Does anyone own "The Tiger Tank and Allied Intelligence: Capabilities and Performance" by Bruce Newsome?

[Erik2]

I'd appreciate very much if someone who owns it were kind enough to look up one question I have about it before I buy it myself (it's quite pricey).

He's been criticized online for being dishonest in his research, especially because of his claim that the Tiger reached a 5000 km distance between overhauls, a very high figure for WW2.

Does he cite a source for the figure? If so, what is it?

Thank you for the help.

[nitflegal]

On 1/5/2023 at 2:52 AM, Erik2 said:

I'd appreciate very much if someone who owns it were kind enough to look up one question I have about it before I buy it myself (it's quite pricey).

He's been criticized online for being dishonest in his research, especially because of his claim that the Tiger reached a 5000 km distance between overhauls, a very high figure for WW2.

Does he cite a source for the figure? If so, what is it?

Thank you for the help.

Looking at it now. the only place he refers to that in the book is page 52 "German instructions contain no schedule for overhauls, although they suggest a distance of more than 5,000 km"; no citation.

[Erik2]

9 hours ago, nitflegal said:

Looking at it now. the only place he refers to that in the book is page 52 "German instructions contain no schedule for overhauls, although they suggest a distance of more than 5,000 km"; no citation.

Thank you VERY much, for taking the time to take the picture and reply!! I didn't hope to get such a good answer. I appreciate it very much.

The Tiger's reliability seem very impressive, like among the best from the war. Shame it has a reputation for unreliability.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Erik2

[DogDodger]

18 hours ago, Erik2 said:

Thank you VERY much, for taking the time to take the picture and reply!! I didn't hope to get such a good answer. I appreciate it very much.

The Tiger's reliability seem very impressive, like among the best from the war. Shame it has a reputation for unreliability.

I have this set, but they're currently 7th in line to read. After seeing information in Friedli, Jentz/Doyle, Schneider, Wilbeck, etc., however, I'd hesitate to claim that the reliability of Tiger Ausf.E was "like among the best from the war."

[Erik2]

2 hours ago, DogDodger said:

I have this set, but they're currently 7th in line to read. After seeing information in Friedli, Jentz/Doyle, Schneider, Wilbeck, etc., however, I'd hesitate to claim that the reliability of Tiger Ausf.E was "like among the best from the war."

That could be true, but AFAIK a common measurement of reliability in WW2 was mean distance between overhauls, and if the Tiger had among the longest if not the longest distance between overhauls, it might be inherently the most reliable. If it was unreliable at certain times maybe it was because of other factors, like inadequate maintenance, or worn out tanks.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Erik2

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont know if you saw it, but the Bovington Tiger Day film shows what it takes to keep one in operation. The guys at Bovington love it, probably because it reminds them of Chieftain how often it breaks down, and how carefully you have to drive it...

 

Granted 131 is now about 80 years old, and had a arduous life in Tunisia before she ended up being tested by the British Army. OTOH, its worth reflecting, 131 has the later, more powerful HL230 than the 210 (IIRC) it was built with.  Its also worth reflecting on the combat report where it was captured, it appeared to be running badly, possibly overheating. Which is probably at least part of the reason the crew abandoned it.

I guess the point is, I dont think Tiger was the most unreliable tank of WW2, that honor probably goes to a British A9. But on present evidence, it wasnt exactly a Sherman either.

[Erik2]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont know if you saw it, but the Bovington Tiger Day film shows what it takes to keep one in operation. The guys at Bovington love it, probably because it reminds them of Chieftain how often it breaks down, and how carefully you have to drive it...

 

Granted 131 is now about 80 years old, and had a arduous life in Tunisia before she ended up being tested by the British Army. OTOH, its worth reflecting, 131 has the later, more powerful HL230 than the 210 (IIRC) it was built with.  Its also worth reflecting on the combat report where it was captured, it appeared to be running badly, possibly overheating. Which is probably at least part of the reason the crew abandoned it.

I guess the point is, I dont think Tiger was the most unreliable tank of WW2, that honor probably goes to a British A9. But on present evidence, it wasnt exactly a Sherman either.

I've seen that before, but wasn't this complicated starting procedure done because it had been standing still in storage during winter? I remember that the guys at Bovington also said that the Tiger's engine was "boring" because "there's never anything wrong with it."

Edited January 8, 2023 by Erik2

[Stuart Galbraith]

The engine might be ok (though its the second one they have, the first blew a crankshaft iirc..) im not sure the same is true of the rest of it. For example, the transmission im sure they have said has to be treated carefully, to the point they only have one or two qualified drivers. Considering all they are doing with it is driving it around a flat ring, this is worth reflecting on what it would be like with a half trained driver in Italy.

I still think it was an excellent tank for the most part I should add. I just think we shouldnt get carried away about how reliable it was. With good crew, yes, it gave  fairly good results. The real problem the Wehrmacht had was it it expanded so quickly, it didnt have the technical services that other western armies that had been playing with tanks for years had. Ive also heard it said German society was not as mechanized as say, Britain, so familiarity with large engines as you might find in farming was not there to the same degree. With the rapid expansion of the Wehrmacht, this perhaps wasnt made good to the degree it might have been.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Mikel2]

I read Fletcher's book on the Churchill tank some years ago.   As much as it later became a useful tank, I was blown away at what a complete clusterfuck its introduction was and how long it took before the tanks could be made somewhat reliable. Monty Python could not have come up with something more grotesque. Yet somehow the Churchill has escaped that reputation, as far as the general public is concerned.

I can see how compared to such a disaster, the Tiger tanks could look like shining examples of sound engineering and reliability, particularly since they had benefited from a lengthy development time, at a time when raw material shortages were not acute and German industry was not being bombed day and night.  Later German tank designs would not have this luxury.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Mikel2

[Erik2]

42 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The engine might be ok (though its the second one they have, the first blew a crankshaft iirc..) im not sure the same is true of the rest of it. For example, the transmission im sure they have said has to be treated carefully, to the point they only have one or two qualified drivers. Considering all they are doing with it is driving it around a flat ring, this is worth reflecting on what it would be like with a half trained driver in Italy.

I still think it was an excellent tank for the most part I should add. I just think we shouldnt get carried away about how reliable it was. With good crew, yes, it gave  fairly good results. The real problem the Wehrmacht had was it it expanded so quickly, it didnt have the technical services that other western armies that had been playing with tanks for years had. Ive also heard it said German society was not as mechanized as say, Britain, so familiarity with large engines as you might find in farming was not there to the same degree. With the rapid expansion of the Wehrmacht, this perhaps wasnt made good to the degree it might have been.

But how much can you say about a tank from one example in a museum? I know of a veteran that said that some Tigers were less reliable than others and became a burden on the unit because they were constantly breaking down with new problems, while other Tigers seemed to never have much of an issue in comparison.

In a book the driver of 131 talked about how the Tiger's drivetrain is suitably designed for its weight, except for the final drives, which are slightly underpowered, but that a good driver should be enough to make them last their designed lifespan - no mention for what that lifespan is. It doesn't sound like its reliability should be problematic according to him I think.

And to speculate a little, if Newsome found an example (it seems like he has from his writing) of a battalion's oldest Tigers reaching 3000 km with little issues, seemingly because they had simply been in service long enough to do that and not because they were abnormalities, and if no Allied or Soviet tank except for one (the diesel-engined Sherman) reached the same distance between overhauls, I don't understand why that doesn't suggest that the Tiger was a very reliable tank.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Erik2

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Erik2 said:

But how much can you say about a tank from one example in a museum? I know of a veteran that said that some Tigers were less reliable than others and became a burden on the unit because they were constantly breaking down with new problems, while other Tigers seemed to never have much of an issue in comparison.

In a book the driver of 131 talked about how the Tiger's drivetrain is suitably designed for its weight, except for the final drives, which are slightly underpowered, but that a good driver should be enough to make them last their designed lifespan - no mention for what that lifespan is. It doesn't sound like its reliability should be problematic according to him I think.

And to speculate a little, if Newsome found an example (it seems like he has from his writing) of a battalion's oldest Tigers reaching 3000 km with little issues, seemingly because they had simply been in service long enough to do that and not because they were abnormalities, and if no Allied or Soviet tank except for one (the diesel-engined Sherman) reached the same distance between overhauls, I don't understand why that doesn't suggest that the Tiger was a very reliable tank.

For a good driver, you are probably right. But how many 18 year old conscripts were good drivers? If they were pulling in veteran crews and putting them in Tigers, there would likely be no issue for the most part. But that doesn't seem to be the case, particularly  after taking casualties.

 

There was another issue of which I was previously unaware. Been reading a book about Alfred Rubbel, a Tiger commander in Heavy Tank Battalion 503. He said in his experience, the drives on the tiger were vulnerable to heavy shellfish, its seems he regarded  it as not well armoured, presumably at the side of the lower Hull. As there exists a photo of his tiger being hauled away with just this kind of damage, he seems to have a point.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Mikel2 said:

I read Fletcher's book on the Churchill tank some years ago.   As much as it later became a useful tank, I was blown away at what a complete clusterfuck its introduction was and how long it took before the tanks could be made somewhat reliable. Monty Python could not have come up with something more grotesque. Yet somehow the Churchill has escaped that reputation, as far as the general public is concerned.

I can see how compared to such a disaster, the Tiger tanks could look like shining examples of sound engineering and reliability, particularly since they had benefited from a lengthy development time, at a time when raw material shortages were not acute and German industry was not being bombed day and night.  Later German tank designs would not have this luxury.

Yes, it was appalling. By the Churchill mk4 it wasn't bad, but the early versions were horrible.

One problem the Germans had that we did not, sabotage. If you watch a episode of combat dealers, you can see the kind of damage a competent saboteur could make to an engine. Another Panther pulled out of a polish river was found under restoration to have the engine oil lines stuffed with cigarette butt's.

Its worth relating, the fletcher book on the Tiger includes the tech evaluation of Tiger 131, and there are no reports of unreliability. Otoh, they did have a trials team, and they were driving it in surrey across Chobham common.

[Coldsteel]

38 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

... tiger were vulnerable to heavy shellfish ...

Like giant clams or something?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh crappie. I'm sorry, bloody spellchecker keeps rewriting stuff. Of course I meant shellfish. No crustaceans were harmed.

[Mike1158]

I believ comparing reliabiluity of apples and oranges is a difficult task, certainly late Churchill tanks were beyyet but then so were late Sherman's, especially with the HVSS system and the variations on engine layout just mucks the water too.

Surprised that none opf the Tiger (P), Ferdinand/Elephant made it into museums over here though I believe the Russians have at least two somewhere.  One of the biggest issues with those came into it's own in the east where they were quite prized by crews wanting to keep their plums etc attached rather than freezing off.

I believe that there was so much excess kit at the end of the war that there was just no storage free leadinbg to stuff we could have learned a lot from being scrapped.  Likewise no idea what happened to the mark four tanks in the Berling museum when the city was taken by the Russians although they were forced into ad hoc defence duties.

[DB]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh crappie. I'm sorry, bloody spellchecker keeps rewriting stuff. Of course I meant shellfish. No crustaceans were harmed.

And it did it again, it seems.

[sunday]

46 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

I believ comparing reliabiluity of apples and oranges is a difficult task, certainly late Churchill tanks were beyyet but then so were late Sherman's, especially with the HVSS system and the variations on engine layout just mucks the water too.

Surprised that none opf the Tiger (P), Ferdinand/Elephant made it into museums over here though I believe the Russians have at least two somewhere.  One of the biggest issues with those came into it's own in the east where they were quite prized by crews wanting to keep their plums etc attached rather than freezing off.

I believe that there was so much excess kit at the end of the war that there was just no storage free leadinbg to stuff we could have learned a lot from being scrapped.  Likewise no idea what happened to the mark four tanks in the Berling museum when the city was taken by the Russians although they were forced into ad hoc defence duties.

Uh, oh. Prepare for a poignant critique by @DB about how poor spelling indicates content lacking quality .

[Stuart Galbraith]

37 minutes ago, DB said:

And it did it again, it seems.

No, that actually was poor spelling on my part.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Mike1158 said:

I believ comparing reliabiluity of apples and oranges is a difficult task, certainly late Churchill tanks were beyyet but then so were late Sherman's, especially with the HVSS system and the variations on engine layout just mucks the water too.

Surprised that none opf the Tiger (P), Ferdinand/Elephant made it into museums over here though I believe the Russians have at least two somewhere.  One of the biggest issues with those came into it's own in the east where they were quite prized by crews wanting to keep their plums etc attached rather than freezing off.

I believe that there was so much excess kit at the end of the war that there was just no storage free leadinbg to stuff we could have learned a lot from being scrapped.  Likewise no idea what happened to the mark four tanks in the Berling museum when the city was taken by the Russians although they were forced into ad hoc defence duties.

The reason why we didnt get any Elephants is probably because British forces bump into them much. Half of them were lost in Russia as Ferdi's, the remainder got rebuilt as Elephants and fought in Italy. That was what, 45 left by that point I think? Either we didnt run into them, or didnt think they were significant enough to keep any. Considering we seem to have kept the Porsche Turret Tiger II that we acquired in Germany, Im guessing probably the former. FVRDE seem to have been real magpies for German kit.

For a heavy tank, I dont think the Tiger 1 was particularly bad, and its reliablity is not to my recollection mentioned in the David Fletcher book on the study of Tiger 131. The question is really whether it was right to build heavy tanks, or just spam T34 analogues, although in the Germans case, lacking the fuel to employ the tanks they already had, It probably made no difference. They were going to lose either way. Its still hard to argue with the cricket scores Tiger was racking up at Kursk, for trivial numbers employed.

Lets not go in the other direction and make out it was the most reliable tank of WW2, because it wasnt. It was a heavy tank, and they all suffered mechanical issues of one type or another. I dont believe KV1 was particularly reliable either, judging by how many of them broke down.

[Walter_Sobchak]

In my mind, it's less about "reliability" than it is one of how easy is the vehicle to recover and repair.  All WWII tanks were unreliable by the standards we use today.  Some were worse than others, but even the "good" vehicles were guaranteed to have issues, and usually fairly regularly.  So, ease of maintenance and recovery are important.  And in that regard the Tiger was pretty awful.  

[Mike1158]

Not a smelling error for my part but a failure to properly check said smelling and grammar.  Sorry folks, year seven of continual sinusitis can wear a chap down a bit.  I shall try harder.

Agreed that repairability is a key but so is recovery of the broken down vehicle also alluded to.  If you cannot recover said tank you cannot repair it and after about half way through 1944 I doubt there was much in the way of recovery for any of the German tanks.  Reports on the defence of the Pilau peninsular constantly mention a particular Mark 2 out of action and recovered despite serious casualties to have some form of armoured support.  Rather suggests how dire the situation was.

Requiring two different sets of tracks must have made life difficult too, retreating units in such situations dump surplus weight which will also have hampered transfer of Tiger and other heavyweights.  Transport track sets I am pretty sure would go first.  Also, we know about the interleaved road wheel issue.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

In my mind, it's less about "reliability" than it is one of how easy is the vehicle to recover and repair.  All WWII tanks were unreliable by the standards we use today.  Some were worse than others, but even the "good" vehicles were guaranteed to have issues, and usually fairly regularly.  So, ease of maintenance and recovery are important.  And in that regard the Tiger was pretty awful.  

Yeah, fair comment.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Mike1158 said:

Not a smelling error for my part but a failure to properly check said smelling and grammar.  Sorry folks, year seven of continual sinusitis can wear a chap down a bit.  I shall try harder.

Agreed that repairability is a key but so is recovery of the broken down vehicle also alluded to.  If you cannot recover said tank you cannot repair it and after about half way through 1944 I doubt there was much in the way of recovery for any of the German tanks.  Reports on the defence of the Pilau peninsular constantly mention a particular Mark 2 out of action and recovered despite serious casualties to have some form of armoured support.  Rather suggests how dire the situation was.

Requiring two different sets of tracks must have made life difficult too, retreating units in such situations dump surplus weight which will also have hampered transfer of Tiger and other heavyweights.  Transport track sets I am pretty sure would go first.  Also, we know about the interleaved road wheel issue.

Do you smell a crustacean?

 

[Mike1158]

Definitely NOT Salmon paste.............  😉

Edited January 8, 2023 by Mike1158

[Coldsteel]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh crappie. I'm sorry, bloody spellchecker keeps rewriting stuff. Of course I meant shellfish. No crustaceans were harmed.

No need to apologise, I'm rather enjoying the mental image of a troop of Tigers immobilised by a series of organic wheel-boot-lock-thingies