Posted on 04/07/2018 9:25:29 AM PDT by Simon Green
To some minds, bigger is always better—but size can create is many new problems as it solves. Midway through World War II, Nazi Germany decided to take its huge 128-millimeter antiaircraft gun and stick it on its biggest, baddest tank. The result was the monstrous Jagdtiger (“Hunting Tiger”), then heaviest tank to see action in World War II—and still heavier than modern M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks! But the vehicle’s terrifying bulk proved to be its own worst enemy.
During World War II, German factories churned out numerous turretless assault guns (Sturmgeschutz) and tank destroyers (Jagdpanzers) based on each major tank chassis. Though the lack of a turret made them less capable in offensive operations, they were cheaper to build, could carry heavier guns and armor, and remained highly effective at ambushing enemy tanks or providing fire support. Therefore, a turretless version of the huge seventy-ton Tiger II tank was seen as a natural platform for the 128-millimeter gun. A full-scale wooden mockup of the Jagdtiger was presented to Hitler on October 20, 1943, and the führer enthusiastically approved production.
The Jagdtiger was nearly eleven meters long and three meters tall, and tipped the scales at seventy-nine short tons—or eighty-three fully loaded with ammunition and a crew of six. Much of that weight went into 250 millimeters of armor protection in the casemate superstructure housing the main gun; however, the lower hull had only fifteen centimeters, and the sides and rear eight. Thus, while the front armor was practically invulnerable, it remained susceptible to shots to the side, rear and top.
The gargantuan vehicle retained the same 690-horsepower Maybach HL 230 P30 used on the Panther tank—even though the Jagdtiger was 60 percent heavier. Theoretically capable of going twenty-one miles per hour, the “moving bunker” was reduced to nine miles per hour cross-country, and its fuel-gulping characteristics limited range to fifty to seventy-five miles. The motor simply lacked adequate power, and predictably broke down with alarming frequency.
The 128-millimeter Pak 44 gun measured fifty-five calibers and had only ten degrees traverse to either side. Its sixty-pound shells traveled at 950 meters a second, with a range of up to fifteen miles if used for indirect fire. The forty rounds of two-piece ammunition had to be assembled by two loaders before each shot, and the gun had to be leveled to evacuate the breech. The Jagdtiger also mounted a machine gun in the hull, and sometimes a second antiaircraft machine gun on the rear engine deck. Tiger ace Otto Carius was not thrilled with this “secret weapon that could still save Germany,” as described in his autobiography Tigers in the Mud:
“Any large traversing of the cannon had to be effected by movement of the entire vehicle. Because of that, transmissions and steering differentials were soon out of order. . . . A better idea for the travel lock of the eight-meter long cannon of our ‘Hunting Tiger’ was also necessary. It had to be removed from outside during contact with the enemy. Locking down the barrel during a road march was necessary, of course. Otherwise the mountain brackets would have been worn out too quickly and exact aiming would have been impossible. . . . We discovered that the cannon, because of its enormous length, was battered about so much as a result of even a short move off the road that its alignment no longer agreed with that of the optics.”
The Jagdtiger was intended to “snipe” enemy tanks from two or three miles away while remaining immune to return fire. This was a fine concept, but Germany already had the Pak 43, a smaller seventy-one-caliber, eighty-eight-millimeter gun that could still penetrate the heaviest Allied tanks such as the Churchill VII and IS-2. This was already deployed on the Jagdpanther, a fifty-ton tank destroyer with superior mobility and still formidable armor protection.
The Pak 44 had roughly the same maximum penetration as the Pak 43, though admittedly its heavier shells retained greater energy for long-distance shots. However, even standard German seventy-five-millimeter guns were highly effective versus the most numerous Allied tank types, the American M4 Sherman and Russian T-34. Despite its niche advantages, the Pak 44 was a classic case of overkill.
Yes. It was under powered for the weight of the tank. How do General. Where you been keeping yourself?
At the Aberdeen proving grounds they tested the armor on captured German tanks. THEY WERE IMPRESSED to say the least. So you are not correct. The armor was great, the gun sight optics were great, the main gun was great but overall they were not manufactured in great enough numbers and hard to maintain. Also German tanks were slightly under powered and not diesels.
Because the Sherman was cheap and easy to produce.
You do realize the British troops called the Sherman tank the Ronson Lighter “Lights the first time every time”?
Every Tanker’s dream.....
You come around the corner at a good clip and just ahead of you is the enemy chow line and they have their backs to you and can’t hear you because a helicopter is starting.
“It was just like chopping corn.”
Not after wet stowage.
N. Thats what the Germans called them.
What were the viable alternatives?
Up armor them and make the main gun a 76mm. You think the Army could have figured that out after Kasserine Pass.
Are you implying they didn't?
Panthers and Tigers were expensive and difficult to produce. Which concept worked out better?
“The Germans were wiped out at Kursk.”
Simply not true.
Many books have been written on Kursk. German armor destroyed Soviet armor at a 5 to 1 ratio. Soviet personnel suffered massive losses compared to German personnel. The Soviets, because of the breaking of the Enigma Code, knew the attack was coming and spent months preparing defenses. Despite this knowledge, preparation, and superior numbers of tanks, artillery, and personnel the Soviets were nearly overrun.
The fact is that in launching this attack the Germans had to win quickly and overwhelmingly. They did neither. Numerically they outperformed the Soviets. In doing so they spent almost all they had.
The Germans were always doomed to lose the resource and production battle. THAT was the reason they lost the war. They were always formidable on the battlefield. To deny this is to deny reality and history.
The M26 Pershing was an underpowered dog that was withdrawn from Korea. It's transmission was prone to breakdowns.
It wasn't until it's engine and transmission were upgraded and it became the M46 Patton that it became a winner.
Still, most of the tanks deployed in the Korean War were Shermans.
Some of them had been abandoned in place after WWII and after swapping the fluids and replacing the battery fired right up.
On a personal note, the Museum of the American GI in Bryan/College Station had an event where they were running their AFV's a couple weekends ago.
They were selling rides in both their Shermans for both days.
Their STuG broke down the 1st day.
I just want an explanation as to how Kelly’s sniper in the bell tower got a Mosin Nagant...
No. They didn’t. Americans tanks units had few 76mm Sherman’s among them and they didn’t come into use until the end of ‘44.
“not manufactured in great enough numbers and hard to maintain. Also German tanks were slightly under powered and not diesels.”
Right. The equipment was inadequate to the task.
German tanks just looked cooler so in terms of post war impact they made more appealing plastic models for us kids to build. How effective they were on the battlefield was irrelevant to us.
IIRC, the 76mm gun had the same problem as the British 17 pounder used on the Firefly Sherman, that being lack of an effective HE round. The Brit's who were ahead of the Americans in upgunning the Sherman didn't develop an effective HE round for the Firefly until ~Dec 1944. Even then, they never pushed for complete replacement of the 75mm gun in their Shermans.
The Americans had similar problem with the 76mm gun in that it lacked an HE round as effective as the 75mm. Since the majority of targets presented to American tanks were "soft", I don't recall any American commanders pressing for complete replacement of 75mm guns with 76mm guns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.