PDA

View Full Version : Tiger tank?



slo_1_2_3
04-04-2006, 01:58 PM
Sorry noob question but which one is it? I want to make a mission and have some shermans batle tigers and other tanks and artillery but which one is the tiger?

lowfighter
04-04-2006, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Sorry noob question but which one is it? I want to make a mission and have some shermans batle tigers and other tanks and artillery but which one is the tiger?

shermans fighting tigers, they have no chance. But anyway I think tiger is Panzer VIB or VIE . The only real opponent for these monsters is IS-2.

JG53Frankyboy
04-04-2006, 02:07 PM
Panzer VIE is the Tiger
Panzer VIB is the Kingtiger
PAnzer V is the Panther

tomtheyak
04-04-2006, 02:10 PM
An important point to bear in mind slo, is that though often Allied tank crews reported engaging Tigers, the Panzer III was more prolific during much of the western campaign; just as Luftwaffe pilots tended to develop 'Spitfire Snobbery' it seems sherman tank crews assumed the worst when coming across an enemy tank!

Irish_Rogues
04-04-2006, 02:16 PM
An important point to bear in mind slo, is that though often Allied tank crews reported engaging Tigers, the Panzer III was more prolific during much of the western campaign; just as Luftwaffe pilots tended to develop 'Spitfire Snobbery' it seems sherman tank crews assumed the worst when coming across an enemy tank!

I thought the Pnz III was pretty much phased out by the end of 43. The Pnz IV on the other hand was the most produced german tank of the war with use spanning from start to finnish.

JG53Frankyboy
04-04-2006, 02:16 PM
well, a Panzer IV with a long 75mm KwK was still a potent foe.

telsono
04-04-2006, 02:18 PM
Tom;

I think you meant the Panzer IV as the most numerous. At least at the time of Normandy, the Pz IVG and H were the mainstay. The Pz III was the main tank up to about El Alamein then the long 75 versions of the Pz IV (F?)started showing up.

J_Weaver
04-04-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by telsono:
Tom;

I think you meant the Panzer IV as the most numerous. At least at the time of Normandy, the Pz IVG and H were the mainstay. The Pz III was the main tank up to about El Alamein then the long 75 versions of the Pz IV (F?)started showing up.

Thats correct. The Panzer III was the main tank in North Africa. The Pz IV F was the first with the "long" 75mm gun. It first apeared in the summer of 42'. By Normandy in 44' the Pz IV G and H were the standard tank and many remaining Pz III's had been converted to self propelled guns. Around late summer 43' the Pz V (Panther) first began to appear on the Eastern Front. However, I don't think the Pz V went into action in the West until early 44. The Pz VI E (Tiger went into action in late 42/ early 43'. The Pz VI B first went into action in the summer of 44'.

Anywho, the Pz IV G/H was the most common German tank in Normandy. There were also a number of Pz V's and some Pz VI, but not as many as the troops Allied troops thought.

Grue_
04-04-2006, 02:42 PM
Don't forget the .50 cal equipped Sherman that slaughtered the Tigers.

I'll get my coat then.

thefruitbat
04-04-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Grue_:
Don't forget the .50 cal equipped Sherman that slaughtered the Tigers.

I'll get my coat then.

nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bastables
04-04-2006, 02:53 PM
Strength of Panzer units in the west 10 June 1944. (France)

PIII: 39
PIV: 758
Panther: 655
PVI Tiger's of all types: 102.

StuG numbers are not included as I have no information on the StuG units in normandy execpt the ones deployed in Panzer Divisions SS and Army.

PIV numbers include veh with a PIV chassie ie jadepanzer IV and the wirbulwinds. Standred doctorine during Normandy was to have PIV in the line and Panthers held back for counter attacks and explotation.

One Battalion of Panthers was deployed to italy in Feb 1944. PZ regt 69 (early model A or late model D2)

WTE_Galway
04-04-2006, 11:03 PM
Early war the main "medium" panzer types where actually the Czech designed P38T and the Panzer III. The IV was very thin on the ground.

In Barbarossa there were a lot of P38T tanks in frontline panzer divisions. The P38 in particular, with a 37mm gun, was no match for russian armor. Whilst the III's and IV's struggled the P38's were massacred.

Originally the Panzer IV was intended as an anti-infantry tank and the Panzer III was to be developed as the anti armor design.

The mid war panzer III's such as the Pz.Kpfw.IIL with the "long" 50mm gun and extra front armor were to some extent able to hold their own against the T34 (similiar front armor, shorter range gun but still fairly effective gun, poorer armor from side and rear) but had no hope in hell against the bigger russian stuff like the KV1.

In many ways the IIIL, IVF, T34 and much aligned Shermans are reasonably equivalent tanks. The bad reputation of the Sherman (a medium tank)comes form its failure to handle the Panther and Tiger .. both heavy tanks. The T34 got a lot of its reputation from the way it chewed through the much inferior P38 and Panzer II light tanks.

Eventually with the need for larger calibre guns the IV turrent being more suited to the 75mm gun meant the p38 and shortly after the panzer III were relegated to use as chassis for other weapons and the IV became the medium tank for the rest of the war.

So .. in summary .. early war mainly p38t's and III's midwar and onwards IV's panthers and igers.

As a matter of interest .. the offensive at Kursk was actually delayed because Hitler wanted the first Panthers to be available where they did not peform as well as expected because of mechanical breakdowns.

Copperhead310th
04-04-2006, 11:26 PM
Tiger tanks

Unlike real life.....in il-2 ya can't kill em with fifties.

and the pazer loving nutjobs here will swear up & down that no tiger every was destroyed by fifty cal. straifing runs. lol

what a load of bull...........

FritzGryphon
04-04-2006, 11:34 PM
Totally off topic to the posters original question, but you can kill Tigers in IL-2 with the M2 machine gun.

Here are some pictures, of pretty much the only way to do it. Note the angle and speed. These are the only conditions in which the bullet can penetrate the turret roof armor and destroy this particular tank. At lower speeds, shallower angles, or further ranges, it won't work.

According to reference material, M2 AP rounds would penetrate 1 inch of hardened armor under these conditions, and still have some energy left to do internal damage. It is a credit to the damage model that this is rendered so accurately, even with the 'simple' vehicle DM.


Note that this also guarantees a crash into said tank, and killing a Tiger with 50s is still impossible by any practical (and survivable) means. That is what bombs and rockets are for, after all.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tigertank.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tigertank2.jpg

WTE_Galway
04-05-2006, 12:06 AM
not the old .50 cal versus tanks yet again !!


its true .50 cal could take out a tank .. as in disable it, usually by damaging the engine .. as for burn one, i havent seen any evidence for .50 cal making tanks explode even from the top


The quote below is about P51D's in Korea killing T34's but its still relevant:


source: http://www.australiansatwar.gov.au/stories/stories.asp?war=KO&id=225
******************************

" These were the tanks that had just routed Task Force Smith near Ansong, 12 miles [19km] to the north, the first US army attempt to slow the advance. We did not know that beneath us at P'yongtaek the remnants of that brave task force of 406 men under Lt Col Smith were straggling south as best they could. They had quickly found that their anti tank weapons had been almost ineffectual against the T34 tanks.

It was some time before we were to learn that we could easily knock out those tanks by firing our guns into the engine compartment behind the gun turret. "

Bastables
04-05-2006, 12:06 AM
Panzer inventory for the entire heeres (army) prior to the invasion of Russia 1 June 1941

Pz 1: 877
Pz II: 1074
Pz35t: 170
Pz38t: 754
PIII 3,7cm : 350
PIII 5cm : 1090
PIV : 517.

Pz38t dominated verus the majority of the Russian armoured forces as they were still armed with Bt and t26 model tanks. Also the 3,7cm cezch gun was more powerful than the kwk 3,7cm gun that armed the early PzIII's.

panther3485
04-05-2006, 04:44 AM
Keep it up, guys, this bait is just starting to look attractive to me!
(hehehehehe)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

panther3485

luftluuver
04-05-2006, 07:21 AM
In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.
I would not take what Dulias has to say with much authenticity.

For starters he refuses to state which Gruppe of JG53 he belonged to. He does not know who his commander was. Why does he say 'near Aachen', when units of JG53 where based a better known bases at the time. (map to come later)

OH yes, Tony Wood's LW claims site lists no claims by Dulias.

Crips, he even claimed I-16s in early '45 in Hungary.

Micheal Maslov's monography says:

- no I-16s reported in the VVS from early 1944 on the EF
- 1 I-16 in the Northern Fleet airforce as of 1-1-45
- all I-16s (~40) removed from PVO service mid 1944

For more see: http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1947&highlight=Dulias

Capt.LoneRanger
04-05-2006, 07:38 AM
Just to get this straight - sorry, I'm a starter at this buisiness:

1. The story about the Spit and his 109 is wrong because of what proof?
2. You say the I-16 was removed from service in 1944? I have a Polish book about Sovjet planes, stating the I-16 flew until the end of the war in some units.
3. A Cal50 kills a Tiger. That's a fact.



Oh, you mean a Tiger-Tank? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Xiolablu3
04-05-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.
I would not take what Dulias has to say with much authenticity.

For starters he refuses to state which Gruppe of JG53 he belonged to. He does not know who his commander was. Why does he say 'near Aachen', when units of JG53 where based a better known bases at the time. (map to come later)

OH yes, Tony Wood's LW claims site lists no claims by Dulias.

Crips, he even claimed I-16s in early '45 in Hungary.

Micheal Maslov's monography says:

- no I-16s reported in the VVS from early 1944 on the EF
- 1 I-16 in the Northern Fleet airforce as of 1-1-45
- all I-16s (~40) removed from PVO service mid 1944

For more see: http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1947&highlight=Dulias </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could easily have been a Spitfire Mk5, then the 109G would have outclassed it.

Simple explanation.

There were many Mk5's, clipped , cropped and clapped, used between 1943-44 down low, they were made to run as fast as a Fw190A at low level and roll at about the same speed by messing with the engine , clipping the wings and changing the supercharger.

luftluuver
04-07-2006, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Just to get this straight - sorry, I'm a starter at this buisiness:

1. The story about the Spit and his 109 is wrong because of what proof?
2. You say the I-16 was removed from service in 1944? I have a Polish book about Sovjet planes, stating the I-16 flew until the end of the war in some units.

1. No listing in the very comprehesive LW claims site of Tony Woods.
2. Why would such a obsolete a/c be on the front line when much more capable a/c were available? Spitfire Is were still in the RAF but weren't on the front lines.

As to "near Aachen", here is a map of the JG53 (II and III, I was in the East) bases in Aug 1944. Notice that the closest base to Aachen is Eindoven (a major LW base), which he could not even remember, and is some ~90km from Aachen. There was other LW bases closer to Aachen but none of JG53 were based there. II.JG53 was only at Eindoven from 29.8.44 - 3.9.44, 12 days. That narrows down the date for his suppose Spitfire claim.

La Fere is some 240km from Aachen.
Hustedt is some 360km from Aachen and just ~40km from Hannover.

The closest III./JG base was Bad Lippspringe, some 230km from Aachen. Kassel and Hannover are closer to this base.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/JG53bases-Aug44-2.jpg

So this says he was in either II./JG53 or III./JG53 and neither of these units were based near Budapest, where he claims he was in 1945.

fabianfred
04-07-2006, 09:00 PM
as for the il2 series (getting back to the original subject)...
one of the most effective anti TigerI or II (in game) is the ISU-100, especially when fighting is close-in. this appears to be because of its very low profile which makes it difficult to be hit, whereas its own armament is very good (not its armour)
the supposed Tiger killer, the ISU-152 which could rip the turret off a Tiger with its huge armament doesn't do so well (in game)

WarWolfe_1
04-08-2006, 12:11 AM
wow this thread jumped off topic fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The tiger is the PanzerVIE, and shermans only really stood a chance of beating them from behind, if and when they were incountered.

Badsight.
04-08-2006, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Totally off topic to the posters original question, but you can kill Tigers in IL-2 with the M2 machine gun. do not feed the trolls - it was just a CH rant Fennec

panther3485
04-08-2006, 01:22 AM
Hi there, fabianfred

Quote:
"one of the most effective anti TigerI or II (in game) is the ISU-100"

Do you mean SU-100 (T-34 chassis) or ISU-122 (IS-2 chassis)?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

WTE_Galway
04-08-2006, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
wow this thread jumped off topic fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The tiger is the PanzerVIE, and shermans only really stood a chance of beating them from behind, if and when they were incountered.

unless it was a firefly

WWMaxGunz
04-08-2006, 01:57 AM
From German tankers; it took 20 Shermans to beat one Tiger. But there was always the 21st
Sherman come up the road.

Not every Tiger took out 20 Shermans before getting busted but it did happen.

It depends on the Sherman as well. There were US Shermans with long 76mm gun and stabilized
turret that fired well on the move and did in some cases flank Tigers. The Tiger turret was
not real fast at traverse, popping a track stopped the entire tank from rotating and in groups
there was no way for the Tiger to present all the Shermans with frontal armor.

There was one documented and backed case of a Tiger being KO'd by a 37mm of an M8 scout car.
The Tiger had gone down a hedged lane and the M8 popped out right behind then charged to
within 50 ft. The Tiger had no room to pivot and for a while there was a race between the
Tiger turret and the M8 closing distance. Before the Tiger could bring the gun to bear, the
M8 fired flat into the rear armor and killed the engine, stopping the turret. At very close
range all high-velocity cannon have much more punch.

Weaker spots: Top armor, turret ring, main gun, MG's, tracks, suspension, flank armor at
perpendicular (as with rear) and some few other places. Since the start if you can't kill
a tank reliably the next goal is to stop it or slow it and/or force it to button up.

panther3485
04-08-2006, 02:25 AM
Hiya, WTE_Galway and WarWolfe_1

Versions of the Sherman armed with the 76mm M1 gun (a minority in Normandy - most were 75mm), firing HVAP, could also readily penetrate the Tiger's side armour at most usual combat ranges. At closer ranges, under certain conditions, there were also a few frontal penetrations recorded with this ammunition but it could not be relied upon. The bigger problem was, HVAP ammo was always in short supply and often crews had to fall back on the standard APC shot, which was considerably less potent.

It took the Firefly to have any real chance against the Tiger's frontal armour. Its 17pdr gun, firing APCBC, could defeat the Tiger frontally with reasonable reliability at most normal ranges for tank vs tank combat in Europe. The Firefly was in short supply to begin with but became more numerous as the campaign in Europe progressed.

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

Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
04-08-2006, 03:06 AM
Heya panther, this is a subject you like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Ok I know you guys talk about the Tiger 1. The Tiger 1 ( i know its not its official name but it makes things clearer) was a kind of prewar design (boxshape no slope armour) the reason why the didnt build this tank earlier was, there was no need for it, only after they faced the russian armour and the brittish valentine or mathilda ( i always mix these 2 up) the need grow. It had a frontal armour of 100 mm and the gun shield was 110mm . This tank is made for open fields not to toy around in city's.
Its reputation comes from it 88L56 KWK canon, the most powerful canon at THAT time.This gun was overclassed serious by the 75 mm gun of the panther and the 88mm of the konigstiger.
To prevent a penetrating shot through the front armour , the commander of the tank had to make sure that his tank was ALWAYS at an angle when facing other tanks or antitankguns, so they never could hit his tank in a 90 degree angle.

The tank had some serious disadvantages:
To width ( problems for the railroads)
to heavy (brigdes couldnt hold it)
not a fast firing gun (comparing to the alied canons)
To expensive and it took to long to build one

The last reason is why there where not much of this type build (1350 IIRC)

The weak spots max gave are the general weak spots for ALL tanks, even for the modern tanks.

LOL ever seen that comedy "Saving private Ryan"???
The wrong "tiger" (T34) or the wrong year.
Panther you can tell whats wrong with it

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/duxford_34_t1.jpg

regards

Lol how easy it is to get off subject.

Ok if you wanna make a mission between tigers and shermans just pick a type , we are not doing history in this game.

panther3485
04-08-2006, 03:29 AM
Hiya CD_kp84yb

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

Good to hear from you again - as you are a fellow enthusiast for this subject!

Yes, you have added some good points here.

I might add that although the Panther's 75mm L70 gun had a higher muzzle velocity and somewhat better anti-armour performance, it was far less useful firing HE shot.

Contrary to popular belief, much of the combat tanks engaged in was against 'general' targets [troops, soft skinned vehicles, light armoured vehicles, buildings etc] - a relatively smaller percentage of engagements (usually) was against other tanks. This can vary from battle to battle, of course, but I'm talking averages here.

The Tiger's 88mm HE round was much better than the Panther's 75mm, and the Tiger's AP round was still good enough to deal with the great majority of Allied tanks, East or West, until the end of the War. The improved L71 88mm gun of the King Tiger could despatch any of the very few opponents the Tiger I's gun might have difficulty with, but as you know, very few King Tigers were built.

And yes, you are perfectly right about Tiger crews being trained to present the best possible angle to the enemy. However, in practise it was not always possible to do this. This was especially true in a fluid, fast-moving battle or in close country with opponents coming from different directions.

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


And yes, I did see 'Saving Private Ryan' and the 'Tiger' in that was an obvious T-34 chassis - just like the Tigers in 'Kelly's Heroes' (which was actually meant to be a comedy!)

I won't bother listing the 'give-aways' as they are more than apparent to anyone who knows their tanks.


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
04-08-2006, 03:40 AM
hey panther

I wasnt talking about the HE shells, but as you stated the AP.
.

Ok now to ryan , ever seen a "tiger1" with desert airfilters (1942 tunesia)only 42 build iirc, fighting in 1944 in France?
They copied the Boyington Tiger for the movie.
Now that Tiger was disabled by a shot on the gun mounting ( the objects that stick out the turret they look like nails i dont know the english word for them), the crew couldnt raise or lower the gun anymore. There was also some further damage inside the turret due to this hit. The crew hadnt time to blow up the tank

regards

panther3485
04-08-2006, 04:07 AM
Yeah CD,

I knew you were talking about the AP; just thought I'd 'round out' the discussion a bit, by adding the info about the HE shells.

Yes, I did notice that the Feifel air filter system was present in the SPR movie, just as I believe they were on the Tigers in KH. This seems to be a common misconception about the Tiger, as these filters were discontinued at the factory after August 1943.

I believe the Bovington Tiger you speak of was Fgst Nr 250112, issued to 1.Kompanie of the 504th in February 1943 and was captured in Tunisia (in April)?

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


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
04-08-2006, 04:15 AM
LOL i made a typo youre correct about the year.
not 42 but 43. I did it from recall, and i know its not good, man can easely mistake


Panzerkampfwagen VI, Tiger I (E), SdKfz 181;
Fahrgestell (chassis) number 250112.
Hull built by Henschel at Kassel
Turret by Wegmann A. G. of Kassel.
Completion date; February 1943.

Issued to Schwere Heeres Panzer Abteilung 504
and shipped to Tunisia
between 12 March & 16 April 1943.

It was attached to No. 3 Platoon in No. 1 Company

this is what the museum says about the tank. my error. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Here is the link

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal.htm

Regards

panther3485
04-08-2006, 04:33 AM
Hiya CD,

No sweat mate - we all make typo's (that's why I'm grateful for the edit function - if you spot your own error before somebody else does, you can go back and fix it!).

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

I enjoy your posts. Almost like talking to a brother, although I know that must sound silly, you being on the other side of the World and we've never met!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

fabianfred
04-08-2006, 04:56 AM
yes I meant the SU-100

luftluuver
04-08-2006, 07:06 AM
Sorry guys for going OT but this Dulias comes across as an imposter.

Anyways, a book on the NA Tiger.

http://tiger1.info/saumur/photos/livre5.jpg

djetz
04-08-2006, 11:56 AM
"Kelly's Heroes" - great film, one I've been looking out for on DVD.

Speaking of nonsense tanks in war films, "The Big Red 1" - which is a good film - features a Sherman representing a German tank. Very unconvincing.

Zeus-cat
04-08-2006, 12:50 PM
The "Tiger" in Saving Private Ryan is actually a T-34 made to look like a Tiger. You can actually buy a model conversion kit that will convert a 1/35 T-34 to a Saving Private Ryan Tiger.

panther3485
04-08-2006, 01:27 PM
Hi, Zeus-cat

We have already spoken about what the 'Tiger' in SPR really was. Did you not see that in my post above?

Interesting info about the model kit, though. I didn't know that. However, can't imagine why anyone would want such a kit, in preference to building a proper model Tiger. But I guess there must be a market for it somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't sell any, right?


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
04-08-2006, 01:30 PM
some more moviestars:

Soldaat van Oranje: You see some Leopards type 1 rolling around complete with NATO shields and numbers , they must act like some german tigers. holy mo what a ****.

Bridge too far: again we see a Leopard 1 with a wooden turret and thats all, some grey paint must hide this stupid mistake ( color hahaha)

Ah battle of the bulge: ouch US tanks vs US tanks , havent seen this movie for ages (and i realy hope i wont see it for ages again) if i remember correct , pershings vs shermans, only the title of the movie was historical the rest, well cant find the words for it.

just some movies that cross my mind.

regards

panther3485
04-08-2006, 01:42 PM
Yeah, CD

'Battle of the Bulge' is no doubt to be regarded as a reasonably entertaining movie but as you say, historically it was pretty much a crock of c**p. I haven't seen it for years either (and like you, I'm in no hurry to see it again). I vaguely remember that the German 'King Tigers' were US M-47's and I seem to recall M-24 Chaffees as the American tanks.

'Patton' used M-48's for the German panzers, I believe.

You can understand this in a way, because the genuine article was just about impossible to get hold of, so they had to use whatever they could get their hands on.

Even so, when they make the effort to at least modify the vehicle and add a plausible paint scheme, to make it look something like correct, we can appreciate the effort, yes?

Some movie makers don't even bother to do that, though.


Best regards,
panther3485


P.S. In 'A Bridge Too Far', I think they were trying to make the Leopard look more like a Panther. Only partially successful, but I guess we can give them 3 out of 10 for effort!

JSG72
04-08-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by djetz:
"Kelly's Heroes" - great film, one I've been looking out for on DVD.

Speaking of nonsense tanks in war films, "The Big Red 1" - which is a good film - features a Sherman representing a German tank. Very unconvincing.

Ah "Kellys heroes" One of my all time Fav's Have it on Vid and DVD.

Through the years I used to mutter like mad about German tanks being represented by various allied tanks "Dressed Up" or just given crosses.
However. There are numerous instances of usage of Allied vehicles/Armour Including Sherman "Fireflys" and not just in secondary roles.
Noticed in "Kellys Heroes" the "Tigers" were also marked as belonging to SS LSAH IE. Pz abt.101.Wittmanns Company http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

CD_kp84yb
04-08-2006, 02:07 PM
yup

well one of my favorites is the movie "Steiner, cross of iron" hehehe it doesnt show german armour (oops it does show a halftrack ) and some T34/85 postwar , dunno if they are the correct type, cos russian armour isnt my main interest. I know something about it but not all.

Thank god we have other freaks for those tanks.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ah youre correct about the battle of the bulge panther, hahaha i beg your pardon for my memory, but some things you can better forget quickly, and this movie is one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hmmm wittmanns companie in a movie, i hadn't noticed it, well atleast it was a good entertaining movie. Donald Sutherland as tank commander hahaha i loved his "allways negativ vibs" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

bridge too far good question was it a tiger or a panther, the turret stood at my work for over ten years , it was scrapped before i started there. I know one guy who drove one of those "german" vehicles, they where landrovers with a wooden muck up.

regards

ploughman
04-08-2006, 02:27 PM
You know the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes are modified T-34s? Apparrently the T-34 and the Tiger have the same relative position of the turret on the hull and the barrel is the same height on both which makes T-34s naturals for converting into Pz VIe look-a-likes. As an also aside Donald Sutherland, who played Oddball, was so near to death from some grave illness during filming that the set carpenters had already knocked together a coffin for him! Imagine that, a world without Oddball. Luckily Don survived, at least long enough to play Mr. Bennet in yet another Jane Austin film very similar to the one that was cloggin up my TV this early evening.

Woof, woof!

Sintubin
04-08-2006, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Bastables:
Panzer inventory for the entire heeres (army) prior to the invasion of Russia 1 June 1941

Pz 1: 877
Pz II: 1074
Pz35t: 170
Pz38t: 754
PIII 3,7cm : 350
PIII 5cm : 1090
PIV : 517.

Pz38t dominated verus the majority of the Russian armoured forces as they were still armed with Bt and t26 model tanks. Also the 3,7cm cezch gun was more powerful than the kwk 3,7cm gun that armed the early PzIII's.

nice story you got there in your sign http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sintubin
04-08-2006, 08:37 PM
And for topic

tiger rulez http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

panther3485
04-08-2006, 08:41 PM
Hiya, CD_kp84yb

Yes, 'Cross of Iron' is a favourite of mine as well.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The story is set in the Kuban during 1943. Although the T-34's used in the movie are genuine, they are the wrong type for 1943. The T-34-85 didn't appear in action in the field until early 1944, so they should have shown T-34-76's but to be fair, these would not have been available to the movie makers.

Throughout the 1960's and 1970's - and to some extent later as well - T-34-85's would have been in relatively easy supply and cheap. I was frankly happy to see genuine T-34's of any sub-type! It was 'mannah from heaven' for me!


Best regards
panther3485

panther3485
04-08-2006, 09:26 PM
Hi there, Ploughman

Quote 1:
"You know the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes are modified T-34s?"

Mate, this thread has only just gone to three pages, so it's not as if you had to read a book. CD_kp85yb and I covered this on page 2, both for Saving Private Ryan and for Kelly's Heroes. [Then Zeus-cat jumped in afterwards and said a similar thing to you - apparently he didn't read what'd been said before either].

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Quote 2:
"You know the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes are modified T-34s? Apparrently the T-34 and the Tiger have the same relative position of the turret on the hull and the barrel is the same height on both which makes T-34s naturals for converting into Pz VIe look-a-likes."

Who told you this bollocks?

(1) The T-34 and the Tiger most emphatically do not have 'the same relative position of the turret on the hull'. The T-34's turret is much too far forward, relatively speaking, and the Tiger's turret is much closer to the centre. This is due to the differing internal layout of the two tanks.

The Tiger had the engine in the rear, the tranmission and final drives in the front and the fighting compartment (including turret) pretty much in the centre. The T-34 had the engine, transmission and final drives all in the rear .

This 'turret towards the front' appearance was common to both the T-34 and IS-2 types, whereas Tiger, Panther and King Tiger - which shared similar internal layouts with each other - all have the 'turret near the centre' look.

In this respect at least then, the T-34 is actually quite unsuitable to 'represent' the Tiger.

(2) As for barrel height, a substantial number of WW2 tanks, and quite a few from the immediate post-war era, have similar barrel heights (say, plus or minus six inches or so), therefore this is really not so much of an issue.

(3) The probable reasons for using a T-34 chassis might include:
(a) Large diameter roadwheels, which at an uninformed and casual glance, loosely resemble the appearance of the wheels on a Tiger or Panther (actually, they're bigger, there are fewer of them and they don't overlap but what the heck!)
(b) More suitable height when compared to other large-roadwheel types like the T-54/55 series.
(c) Ready availability
(d) Cheap

The vehicles presented in KH and SPR were nevertheless fairly well done considering the limitations imposed by the chassis being used but to anyone who really knows their armour, the whole look, sit, proportion and appearance of the vehicle are wrong for the Tiger. To us 'tank nuts', it sticks out like dogs balls.

In addition to the points already raised, the overall vehicle size is too small, the vehicle width is way too narrow and the tracks, in particular, are much too narrow and thin in profile, not to mention being of a totally different pattern and type.


Best regards
panther3485

Bastables
04-09-2006, 12:44 AM
Tiger's 8,8cm ap shell also had greater destructive effect post penatration than the 7,5cm kwk 42 of the Panther. Larger mass and larger explosive charge in the base.

Copperhead310th
04-09-2006, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Totally off topic to the posters original question, but you can kill Tigers in IL-2 with the M2 machine gun.

Here are some pictures, of pretty much the only way to do it. Note the angle and speed. These are the only conditions in which the bullet can penetrate the turret roof armor and destroy this particular tank. At lower speeds, shallower angles, or further ranges, it won't work.

According to reference material, M2 AP rounds would penetrate 1 inch of hardened armor under these conditions, and still have some energy left to do internal damage. It is a credit to the damage model that this is rendered so accurately, even with the 'simple' vehicle DM.


Note that this also guarantees a crash into said tank, and killing a Tiger with 50s is still impossible by any practical (and survivable) means. That is what bombs and rockets are for, after all.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tigertank.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tigertank2.jpg

Forgot about this one. lol

Ok i stand corrected. YOU CAN INFACT DESTROY TIGERS WITH .50's in IL-2.

care to try that with a p-47?

ploughman
04-09-2006, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, Ploughman

Quote 1:
"You know the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes are modified T-34s?"

Mate, this thread has only just gone to three pages, so it's not as if you had to read a book. CD_kp85yb and I covered this on page 2, both for Saving Private Ryan and for Kelly's Heroes. [Then Zeus-cat jumped in afterwards and said a similar thing to you - apparently he didn't read what'd been said before either].

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Quote 2:
"You know the Tigers in Kelly's Heroes are modified T-34s? Apparrently the T-34 and the Tiger have the same relative position of the turret on the hull and the barrel is the same height on both which makes T-34s naturals for converting into Pz VIe look-a-likes."

Who told you this bollocks?

(1) The T-34 and the Tiger most emphatically do not have 'the same relative position of the turret on the hull'. The T-34's turret is much too far forward, relatively speaking, and the Tiger's turret is much closer to the centre. This is due to the differing internal layout of the two tanks.

The Tiger had the engine in the rear, the tranmission and final drives in the front and the fighting compartment (including turret) pretty much in the centre. The T-34 had the engine, transmission and final drives all in the rear .

This 'turret towards the front' appearance was common to both the T-34 and IS-2 types, whereas Tiger, Panther and King Tiger - which shared similar internal layouts with each other - all have the 'turret near the centre' look.

In this respect at least then, the T-34 is actually quite unsuitable to 'represent' the Tiger.

(2) As for barrel height, a substantial number of WW2 tanks, and quite a few from the immediate post-war era, have similar barrel heights (say, plus or minus six inches or so), therefore this is really not so much of an issue.

(3) The probable reasons for using a T-34 chassis might include:
(a) Large diameter roadwheels, which at an uninformed and casual glance, loosely resemble the appearance of the wheels on a Tiger or Panther (actually, they're bigger, there are fewer of them and they don't overlap but what the heck!)
(b) More suitable height when compared to other large-roadwheel types like the T-54/55 series.
(c) Ready availability
(d) Cheap

The vehicles presented in KH and SPR were nevertheless fairly well done considering the limitations imposed by the chassis being used but to anyone who really knows their armour, the whole look, sit, proportion and appearance of the vehicle are wrong for the Tiger. To us 'tank nuts', it sticks out like dogs balls.

In addition to the points already raised, the overall vehicle size is too small, the vehicle width is way too narrow and the tracks, in particular, are much too narrow and thin in profile, not to mention being of a totally different pattern and type.


Best regards
panther3485

Er...ok mate. Keep you hair on, you not getting enough sugar on your cornflakes or what? The bit about Don Sutherland was good though.

panther3485
04-09-2006, 04:38 AM
Hi again, Ploughman

Quote:
"Er...ok mate. Keep you hair on, you not getting enough sugar on your cornflakes or what? The bit about Don Sutherland was good though."

Just getting grouchy in my old age....

Yes, the bit about Donald Sutherland was interesting.

Of further interest, he seems to have made a good recovery, judging by the fact that he has been more or less continuously in work both in movies and on TV during the 36 years since 'Kelly's Heroes' (only for 1972 and 1982 can I find nothing listed at all). I think 'Commander in Chief', with Geena Davis, would be a good recent example.

I must admit though, he does not appear to have aged so well but he is going to be 71 this July!

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


Best regards,
panther3485

ploughman
04-09-2006, 04:54 AM
He looks very sagelike as Mr. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice. The other half has been hammering the DVD for the last three days so I've had ample opportunity to view him in this recent role. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Take note Panther of the forthcoming Kokoda movie, hope it makes it to my side of the planet soon.

panther3485
04-09-2006, 05:21 AM
Hi, Bastables

Good to hear from you.

Quote:
"Tiger's 8,8cm ap shell also had greater destructive effect post penatration than the 7,5cm kwk 42 of the Panther. Larger mass and larger explosive charge in the base."

True, and this could make a considerable difference inside a larger enclosed space such as, say, a building (not that they'd normally waste AP shot against buildings, of course). It would generally be unlikely to make much difference within the cramped confines of a tank, however. An Allied tank with its fighting compartment penetrated by 75mm AP is just about as likely to be destroyed, and its crew killed, as one penetrated by 88mm AP.

Indeed, many of the Allied tanks destroyed during the '44-'45 European campaign, that were initially thought knocked out by 88's, were subsequently found to have been despatched by 75's as it was later discovered there had been no 88's in the area at the time! [And a fair number of these were the L48 weapon used by the PzKpfw IV and some Jagdpanzers - not even the L70]. Being on the receiving end, you wouldn't know the difference - you'd be just as stuffed!

Obviously, 'bigger is better' does apply to many, if not most situations but you also reach a point where 'big enough' is effectively just as good as 'bigger than big enough'!

Considering that the L56 88mm of the Tiger and the L70 75mm of the Panther were both
more than good enough to despatch the principal tank types used by the Americans and British, it is a moot point there, of course.

Against some of the heavier Soviet Armour, such as IS-2 [where the Tiger's gun could experience a little difficulty, from time to time in certain situations] the slightly superior penetrative performance of the Panther's gun might occasionally be a blessing. Indeed, it was this very same gun/armour race that led to the adoption of the much improved (higher velocity) L71 88mm gun for the King Tiger and Jagdpanther.

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


Best regards,
panther3485

CUJO_1970
04-09-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
'Patton' used M-48's for the German panzers, I believe.

You can understand this in a way, because the genuine article was just about impossible to get hold of, so they had to use whatever they could get their hands on.




Yes, and the air attack during Patton's conference was done by He-111s in the film when IRL it was FW190s that actually attacked.

It was FW190 pilots that proved Patton's point and hence his famous quote about giving them medals if he could find them.

panther3485
04-09-2006, 05:58 AM
Hi there, CUJO_1970

Quote:
"Yes, and the air attack during Patton's conference was done by He-111s in the film when IRL it was FW190s that actually attacked.
It was FW190 pilots that proved Patton's point and hence his famous quote about giving them medals if he could find them.

Regards,
FW190fan"

Yes mate, very well brought up! I've got a full time job here ironing out the 'Tank gaffes'. Looks like you'd be good at fixing up the 'Aircraft gaffes'!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
04-09-2006, 06:32 AM
The HC had one of their shows last night. It was about Germans tanks (British production). Now the commentator was a so called 'expert'(??), yet he claimed that Allied a/c were responsable for desimating the German tank force in the West. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif At the point when he made this comment, it showed a RP attack on some German vehicles, none of which could be IDed as tanks.

panther3485
04-09-2006, 07:29 AM
Hi there, luftluuver

Yeah, that's a common misconception (exaggeration) about the fighting in NW Europe generally and the Normandy campaign in particular. Allied aircraft did disable and/or destroy a few German tanks but the importance of this particular source of German losses has been grossly over-stated.

The principal achievement of Allied air power, vis-a-vis German armour, was nevertheless of considerable significance. It made deployment and general movement much more difficult and also seriously disrupted re-supply at times. This could often be just as valuable as the actual destruction of the tanks themselves.

We need to be a little cautious about what we are told on the History Channel and in other TV documentary sources (as I'm sure you are aware!)

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


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
04-09-2006, 07:41 AM
Ah but that is not what he said Panther. re your comments on German vehicles. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yes BBs are not good for conveying voice tone/facial expression. Maybe I should have put '???' or http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif behind 'their'?

panther3485
04-09-2006, 08:05 AM
Seems to me, luftluuver, that they employ the wrong people to make these documentaries.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Perhaps we could muster up a few guys from this forum to form a hit-team of historical and technical advisors? Fancy a career change? I certainly wouldn't mind giving it a go.

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

OK, perhaps I'm going too far - maybe we also are not experts, but $hit mate, sometimes I'm convinced that many of us could do a better job than some of these tossers!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
04-09-2006, 08:17 AM
Hey count me in for that new job. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I hope they pay good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Markgraf
04-09-2006, 09:01 AM
On the general topic of authentic (or not) German tanks in war movies, I recall being quite impressed with an authentic StuG used in "The Eagle has Landed". Although not a tank battle film, obviously, the StuG appeared on a RR flatcar in a scene near the beginning of the movie. I was grateful at the time because every other Hollywood movie used fakes for German armor as so well documented in this thread, and here was a real StuG!

CD_kp84yb
04-09-2006, 01:44 PM
hmmm

the movie (again) Soldaat van Oranje shows us some german fighters who drops some bombs , those planes were harvards (or something) I dont know what the director of the movie thought, were they supposed to be :
A: Stuka's ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
B: Messerschmitts 109 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
C: Focke Wullf 190 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
D: He111 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
E: Do17 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
F: Me110 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
Now this moviepart is in may 1940. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The last 3 were just kidin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I just warn you not to watch this pos movie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Regards

Sergio_101
04-09-2006, 05:57 PM
Lets see, we want to make a war movie.

We want a squadron of P-51Ds.
Not a problem here. it's a matter of $$$

We want an opposing force of Bf-109s.
It's digital or nothing! Only Ha-1112's
and two originals still airworthy.

We want Sherman tanks.
There are still a few dozen running.

We want Tiger Tanks.
Oops, only one running.....
http://www.tankmuseum.org/news/pr_tiger_tank_dvd_140605.html

Need a dozen Spits?
Could happen.

Need a dozen B-17s
We would need every airworthy B-17.

Need a couple of Stukas.
SCREWED again.

Wonder why the seemingly cheesy substitution
of US and Russian tanks and other hardware?

Sergio

WTE_Galway
04-09-2006, 07:30 PM
on the subject of war movies

its been a while since i saw it but I recall there were some reasonably authentic german vehicles (icluding a number of variant of sdkfz 251) in the film "A Bridge To Far" .. though aside from the previously mentioned leopard the fact that all 300 hundred odd Dakota's in the airdrop had either 03 or 08 painted on the nose was a bit of a laugh at the time