Tiger production time

**KMMorris** · 05-23-2015, 11:23 PM

Mathematically yes. However I'm sure there were fluctuations between parts availability and construction efficiency.
I would much prefer the building of 43 T-34s per day.

**Wagriff** · 05-24-2015, 12:40 AM

One of many reasons the Russian's won the war. The German's were Horrified to see so Many T-34's in the field so fast.

**robin morley** · 05-24-2015, 08:27 AM

Hi Chaps, Thank you for all your replies. Though the tank figured as only a small part of the paper your help is greatly appreciated and helped me locate some great primary and secondary sources. I have received marks for the paper now and am pleased to say I was awarded a distinction for it. Once again thanks for your help.

**Silberkreuz** · 05-24-2015, 08:49 AM

by Wagriff

[QUOTE"Production of the Tiger I began in August 1942, and 1,355 were built by August 1944 when production ceased. Production started at a rate of 25 per month and peaked in April 1944 at 104 per month."

So then...if not molested by bombings and supply shortages, about the best ramped up production rate peaked out at about abit more than 3 Tigers per day? Impressive.[/QUOTE]

"That is truly impressive" Speer was a master of inspiration.

**Glenn66** · 05-24-2015, 09:24 AM

Why was production ceased when there was plenty of war still to be fought? Lack of raw materials? Production shift to other vehicles?

**lithgow** · 05-24-2015, 11:11 AM

Tiger II was meant as a replacement for Tiger-that being said, the Tigers were never intended as mass production vehicles a la T34 or Sherman-their equivalents were first the Mk III then Mk IV and Panther (along with the Sturmgeschutz III/IV and other extemporised types that were easier and quicker to make).
The Tigers were meant initially as heavy assault tanks that would be built in small numbers and concentrated in specialist units at the corps or army level and then deployed to specific areas as needed-the vast distances in the Soviet Union with limited railways and poor roads made this difficult as tanks had to travel under their own power, burning up fuel and wearing out the drive trains just to get to an operational area (the cause of much unreliability along with limited spares support).

**KMMorris** · 05-24-2015, 01:08 PM

Tiger I finished production in 1944 and moved to production of the Tiger II.
Just like the Panther was to be phased out in 1945 for the production of the Panther II
In theory the Tiger I has met its match by 1944 with the entry M26 Pershing in the west and the IS-2 in the East.
Morris

**Silberkreuz** · 05-24-2015, 03:12 PM

And what a beauty this M26 Pershing was, looks familiar arhh.

**big ned** · 05-24-2015, 03:13 PM

by lithgow

Tiger II was meant as a replacement for Tiger-that being said, the Tigers were never intended as mass production vehicles a la T34 or Sherman-their equivalents were first the Mk III then Mk IV and Panther (along with the Sturmgeschutz III/IV and other extemporised types that were easier and quicker to make).

The Tigers and Panthers were grossly over engineered. A good example was the final drive on the gearbox where the gears were designed to be hollow and JUST strong enough, just to save a few pounds! All gearbox failures required the use of a fully manned and equipped workshop depot with an overhead crane to remove it and it took on average 3 days to HAND FIT the worn out/damaged gears! That's why the Germans chose to destroy many of their crippled tanks in the field as they were non repairable on the battlefield. This is what happens when you get car and aircraft companies to design your tanks.

Now take the Sherman tank. The Americans got railway engineers to design their almost indestructible final drives for their tanks. The gear box and drives were all contained in a single front unit that could be removed piecemeal and replaced in approximately 3 hours, in the field, and using only an A-frame and a SINGLE socket and torque wrench. A quick look below gives an idea of the engineering requirements that it took to perform this single fix, one of many that could occur due to the Panzer's complex and hence awkward design as opposed to the simple offer-it-up to-the-bolts 'pod' design of the Sherman.