In Defense of the Tiger!

[Sparker]

Dear All,

OK! Those grognards who groan every time I set up a wargame with Tigers have finally gotten to me, and I’ve set pen to paper, or should that be fingers to keyboard, to justify both the Tiger tank as a reliable, mobile and effective weapon system, and one that is not over-represented on the wargames table!

Take a look at my blog and see if you agree!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/in-defense-of-tiger.html?showComment=1410950511079#c5936410459924768989

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Mike]

Don’t know about that.
Do know I like that model, very nice.

[Sparker]

Yes its my fave – Dragon Armour model of Wittmann’s Tiger.

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[kyoteblue]

That is a nice Tiger.

[Jim Jackaman]

If only I had  a PIAT…..

http://jimswargamesworkbench.blogspot.co.uk

[Sparker]

<div id=”d4p-bbp-quote-8575″>That is a nice Tiger.</div>

Thanks mate – but they’re all nice – that’s why I have so many!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Sparker]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your measured and comprehensive response. Actually I couldn’t agree with you more about the points issue. But I know they are life’s blood to many wargamers, so I included them to calibrate the question of if the Germans would have been better off with 3k more PzIVs rather than their 1.5k Tigers…But it was an interesting exercise in itself to see the range of opinions. Which suggests that our approach of setting up a balanced scenario, in terms of ‘handicaps’, or a 3:1 superiority or whatever is probably the way to go… But glad you enjoyed it!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Secret Squirrel]

RAF Typhoons … that’ll sort out Sparker’s obsession with the Tigger; he needs therapy.

USAF Thunderbolt’s … they become everyone’s’ problem though (Duck and Cover).

It's me

[Sparker]

Hi Royal! Good to have you on the forum!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Secret Squirrel]

How did you discover it was me?

It's me

[Mike]

Secret Squirrel wrote:

How did you discover it was me?

Who else could you be other than you?

[Sparker]

Yeah! And then there’s your signature line…Of course its you!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[willz]

Thanks for that a very interesting read.  Nothing wrong with a shed load of Tiger 1’s on a war-game table as long as the allies have a shed load of Sherman’s, T34’s or anti-tank weapons to take them on.  (I have 26 20mm completed Tiger 1 models).

 

[Steve Burt]

 That wiki article seems to have been written by a major dunce. It says “The tank’s weight also made building drive-throughs rather risky, as the presence of a cellar could result in a sudden drop”. Really? He thinks tanks regularly drove through buildings? Maybe on movies and propaganda films. Here’s some news light bulb, even if you were dumb enough to drive a much lighter armoured vehicle through a house, you are at risk of going into the basement. Fool of a Took! .

Surely the main risk if you drive a tank into a building is that you’ll shed a track, immobilising yourself. I’d think tankers would be quite reluctant to drive into building except as a last resort.

[Sparker]

(I have 26 20mm completed Tiger 1 models).

Respect! That’s 6 more than me! But give me time….

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[kyoteblue]

I have 14 Tiger 1’s…but all in 15mm….oh my shame…..

[Sparker]

I’d think tankers would be quite reluctant to drive into building except as a last resort.

Agreed – Tanks have no business doing FIBUA – that’s best left to the infantry. Especially an AFV with the reach of a Tiger – ideally it should be covering the approaches to the built up area from stand off ranges…

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Sparker]

kyoteblue wrote:

I have 14 Tiger 1’s…but all in 15mm….oh my shame…..

Seems a logical number – a Company’s worth!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[kyoteblue]

Well yes but I still feel the SHAME of it all….

[War Panda]

Very enjoyable read and lovely photos and models. A definite fav of mine too (as I explain on your blog 😉

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[kyoteblue]

Pardon for the high jack , Hey War Panda I got the No End In Sight rules yesterday !!! Oh and the other Five Guys rules. I’ll do NEIS tomorrow I hope .. The Sultanate of Ifat is in deep trouble.

[Truscott Trotter]

Sparker wrote:

I’d think tankers would be quite reluctant to drive into building except as a last resort.

Agreed – Tanks have no business doing FIBUA – that’s best left to the infantry. Especially an AFV with the reach of a Tiger – ideally it should be covering the approaches to the built up area from stand off ranges…

Yes imagine the grief you will get when you get from the Officer in charge of repairs when you bring your Tiger back minus everything that was on the outside and ask for the gun sights to realigned?
I have seen propaganda film of tanks driving through modest wooden huts but not brick houses. At Arnhem the Tigers sat as close range and pounded the buildings until they collapsed they did not drive into them…..only happens in FOW 🙂

PS I also have 14 Tigers in 15mm 7 in 3 tone camo and 7 in Winter

[War Panda]

Apologies too Sparker ….Excellent news kyoteblue. Let us know how you get on …

 

Normal scheduled services will now resume 🙂

 

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[piers brand]

Secret Squirrel wrote:

RAF Typhoons … that’ll sort out Sparker’s obsession with the Tigger…

What by not being able to hit a barn door?

Great against columns of softskins and trains, not so much use against armoured vehicles as the RAF reports themselves ascertained during the war.

[willz]

All I need is 1 Tiger to take on this lot

http://societyofgentlemengamers.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=9436&p=97647#p97647

[Ivan Sorensen]

Well, the Tiger that is on the table is probably the one that didn’t run out of fuel beforehand 🙂

Nothing wrong with fielding Tiger tanks. There’s a reason the Brit’s starting putting a Firefly in each Sherman platoon.

I remember playing the old Steel Panthers. Soviet campaign and feeling a sense of dread the first time Tigers showed up. As it was, my engineers managed to ambush them in a city but watching those beasts rumble towards my little brown pixels was intimidating.

 

(And hi Panda 🙂 )

[War Panda]

Hi Ivan 🙂 Fancy meeting you here 😉 I’m looking at getting some modern troops so I can get “No End In Sight” looks the Biz

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Ivan Sorensen]

War Panda wrote:

Hi Ivan Fancy meeting you here I’m looking at getting some modern troops so I can get “No End In Sight” looks the Biz

 

Don’t tell anyone but you could probably play it with WW2 guys too 😉

[John D Salt]

I’d say there’s little doubt that the Tiger is over-represented on the tabletop. Tiger battalions were generally Corps-level assets, so if the Germans can field Tigers, the Sovs should be allowed their heavies and guards mortars, the Brits shouldy be allowed an AGRA or two, and the Americans should probably be allowed a B-17 strike.

The Tiger’s fearsome reputation seems to contiue to fascinate, but by 1944 it wasn’t that great a tank. Its reputation from the Normandy fighting has largely been based on the action at Villers-Bocage, of which over-coloured accounts abounded for years thanks to Wittman having an SS propaganda unit present for his debrief after being unhorsed by a Queen’s 6-pounder, Signal magazine going a bang-up picture special (complete with faked photos), and the same line being peddled in the post-war penny dreadfuls written by “Paul Carrell” (Karl Schmidt).

The Allied habit of misidentifying Pz IVs as Tigers is quite understandable when one considers the prevalence of Schuerzen. Some people indeed took this to be a deliberate deception measure, as shown by the following snippet from 30 Corps war diary (WO 171/336):

“In the sector just NW of CAEN an enemy Mk IV tk has been captured disguised as a Tiger with skirts of sheet metal. This practice has been reported before from the ITALIAN front.”

A much more worrying tank for the Allies must surely have been the Panther — thicker frontal armour, better hole-punching gun, higher speed, and all in a package about ten tonnes lighter. Worse, they could be manufactured in numbers so that about half the armour in a 1944 panzer division was Panthers, and wargamers need no excuse to field them.

Of possible interest may be the following remarks from a translation of a captured German document, quoted in 1 Abn Div war diary (WO 171/392):

TIGER

“When Tigers first appeared on the battlefield, they were in every respect proof against enemy weapons. They quickly won for themselves the title of ‘unbeatable’ and ‘undamageable’.
But in the meantime, the enemy has not been asleep. Anti-tank guns, tanks, and mines have been developed, which can hit the Tiger hard and even knock it out. Now the Tiger, for a long time regarded as a ‘Life Insurance Policy’, is relegated to the ranks of simply “a heavy tank”…… No longer can the Tiger prance around oblivious to the laws of tank tactics. They must obey those laws, just as every other GERMAN tank must.”

PANTHER

“It is particularly important to ensure flank protection for the “sensitive” sides of the Panther tanks. The Pz Regt commander must always keep a reserve of tanks up his sleeve, which he can use at a moment’s notice to block any threat from the flank…… This reserve should normally be about 1100 yards in the rear. It has been found advisable to let the available Mark IV tanks in the Pz Regt take over the task of protection from the flanks, while the Panthers quickly press on and drive a wedge into the enemy position……”

All the best,

John

[Ivan Sorensen]

It’s not so much the Tiger on its own but there’s the “WW2 power goon” type that has a platoon of tigers, a completely full strength platoon of Waffen SS types all brimming with Stg and Panzerfausts, all wearing snazzy camouflage cloaks and of course rated one step above Rambo in terms of morale and skill.

Not accusing the OP of that, mind you, but I think we’ve all run into that guy.

I do like the idea of Germans disguising a PZ IV as a tiger to freak the enemy out.

[Sparker]

I’d say there’s little doubt that the Tiger is over-represented on the tabletop. Tiger battalions were generally Corps-level assets,

I think you’ve missed my point – of course they were strategic assets – so unless you are wargaming a backwater, Tigers are what would lead the attack or be rushed to seal the gap.

so if the Germans can field Tigers, the Sovs should be allowed their heavies and guards mortars, the Brits shouldy be allowed an AGRA or two, and the Americans should probably be allowed a B-17 strike.

For sure, and I should think they would need to in a balanced wargames scenario my post encourages, at least  in 1944 when the Germans had lost the initiative. Of course in 1943 the Germans still had the initiative to be able to deploy the Tiger companies with an element of surprise, so in a tactical game the Soviets may not have time to commit the equivalent Corps reserves.

It’s not so much the Tiger on its own but there’s the “WW2 power goon” type that has a platoon of tigers, a completely full strength platoon of Waffen SS types all brimming with Stg and Panzerfausts, all wearing snazzy camouflage cloaks and of course rated one step above Rambo in terms of morale and skill.

I haven’t, but I accept I’ve been lucky in that regard! But equally there’s a danger of going to far the other way – being bashful about deploying Tigers out of some sense of historical snobbery is self defeating – whether by accident or design I hope I have shown that they turned up at crisis points! And its crisis points I wish to wargame!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[NTM]

I currently don’t own a single Tiger model. Had loads when I gamed in 20 & 6mm but not got round to getting any 15mm ones yet. Of course I will some day but more mundane vehicles take priority at the moment.

[Nick the Lemming]

It depends on the rules. If the tiger is depicted as a supertank with very few other guns able to defeat it, then it’s pointless to play against someone fielding them. That would be like playing some ancients game and saying “ok, you have 10 stands of skirmishers with no armour, I’ll have 10 stands of fully equipped Romans.” It’s a foregone conclusion, so why bother playing? If all you want to do is defeat your opponent while he or she doesn’t enjoy the game then…well, good for you, I guess? Have fun finding opponents that will continue to play against you if that’s your attitude.

 

If on the other hand, Tigers are at best maybe slightly better than other guns out there, and it’s actually an even match, then yeah, go for it.

 

Glory Eagles de l'Empereur! blog

[willz]

Lots of talk about Tigers not enough photographs so I thought I would rectify this short fall.  It seems I have 30 tigers not 26.

x

x

Something for the early war enthusiasts

x

 

[Sparker]

Lovely!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Sparker]

It depends on the rules. If the tiger is depicted as a supertank with very few other guns able to defeat it, then it’s pointless to play against someone fielding them. That would be like playing some ancients game and saying “ok, you have 10 stands of skirmishers with no armour, I’ll have 10 stands of fully equipped Romans.” It’s a foregone conclusion, so why bother playing? If all you want to do is defeat your opponent while he or she doesn’t enjoy the game then…well, good for you, I guess? Have fun finding opponents that will continue to play against you if that’s your attitude.

If on the other hand, Tigers are at best maybe slightly better than other guns out there, and it’s actually an even match, then yeah, go for it.

Of course! An unbalanced scenario is an unbalanced scenario – I don’t think anyone is arguing with that? I’m certainly not!

But wargaming isn’t necessarily about winning competition games at all costs. I’ve quite happily played friendly historical scenarios as the Russian player with T34s and 57mm AT guns against Tigers, and Ferdinands, lost lots of casualties, but had a chance to win the game because of the victory conditions. It just requires a little bit of thought and preparation, but can be very rewarding: http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/little-stalingrad-ponyri-station-771943.html

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[willz]

“Sparker wrote” Of course! An unbalanced scenario is an unbalanced scenario – I don’t think anyone is arguing with that? I’m certainly not

Ditto that

I played a game a couple of years ago that started out as a balanced scenario but by the end of turn 1 due to bad decisions and unlucky dice throws I had lost all my Russian tanks 8 vehicles in total (retreated due to poor morale).  All I had left was an infantry  battalion and a recon company. ” I very nearly stormed off home” I was so annoyed at losing all my armour but I stuck with it.

This is how happy I was 2 minutes after all my amour left. (warning not a nice image)

x

I still won the game, got my troops into hard cover and won through hard fighting, very good tactics and some good dice throws.  My opponent was slow to move forward and very timid with his tanks.

 

 

[Sparker]

Lol! Very expressive mate!

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Etranger]

Surely HMS Warspite trumps even an AGRA as a Tiger killer?

Speaking of tanks against buildings, I read a memoir from a panzer gunner describing how his crew had to destroy their brand new Jagdpanzer IV /70 after striking the side  of a barn with the (long) barrel of their gun and damaging it. (Presumably they couldn’t get the AFV back to a workshop). It seems that it wasn’t an uncommon problem with the design.

[Sparker]

Yes it was quite an ungainly design – didn’t they dub it ‘Guderian’s Duck’?  Certainly had a long overhang, which is not ideal if you have limited traverse…

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Author]

Posts