Thread by @18airbornecorps

1 of 17: TANK GOD ITS FRIDAY

The Battle of the Bulge was among the largest tank battles in US history. After the war, a narrative developed that American tank units (7th, 9th, 10th Armored Divisions, in particular) overcame a German tank superiority in the Battle of the Battle.

2 of 17: We'd like to put that idea to the test.

We've discussed Kampfgruppe Peiper outmaneuvering our tanks early on w/ the newest German tank, the 70-ton Tiger II. The remaining German forces had the Tiger I and Panzers.

3 of 17: Lt. Colonel Robert Erlenbusch commanded company A, 31st Tank Battalion in St. Vith during the fighting. After the war, he wrote a paper for III Corps in which he stated that German Panther and Tiger tanks were far superior to the American Sherman and Stuart tanks.

4 of 17: American tanks had success in Ardennes only if they hit "lucky shots" according to Erlenbusch. Many historians still reference Erlenbusch's findings.

5 of 17: It's undoubtedly true that the M3s and M5s (each armored division had a light tank company) were death traps (like this destroyed M3) that could not take out a Tiger.

6 of 17: But, while the Tiger tank had a better gun (88m) & better armor than ours, our Sherman tanks may have actually had superior combat performance in the Ardennes for offensive operations.

Why do we say that? Well, 4 points here.

7 of 17: Point 1: the German Tiger I and II, the new tanks Peiper rolled out, were "maintenance dogs." They broke down all the time!

8 of 17: It didn't help that Germans put their newest, least experienced troops in their newest tanks & that the Tiger II was very difficult to recover, often taking 1 or 3 recovery vehicles to move each tank.

9 of 17: Point 2: the Tigers were fuel hogs. ANY army would have had trouble keeping a tank force that size refueled with those gas guzzlers. Tiger II tanks consumed two gallons per mile!

10 of 17: Still Point 2: Look, there is a reason Kampfgruppe Peiper withdrew on foot. They had no gas and their tanks were broken!

11 of 17: Point 3: the German tanks had a slow-turning power traverse turret (slow due to the heavy weight of the turret) while the lighter Shermans' power traverse turret moved easy and quickly.

12 of 17: Still Point 3: In a tank-on-tank fight, the lighter American tanks were just much faster. (Take a look at the recent movie "Fury" starring Brad Pitt & you'll see what we mean)

13 of 17: Point 4: We had better mobility (many will debate us here). Remember the Rick Atkinson line:"In battle, topography is fate." The Germans were trying to cross Class 20 bridges over bad/narrow Belgium roads with 70-ton tanks. Bridges collapsed, tanks flipped and got stuck

14 of 17: Point 4 cont: Many German tankers preferred the lighter Mark V Panther medium tank as it was light enough to drive off-road while the heavier Tigers were restricted to roads and heavy bridges, making them easy targets for anti-tank teams and eventually Allied airpower.

15 of 17: Many historians are enamored with the Tiger and Panzer tank. But, we had better mobility & better reach (less fuel required). Also, if you hit a Tiger tank on the side or even better in the rear, you could kill it.

16 of 17: Having a heavy tank is great, but if it doesn't work when your track brakes and you now have an expensive pillbox with poorly trained infantry inside.

17 of 17: We're curious to hear what some meat-eating tankers (@PatDonahoeArmy, @TomHeartsTanks, @CavRTK) have to say.

That is a great point, but my point is that they would have been unable to maximize terrain in the enormous, slow, heavy Tiger tanks. They ended up with a tank advantage