were necessity http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its M4A3E2 with turret front 254mm thic, turret side 152mm, hull front 101mm, hull side 76mm. I think Panthers 75mm L/70 could penetrate hull front, and long 88mm definately could. But Jumbo was was supposed to be assault support weapon, for fighting in the city for example, it was not anti-tank weapon - it still had regular 75mm M3. Also without sand bags or anything else to cause pre-explosion of HEAT warhead, it was vulnerable to Panzerfausts.

Kurfurst__
12-18-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
Furthermore, the Sherman had worse off road capacity than the Tigers and Panthers, due to a higher ground pressure, even a 30 ton tank can get stuck quite easy.

Yes, jt is actually correct about this, UNTIL the "Easy 8" M4A3E8. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually not, the Easy Eight was a good fix for the Shermans problems on soft-ground, and it was about avarage with those. A looong time ago there was a nice study posted on tankers.net forums (i think) on the pressure of tanks on soft grounds. The Panther was the best, by far, having an Mean MAximum Pressure of only 150, while the others generally fell in the 200 area, none really below 180. Tigers were pretty good, the Tiger II managing somewhere around 185, similiar to the T-34/85. The other good one was the churchill. Early Panzer IIIs with the narrower tracks, and espeically the Cromwell and other cruiser tanks were awful with 200-250, the Ferdinand/Elefant was quite bad, too. The Sherman was nothing special, IIRC the E8 was pretty much avarage but I'd have to check. You can notice that tans with a dense boogie system and wide tracks were the best - German 'cats' with overlapped roadwheels and the Churchill with many-many little wheels come to mind.

MLudner
12-18-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
Was the Elephant a failure?

Well, the allies saw enough merit in the idea that they designed their own versions:

Tortoise (UK):
78 Tons, 32 pounder AT gun http://www.strange-mecha.com/vehicle/track/a39.jpg

T-28 (USA):
95 tons, 105mm cannon
It used 4 sets of modified Sherman HVSS suspension; the outside sets were detachable to make it fit on a railway car.
http://www.strange-mecha.com/vehicle/track/t28.jpg

ISU-152 (USSR):
46 tons, 152mm gun
It was the only one of these three that was used operationally. http://www.2iemeguerre.com/blindes/images/isu152o.jpg


The ISU-152 was not a tank destoyer, it was an assault gun. Its main armament is a 152mm Howitzer and its purpose was to destroy fortifications and put direct heavy artillery fire on defended positions.

MLudner
12-18-2005, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jagdtiger:
Furthermore, the Sherman had worse off road capacity than the Tigers and Panthers, due to a higher ground pressure, even a 30 ton tank can get stuck quite easy.

Yes, jt is actually correct about this, UNTIL the "Easy 8" M4A3E8.

http://www.normandy1944.org.uk/sherman%2003w.jpg

That's not an Easy 8. You can tell because of the cast hull, the Easy 8 is an A3 (M4A3E8)upgrade and all A3's had welded hulls. Along with that, the tracks lack the grousers used to widen the tracks and give better ground pressure rates.
Without looking at my numerous books on the subject I would say that is an M4A2(W).

MC202zipper
12-18-2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by MC202zipper:
Earlier in this thread somebody was asking about Tiger II in Berlin defence...this is what I found out for now:

In the last days of the Third Reich, six King Tigers from sSSPzAbt 503 attached to 11th Waffen SS Panzergrenadier "Nordland" took part in the defense of Berlin.
See the cached page
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ONR49P6uUusJ:www.ac...en10.htm+King +Tiger+Berlin+defence&hl=it (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ONR49P6uUusJ:www.achtungpanzer.com/gen10.htm+King+Tiger+)
(sadly achtungpanzer is not on line anymore... so no photos, but thank god for Google cache!!)

QUOTED from AchtungPanzer! page:

SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner and SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer Karl Brommann

SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner and SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer Karl Brommann are both Panzer aces who started and finished their careers on King Tigers. They both served in schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503, which became part of III SS Panzer Corps (Germanic). sSSPzAbt 503
originated from the 8th company of 3rd Waffen SS Panzergrenadier Division "Totenkopf", which
was equipped with Tigers from July of 1943 to March of 1944. On October 17th of 1944,
sSSPzAbt 503 received their King Tigers and on January 27th of 1945 was transferred to the
Eastern Front. Following their arrival to the front, unit saw heavy combat in the Neu
Stettin (Szczecinek) area, allowing the escape of refugees from East Prussia. During the
night of February 17/18, sSSPzAbt 503 was loaded on train and moved to Danzig (Gdansk).
During the combat in Gdansk (Oliwa and Wrzeszcz districts) and Sopot, SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer
Karl Brommann (commander of the 1st Company) destroyed 65 tanks and self-propelled guns
along with 44 artillery pieces and 15 vehicles (including some T-34s from 1st Polish Tank
Brigade "Heroes of the Westerplatte"). Following his outstanding score, Brommann was awarded with Knights Cross. After the war, Brommann became and remained until his retirement a dental laboratory technician at the university clinic in Germany. Following heavy losses the remnants of the unit were evacuated to Swinemunde (Swinoujscie) and took part in combat in Stettin (Szczecin) area.

End of quote from AchtungPanzer! page.

In the last days of the Third Reich, six King Tigers from sSSPzAbt 503 attached to 11th
Waffen SS Panzergrenadier "Nordland" took part in the defense of Berlin, these were the only
six tanks that managed to escape Danzig trough seatravel to Swinemunde (see sSSPzAbt503 page in "Der Koenigtiger" from Waffen Arsenal - Podzun Pallas Verlag GmbH, were you can find
a photo of Abt. commander & Bromann along with one of Bromann, both in front of 503's tanks).

On 19 April 1945, SS-Hauptscharf├╝hrer Karl K├┬Ârner (platoon commander from the 2nd Company)
was supporting an infantry counterattack in the Bollersdorf area east of Berlin when he
encountered two Soviet JSII tanks. Opening fire at a distance of 200mts. he quickly destroyed the first one while the second tank, trying to reverse in order to escape or have a better fire position, ran into an anti-tank ditch, got stuck and was abandomed by the crew. On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg K├┬Ârner observed some additional 11 JSII tanks and around 120 to 150 other tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed on the egde of the village. He then fired and destroyed all 11 JSII tanks on the road and attacked the rest of the tanks and their suprised crews.
Number of fuel and ammunition trucks exploded causing even more panic among the Russian
tankers, while K├┬Ârner fired all 39 rounds he had left and knocked out 39 enemy tanks before
he withdrew. Following this action, sSSPzAbt 503 and other units were falling back to defend
Berlin. On his way to Berlin, Karl K├┬Ârner destroyed over 100 Soviet tanks and 26 anti-tank guns in total, achievement for which on April 29th, he was awarded the Knights Cross in the bunker of Reichs Chancellery. After the ceremony, K├┬Ârner returned to his unit on the
frontline at Charlottenburg district of Berlin. On May 2nd, last King Tiger from sSSPzAbt
503 was destroyed during an attempt to break out of the city on the Spandau Bridge.

Here

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=48742&star...order=asc&highlight= (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=48742&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)

there is a nice thread on the awesome battle record of 4 Tiger IIs of K├┬Ârner, Muller, Diers & another sSSPzAbt503's crew, that on 19 April 1945 in two hours battle destroyed the incredible number of 105 soviet tanks (as already mentioned 39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif were knocked out from from K├┬Ârner's tank alone!).
This is the same engagement earlier commented with reference on AchtungPanzer! site.

A Tiger II from schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 was also the last German tank to be destroyed
in the war. It was blown up by its crew in Austria on May 10, 1945."


A beautiful photo of SS-Untersturmf├╝hrer Karl Brommann wearing a leather italian U-boot jacket (quite common in late war tank crew e.g. 12th SS PzDiv HJ. They were first worn from crews of LSSAH, the 1st SS PzDiv that was refitting in Italy at the time of armistice in September 1943: at the time most of italian army supplies were confiscated by germans and Dietrich, commander of LSSAH thought that it was a good flame proof garment for his crews. It is seen on almost HJ staff in Normandy because 12th SS PzDiv Hitler Jugend was formed around a cadre of experienced crew from LSSAH) and a bandaged head is on a chinese site here:

http://tuku.history.china.com/history/html/2005-11-09/2024241_514524960.htm

A photo of Bromann (distictly wounded at the head in this photo like the previous photo on
chinese site) and his crew in front of their Tiger II (that has an IMPRESSIVE killring mark
count on gun barrel...Bormann was a renowned ace with 66 tanks in his bag...meaning some
200-250 dead enemy crew...) is here

http://www.hotlinecy.com/BrommannKarl2Front.jpg

About his tank, there is a photo in "Tigers in Combat II" by Wolfgang Schneider which is
claimed to be of Bromann's immobilized Tiger II in Arnswalde. On 04.02.45 it was immobilized
by an AT gun, the tank was then towed and later photographed in front of the Arnswalde
church. The only markings visible is the balkenkreuz on the turret.
Schneider also shows the organiztional chart as of 25 Jan 1945.
The only Tiger II's with numbers are from the 1st company with usual arrangement of double zero (100) for Company Command tank and three platoons of four tanks each (111-114 First platoon, 121-124 Second platoon, 131-134 Third platoon) and third company (same platoon arrangement, from these links & from books I don't have evidence of Second Cp Tigers II bearing turret numbers (Bromann's TigerII hadn't them for sure...)

In "Tiger-The history of the Legendary Weapon 1942-45" by E Kleine & V K├╝hn, Ustuf Bromann is reported with the 2nd company in Jan 1945.

Here we can see a nice portrait of a young guy...Karl Brommann in SS standard field grey
uniform.. he looks so young... but that young handsome smiling guy has already seen a lot of
bloody & fierce action, in fact he is wearing the infantry assault badge, the Iron Cross
Second class ribbon and the "Frozen Meat Order" ribbon, the ribbon of "1941-1942 Russian
Winter" award... here:

http://www.hotlinecy.com/BrommannKarlFront.jpg

"Armour Battles of the Waffen SS 1943-45" by Wey has an interesting section regarding
sSSPzAbt 503 and Berlin escaping Tigers
SS-Obersturmf├╝hrer Fritz Kauerauf noted almost no Tiger escaped the fate of being knocked
out. He noted it was too large a target and was frequently at the centre of the action.
This can be confirmed by the report of Sturmmann Lothar Tiby (driver) whose Tiger went
through 6 commanders , 3 radio operators and 2 loaders. Only Tiby and the gunner Kl├┬Âckner
were in action from the beginning.
On a further note Tiby was with the first company and further reports the Arnswalde action in which Bromann's Tiger was disabled.
It would also appear from this book that Bromman was now with the first company, possibly in charge of commanding it.
In the same book there is a report stating that on 2nd of May 1945 the Tiger commanders
K├┬Ârner and Stolze still had operational tanks and were to join a Kampfgruppe planning a
breakout from Berlin. A third Tiger commanded by Untersharf├╝hrer Georg Diers joined this
group.
Interestingly there were two other operational Tigers with another group also breaking out
of Berlin and trying to reach the Wenck Army and thus cross the Elbe River. Maybe sPzAbt 502 (Heer)? I have found some reference about 502 in Berlin... see later comment...

"Tigers in Combat II" by W Schneider reports that of the 39 Tigers of sSSPzAbt503 44% were
lost in action, 56% of them destroyed by crew.
15 of the Tigers lost in April-May45 are unaccounted as whether enemy or crew destroyed.

Check this thread and the lised links inside:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=76574&highlight=pzabt+503

Tiger #100 of sSSPzAbt.503 is reported standing in front of the Potsdamer Bahnhof and disabling many soviet tanks (see next link)

http://www.military-art.com/gdp21.htm

The Last Battle, Berlin, 30th April 1945 by David Pentland

Unterscharfurher Karl-Heinz Turk of the Schwere SS Panzerabteilung 503, in one of the units few remaining Kingtigers, defends the Potsdammer Platz along with elements of the Munchberg Division against the rapidly encroaching Soviet forces

SS Untersharfuhrer Georg Diers and his crew of tank 314 of schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 503 fought in Berlin battle. See

http://www.military-art.com/dhm1109.htm

Defence of the Reichstag, Berlin 1st May 1945 by David Pentland
On the 30th April, Untersharfuhrer Georg Diers and his crew of tank 314, were ordered to take up a defensive position at the Reichstag buildings. This was one of only two remaining King Tigers belonging to Heavy SS Tank Battalion 503 in Berlin. By that evening they had knocked out about 30 T34's, and the following day led a successful counterattack against the Kroll Opera House directly opposite the Reichstag. Their efforts though, merely postponed the inevitable and by the end of the day the order was given to abandon the position and prepare to break out of Berlin.

It seems from this link that sSSPzAbt503 had only 2 operational Tiger II by the dawn of 30 April 1945... they actually were some three or maybe four (report from Wey book about K├┬Ârner and Stolze tanks and Diers joining them on 2nd of May for the attempted breaktrough...), IMHO the number should be four at least with possybly more Tiger II from sPzAbt 502 (Heer). I will have to research better...

Researching the net for extra infos I discovered infact that also sPzAbt 502 (Heer) had some Tiger II in the Berlin battle, I will have a better look at it in the next two days, in the meantime...

I quote this page:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/05/stuff_eng_canfora_tiger_ii.htm

in the lower part of the page is reported:

"555" was a tank that served with 502. Schwere Panzerabteilung during Battle of Berlin,
1945. It were the tanks of this unit that lead the breakthrough at Halbe, which went into
history as one of the bloodiest fights in the collapsing Third Reich. In preparation of the
Soviet offensive across Oder, the sPzAbt. 502 was deployed in the area of Diedersdorf-Litzen
together with the 9th Army.
Although the army could hold the Oder-front near Frankfurt am Oder, other segments of the
defense soon collapsed under enormous Russian pressure. By end-April the 9th Army was
bypassed and encircled by the 1st Ukrainian and 1st Belorussian fronts. The last five Tiger
IIs of sPzAbt. 502 were used to lead a desperate breakout, followed by tens of thousands of soldiers and refugees. In three days the enormous column moved through woods and villages, constantly attacked and fired upon by waiting Russians on both flanks. Despite all the fire from Russian artillery, T-34s and anti-tank guns, the five Tigers were able to establish a breakthrough, however, almost 60 thousand German soldiers and civilian refugees perished in the exodus. The Reich outlasted their sacrifice for another nine days.

For the moment this is all I have about the Tiger II in Berlin last battle...

S!
MC202zipper

MC202zipper
12-18-2005, 10:49 AM
Nice page with German tank tactics here:

http://www.lonesentry.com/tanktalk/

S!