Unbelievable blunder

[chimera]

It was hard to believe an account about DDay in WWII, which said that a British tank reg. was sent against Tiger tanks. Despite years of experience, the tanks were not armoured to match the Tiger, and so were being lost in that battle near Caen. The comander then kept sending in the whole unit until 400 tanks were lost. Anyone heard of that?
chimera

 

[swerve]

It was hard to believe an account about DDay in WWII, which said that a British tank reg. was sent against Tiger tanks. Despite years of experience, the tanks were not armoured to match the Tiger, and so were being lost in that battle near Caen. The comander then kept sending in the whole unit until 400 tanks were lost. Anyone heard of that?
chimera

This story is so vague & full of holes I'm not sure what it might be based on. Certainly nothing that happened on D-Day (nowhere near enough British tanks were landed for such a battle), & certainly not a British tank regiment (400 tanks is several regiments).

Maybe Operation Goodwood? The tank losses sound about right. But Goodwood was 6 weeks after D-Day, & was nothing like the description. Fought over 3 days, by 3 British armoured divsions. One source gives total British & Canadian tank losses as 413, many of which were repairable, & German losses as at least 109 tanks, mostly total losses. The British army gained ground, but not much. The main immediate gain was to secure Caen. Most of the German tanks fought were not Tigers, but Pz IV & Panthers, & many British losses were due to anti-tank guns (towed & StuGs).

 

[chimera]

Yes, that would be it. But the lack of armour-plate was the cause of losses to known German tank-fire. A 4:1 count in the expected crucial armour-battle appears bad policy.
chimera

 

[swerve]

Yes, that would be it. But the lack of armour-plate was the cause of losses to known German tank-fire. A 4:1 count in the expected crucial armour-battle appears bad policy.
chimera

What you're calling an unbelievable blunder wasn't the execution of a particular battle, but the policy of building reliable, mobile, affordable tanks in large numbers, which limited the armour protection they could be given.

 

[KGB]

What you're calling an unbelievable blunder wasn't the execution of a particular battle, but the policy of building reliable, mobile, affordable tanks in large numbers, which limited the armour protection they could be given.

t-34's were cheaper, plentier, and tougher weren't they?

 

[eckherl]

t-34's were cheaper, plentier, and tougher weren't they?

Yes - and the Russians lost plenty of those also, but one good thing about Allied armor was the speed that they could travel, they could out flank and get behind the Tigers and Panthers and light them up, The Russian T-34 tank was excellant at using this tactic especially in the Russian landscape.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, this lesson led to the Leopard 1 were heavy armor was substituted for high mobility, firepower and accuracy.
The WWII veterans forming the backbone of the early Bundeswehr remembered very well how their superior heavy tanks were outmaneuvered by their enemies.