Tiger ambush

Here is where you can show off your finished tanks and military vehicles, post pics and info on your arsenal!
Forum rules
If you're planning on posting a log of your build please use the relevant build sections.
User avatar
Jake79
Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:10 pm
Location: Essex,Colchester, UK

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by Jake79 »

Love the first pic..very cool :thumbup:
Tamiya: 2 King Tigers
H/L,Taigen :Initial Tiger 1, Panzer III, Kv 2, Panther G, Bulldog, Leo 2A6
User avatar
c.rainford73
Major
Posts: 6104
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Connecticut USA

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by c.rainford73 »

Are you planning an invasion of some sort.... Love the photos and the subject matter of course!
Tanks alot.... :wave:
User avatar
Tiggr
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:19 pm
Location: North Wales near Chester

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by Tiggr »

Just living in my own little world Carl
The tanks and the railway enable me to switch off from the madness of the outside world.
Tiger 1 Early Taigen,
Tiger 1 Mid Torro,
Tiger 1 Late Taigen,
King Tiger Taigen (P)
Jagdtiger Torro
King Tiger (H)
King Tiger Torro (H)
Tiger 1 late Torro
Panther G Taigen
doc larsson
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:05 pm

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by doc larsson »

love it so jealous of the layout
User avatar
Tiggr
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:19 pm
Location: North Wales near Chester

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by Tiggr »

Son of a gun-ner wrote:And not one allied tank in sight.
Nice of you to let them out in the sun from time to time ;)
Nice collection you've got there.
And I agree, it's good to escape real life :thumbup:

Mick.

I just can't bring myself to buy an allied tank.
They just haven't got it.
In general terms the allied tanks were all about quantity whereas the German armour was about quality.
The other factor was that my late mum was of German descent and lived in the Ukraine when war broke out - not that I agree with the doctrine of their then leader.
My car is German, my railway is made in Germany....
Tiger 1 Early Taigen,
Tiger 1 Mid Torro,
Tiger 1 Late Taigen,
King Tiger Taigen (P)
Jagdtiger Torro
King Tiger (H)
King Tiger Torro (H)
Tiger 1 late Torro
Panther G Taigen
User avatar
BarryC
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 2491
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:43 am
Location: Savannah, GA. USA

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by BarryC »

Tiggr wrote: I just can't bring myself to buy an allied tank.
They just haven't got it.
In general terms the allied tanks were all about quantity whereas the German armour was about quality.
And yet they were the losing side! :think:

Barry
"Details make perfection, and perfection is not a detail."
Leonardo Da Vinci
User avatar
Tiggr
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:19 pm
Location: North Wales near Chester

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by Tiggr »

They were Barry

On the eastern front they were outnumbered 10 to 1
On the western front they were outnumbered 5 to 1

The other factors which obviously affected the battles were the fuel supply situation and air superiority - especially on the Western front.

It was obvious that there would only ever be defeat for the Germans.

With the exception of a few very late new variants the allied armour was inferior.
Tiger 1 Early Taigen,
Tiger 1 Mid Torro,
Tiger 1 Late Taigen,
King Tiger Taigen (P)
Jagdtiger Torro
King Tiger (H)
King Tiger Torro (H)
Tiger 1 late Torro
Panther G Taigen
User avatar
c.rainford73
Major
Posts: 6104
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Connecticut USA

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by c.rainford73 »

I love all tanks..... I've slowly sold off some of my vast German armour and started to assemble some Russian pieces and now my first Sherman variant and now an M1 Abrams too much fun
Tanks alot.... :wave:
User avatar
BarryC
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 2491
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:43 am
Location: Savannah, GA. USA

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by BarryC »

Tiggr,

What you say is very true and I do like the look of many of the German tanks.
The Tiger I is my favorite and the picture in your opening post in this thread is a sight every allied tank commander would truly dread! :O Cool picture as well. :thumbup:

Barry
"Details make perfection, and perfection is not a detail."
Leonardo Da Vinci
User avatar
Raminator
Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:57 am
Location: Newcastle, Australia

Re: Tiger ambush

Post by Raminator »

Tiggr wrote:I just can't bring myself to buy an allied tank.
They just haven't got it.
In general terms the allied tanks were all about quantity whereas the German armour was about quality.
Tiggr wrote:With the exception of a few very late new variants the allied armour was inferior.
I don't think it's that clear-cut. It's one thing to say that you like the way they look the most, because that's a valid subjective opinion. I don't think you can say that German tanks were measurably better than their Aliied and Soviet counterparts, or that they were of higher quality though. It's a bit of a nebulous concept, and has more to do with the roles the tanks were intended for (theoretically) and the roles they were pressed into (practically). Tank design is always a compromise between mobility, armour and firepower; it's just that the different powers valued different ones at different times.

During all of the Wehrmacht's early "successes" at the beginning of the war (the invasions of Poland, Norway, France and the Low Countries) they were largely equipped with training tanks (the Panzer I and II) and captured tanks (Panzer 35(t) and 38(t)), with small numbers of their nominal complement of Panzer IIIs and IVs. No heavy tanks in sight. Much of this success came down to the Luftwaffe providing air superiority and ground-support for fast-moving armour acting in concert against disorganised enemies. It's all about the concept of the schwerpunkt and using mobility to exploit any breakthrough.

British doctrine at the time had a similar focus on mobility for the cruiser tank role, but also intended for the heavily-armoured infantry tank to create the breakthroughs. Although the infantry tanks were never heavily armed enough for this role, the development of the cruiser culminated with Centurion and the concept of the modern main battle tank by the end of the war. Similarly, the Americans differentiated between tanks and tank destroyers; tanks were supposed to support infantry, while tank destroyers were basically mobile antitank guns. Experience during the war showed the dichotomy was an evolutionary dead-end though, given the programme to upgun the Shermans with the long-barrelled 76.

Later in the war, the Germans' encounters with heavily-armoured Matilda IIs and KV-1s shifts their focus toward heavier and heavier armour and away from speed and mobility. Since it kind of coincides with their losses in North Africa and Stalingrad, I guess the operational and strategic limitations are offset by the tactical gains. I'm talking about more of a loss of mobility on a wider scale, I know the Tiger was reasonably nimble for its weight and the wide tracks gave it good ground pressure.

Think of it this way; if a British armoured division has to march 100 kilometres they just get in their tanks and drive there, arriving with plenty of time for a cup of tea. If a Soviet armoured division has to march 100 kilometres they get in their tanks and drive there too, a bunch of parts might have fallen off their tanks along the way but they probably weren't important. If a German armoured division has to march 100 kilometres, they have to go by train. But to get a Tiger on a train, they need to fit the transport tracks or it won't fit through tunnels. To fit the transport tracks, they first need to remove the outer roadwheels. There's suddenly a requirement for a whole other layer of logistical support because they have neither the fuel nor reliability to move under their own power.

Really, if the Germans were serious about taking out enemy tanks they would have been better off taking the resources they invested in heavy tanks and putting them into assault guns instead. The StuG III was a much more efficient tank killer than the heavies could ever have dreamed of being, in terms of the cost of the unit itself and the cost of the units they destroyed. It's not much good saying a Tiger has a 5:1 or 10:1 kill ratio if it costs thirty times much as a T-34!

Don't get me wrong, I like the way the German big cats look. It's more that I don't think they were quantitatively better than their opponents though, they were just designed with different goals in mind. Apologies too for the wall of text, I haven't been well enough to work on my tanks for a couple of months so I've been doing a lot of reading instead!
Post Reply

Return to “Show Off”