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

[Erik2]

20 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Saumur is reportedly restoring their Tiger I to running condition with the original engine for this year's Bastille Day parade, so they could just run it until they find out about engine life.

That's fantastic news. Hopefully the transmission will also be original.

[micheal kenny]

19 hours ago, Erik2 said:

AFAIK Newsome have more data on Tiger lifespans besides the Tigerfibel, in his book he goes into the British testing and recording the lifespan of each part of the Tiger's drivetrain, which I suppose suggested to him that the gearbox/transmission was also designed to be overhauled at 5000 km.

'Must have'?  Why do you believe that what the evidence clearly shows that Newsome has never given any other reference that the Tigerfibel entry.  You are the one (both here and on AHF) who started threads asking for confirmation of Newsome's claims and you failed to find a single confirming fact.  

 

19 hours ago, Erik2 said:

@micheal kenny You speak as if you're 100% completely certain that you're correct and everyone else is wrong, when what you're really doing is the same as the rest of us, making guesses based off a limited amount of data. I feel it probably says something about the way you think.

I am absolutely 100% certain that Newsome's  5,000 km claim is solely based on a paragraph in the Tigerfibel. I am convinced Newsomes claim: 

 from the evidence I have gathered they got a reliable tank and not just because I keep saying its reliable ..I'll just give one datum to make that clear. So the evidence I've gathered this tank had an overhaul schedule of 5,000 km or 3,000 miles.''...

is untrue and that he has no 'evidence' of any kind to confirm it. Despite his claims it really  is nothing more than him 'saying it'.

 Just because you and a few other are absolutely convinced Newsome is 'must be' correct it does not follow that he is correct or  that 'you' are the majority. I pointed out to you elsewhere that a number of people in this area have serious doubts about Newsome and have tried to  get him to confirm his claims. I believe you even tried it and failed. 

 If I am given a source and it has references then I always check them out. When I checked Carius I straight away saw  (by checking against the Tigerfibel ) that Carius was using the 2 pages from The Tigerfibel and was in fact Newsome circular referencing. You on the other hand made no effort to check it out other than to confirm it was an actual Carius quote.  

 

If anyone thinks I am factually incorrect then it should be very simple for them to show it. All they have to do is produce the technical data showing the 5,000 km claim.   

 

 

 

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

the idea that the Tiger was more mechanically reliable than the Sherman seems hard for me to believe.

In any event how can it be that there are no definitive maintenance documents other than the Tiger storybook?  As they say in the movies "These people are known for keeping goods records"  (hat tip for for anyone that gets that obscure reference)

If I were to guess the 5000 km figure is total engine life of the block and crank, not the power pack as a whole

On Carius, let's not be too hard on him as he had to sell books

[Mikel2]

Any reliability data on the Tiger II?  It seems that it was released at a time when the design was more mature, compared to earlier wartime designs.

[Walter_Sobchak]

8 hours ago, Mikel2 said:

Any reliability data on the Tiger II?  It seems that it was released at a time when the design was more mature, compared to earlier wartime designs.

More mature perhaps, but remember, it went into production 11 months before the Third Reich fell.  So, not exactly an ideal environment in terms of finding good labor, materials, etc.  Also, no matter how mature it might be, a 70 ton tank is a very daunting task for any 1940's era powertrain, German engineering or not.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

It also entered service when the Wehrmacht was at the fag end of the personnel stakes. They didnt have that many technically competent guys in 1940, by 45 a very large number of them were dead. Added in to sabotage that seems to have been out of control (if the number of Panthers being restored with evidence of sabotage is any guide). Im amazed it did as well as it did,so It must have been a fairly solid design.

[micheal kenny]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

. Im amazed it did as well as it did,so It must have been a fairly solid design.

But did it 'do well?  The first 12  TII  went into action in Normandy on July 16 and went completely unnoticed in terms of effect.  During GOODWOOD the TII were mistaken for Panthers and do not seem to have made any contribution to the battle. The GOODWOOD survivors were all left by the road-side as they Allies advanced to Paris.  A further 28 were in action against US troops after Paris and do not seem to have any better luck in terms of battlefield success.  As far as I can tell the claims for 'success'  seem to rest  on the German attack at   Puffendorf in Nov 1944 where the  TII seems to have entirely built its NWE  reputation because it is the one single action (as in one -and-only time) the tank could claim a tactical success. The US advance was slowed by a couple of days and it featured large in the booklet of tankers complaints that is used in the 'US V German Equipment' where it takes up the bulk of the accounts of meeting Tiger tanks in The ETO.

There is none of the TI type of  inflated claims made for the TII.

 

 

[DB]

Misidentification of a tank by the enemy as a means to determine its effectiveness. Very novel. I assume you have a formal citation that validates that approach.

[Stuart Galbraith]

51 minutes ago, micheal kenny said:

But did it 'do well?  The first 12  TII  went into action in Normandy on July 16 and went completely unnoticed in terms of effect.  During GOODWOOD the TII were mistaken for Panthers and do not seem to have made any contribution to the battle. The GOODWOOD survivors were all left by the road-side as they Allies advanced to Paris.  A further 28 were in action against US troops after Paris and do not seem to have any better luck in terms of battlefield success.  As far as I can tell the claims for 'success'  seem to rest  on the German attack at   Puffendorf in Nov 1944 where the  TII seems to have entirely built its NWE  reputation because it is the one single action (as in one -and-only time) the tank could claim a tactical success. The US advance was slowed by a couple of days and it featured large in the booklet of tankers complaints that is used in the 'US V German Equipment' where it takes up the bulk of the accounts of meeting Tiger tanks in The ETO.

There is none of the TI type of  inflated claims made for the TII.

 

 

Yes, but what about the Eastern Front, which seems to be where the vast majority of them were employed?

[micheal kenny]

29 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but what about the Eastern Front, which seems to be where the vast majority of them were employed?

Not my area but I do not know of any incident of note concerning the TII. The Berlin tales of individual TII knocking out 50+ Soviet tanks are not credible.

 

[micheal kenny]

2 hours ago, DB said:

Misidentification of a tank by the enemy as a means to determine its effectiveness. Very novel. I assume you have a formal citation that validates that approach.

The first examples of the TII to fall into Allied hands happened on 18-7-44 during GOODWOOD.  One 'Panther kill' is mentioned in a War Diary is almost certainly a TII. The TII rammed at Cagny  was claimed to be a Panther in the very first account written up on the day but obviously this was corrected in the following days. This mis-identification is  simply because it looked like a Panther.  

Nothing changes the lack of any reference to a TII having ANY effect in Normandy. 

[DB]

You're the one who demands a canonical reference for detailed number, and yet you post a couple of anecdotal items and claim this is conclusive evidence that a platform served no useful purpose.

By extension, the confusion between tiger and Panzer IV implies that the latter was of no consequence where that happened, also.

It's absurd.

[micheal kenny]

13 hours ago, DB said:

You're the one who demands a canonical reference for detailed number, and yet you post a couple of anecdotal items and claim this is conclusive evidence that a platform served no useful purpose.

Incorrect. 

I have a thorough understanding of all the War Diary  information of the period. I know there are no tales  of the TII doing anything worthy of record.  Perhaps the only time they MIGHT have had a meaningful role was in OPERATION STACK on July 11.  For 18/7/44 The TII performed as badly as the TI in sPz Abt 503.   After the bombing  von Rosen lead an attack into the flank of the advancing 11th Armoured Division and then immediately turned tail and left the battlefield when 2 of his Tigers (6?) are hit and started burning.  A second group of  503 tanks were milling about east of Cagny and  other than (possibly) knocking out 2 Sherman's  stayed only long enough to lose a TII (when it was rammed by John Gorman) before they too left the battlefield.   July 18th was a very bad day for sPz Abt 503.  After this they left the remaining TII scattered around the roads  leading out of Normandy.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, DB said:

By extension, the confusion between tiger and Panzer IV implies that the latter was of no consequence where that happened, also.

It's absurd.

Its the above that is absurd. It makes no sense.

Edited May 10, 2023 by micheal kenny

[micheal kenny]

7 hours ago, DB said:

You're the one who demands a canonical reference for detailed number,

Incorrect. I simply asked if anyone had a technical reference for  the claimed 5,000 km figure in relation to the Tiger engine life.    Note that no such reference was supplied. 

[DB]

11 hours ago, micheal kenny said:

Incorrect. 

I have a thorough understanding of all the War Diary  information of the period. I know there are no tales  of the TII doing anything worthy of record.  Perhaps the only time they MIGHT have had a meaningful role was in OPERATION STACK on July 16.  For 18/7/44 The TII performed as badly as the TI in sPz Abt 503.   After the bombing  von Rosen lead an attack into the flank of the advancing 11th Armoured Division and then immediately turned tail and left the battlefield when 2 of his Tigers (6?) are hit and started burning.  A second group of  503 tanks were milling about east of Cagny and  other than (possibly) knocking out 2 Sherman's  stayed only long enough to lose a TII (when it was rammed by John Gorman) before they too left the battlefield.   July 18th was a very bad day for sPz Abt 503.  After this they left the remaining TII scattered around the roads  leading out of Normandy.

 

 

 

Its the above that is absurd. It makes no sense.

"I know everything there is to know about the subject".

Logical fallacy 101 - appeal to authority.

How does the misidentification of a tank by the enemy invalidate its operational record? Shit, or get off the pot.

[micheal kenny]

1 hour ago, DB said:

 

How does the misidentification of a tank by the enemy invalidate its operational record? Shit, or get off the pot.

I think you are the one  full of 'pot'. I gave you  the only GOODWOOD verified account of a TII being engaged and destroyed and in your attempted deflection you seem to believe that the initial description of it as a Panther somehow invalidates or excuses its destruction. There were 12 of them in that area and  for certain 2 were destroyed. It is not known for certain how many Tigers were destroyed that day so it is not possible to be definitive but for sure no opposing Unit made any mention of their participation.  These TII are conspicuous by their absence. Whilst claims for the Tiger I are common the TII went unremarked even by the Germans.

Sorry if  this does not fit your preferred narrative but sP zAbt 503 had very little impact in Normandy. Look at TIC 1 and note how the Unit make only 3  kill-claims for the month  after GOODWOOD . 

 

[nitflegal]

On 5/10/2023 at 12:52 AM, micheal kenny said:

Incorrect. I simply asked if anyone had a technical reference for  the claimed 5,000 km figure in relation to the Tiger engine life.    Note that no such reference was supplied. 

I've been trying to track it down myself and it does seem it came from the Tigerfibel . 

"In action your Maybach engine will serve you for 5000 km, if you give it clean air. Otherwise it will not even last 500 km."

Best description that I've found is here:

Life Cycle 

German instructions contain no schedule for overhauls, although they suggest a distance of more than 5,000 km (3,100 miles). Adjusting and testing Tiger’s en-gine, and cleaning the spark plugs and transmission oil filter, were scheduled no more often than 1,000 km. At 2,000 km, crews were supposed to change the trans-mission oil, adjust the engine tappet clearances, and clean the radiator’s overflow valves. The gearbox filter was to be inspected at 3,000 km. At 5,000 km, the carburettors were to be cleaned internally. The Tigerfibel promised that the engine would run for 5,000 km if the oil bath air filters were cleaned every 500 km, as scheduled. Otto Carius remembered: “With a regularly cleaned filter, everyone could get 5,000 km on a single motor.” (1992, p.21) The oldest Tigers in 501st Battalion had surpassed 3,000 km (1,864 miles) by May 1943 without major issues; the 502nd had deployed two months earlier, which suggests its oldest Tigers reached 3,000 km by March 1943. This is a remarkable distance, even for tanks today. The British 8th Army’s experience since receiving Sherman Is and IIs (M4s and M4A1s) in Egypt in August 1942 suggested that they should be overhauled every 1,600 miles (2,600 km). The War Office set a limit of 500 miles (805 km) for tanks in the Tunisian campaign. The 1st Army’s tanks were overhauled in September and October before embarkation. After disembarkation, the tanks required a mean of 150 man-hours per Sherman, and 200 per Churchill, to make ready before issue to users, which sounds like another overhaul. Most were disembarked in Algeria, before a long drive to the front in Tunisia. By campaign’s end, 60 percent of 6AD’s Sherman IIIs (M4A2s) and 63 percent of 25th Tank Brigade’s Churchills had run 

more than 500 miles. The mean mileage in 25th Tank Brigade was less than 600 miles (1,000 km). The 6AD’s average was probably similar: the lower bound was 300 miles (500 km) and the upper was 1,500 miles (2,400 km) (for used tanks received from the Americans).

Edited May 12, 2023 by nitflegal

[R011]

1 hour ago, nitflegal said:

I've been trying to track it down myself and it does seem it came from the Tigerfibel . 

"In action your Maybach engine will serve you for 5000 km, if you give it clean air. Otherwise it will not even last 500 km."

Best description that I've found is here:

Life Cycle 

German instructions contain no schedule for overhauls, although they suggest a distance of more than 5,000 km (3,100 miles). Adjusting and testing Tiger’s en-gine, and cleaning the spark plugs and transmission oil filter, were scheduled no more often than 1,000 km. At 2,000 km, crews were supposed to change the trans-mission oil, adjust the engine tappet clearances, and clean the radiator’s overflow valves. The gearbox filter was to be inspected at 3,000 km. At 5,000 km, the carburettors were to be cleaned internally. The Tigerfibel promised that the engine would run for 5,000 km if the oil bath air filters were cleaned every 500 km, as scheduled. Otto Carius remembered: “With a regularly cleaned filter, everyone could get 5,000 km on a single motor.” (1992, p.21) The oldest Tigers in 501st Battalion had surpassed 3,000 km (1,864 miles) by May 1943 without major issues; the 502nd had deployed two months earlier, which suggests its oldest Tigers reached 3,000 km by March 1943. This is a remarkable distance, even for tanks today. The British 8th Army’s experience since receiving Sherman Is and IIs (M4s and M4A1s) in Egypt in August 1942 suggested that they should be overhauled every 1,600 miles (2,600 km). The War Office set a limit of 500 miles (805 km) for tanks in the Tunisian campaign. The 1st Army’s tanks were overhauled in September and October before embarkation. After disembarkation, the tanks required a mean of 150 man-hours per Sherman, and 200 per Churchill, to make ready before issue to users, which sounds like another overhaul. Most were disembarked in Algeria, before a long drive to the front in Tunisia. By campaign’s end, 60 percent of 6AD’s Sherman IIIs (M4A2s) and 63 percent of 25th Tank Brigade’s Churchills had run 

more than 500 miles. The mean mileage in 25th Tank Brigade was less than 600 miles (1,000 km). The 6AD’s average was probably similar: the lower bound was 300 miles (500 km) and the upper was 1,500 miles (2,400 km) (for used tanks received from the Americans).

Thanks.  Where was the English language text from?

[micheal kenny]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

Thanks.  Where was the English language text from?

Look at the thread title and make a guess.

 

 

 

[alejandro_]

I came across this exceprt in the memoirs of a Tiger driver:

Our Tigers were never designed to drive sustained journeys, not even on smooth city roads. The stress and wear of the running gear was too great, and the entire engine and transmission itself only lasted for 1,000 kilometers before being completely replaced.

Several of our panzers were at that point now, and their crews muttered  gloomily about the prospects of them finishing the journey at all without  burning out or seizing out. Even the track links -those great chunks of steel weighting ten kilos each- wear quickly under the duress, and the tracks must be tightened and adjusted if the track is not to snap or become tangled on the drive wheels. 

The pins that hold these links together are thick steel rods, as heavy as the poker from your grandfather's fireplace - but they eventually bend under the massive strain, and if just one pinbreaks aparte, the whole sixty tonne panzer can be stranded and helpless.

Tiger Tracks - The Classic Panzer Memoir, by Wolfgang Faust. Kindle edition (2015).

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 23, 2024 by Junior FO

[alejandro_]

14 hours ago, Junior FO said:

is is noted that Tigers could go over hard frozen ground with snow grousers only at slow speed due to the stress it placed on torsion bars and suspension.

Thanks, what do you mean by snow "grousers"? 

[sunday]

6 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

Thanks, what do you mean by snow "grousers"? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grouser

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps273166/ps273166.html

Quote

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps273166/27316610.jpg

There are several Spanish translations, and it looks like garras is the most usual.

Edited June 21, 2024 by sunday

[alejandro_]

13 minutes ago, sunday said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grouser

http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps273166/ps273166.html

Thanks, that is what I thought but I do not recall any Tiger with them as in Panzer IV for example. 

[sunday]

Just now, alejandro_ said:

Thanks, that is what I thought but I do not recall any Tiger with them as in Panzer IV for example. 

Those are more of low-pressure tracks, similar to the American duckbill end connectors.

Perhaps they meant that by "snow grousers", who knows?