WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > Tiger vs M4 Spit vs 109

Posted by: C-2 May 27, 2004 08:33 pm

Today on Discovery chanel two very interesting documentaries:
The first was about the rivality between the PZ 6 and the M4.
They took into consideration the fire power-the Tiger won,the armor protection-The Tiger won,and the mobility and relayebility(didn't spell right..)-the Sherman won.
As a final conclusion ,in which were taken in consideration also vets opinions,the winner was the M4.Only because of the quantity(50,000 against 1300 Tigers).
To mentin that the Americans ans British vets said that they'd prefer staying into a Tiger.....
A Tiger vet complained that the Maybach was no good,and broke very often.Once he "died "after 100 meters....
For every Tiger killed were lost three M-4's.
The second docum.wes about the Spitfire and the Me 109E at the batlle of Britain:
The conclusions were that all that was important were the pilot's skills,since they were equal.
I was glad to see Luftwaffe pilot,Hans Ekkard Bob,60 vict,born in 24 Ian 1917 in great shape and still flying!!!!
They put a German vet into a spit and an Eanglish one in the 109 and asked for opinions.
I called Romanian vets to watch the document.
Unfortunatly couldn't get mr Dicezare,who flew an E.
Dobran and Marinciu liked the movie but found an eror about the bailing out from the 109....

Posted by: Dr_V May 27, 2004 09:27 pm

The documentary was certainly interesting.

As the documentary concluded (correctly), the Alies won by quantity, not quality. Even with the engine problems of the Tiger, the M4 was no match for it and the resulting carnge was predictible. The only trully effective weapon the Allies had against the Tiger were the dive-bombers, none of the Allied tanks that saw action in WW2 could even dream to match a Tiger, most of them were equally uneffective against Panthers as well and even the "old" Pz4s (the G and F versions, of course) were a challange for them.

But when the Western Allies succeeded landing in Normandie it was obvious that Germany already lost the war. The crucial mistake of fighting on 2 fronts, plus the devastation suffered by the industry due to heavy bombers made the final defeat an unavoidable end. The whole following carnage was only the result of following a mad man's leadership...

As for the Spit vs. 109, aviation is not my strong point... I've read a book written by Laddie Lucas (former RAF squad commander in Malta). He said there that "The Spitfire was the best deffensive fighter in WW2" and considering hystorical facts I tend to say he was right. He also stated that the Spitfire V and the Me109G were closely matched, the difference being made by pilots and tactics.
We should also consider that the 109 lacked the range to be used at its full potencial over Britan. The whole campaign over Britan was ill planned and eventually useless, so it's probable that some authors are right claiming that the early Spits were a bit under the 109E, but that could be also the result of inexperienced pilots and poor tactics employed by the Brittish at the begining.
When it was finally used as a deffensive interceptor the 109 was a bit old, so we can't draw a clear conclusion about its performances in this role.

Posted by: C-2 May 28, 2004 07:31 pm

The 109 had fuel injection.The Spit had a carburator.....
When diving with a carb,your engine stops.....

Posted by: 88mm May 31, 2004 07:03 am

[quote]To mentin that the Americans ans British vets said that they'd prefer staying into a Tiger..... [/quote] I think beeing in a M4 hunted by a Pz6 brings them bad memories. They were only the fortunate occupants of the fourth Sherman. And for them is fighting for the Allies in a Tiger and not in one of the Germany 1300's.

Posted by: C-2 May 31, 2004 07:57 pm

One of the German vets said that his Tiger had a malfunction and stopped.They waited for the intervention team,and the end of the war arrived before them :roll:

Posted by: Marius July 29, 2004 11:34 am

Was the american P-51 Mustang better than both Spitfire and BF 109?

Posted by: C-2 July 29, 2004 07:48 pm

Than the 109 K yes but the spit MKIX was as good as.
But remember,it was the pilot who did the game.
The allies won only because of the hight numbers!

Posted by: ^All^ September 19, 2004 02:25 pm

The Tiger has a lot more firepowewr than the M4. In documentaries I saw that many times a Tiger destroyed an allied tank from great distances, even over 2000 m which the allied tanks could not do. The Tiger has a 88 mm gun, while the M4 has a 76 mm gun. Another fact is the armor. It is said that the weakest point of the Tiger is its rear.

Posted by: ^All^ September 19, 2004 02:29 pm

As for the Spit vs 109. The 109 was better armed than the Spit, while the Spit was more manuvrable. As it was said several times only the pilots made the diference.

Posted by: Florin April 16, 2005 05:28 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ May 27 2004, 03:33 PM)

.....................................
For every Tiger killed were lost three M-4's.
....................................

Other sources mentioned that an advisory for the U.S. military recommended that 9 Shermans had to engage a Tiger, and after that only 1 (one) Sherman was supposed to be "alive". This leads to 8 : 1 kill ratio.

Also: How can you make the distinction between "pure" tank engagement, and the involvement of aviation dedicated to ground attacks? I read one first hand memory saying that after a Tiger-I destroyed 3 Shermans (resulting in 9 British crewmen killed), it was knocked-out from air (and the German crew was killed) by a ground attack plane.

Even the greatest SS ace, Wittman, was killed by a bomb dropped from air.

The high velocity German guns that could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor, coupled with vulnerable ammunition storage, gave the Sherman the nickname "Ronson," taken from the Ronson cigarette lighter. This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time."

Posted by: C-2 April 16, 2005 06:50 pm

Well at this documentary those who did the talking were veteran tank crews from bouth sides.
They talked only on tank to tank engaments.
Not to forget that the Germsans also had goog tank busters in the air.
The nr of 3-1 was a conclusion of those particular tank crews.
Not long ago I saw a docum.about the Tunisian campain.
A British tank found himself face to face with a tiger...
He fired and the shell didn't exploded but went under the Tiger's turret and blocked it.The German crew could easy fight with a jammed turret but insted of that they abandoned the tank and run away...
This was the first PZ 6 to be captured by the allies...
That makes it 1-0 for the allies

Posted by: Florin April 16, 2005 07:22 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Apr 16 2005, 01:50 PM)

....................
Not long ago I saw a docum.about the Tunisian campain.
A British tank found himself face to face with a tiger...
He fired and the shell didn't exploded but went under the Tiger's turret and blocked it.The German crew could easy fight with a jammed turret but insted of that they abandoned the tank and run away...
This was the first PZ 6 to be captured by the allies...
That makes it 1-0 for the allies

For the record: that was not an one-to-one engagement.
By the time when the British crew succeeded the "lucky shot", two other British crews were already dead. The Allied inquiry, after that, discovered that in those 2 British tanks the shells of the Tiger entered through the front armor, exit through the rear armor, and continued to go!

So it was 2-1 for Germany!

And that because, as you wrote, the German crew defected, in a situation when they could continue to fight.

However, in the long run the German loss was more serious. Simply because the tank was shipped to Great Britain and studied a lot by the British experts.
Even Churchill and King George VI were among the curious who entered in its turret!

Posted by: Caliber April 16, 2005 10:27 pm

i saw this a long long long time ago.

they also have one about the messerschmit (sp?) vs the spitfire

Posted by: C-2 April 17, 2005 01:26 pm

I didn't said they defected..
just run away!

Posted by: PanzerKing May 13, 2005 08:53 pm

I know the Tiger is legandary in the West, but I wish they would do something more realistic. Like PzKpfw IV vs Sherman since they probably met more than any other tanks.

Posted by: C-2 May 13, 2005 09:22 pm

I actualy think that the most "meetings" were between the pz4 and T 34....

Posted by: PanzerKing May 15, 2005 06:52 pm

I was speaking of the western front...

Posted by: tomcat1974 May 16, 2005 04:44 pm

There was a British Study after WW2 about the destructive power of the Tac Air.
The conclusion was surprising. The percentage of tanks actually destroyed by Fighter Bomber was actualy very low under 5%( I may be mistaken). Many german tanks where actually abandoned by the crews due to psichological efect of Fighter Bombers mostly . Most of the tanks where intact.
But Tac Air actully obliterate the supply chain for armours so a Tiger without fuel and without ammo sooner of later it will be killed .