Where are the Shermans? - Patton (1970) Discussion

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

It was shot in Spain so used Spanish Army vehicles. Presumably they had no Shermans.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

reply

[–] max-silver 14 years ago

But couldn't they have obtained Shermans to use for filming?

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

Probably not a a price they were willing to pay or within an acceptable time-frame. Running Shermans were not very common in Western Europe by that time.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

Even by the mid seventies Shermans were scarce, A Bridge Too Far made in 1975 only managed to find half a dozen or so. Ironically they're far more common now due to the Portugese Army releasing a number of stored Shermans and Canadian made Grizzlies in the 1980s which found themselves in collectors hands. Since then they've been used in Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, etc.
Probably the only user of Shermans- other than the Israelis- back when Patton was made was the Yugoslav Army as evidenced by their use in Kelly's Heroes, but they were still part of the Yugopslav Army and only loaned out for the production and were used along with the T34s restyled as Tigers originally made for the movie "Bitka na Neretvi".

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

reply

[–] max-silver 14 years ago

The Ontario Regiment, RCAC, was forced to give up its Shermans in 1971 and become a reconnaissance regiment.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

Nearly all of which {along with the rest of the Militia's pooled Shermans) were promptly parked on ranges like Meaford and expended s targets.

For that matter, there were probably Shermans available in equally small numbers in California. Neither California nor Ontario had locations and facilities (like a rentable Spanish Army) suitable for making this film at that cost in the available time.

reply

[–] libertarian45 10 years ago

A Bridge Too Far was filmed in 1976. According to the After the Battle book on the film, they could only come up with 4 running Shermans. This necessitated much careful filming. You never see more than 4 moving at any time.

I saw portions of the Yugo film Battle of Neretva (Yul Brynner) and I could have sworn I saw at least one real Tiger.

Full marks to Kelly's Heroes for making the effort. After learning of the challenges for A Bridge Too Far in obtaining Shermans, It's amazing to see that one scene in KHs when a huge column of Shermans drives by. I'll excuse a lot if someone makes an effort (realizing how hard it is). Movies like Battle of the Bulge, however, are just insulting when actors point at M47s and call them King Tigers.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 10 years ago

I onder what became of the Yugoslav Shermans? At least some of them were used in the war there following the death of Tito- I've sen photos of them. Some ex Yugoslav Hellcats and M36 GMCs have been imported to here in the UK but I can't recall hearing about any Shermans.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] mihahribernik 14 years ago

The German tanks are cringeworthy too. I know it's something that your average movie goes wouldn't be able to notice, but I'm a history buff and I just can't take any scenes with anachronistic vehicles in them seriously. A "WW2" battle with both sides using non-WW2 tanks is just plain painful to watch.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

Then you'll be continuously disappointed. I can only think of one post-war film that's ever accurately displayed German armour wihtout using stock footage - it's a recent Finnish film using some carefully restored StuG III. The best you'll get are vismods of varying quality. Few films made before the 1990's were able to get either genuine WWII tanks or adequate vismods. If you wanted to get a large number of tanks on screen, you needed the help of a real national army with a unit they could spare to lend for movie purposes. Effectively, that meant the US or Spain, and neither operated VVS Shermans or WWII German tanks. Yugoslavia did have three T-34's modified to look like Tigers as well as VVS Shermans, but I'm not sure about numbers or how easy it was for Westerners to film there. Not all the locations there would have been suitable for Patton, in any event.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

They're getting better with computer graphics as can be seen in The greatest Tank Battles series. A decent movie budget rather than a TV one would give much more realistic results I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah8hYdY_dLI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVmOa-vb4JU

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

reply

[–] max-silver 14 years ago

Greatest Tank Battles sure is a great show, and they've detailed North Africa, Battle of the Bulge, Normandy (Canadian 4th Armoured Brigade), the Hochwald Gap (also Canadian 4th Armoured Brigade), and Kirsk.

I'm still waiting for them to do Operation Totalize and Falaise.

There is a show called Tank Overhaul, and they have detailed the restoration of several Panthers, countless Shermans (by sheer virtue of there being more of them), and a few Cold War APCs and a Centurion, and they even showed the one working Tiger in existance, while mentioning the two or so under restoration.

reply

[–] will-694 11 years ago

Kelly's Heroes did one of the best productions. They used real Shermans and dressed up T-34's for Tigers (the Christie suspensions made them a natural).

reply

[–] fountaincap 10 years ago

I'm curious if the Finnish film you're referring to is Talvisota (Winter War)? I remember being impressed that they featured accurate Soviet planes and tanks, but I don't remember a StuG.

Saving Private Ryan also featured realistic Tiger and Panther tanks, didn't it?

We really need a movie about Kursk. If they do it right with practical effects for the closeups and CGI for the large battlefield, imagine the spectacle!

reply

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

Saving Private Ryan also featured realistic Tiger and Panther tanks, didn't it?

Tigers, yes but no Panthers.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] bartblommaert 12 years ago

It's a movie, and like it requires some suspension of disbelief

reply

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

No, they aren't "cringeworthy", they are what the producers could find or afford to tell the story. If you're that āńáł that you are unable realize that and to then be able to suspend disbelief enough to watch the movie without cringing, stop watching period pieces. At least today the use of CGI is able to fix that "problem".

reply

[–] scipio23 14 years ago

It may have been because as far as I know the U.S. army didn't cooperate with the film, so it may have been harder to get Shermans. Patton's widow, who would have had some pull as the widow of a 4 star general, and his son who was himself a general when the movie was made, were both against the making of the movie because they thought it would depict Patton negatively. So they got the Spanish military to supply materials because they had vehicles from both the Allies and the Axis powers. But perhaps they didn't have Shermans?
Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

The US Army had no Shermans in service by that time and hadn't for at least a decade. For that matter, nor did Spain. Spain also had no Axis vehicles in service by then either. All the US and German tanks seen in this film are post-war US-made tanks, mostly Pattons.

reply

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

"....Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho..."

Lemmie guess; I heard this as a joke once: "I'm a Marxist, of the Groucho kind..."

NM

reply

[–] scipio23 14 years ago

That would be correct, nickm2.

Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho

reply

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

I think Spain had got shot of most of it's Panzer IVs etc by 1970- ironically I think they still had them when Battle of the Bulge was filmed in Spain. I think most of them went to Syria along with others from Czechoslovakia and other places.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

reply

[–] MadTom 14 years ago

Just for the record, Beatrice Patton died in 1953, eight years after her husband's death and fifteen years before filming began on the movie. Their son George S. Patton IV was not yet a general officer when filming started, and he was too busy commanding the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam (as a colonel) to put up any objection. There is no indication that he or anyone else of the Patton family had the kind of influence to prevent the US Army from cooperating with the production of the film.

In The Pattons: A Personal History of an American Family, George S. Patton IV's son Robert states that the family's issue was not with the film but with Ladislas Farago, the author of Patton: Ordeal and Triumph which was later used as one of the primary sources for the movie script. According to Robert Patton, his grandfather's personal papers had been typed up by his military secretary, and that the secretary had given Farago copies of those papers for use in his book without the family's permission. The family had to take legal action forcing Farago to excise all copyrighted material from his book. Robert Patton then states, "[T]he family learned that Farago's book would be the basis for Twentieth Century-Fox's forthcoming Patton movie. The news was dubiously received. But when the movie came out in 1970, we weren't so high-minded as not to go see it."

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

I rather suspect that cost and location issues the biggest factors in choosing Spain over California - just as they were for Battle of the Bulge.

Do note that General of the Army Omar Bradley as well as a retired General and Colonel were technical advisers for this film.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

German Tiger Tanks were a tough nut to bust. Allied forces suffered dearly to this technology. American and British intel later found the weak spot for those "Tigers". Sherman Tanks now knew were to aim on those "Tigers".

The British captured their first Tiger (completely intact) in Tunisia in April 1943. It's was soon the subject of much examination and analysis. It's in the Bovington tank museum in southern England (between Bournemouth and Weymouth) and is the only running Tiger I in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_5c0mBXok

The Tiger's secrets and capabilities were known quite soon after it's combat debut in the west but that still didn't stop the Tigers from causing many headaches to the western allies for the next 2 years.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

Plus in combat even if you do know where a tanks weaknesses are there's not a lot of opportunity to exploit them, most gunners being just good or lucky enough to hit their target never mind a specific place on that target.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

reply

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Right Hot...the main weak area of a Tiger was the flank or the rear...I'd hate to be the guy who'd have to try to work my way around to that position to take a shot; saw something on MilChannel about the Canadians in Normandy; During the operation at Saint-André-sur-Orne(I THINK) the commander was telling about a 'beautiful' position he was hiding in: Next to a stone house behind a hedge...trouble was a Tiger thought the same position was also 'beautiful' so it pulled in on the other side of the hedge-with it's gun protruding thru the hedge. The Canadian (his name was Lawrence) ordered the gunner to fire an AP round with his barrel only a few feet away from the Tiger's front--and THAT shell just bounced off...long story short they barely got out of that situation with their hides intact.

NM

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

nick,

I'd say the weak area on the Tiger was the lower hull side (behind the wheels. That was 'only' 60mm thick and there was a gap between the top of the wheels and the sponson overhang. That would have been the thinest part of the Tiger's armour to hit (well not including the top and bottom of course), although still would have been a difficult shot even without the Tiger firing back.

The rear plate was as thick as the upper hull side plate (80mm) and but somewhat sloped inwards so that would have made the rear plate just a little bit harder to penetrate than the sides (despite some folks, even Oddball in Kelly's Heroes, saying that the Tiger's 'ass' is it's weakest point).

Interesting story about the Canadian tank. I think I recal that somewhere too. I know that Pat Dyas threw a couple of AP shells from his 75mm Cromwell at Wittmann's Tiger frontally at 100 yards or closer and they just bounced off.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

Nick- My point was that in the middle of a battle you just line up the sights and fire, you don't always have the luxury of choosing what part of the enemy tank to fire at, and of course the enemy commander will try to keep his thickest armour towards you anyway if he can. He's also trying to knock you out too of course.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

reply

[–] MadTom 14 years ago

As far as aiming points go, you never have the luxury of choosing what part of the enemy tank (or vehicle) to fire at. Gunnery doctrine taught to US Army and Marine tankers at the Armor School is to aim slightly low at the center of mass of the target. Rationale for center of mass is the same as for individual human targets with a pistol and rifle; the objective is to hit the target and disable it (in the case of policemen, also to avoid hitting innocent bystanders while aiming for a leg or arm). Rationale for aiming slightly low is that you have a better chance of hitting the target when allowing for ranging errors on the vertical axis; if you aim low and the error causes it to hit the ground, there's still a chance the round will ricochet off the ground and hit the target. At the ranges at which tanks engage each other, the telescopic sights (and especially the infrared-sensing thermal sights used at night and in other limited visibility) do not have the acuity or resolution to ever pick out a so-called "soft spot" on a tank or other vehicular target. Take my word for it. I'm a retired tanker.

The way to improve the chances of hitting a "soft spot" on a heavily armored vehicle is not trying to futz around refining your aim when all you see is a blob the size of a fingernail at arm's length, but to place yourself in a position that improves the chances that a soft spot such as the flank or rear will be exposed to you. That's part of what tactics are for.

One of the best David and Goliath stories about armored warfare, which was published in a textbook at the Armor School when I went through, is how during WWII, the crew of an M-8 Greyhound wheeled recon vehicle hid in ambush in a wooded a roadside and waited for a King Tiger to pass by. Then the Greyhound pulled out behind the King Tiger and knocked it out with three rounds from its 37mm gun to the engine compartment. If they ever saw what immobilized and then killed them, that must've been one surprised (and embarrassed) King Tiger crew!

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

One of the best David and Goliath stories about armored warfare, which was published in a textbook at the Armor School when I went through, is how during WWII, the crew of an M-8 Greyhound wheeled recon vehicle hid in ambush in a wooded a roadside and waited for a King Tiger to pass by. Then the Greyhound pulled out behind the King Tiger and knocked it out with three rounds from its 37mm gun to the engine compartment. If they ever saw what immobilized and then killed them, that must've been one surprised (and embarrassed) King Tiger crew!

Where did this supposedly happen? What was the King Tiger's unit?

The King Tiger's side armour around the engine compartment was 80mm thick (sloped 25 degrees)on the upper hull side and 80mm (vertical) on the lower hull side.

I find it hard to believe that even at point blank a 37mm Greyhound gun would penetrate 80mm of King Tiger side armour. In fact I'd say it's an impossibility judging by the penetration tables for that gun.

I think that might be a tall tale there, or at the least it wasn't a King Tiger.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

At 500 yards, a US 37mm gun using APCBC shot would penetrate 53 to 61 mm of armour. With a bit of luck, I can see it doing 80 mm at under a tenth that distance, especially of poor quality, late-war plate,

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns2.html

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

At 500 yards, a US 37mm gun using APCBC shot would penetrate 53 to 61 mm of armour. With a bit of luck, I can see it doing 80 mm at under a tenth that distance, especially of poor quality, late-war plate,

I can't.

"poor quality, late-war plate"

There are numerous examples of this "supposed" 'poor quality, late-war plate' of King Tigers resisting even point blank (100m and under) bazookas and captured Geman panzerfausts.

Sorry but a 37mm will NOT penetrate the 80mm side hull of a King Tiger at ANY range.

However, I can see a scenario where maybe a 37mm M8 Greyhound gun might disable the sprocket or idler wheels and thus causing the tank to become immobile.

Penetrating the 80mm hull side armour through to the engine compartment though? No chance. Absolute pure fantasy. Sorry, impossible. Can't happen. Didn't happen.

reply

[–] MadTom 14 years ago

I had to blow the dust off my old copy of the textbook, which was FKSM 17-3-2 Armor in Battle, published by the US Army Armor School at Fort Knox, March 1986 edition, to answer your questions. I made a slight goof in that it wasn't a King Tiger but an older Tiger I. (I retired from the Army over 7 years ago and hadn't looked at this textbook in years before that.)

The incident is described on Page 2-116 of this book. The geographic location is not specified but the American unit involved was identified as Combat Command B of the 7th Armored Division on 18 December 1944. The 7th AD was in the St Vith area in Belgium in the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge on that date.

The entire page reads as follows:

CALCULATED RISK: CCB, 7th AD, 18 DEC 1944

While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern sector (A/87, A/38, and B/87) had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been when an M8 armored car from "E" Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the MLR. As it passed the armored car the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German Tank Commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their puny 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger's "Achilles Heel" (its thin rear armor), and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their '88 to bear so as to blast these "fools" who cared to attempt to fight a 60-ton tank with their little "runabout" and its "pop gun". Suddenly the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in 3 rounds... the lumbering Tiger stopped, shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which billowed out of the turret and engine port, after which the armored car returned to its position.

ANALYSIS
The "little guy" can get you, too!

Other than the detail about which subvariant of Tiger was involved, I think I did pretty good in remembering the incident considering I hadn't read the article in at least 7 years.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

I had to blow the dust off my old copy of the textbook, which was FKSM 17-3-2 Armor in Battle, published by the US Army Armor School at Fort Knox, March 1986 edition, to answer your questions. I made a slight goof in that it wasn't a King Tiger but an older Tiger I. (I retired from the Army over 7 years ago and hadn't looked at this textbook in years before that.)

The incident is described on Page 2-116 of this book. The geographic location is not specified but the American unit involved was identified as Combat Command B of the 7th Armored Division on 18 December 1944. The 7th AD was in the St Vith area in Belgium in the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge on that date.

The entire page reads as follows:

Hello MadTom,

Thank you very much for your added info. It brings things very much into light and it makes things even MORE confusing hehe..

Tiger Is were VERY rare in the Battle Of The Bulge and none were in combat anywhere near St Vith. There was only ONE company of Tiger Is employed in the Battle of The Bulge. These were the 14 Tiger Is of Schwere Panzer Kompanie Hummel (which was attached to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506) and only saw very limited action east of Bastogne.

Most certainly there were no Tiger Is near St Vith. None at all. This is an absolute fact.

Misindentification I'm afraid. It happened often.

Whatever the tank was that was disabled, it most certainly wasn't a Tiger I or a King Tiger.

Probably a Panzer IV misidentified as a "Tiger". It happened all the time.

reply

[–] MadTom 14 years ago

Whatever the tank was that was disabled, it most certainly wasn't a Tiger I or a King Tiger.

Probably a Panzer IV misidentified as a "Tiger". It happened all the time.

I've given you my documentation. Where's yours?

The article didn't say King Tiger, so if it wasn't one, I assumed they meant a Tiger I. So maybe it was a King Tiger after all.

What is it with people claiming the King Tiger was indestructible? This is the same argument and evidence that people use to try to dispute the one shootout reported between a King Tiger and a "Super Pershing" M26 with an experimental more powerful gun than the production model: "NOOOO! It couldn't have been a King Tiger that was knocked out! Wehrmacht records say there weren't any in the area!" Never mind what eyewitnesses reported. Do you have any idea how chaotic it is on any battlefield? Half the time, units aren't where they think they are. Compound that with the chaotic state that the Wehrmacht was in from late '44 to the end of the war. By the end Hitler was "deploying" imaginary units that had been destroyed days or weeks before.

There are plenty of photos from the Battle of the Bulge showing knocked out King Tigers, and they weren't all knocked out by Henry Fonda, Telly Savalas and James MacArthur rolling burning barrels of gasoline down a hill at them.

If you insist on just cherry-picking the claims, discounting those that disagree with your position by calling the sources mistaken or liars, and accepting as Gospel those that support them, all I can do is leave it to the court of public opinion here in this forum.

Again, I've given you my documentation. Quoted and cited. Where's yours?

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

I've given you my documentation. Where's yours?

Wolfgang Schneider's Tigers in Combat I and II. They have day by day combat diaries of all the Tiger units, when they fought, what happened etc. The Germans kept meticulous records.

Or you can read Patrick Agte's Tiger Tank Commanders of the Leibstandarte. Maybe even Jean Paul Pallud's Battle of the Bulge Then and Now.

The article didn't say King Tiger, so if it wasn't one, I assumed they meant a Tiger I. So maybe it was a King Tiger after all.

As I said, there were no Tiger Is in the northern sector of the Ardennes, just the Tiger Is of Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel which at that time was subordinated to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 and fought to the east of Bastogne. Nowhere near St Vith in the 7 AD area of operations.

There was only one Tiger unit in the northern sector of the Ardennes offensive and this was a King Tiger unit. This sole King Tiger unit in the northern sector was Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 501 (formerly 101)and became part of the Leibstandarte's Kampfgruppe Peiper. It attacked along the Malmedy/Stavelot/Trois Ponts/La Gleize route.

Here is a list of all King Tiger losses during the northern sector of the Ardennes. Not much more than just a dozen King Tigers were lost in the northern sector in the Ardennes offensive. In the entire Battle of The Bulge just 15 King Tigers were lost from SS 501. We now know each and every one of them, when they were lost and even what their turret numbers were.

December 18th 1944. (this is the date your source claims a 37mm Greyhound gun from 7th AD knocked out a 'Tiger'.)

King Tiger turret number 105 lost at Stavelot when evading enemy fire (from 526th US Infantry Battalion). King Tiger 105 backs into a house and gets stuck and has to be abandoned.

King Tiger turret number 332 is abandoned due to technical (mechanical) problems on the Trois Ponts to La Gleize road at the junction to Coo.. This tank later eneded up at Aberdeen proving ground in the US.

King Tiger turret number 008 abandoned at Trois Ponts at the St Antoine farmhouse and later immobilised by it's own crew.

So none of the 3 King Tigers lost on 18th December 1944 were lost due to a 37mm hit from a Greyhound of 7th Armored Divison. None. Not one. They weren't even engaging 7th Armored.

Anyway, here's more. I'll carry on with every single King Tiger lost in the northern sector.

December 19th 1944.

King Tiger turret number 104 immobilized just outside La Gleize.

King Tiger turret number 222 is knocked out in Stavelot.

22nd December 1944.

King Tiger turret number 334 immobilised on just outside La Gleize on the road to Borgoumont by a hit on the front drive sprocket. The tank is abandoned.

King Tiger turret number 211 is put out of action after numerous enemy hits in La Gleize.

King Tiger turret number 213 is put out of action after an enemy shot knocks off the muzzle brake and barrel end in La Gleize.

King Tiger turret number 133 hit by friendly fire which killed the radio operator and gets stuck in a road ditch and has to be abandoned at the western edge of Stavelot.*

24th December 1944.

Kampfgruppe Pieper after running out of ammo and fuel breaks out and retreats towards its own lines.

King Tiger turret number 204 is abandoned around Stavelot due to lack of fuel and ammo.

King Tiger turret number 231 is abandoned around Stavelot due to lack of fuel and ammo.

King Tiger turret number 104 is abandoned around Stavelot due to lack of fuel and ammo.

25th December 1944.

King Tiger turret number 133 (stuck in a ditch on 22nd December) is blown up by it's commander near Stavelot.

King Tiger turret number 111 abandoned at Petit Spai.

King Tiger turret number 312 abandoned at Petit Spai.

One of those tanks was also hit by a bomb from a P-38.

Source: Tigers in Combat II. Wolfgang Schneider pages 263 to 265.

So you see, not one Tiger was lost to 7th Armored Division on 18th December 1944. 7th Armored Division were not even engaging any German units with Tigers on that date.

What is it with people claiming the King Tiger was indestructible?

Who said that? I never said any such thing.

You initially reported an alleged claim about a 37mm Greyhound gun penetrating through the 80mm armour of a King Tiger and ending up in the engine. Even the rear plate of a King Tiger was 80mm thick and sloped at 30 degrees. That's an impossibility for a 37mm gun even at point blank range. Then the claim was reduced to just 'Tiger'.

What is it with people believing that every allied soldier's account of 'Tigers' must be true?? Just because an allied soldier says it was a Tiger means it was a Tiger??? Honestly, you'd think there must have been hundreds and hundreds of Tigers used in the Ardennes offensive if we believed every allied claim and reports of them. Allied soldiers (even tankers) saw 'Tigers' behind almost every tree and bush....pointing it's deadly 88 at them.

*Those elements of 7th Armored Divison which were engaging the enemy north of St Vith on or around the 18th December were engaging elements of Kampfgruppe Hansen (not Kampfgruppe Peiper) of 1st SS which was coming along the road at Recht and towards Poteau. Kamfgruppe Hansen didn't have any King Tigers (or any Tigers).

*Source: Battle of The Bulge Then and Now. JP Pallud. Page 204 to 206.

This is the same argument and evidence that people use to try to dispute the one shootout reported between a King Tiger and a "Super Pershing" M26 with an experimental more powerful gun than the production model: "NOOOO! It couldn't have been a King Tiger that was knocked out! Wehrmacht records say there weren't any in the area!" Never mind what eyewitnesses reported.

There was no King Tiger vs Super Pershing duel at Dessau on 21st April 1945.

There were no King Tigers anywhere near the area. Nearest unit with King Tigers was some 70 miles to the east engaging the Soviets.

Never mind what eyewitnesses reported.

Again, if we went on eye witness accounts there must have been hundreds of Tigers employed in the Bulge.

We have a supposed eyewitness claiming a M8 Greyhound knocking out a Tiger on 18th December......yet 7th Armored didn't engage any units fighting Tigers on that day and all Tiger losses are known and documented. So what does that say for 'eye witnesses' there?

There is not one shred of evidence to support this fantasy Super Pershing v King Tiger encounter at Dessau on 21st April 1945. In fact all the evidence points to it not occuring. Panthers were often called 'Tigers'. The Panther even looks very similar to the King Tiger.

Do you have any idea how chaotic it is on any battlefield?

Dessau was a quiet area soon after the battle finished and not much happened after 23rd April. It was last battle 3rd Armored Divison fought in WW2. Dessau was captured on 23rd April.

There is NOT ONE PHOTO of this mysterious King Tiger supposedly knocked out by a Super Pershing. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. No soldiers posing on it etc. It would have been of much curiosity as a battlefield relic. There isn't even any mention of which unit this phantom King Tiger at Dessau supposedly belonged to. It came out of nowhere, was allegedly despatched by a Super Pershing...and no trace of it was ever seen again. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The Super Pershing v King Tiger duel as Dessau is a tall tale. The only Super Pershing in the entire ETO 'just so happens' to meet one of the rarest German vehicles of WW2 in a place where no King Tigers ever saw combat and where no King Tiger units were ever posted and just managed to beat a King Tiger before the war ends so it can prove it was superior?

You are aware that the regular M26 Pershing that knocked out the Tiger I at Elsdorf in Feb 1945 has the backing of documented proof with photos and which is corroborated by the German's own records? We don't have that for the fantasy 'Duel at Dessau'. Nothing at all. Even dedicated researchers can find NOTHING to support this encounter.

A Super Pershing knocking out a King Tiger right at the end of the war would have been even more celebrated and documented with photos than the Tiger I knocked out by the M26 in February 1945. Yet we have no photos, no German unit given and nor is it corroborated in any German records.

Half the time, units aren't where they think they are. Compound that with the chaotic state that the Wehrmacht was in from late '44 to the end of the war.

I've just given you the dates, locations and even the turret numbers of those King Tigers lost in the northern sector of the Bulge. The Germans kept meticulous records. We have photos and turret numbers of them and they all match up to German loss records and combat diaries.

By the end Hitler was "deploying" imaginary units that had been destroyed days or weeks before.

Yes, an imaginary King Tiger at Dessau.

There are plenty of photos from the Battle of the Bulge showing knocked out King Tigers, and they weren't all knocked out by Henry Fonda, Telly Savalas and James MacArthur rolling burning barrels of gasoline down a hill at them.

Of course there are photos.

Here is a link to photos of most of them.

http://www.tiif.de/thread.php?threadid=218&sid=4a29206f3155ea7c5ce c98d140719b71

Documented. Recorded. Proven fact. Corroborated by German records. It even has pictures of King Tiger 105 that backed into a house and got stuck on 18th December 1944.

Why don't we have the same for the phantom King Tiger at Dessau? I'll answer that...because it didn't exist. Not one shred of viable documentation proving it.

If you insist on just cherry-picking the claims, discounting those that disagree with your position by calling the sources mistaken or liars, and accepting as Gospel those that support them, all I can do is leave it to the court of public opinion here in this forum.

Well please read my post properly and then if you disagree with all the info I have just provided (which took me a long time to write down) why don't you tell me what unit this Tiger knocked out by a 37mm Greyhound gun near St Vith actually came from, especially as no King Tigers were fighting near St Vith and were in fact further north moving on Stavelot and La Gleize etc.

Again, I've given you my documentation. Quoted and cited. Where's yours?

Wolfgang Schneider Tigers in Combat II pages 263 to 265 for the lost King Tigers.

http://www.amazon.com/Tigers-Combat-Vol-Wolfgang-Schneider/dp/09219913 98

Though very expensive it's well worth getting.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Ok thanks. No problem.

If you want to read some things for yourself this website might be interesting for you. It deals solely on the King Tigers of SS 501.;

http://www.ss501panzer.com/

This page deals with the fighting from 16th to 18th December:

http://www.ss501panzer.com/Battle_16-18_Dec.htm

Very interesting detailed accounts with photos.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

I was primarily basing my belief that a 37 mm might penetrate the rear armour of a King Tiger at 25 meters on this alleged incident. As the incident didn't happen, obviously that bit of evidence is invalid. Thanks for the documentation!

reply

[–] MadTom 14 years ago

Not trying to beat a dead horse here. After playing with search engines and search terms off and on for days, I've found an original source in the archives of the 7th Armored Division Association that appears to include the After Action Report of the Greyhound vs. Tiger action. Only the unit was D Troop of the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron rather than an E Troop, the date is two months off, and the location is in a different country!

The document is the Unit History and After Action Reports of the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron. It's referenced at this url:
http://www.7tharmddiv.org/docrep/.
It's a very cluttered page to find the link, but the URL to the actual document, which will download as a .doc file, is at:
http://www.7tharmddiv.org/docrep/N-87-AAR.doc (Don't click on this link either here or on the other page unless you actually want the document!)

The date is 26 October 1944 and the location is in the vicinity of Meijel, Holland. This paragraph is taken from the bottom of Page 5 of the October 1944 AAR in the original document.

About noon, a Troop D M8 armored car was hidden behind haystacks and buildings at the Hoogebrug road junction, when three tiger tanks moved slowly down the road, about 300-400 yards apart. The armored car allowed the first Tiger to pass, and then from a range of approximately 15 yards, pumped six rounds of 37mm AP into the rear of the tank. The tank was ditched, and the crew abandoned it. At least one member of the crew was killed as he fled. Meanwhile, the second Tiger continued up the road toward the junction, and the third swung off to the North to flank the armored car. The armored car escaped when the Tiger was within 200 yards. Later in the afternoon three TD's and one medium were sent to get a Tiger; three TD's and one medium were lost.

Don't ask me how the hell this passage got so distorted into the other page in the Armor School textbook on my earlier posting, if it is indeed the actual incident that spawned the other account. I'm not going to bad-mouth a brother Armor officer, anonymous as he may be. My educated guess is that, my edition of the textbook being dated 1986 (when I went through the Armor Officer Basic Course), long before the internet as we know it, some unlucky instructor at the Armor School was saddled by the school commandant into writing up a section for the textbook about the legendary David and Goliath engagement, and not having easy access to primary sources, culled and gleaned what he could from "oral history" and secondary/tertiary sources. I myself was lined up to be an instructor at the Armor School when I hit mandatory retirement, so God knows I could've gotten saddled with a similar task if fate hadn't intervened!

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Not trying to beat a dead horse here. After playing with search engines and search terms off and on for days, I've found an original source in the archives of the 7th Armored Division Association that appears to include the After Action Report of the Greyhound vs. Tiger action. Only the unit was D Troop of the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron rather than an E Troop, the date is two months off, and the location is in a different country!

The document is the Unit History and After Action Reports of the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron. It's referenced at this url:
http://www.7tharmddiv.org/docrep/.
It's a very cluttered page to find the link, but the URL to the actual document, which will download as a .doc file, is at:
http://www.7tharmddiv.org/docrep/N-87-AAR.doc (Don't click on this link either here or on the other page unless you actually want the document!)

The date is 26 October 1944 and the location is in the vicinity of Meijel, Holland. This paragraph is taken from the bottom of Page 5 of the October 1944 AAR in the original document.

About noon, a Troop D M8 armored car was hidden behind haystacks and buildings at the Hoogebrug road junction, when three tiger tanks moved slowly down the road, about 300-400 yards apart. The armored car allowed the first Tiger to pass, and then from a range of approximately 15 yards, pumped six rounds of 37mm AP into the rear of the tank. The tank was ditched, and the crew abandoned it. At least one member of the crew was killed as he fled. Meanwhile, the second Tiger continued up the road toward the junction, and the third swung off to the North to flank the armored car. The armored car escaped when the Tiger was within 200 yards. Later in the afternoon three TD's and one medium were sent to get a Tiger; three TD's and one medium were lost.

Hi MadTom,

Thank you for trying to get to the bottom of this and for providing additional information.

Unfortunately it only brings up further headaches as according to German combat diaries there were no Tigers left anywhere in Holland by October 26th 1944.

Only 2 Tiger units were sent into Holland in autumn 1944 and this was to combat Market Garden.

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 with an inventory of 45 King Tigers.

Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel with an inventory of 14 Tiger I.

(These 2 Tiger units were later amalgamated together for a while and saw action in the Ardennes to the east of Bastogne).

Anyway, in Holland, Abteilung 506 only saw action around Arnhem and Elst and then between 10th and 13th October was transported by rail to the Aachen sector in Germany. By 26th October the unit was west of the river Roar near Gereonsweiler (east of Geilenkirchen) in Germany. The unit had no Tiger combat losses between 7th October 1944 (when 3 King Tigers were lost to US tank destroyer battalion 743) and 17th November (when 1 Tiger was lost near Puffendorf).

So that rules out Abteilung 506.

Now, Panzerkompanie Hummel is also just as problematic. Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel with it's 14 Tiger Is was also sent into Holland to combat Market Garden. Again, it went into the Arnhem area and then afterwards saw action at Elst, Doetinchem, Valburg, Lienden, Ede, Enspijk and finally Utrecht where it had maintenance on it's tanks then it was transfered to Germany. These areas are all to the north of Nijmegen and to the west and east of Arnhem.

Meijel, where your Greyhound encounter took place, I have found to be is to the southeast of Eindhoven halfway to the German border. There are no records of Tigers anywhere near that area at any time in WW2.

Like Abteilung 506, Panzerkompanie Hummel also reports no Tiger losses on 26th October 1944. Also, like Abteilung 506, Panzerkompanie Hummel was rail transported out of Holland and to the Aachen area of Germany by mid October 1944 so it wasn't even in the same country by October 26th.

So that rules out Kompanie Hummel.

Source is Tigers In Combat Volume 1 by Wolfgang Schneider.

Additionally, here is a webpage about Panzerkompanie Hummel in Holland:

http://www.defendingarnhem.com/schpzkphummel.htm

And Abteilung 506 in Holland:

http://www.defendingarnhem.com/schpzabt506.htm

After Abteilung 506 and Panzerkompanie Hummel were transported out of Holland in mid October 1944 there were no more Tiger units left in Holland at all so it would have been impossible for D Troop of the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron of 7th AD to have even encountered Tigers on 26th October, nevermind knock them out.

I suspect more and more that if the 37mm Greyhound gun did knock out a big German tank on October 26th 1944 in Holland then it was probably a Panther. The rear plate of the Panther was 40mm (just half the thickness of both Tiger versions).

HERE IS SOMETHING VERY VERY INTERESTING THAT SEEMS TO SETTLE THE ISSUE.

In October 1944 Panzer Brigade 107 was in general region of the Greyhound incident. It appears to have seen action in the area east and southeast of Eindhoven in October 1944 against 7th Armored Divison. It had no Tigers but it did have a number of Panthers and Panzer IVs.

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=512

""
Over the last month of fighting, the Brigade suffered 323 casualties. On 30.09.1944, it has a strength of 1975 men (including 187 wounded), 7x Pz-IV (both Flak-Panzer and Pz-IV/70), 19x Pz-V Panther and 133x SPW. That day the US 7th Armored Division attackes with overwhelming strength. Oploo is abandoned after heavy fighting and the Brigade retreats to Overloon. An Allied breakthrough on 01.10.1944 is thrown back by Panzergrenadier-Batallion 2107 but they suffer considerable losses and are withdrawn behind the lines. They receive replacements towards the end of the month. The rest of the Brigade continues to fight in the Venlo area. On 02.10.1944 Panzergrenadier-Battalion 2107 is at Merselo and Panzer-Abteilung 2107 is in the Venray - Overloon area. During October the Brigade suffers 182 casualties. On 31.10.1944 it has a strength of 1977 men, 8x Pz-IV, 11x Pz-V Panthers and 134x SPW. On 04.11.1944 It is finally with-drawn.""

So Panzer Brigade 107 had Panthers for sure and was in the the area east of Eindhoven and towards the German border fighting the US 7th Armored Divison. The Venlo area (mentioned above)is just 10 miles east of Meijel, where the Greyhound incident took place. It lost 8 Panthers in the October fighting. I suspect Panther probes might have been made towards Meijel.

Your Greyhound incident ties up perfectly with Panthers of Panzer Brigade 107. The unit fits, the timeline fits, the area fits and the losses fit. It fought 7th AD. It's also conceivable that a Greyhound's gun could penetrate the 40mm rear armour of a Panther.

What do you think? Personally I'm now quite sure the Greyhound incident involved a Panther. These were often mistaken for Tigers. Tigers weren't there. Panthers were. And Panthers were lost there.

With all this in mind and the fact that we have German records to either corroborate or refute things this is also why I don't buy things like the Super Pershing v King Tiger duel at Dessau either, especially now that we have modern researchers with access to Bundesarchives pinning down exactly where Tigers were and where they were not.

reply

[–] MadTom 14 years ago

Thanks, Buck. Makes sense to me.

One of the first things that cavalry scouts are taught is vehicle ID (a critical task for intelligence gathering), but unless there are captured enemy vehicles on hand, it's done by photos and drawings. I can see these guys seeing the vehicles for the first time in the heat of battle, not being able to actually count the road wheels, and saying "High hull, overlapping road wheels, long gun tube! It's a Tiger!" or "High hull, overlapping road wheels, long gun tube, sloped armor! It's a King Tiger!" Regardless, Tiger, King Tiger or Panther, taking it out with a 37mm is no mean feat. The guys in that Greyhound had some cojones!

The more I think about the Dessau incident, the more likely it is to me that the panzer in question was a Panther as well, rather than a King Tiger. When you think about it, the way the Pershing crew reported it, the panzer was nose-on to them the whole engagement, and when you look at a Panther and a King Tiger nose-on, not being able to count the road wheels or gauge the length of the turret or gun tube, and again in the heat of battle, the only noticeable difference is the gun mantlet. (If you're familiar with American tanks, it's analogous to the similarities and differences between the M-48 and the very rare M-103 Heavy Tank.)

Funny how this thread on the IMDB board on Patton started out with someone asking why Shermans weren't used in the movie and evolved into this. But this is a very good, civil and intelligent discussion, and let's hope nobody decides to complain about it becoming off-topic!

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Thanks, Buck. Makes sense to me.

One of the first things that cavalry scouts are taught is vehicle ID (a critical task for intelligence gathering), but unless there are captured enemy vehicles on hand, it's done by photos and drawings. I can see these guys seeing the vehicles for the first time in the heat of battle, not being able to actually count the road wheels, and saying "High hull, overlapping road wheels, long gun tube! It's a Tiger!" or "High hull, overlapping road wheels, long gun tube, sloped armor! It's a King Tiger!" Regardless, Tiger, King Tiger or Panther, taking it out with a 37mm is no mean feat. The guys in that Greyhound had some cojones!

Can't argue with that. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a Tiger or a Panther in a Greyhound, nevermind trying to take one out. And obviously it's easy for us 70 years later to identify tank types with all the wealth of book and internet access to photos and footage etc that is available now. Back then it wasn't as easy as that. Good point about the overlapping road wheels, very long gun and large size. Panthers aren't all that different to King Tigers, especially when neither tank type would have been commonly encountered up close and personal in autumn 1944.

The more I think about the Dessau incident, the more likely it is to me that the panzer in question was a Panther as well, rather than a King Tiger. When you think about it, the way the Pershing crew reported it, the panzer was nose-on to them the whole engagement, and when you look at a Panther and a King Tiger nose-on, not being able to count the road wheels or gauge the length of the turret or gun tube, and again in the heat of battle, the only noticeable difference is the gun mantlet. (If you're familiar with American tanks, it's analogous to the similarities and differences between the M-48 and the very rare M-103 Heavy Tank.)

Yes quite so. I agree completely. As I mentioned before the chances of that one lone Super Pershing in all of Germany managing to encounter an extremely rare (by April '45) King Tiger in a place where none saw combat must be 1000 to 1 or something like that. The pointed hull front and very long barrel of the Panther looks like a King Tiger with only the mantlet standing out as a noticeable difference. Good example with the M-48 and the M-103 Heavy Tank. Obviously I am familiar with the M-48 Patton tank but I had to Google the M-103 Heavy Tank to refresh my memory although the mantlets do look more similar than the Panther and King Tiger mantlets. It's still a good analogy though.

By the way, speaking of Panzer Brigade 107 and it's Panthers if you know Band of Brothers, this was the same unit that gave Easy Company and elements of British XXX armoured corps some trouble in September 1944 around Veghel, Neunen, the Son river etc during Market Garden, which was shown (although not very accurately) in episode 4.

Funny how this thread on the IMDB board on Patton started out with someone asking why Shermans weren't used in the movie and evolved into this. But this is a very good, civil and intelligent discussion, and let's hope nobody decides to complain about it becoming off-topic!

Likewise. It's been nice hitting ideas back and forth although it took me a bloody long time to track down some of this stuff and to get it down here in writing. Google Maps is a wonderful thing though and a very big help in pinpointing locations quickly. Makes things a whole lot easier.

reply

[–] 0versoul 10 years ago

One of the best David and Goliath stories about armored warfare...

I thought it was when two disabled IDF Centurians held off 150 Syrian tanks in the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War.

:>

reply

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

No prob, Hot...I was just saying how insanely LUCKY this Canadian Tanker was....as well as pointing out the Tiger's tough hide.

NM

reply

[–] pawtrax67 9 years ago

Back to the movie. It was filmed in 1969, in Spain. I doubt the army in Spain had any Shermans, or Panzer IV's or other period matching tanks. Patton was not a documentary. It was a movie. The fact they had two working He 111's was impressive for me. It is sad that in 1946 when all nations were dismantling their forces, they didn't keep more equipment for historical purposes.

The fact that people are arguing over what tanks, could or could not do is an example why history buffs ruin enjoyment in movies. For example, I doubt in a lot of westerns gunfighters could do what movies do. That doesn't mean Fistful of Dollars sucks. It just means some things are a part of the plot and the story.

You can have a blog or any other places if you want historical facts. Are they interesting yes. But should not be a criteria for blasting a movie that's before CGI and made 24 years after the war ended.

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

Ironically only a few years before, Spain sold it's remaining Axis Armor (they actually had some working(?) Panzer IVs & STG-75s that Germany sold them during WW2) to Syria just before the Six Day War.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] Hotrodder 9 years ago

Not only did Syria have Panzer IVs, Stug III (and IVs?) sent to them by Spain, they had a few Jagdpanzer IVs and Hummels too- some vehicles also came from Czechoslovakia. In addition they were sent stocks of German helmets and camouflage smocks.
I've not seem them myself but I understand there are photos of Syrian soldiers kitted out in SS camouflaged helmets and smocks carrying MP40s.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

So the producers of Patton 'missed it by that much'.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] baran_erik 8 years ago

In truth, the producers were too stupid to realize they should have used the proper tanks, even though there were hundreds, if not thousands, of still operational examples.

reply

[–] ccorraliza 8 years ago

Does it detract from the quality of the film to you folks?

To me? No.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pawtrax67 8 years ago

Too bad it was filmed in Spain huh? Maybe they didn't get permission to get the Tanks from Portugal?

It's not a documentary, made in the pre-CGI, pre-Internet,pre- Cell Phone era. They used what they had access too. It was made for $12 million dollars with what they had.

Go play World of Tanks instead.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]