tiger and panther are great engineering achievement at that time..its just that from factory it will go directly in the battlefield to be use without other test...
and yes its effectiveness can be seen in its amazing kill ratio against m4 sherman and t34
The Tigers and Panthers fought a losing battle. They were flawed design's . The Sherman is put down as a defective design but it was a war winning tank. Only General Leslie MacNair kept the Shermans from being upgunned and uparmored to face the German armor head to head. The Sherman was an excellent design. It was fast, easier to maintain, easier to repair and rarely broke down. The M-36B showed it could carry the 90mm. Still gotta love the big Cats.
Armchair generals world wide consider the Tiger to be an overengineered piece of shit. However anyone with common sense sitting in a WWII tank will hate to be on the recieving end of its main gun.
It is not generally considered a piece of shit. Just a relativly poor alocation of limited resources. In general the Nazi's had no straigic plan, Hitler had no grasp of logistics which is what the command of mechanized forces requiers. The Tiger 1 and 2 and the panther were amazing technical achievments.they however were not as stratigically valuble as the T-34 or Sherman. and yes to be on the other end of one was a bad place to be.
The Nazis. Their ideology sucks, but boy, their technology was totally badass. They probably would've won too if Hitler hadn't micromanaged everything and vetoed his generals.
Was placing tank units near the beach or far inland the only options? Was there no middle position? Close to the beach, German tank units would probably be degraded by allied naval and air support. Too far inland and they lack the strength to repel an entrenched beachhead. They probably should have placed tanks just outside naval gun range, and put more emphasis on air defense and surface to surface rockets
allied and russian soldiers were very brave to go against such a powerful weapon you have to give it to them they got some serious balls, this tank seems indestuctable and they still brought the fight to them and won !!!
T-6 and T-5 were very good anti-tank weapons but all other aspects of generating a lot of questions. It seems to me that the German tank forces retain their quality and professionalism to the end of the war.
Tiger was especially good in the defeat of targets at long range in the melee he loses that advantage. Whether it was possible to hit the target at a distance of 2-3 km, while a tool is allowed? I think it could do, not all experienced soldiers. An enemy tank at a distance was barely visible goal. And if the tank is moving towards? Even more difficult. It's all pretty relative.
What drivel! No SS Panzer Divisions had Tigers in 1944! The three SS heavy tank companies had been amalgamated into the 101st Sch.Pz .Abt in March 1944.
There were 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th SS Panzer Divisions present. None had Tigers.
1st, 2nd, 9th and 12th all had PzIV, Panther in the Pz.Rgt. 9th had two companies in the II Abt equipped with StuGs.
10th had one Pz.Abt with two companies of PzIV and two of StuG.
The best published work on this action is Villers-Bocage Through The Lens by Daniel Taylor.
Superb photographs.
If you want to know about the morning action on June 13th, the German units present were six Tigers from 2. Kompanie, sPz.Abt. 503.
Ustuf. Hantusch (Tiger 221), Uscha. Stief (234), Uscha. Sowa (222), Oscha. Brendt (223), Oscha. Loetztsch (233). There was an additional Tiger (211) belonging to Ostuf. Wessel but this had gone off to contact Panzer Lehr.
@zero00tolerance Rommel was a man,he couldnt make fuel for tanks,10000 planes for defend the sky or brain and courage against hitler for high command...in my opinion we defeated ourselfes..with stupidity and our great military tradition and skills wasted/misused for people that werent worth a bullet. read the orders they gave..its like a comedy....paid with blood of greatest soldiers.blomberg and fritsch should have killed hitler and his scums. to raise our honor,that we deserve!
That familiar scene in 1:51 -> is weird. The Tigers do not look like real tigers.The tracks, outer roadwheels (5 instead of 4), the chassis, the turret... something is wrong here...
@aaKonda You are correct. The mock-up used in some scenes is from Hollywood movies. It's a T-34 chassis with plywood and fiberglass for the hull and turret. Not a bad replica though, for movies. Better than movies that use M-48's and M-60's for German tanks, like in "Patton".
the allies should have captured a Tiger and made a knockoff version in greater numbers during the war instead of just ripping off all the german designs post-war.
i used a tank i made from wood, school seat, some rop, gutter piping and a lawn mower engine in iraq as a private contractor. i would masturbate excessively while dropping IED`s on Iraqis and shooting off home made bullets with britney spears pictures on them (shock and awe value there), I had a philosophy `If its arab, its a terrorist`. God bless my service to all of mankind !
i sell made in japan guitars so email me if you want to buy one at a high price.
Anyone truly interested in WW2 Armored warfare on the western front should really read "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. It's an unbiased memoir, almost a day by day diary of the US 3rd Armored Division. It's worth the few hours to read and makes you really sympathize with the M4 Sherman crews that had to fight against the vastly superior German Tigers and Panthers. The Allies won by sheer numbers and field improvisation. We, and the Soviets paid dearly in blood to beat the Germans!
My 2 great-uncles died in Russia...one in Stalingrad thanks to Hitler's "cuckoo's-land" as Rommel described it. The other was captured in N.Africa and sent to Texas, of which he had fond memories in '77 my Dad described.
I personally think that Erwin Rommel's tactic to keep them as near to the beaches as possible while still keeping them safe is better to repel the invasion.
I don't like the idea of Runstedt (sorry for spelling) of placing them once the location of the landings are known. It would mean that the invasion forces are probably breaking through the lines already, they would just contain something uncontainable.
Erwin's plans are better since it will try to repel the invasion in it's weakest state.
I personally think that was the best strategy too. If you attempt to beat the Allies once they hold a deep beachhead/bridgehaed your going to loose everytime.
well to be honest i like the first idea, cause if you know where the invasion is "primarily" located, you could send all the battle groups and annihilate the enemy, considering the beach guard stalled the allies long enough. If you put the tanks close together with the beach it meant that allied ships could attack and the tanks could be destroyed much easier than if they were in a group
@kingtiger88 you all forget usaaf.....some divisions lost about 40 percent of vehicles on way to invasion.And if divisions would have been close to beach,then USAAF + Guns of 5000 ships...anyway we would have lost.too less men,too less ressources and too much fronts.we had quality,that gave us 2 more years time to die and get bombed the shit out.
If we only had invasion to repel and no russia..or other way...we would have won,no doubt for me.But germany anyway ,as people, would have lost ALSO
von rundstedt had a good tactic because there where reserves in france and if hitler did not take a nap there would be panzers already there at morning. While allies are on the beaches but they came only in the afternoon early evening.
@SchwarzeProminence I disagree. Panzers are best when kept mobile. If kept near the beaches where there were allied paratroopers, air and naval support, the panzers would have been wiped out early in the battle. Then France would be wide open for the allies to attack Germany. It was better to keep them out of range and in reserve to be used to counter-attack. The problem was the way Hitler had organized his Army so there was chaos in the D-Day as to who would control the panzers.
@SchwarzeProminence there is one more reason on top of the ones you counted. By 1944 germans had a terrible fuel supply, so by placing tanks like tigers and king tigers close to beach, they had a very short way to travel. By holding them back in pools to deploy them later at critical points, they have a very long way to travel, requiring refueling, which they did not have. Remember Rommel at Alamein, split his panzer force in 2 for the same reason.
Well im unsure, the tanks would not be very effective so that they can make a decisive role in the beach landings. I mean do you imagine Tiger Tanks along the beaches firing at allied landing boats and infantry or even ships?
For that role the costal armour was made, the tiger tanks mobility is getting useless if they just have to stand tehre and spray fire on the landing troops. I think its better to let them in the backland and strike against enemy tank forces inland.
Most countries regarded tanks merely a tracked transporter for (then) stationary artilery - to cross trnches, nothing more.
Especially the americans needed a tank that could be shipped across the atlantic in large numbers - hence the relatively light Shermans.
The Brits caught on faster due to the experiences in africa, but fought in the war department over different designs for too long. The soviets had to produce a mass product with half their available ressources already cut off
T-34 in 1941 I agree, but Germans had a lot better tanks from 1943-45. The Panther, Tiger and the King Tiger were far superior to IS-2, which might have had a potent armor a powerful gun, it was clumsy and the gun had a VERY slow fire rate.
They perhaps had some tanks that were better then the soviets, but on the whole the soviets were equal. And the did have LOTS more of them. The first IS-2 version had a slow gun but it got a better one later on.
Yes they had some tanks that were better than the Soviets. And on the whole, Soviets werent equal, the average quality of the tanks were lower in the late war, the quality and experience of the crews were far inferior.Their tank tactics generally werent so effective. The only thing they had, was massive numerical superiority. The T-34 was an excellent tank, but when commanded by inexperienced crews with red wave tactics did not give the results they coudl have.
You should read up on Operation Bagration. The Soviets were definately superior the Germans in conceling the offensive. They had a very good Operational plan who just rolled the Germans over. The Soviets put their tanks to good use against German Infantry cause the germans had too few tanks. Sometimes its better to have 5 medium tanks then 1 good. As the Germans learned the hard way....
haha very bad comparison: at this time germany had moost of his tanks at the invasion front, despite of that, the Heeresgruppe Mitte at all had only 3 panzer divisions with nearly 100 tanks. And now the soviet came, with million of soldiers, 10thounds of tanks, artelleriy and planes and you think thats a good operational plan? hahaha you make me laugh dude, the germans were completly exhajusted, nearly without any tanks, anti-tank gns and artellery. thats a fact, read books!
Well the tanks on the easternfront were concentrated in south where they thought the soviets would attack. Why attack the opponents strong side when you can go for the soft spot? The germans did this too with their "blitzkrieg" using speed to defeat less "speedier" units. 1 medium tank is as good as a heavy tank at the right place. Now if you place 10 medium tanks at the right place you get outstanding results,,,
dude u forget, that the reich fought at that time on 4 fronts at the same time! on the south fron with the 10th and 14th army against the allies, at the invasion front (westfront), at the eastfront against russia and at the homefront, wehre day and night the anglo-americans bombers destryed completyl city after city.
Those other fronts you talk about were very small compared by the eastern front. The airwar over germany though ate up the whole of Luftwaffe and forced Germany to build lots of Flak instead of tanks.
the other fronts where small? Did u read books? Cause of the invasion of Italy in 43, the germans had to stop the attack of Kurs and gave lots of Panzergreandier and Panzerdivisions to italy, included the Leibstandarte Panzer Division, the Wehrmacht in Italy was exellently mobilizied, with exellent Divisions. In Italy the wehrmacht had up 28 Divison, so what the fuck are u talking about?
btw: you mentioned the fact, that the wehrmacht had "concentraded" their tank "forces" in the south: very funny thing, cause even if they conetrated their whole panzerforces at one point at the medium front, they wouldn't got more than 1200 tanks ans stugs. the soviet had at only one front (u know, that they had many front sectors) way, way, way more than that. so PLS don't bring the word "taktics and russia" in one sentance. thx
Well if you build expensive and complicated tanks not geared toward massproduction you end up with less tanks, right? Its no point in having good tanks if they are not there when needed. German tactics at that time were influenced by Hitler. The No retreat order hurt the germans alot in Bagration. No if the Soviets had bad tactics why did they win at Moscow 41, Stalingrad 42, Kursk 43, Bagration(Minsk) 44 and Berlin 45?
are u kidding me? Moscow 41? Did u ever read a history book? What where the great tactics of russia? The wehrmacht came until 15km near to moscow, without any winter clothes, no reserves and fought against fresh troops from siberia that were exellented equipped for the winter war. Kurk 43?
Kursk 43? I hope u know, that cause of the agents and spions the russian knew lots of month before the attack Zitadelle, WHERE the germans will attack? They knew it until february/march 43 and so built at the Kursk/orel front sector a defense line who was 300KM of breadth. DESPITE of all this facts the german, who had much less tanks, soldiers, artelleriy etc. pp could fuck the Russians. At the end of operation Zitadell the Russians had lots more casualtys (tanks, soldiers destroyed, dead)
Thats why the Red army opened 2 simultaneous new offensives at Belgarod and spreading south, causing the collapse of the hagen line and the crossing of the Dneipr a relatively short time later? A strategic defeat.
Even with the fact, that they ecactly knew where the wehrmacht will attac, even with the fact, that they had much more soldiers, tanks, artellery, more planes, EVEN all these facts, they loss much more tanks, soldiers, planes, artelleriy. Look at the casualtys of Operation Zitadelle Battle of Kurs and compare it with the losses of the wehrmacht :).
And Berlin 45: Are u kidding me? In berlin 45, the germans had no tanks, only child-soldiers and depsite of that Berlin had been a cemetery forrussa
I dont feel that we are getting anywhere. We obviously think quite differently. I´ll give you that in smallunit tactics and a bit larger the germans were generally superior their opponents. Strategywise and in the Diplomacydepartment they were really bad and alot of that is mr Adolf´s fault. My point is that Germany must have done something wrong cause did loose the war. What did they do wrong then despite their superior tactics?
Königstiger does not mean "King Tiger" it was a mistake by the allies, I don't know what "König" means though (Google it?) but the name "King Tiger" was never changed. Panzers: Panzer I Panzer II Panzer III Panzer IV Panzer V ( "Panther" ) Panzer VI ( "Tiger" ) Panzer VIb ( "Königstiger" ) Panzer VII ( "Löwe" ) Panzer VIII ( "Maus" )
The Löwe was never built. And there was also Panzer IX and Panzer X but they were not any actuall blueprints for them, just Drawings. Then we have the Rattle Pz1000 and monster Pz 1500
@Necroimpaler2 The Panzerkampfwagen IV (4) was an entirely different tank, going through modifications and upgrades throughout the war as Pzkw IV E, F2, G, and H.
The Tiger was the Panzerkampfwagen VI (6) with the Pzkw VI B (6B) being the Kingtiger.
It is not mentionned but that specific "over-hit" tiger suffered from any caliber hit -not only heavy 75 mm from tanks, but from anti-tanks rifle, etc..
It's yet a performance that was cited in Tiger manuals after that!
This is a great series. Thanks for posting them. Even as a kid growing up in America I was fascinated by WWII tanks, especially the German's because they were the best, excepting the mighty T-34.
Finns captured from Russians ore Soviets as we call them. thei were delivered to Lend and lease program. There are in Finnish collectors hands Thompsons ehich are captured.
It may very well be a Thompson, a lend and lease material. If you recognize it, e.g. from wood under barrel and straight magazine it should be that one. InPPSh-41 the magazine was a little curved. There are in Finnish collections Thompsons which Finnsh captured from Soviets in 1944 fightings. What else could they be than lend & lease?
that is the PPSh-41. The first was the Winter War with Finland in 1939-1940 when the Finns used submachine guns with devastating effect during close combat in the forests, and the second was the German invasion of 1941 when the Russians lost in the retreats both huge quantities of small arms and much of their engineering capability. There then arose an urgent demand for a light and simple weapon capable of a high volume of fire, and the answer to this was the PPSh-41
It only looked strange in a Soviet film but I wanted some comment. Interesting if it is because they would obviously have to have .45 caliber ammunition as well. US supplied a lot for a while but I've never seen a Thompson in film--I'm sure they didn't advertise foreign equipment in films.
Who knows? WW2 was all about development, countries captured others technology to learn of their pros and cons, like the tanks. Maybe the Soviets picked up the gun. =]
Even though the design of the tiger predates the idea of sloping armor, its armor was so tough that allied tanks couldnt pierce it. Allso its gun and targeting equipment were far superior compare to both the russian and allied forces. Yet..these superior tanks where diffucult to produce.. ww2 germany had a habit of egineering cutting edge weaponry but not being able to produce enough to turn the tide.
not all the ss, the elgemaine ss(spelling), totenkompf and death squads yea, but not all formations.
besides most of the army had already broken the german tradition of ethics due to the prior civil war, the nazis that didnt courtmartial enough of their own guys, etc etc...
Here, here, my good sir! How very true the saying, "while every SS was a German, not every German was an SS." May Erwin Rommel's immortal soul rest peacefully in Heaven.
The SS had about 840 000 men at the end of war. It had volunteers of several european, occupied countries, ( SS-Division Nederland, SS-Division"Skanderbeg", Albanian a.o.)
IDIOT. another armchair Nazi watching movies and looking at footage. If you had relatives caught up in that slaughter as i did (SS Viking Division) and watched as an old man cryed like a baby as he re-called, it would make you think hard about what you say.
That last message was for "netfoo" and "spw488"..... you think the SS were cool or something? had you been there they would probibly have murdered you and your families for fun.
This Otto Carius account of his ordeal is somewhat different than that in his book, "Tigers in the Mud". He was actually reconnoitering on a motorcycle because his kubel was being used elswhere. His orderly was driving and he was in the sidecar. That is when he was taken under fire from a MG. His orderly refused to leave and only another infantry officer who he met on the way told his tanks where he was.
Otto Carius.. I knew he was still alive but never saw him. This is great footage , thank's for posting. If you got a chance, make a Google Search of Otto Carius and read his combat stories, absolutly amazing.
3:09 that is insane
PeazyG420 2 weeks ago
tiger and panther are great engineering achievement at that time..its just that from factory it will go directly in the battlefield to be use without other test...
and yes its effectiveness can be seen in its amazing kill ratio against m4 sherman and t34
acefarbringer 1 month ago
The Tigers and Panthers fought a losing battle. They were flawed design's . The Sherman is put down as a defective design but it was a war winning tank. Only General Leslie MacNair kept the Shermans from being upgunned and uparmored to face the German armor head to head. The Sherman was an excellent design. It was fast, easier to maintain, easier to repair and rarely broke down. The M-36B showed it could carry the 90mm. Still gotta love the big Cats.
scottduncan44 1 month ago
oh that wacky corporal is at it again with meddeling
the82spartans 1 month ago
Man the glory days of the history channel............now we got ice road truckers.........
ThePlaidFace 3 months ago
Fake tiger in the coloured film !!!!!!!! Look at the wheel, no overleaping
alvincenthanoi 3 months ago
I think tiger tank is the German best tank in Japanese games.
I was helped in games many times by tiger tank:D
and
I hear that T-34 was a good tank:)
CanoniX5000 5 months ago
Armchair generals world wide consider the Tiger to be an overengineered piece of shit. However anyone with common sense sitting in a WWII tank will hate to be on the recieving end of its main gun.
nomnomripper 5 months ago 15
@nomnomripper Just look at how many tanks the Tiger's destroyed compared to the amount they lost.
Also, the psychological effect the Tiger had on its enemies was immense, while at the same time giving the feeling of invincibility to its own crew.
sinistergnr 3 months ago 2
@nomnomripper
It is not generally considered a piece of shit. Just a relativly poor alocation of limited resources. In general the Nazi's had no straigic plan, Hitler had no grasp of logistics which is what the command of mechanized forces requiers. The Tiger 1 and 2 and the panther were amazing technical achievments.they however were not as stratigically valuble as the T-34 or Sherman. and yes to be on the other end of one was a bad place to be.
scottduncan44 1 month ago
The Nazis. Their ideology sucks, but boy, their technology was totally badass. They probably would've won too if Hitler hadn't micromanaged everything and vetoed his generals.
gameragodzilla 6 months ago
@gameragodzilla You don't know shit about ideology, i suggest you read the protocols of zion.
Capitancanguro1 1 month ago
Correction: Otto Carius destroyed over 150 allied tanks, not over 100 as incorrectly stated in this documentary!
haiherosner 6 months ago
Your life expectancy was much much better in a Tiger Tank vs any other tank in WW2, if you wanted to live longer in war, you chose a Tiger.
haiherosner 7 months ago
Was placing tank units near the beach or far inland the only options? Was there no middle position? Close to the beach, German tank units would probably be degraded by allied naval and air support. Too far inland and they lack the strength to repel an entrenched beachhead. They probably should have placed tanks just outside naval gun range, and put more emphasis on air defense and surface to surface rockets
zulubro 7 months ago
5:52 german with a thompson
pipasasas 8 months ago
allied and russian soldiers were very brave to go against such a powerful weapon you have to give it to them they got some serious balls, this tank seems indestuctable and they still brought the fight to them and won !!!
Budweed1989 9 months ago
That Soviet soldier at 5:54 looks like one f***ing tough dude, with half his face shot away.
deino117 10 months ago
Real Otto Carius:)
AdamPL123 11 months ago
T-6 and T-5 were very good anti-tank weapons but all other aspects of generating a lot of questions. It seems to me that the German tank forces retain their quality and professionalism to the end of the war.
Imprudentman 11 months ago
Comment removed
Imprudentman 11 months ago
Great documentary, thanks for uploading.
I love how they look at even the morale aspects, like how the crew could sleep.
best doc i've seen, not just the technical shit. war is so much more
Assaultpredator 1 year ago
Tiger was especially good in the defeat of targets at long range in the melee he loses that advantage. Whether it was possible to hit the target at a distance of 2-3 km, while a tool is allowed? I think it could do, not all experienced soldiers. An enemy tank at a distance was barely visible goal. And if the tank is moving towards? Even more difficult. It's all pretty relative.
Imprudentman 1 year ago
TIGER WAS THE BEST THAT EVER WAS ! THE KILL MORE TANKS THEN ANY OTHER TANKS !
AND THAT WHY IS THE BEST AND PLEASE NOT TALK ABOUT t34 that tank suck think about it would you like to be in a t34 vs a TIGER 1 or KING TIGER! lol
nyguy88A 1 year ago
What drivel! No SS Panzer Divisions had Tigers in 1944! The three SS heavy tank companies had been amalgamated into the 101st Sch.Pz .Abt in March 1944.
There were 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th SS Panzer Divisions present. None had Tigers.
1st, 2nd, 9th and 12th all had PzIV, Panther in the Pz.Rgt. 9th had two companies in the II Abt equipped with StuGs.
10th had one Pz.Abt with two companies of PzIV and two of StuG.
Wien1938 1 year ago
@Wien1938 what abot wittman and his unit at villers bocage?
rdsalty 1 year ago
@rdsalty
The best published work on this action is Villers-Bocage Through The Lens by Daniel Taylor.
Superb photographs.
If you want to know about the morning action on June 13th, the German units present were six Tigers from 2. Kompanie, sPz.Abt. 503.
Ustuf. Hantusch (Tiger 221), Uscha. Stief (234), Uscha. Sowa (222), Oscha. Brendt (223), Oscha. Loetztsch (233). There was an additional Tiger (211) belonging to Ostuf. Wessel but this had gone off to contact Panzer Lehr.
Wien1938 1 year ago
@rdsalty
Of these six Tigers, Loetzsch's Tiger had a damaged track and Stief's engine was overheating and sounding very rough from the march to Normandy.
Ten miles east were ten Tigers from 1. Kompanie. 3. Kompanie were two days away at Falaise.
Do you want any more info?
Wien1938 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wien1938 what abot wittman and his unit at villers bocage?
rdsalty 1 year ago
5:44 until 5:52
Watch the soliders and their euipment. The first has a MP40, the second a K98k and the third a M1 A1 Thompson. Their helmets seem to be American M1.
Very rare fotage of americans using primarily german equipment =)
JSLegoMaster 1 year ago
Otto carius Is A fucking super hero.
imaddictedtowow112 1 year ago
From 6:22 - 6:35 is footage of Michael Wittman, greatest tank Ace of Germany and all of WWII.
biggee316 1 year ago
the Total amount of produced Tiger I was 1350 tanks not more!!!
The Tiger II (Koenigstiger) has the amount of 485 Tanks!! Thats all!!
From Panther, we know that all factorys in the Reich produced the amount of 6800 Tanks and 2000 derivate
soibon 1 year ago
the Total amount of produced Tiger I was 1350 tanks not more!!!
The Tiger II (Koenigstiger) has the amount of 485 Tanks!! Thats all!!
soibon 1 year ago
otto is a beast! lol
btar93 1 year ago
WHY OH WHY didnt they listen to Rommel the DESERT FOX !!
zero00tolerance 1 year ago
@zero00tolerance Rommel was a man,he couldnt make fuel for tanks,10000 planes for defend the sky or brain and courage against hitler for high command...in my opinion we defeated ourselfes..with stupidity and our great military tradition and skills wasted/misused for people that werent worth a bullet. read the orders they gave..its like a comedy....paid with blood of greatest soldiers.blomberg and fritsch should have killed hitler and his scums. to raise our honor,that we deserve!
wilhelmspw 1 year ago
That familiar scene in 1:51 -> is weird. The Tigers do not look like real tigers.The tracks, outer roadwheels (5 instead of 4), the chassis, the turret... something is wrong here...
aaKonda 1 year ago
@aaKonda You are correct. The mock-up used in some scenes is from Hollywood movies. It's a T-34 chassis with plywood and fiberglass for the hull and turret. Not a bad replica though, for movies. Better than movies that use M-48's and M-60's for German tanks, like in "Patton".
tmont007 11 months ago
@tmont007 LOL, they used M47s, not M60s. Notice how the turret appears, and the hull MG! M47 Pattons are also used in "Battle of the Bulge".
MHXDownfall 11 months ago
@MHXDownfall ok.. my bad.M-47
tmont007 11 months ago
pitty that these documentaries always use dubbing instead of subtitles!
nubunator2 1 year ago
Tiger tanks had more than 9 lives!
AccordGTR 1 year ago 10
the allies should have captured a Tiger and made a knockoff version in greater numbers during the war instead of just ripping off all the german designs post-war.
aliensexgangchildren 1 year ago
german bastards!
skinni45 1 year ago
us suck
ssarmyteenjerries 1 year ago
i used a tank i made from wood, school seat, some rop, gutter piping and a lawn mower engine in iraq as a private contractor. i would masturbate excessively while dropping IED`s on Iraqis and shooting off home made bullets with britney spears pictures on them (shock and awe value there), I had a philosophy `If its arab, its a terrorist`. God bless my service to all of mankind !
i sell made in japan guitars so email me if you want to buy one at a high price.
iamdiaperman 1 year ago
very curious!! to retire two tank divisions
from a front which is almost breaking...
to save the sense of "honour"?
I have the impression....the historians
tell us a lot of colourful tales.
I would like to hear the russian version.
alfrismar 2 years ago
Anyone truly interested in WW2 Armored warfare on the western front should really read "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. It's an unbiased memoir, almost a day by day diary of the US 3rd Armored Division. It's worth the few hours to read and makes you really sympathize with the M4 Sherman crews that had to fight against the vastly superior German Tigers and Panthers. The Allies won by sheer numbers and field improvisation. We, and the Soviets paid dearly in blood to beat the Germans!
randy95023 2 years ago 2
@randy95023 We also had airpower and artillery to take the better German tanks out
jakefree25 2 years ago
Also the destruction of AGC in June 1944 was crap Soviet tactics again? Oh please.
5000433 2 years ago
My 2 great-uncles died in Russia...one in Stalingrad thanks to Hitler's "cuckoo's-land" as Rommel described it. The other was captured in N.Africa and sent to Texas, of which he had fond memories in '77 my Dad described.
OldVoice 2 years ago
my father fought in russia and france and holland and on the borders of germany
smithwicks1ale 2 years ago
my granfather knocked out a tiger with a british tankete.
patsyd80 2 years ago
How did they ever lose?
thegafferlives 2 years ago 2
Yep that is the question. They say that Gemany lost the war against SU, but that they won the History of the Eastern Front.
arveduilastking 2 years ago
3:46 That was Spoutnik, the first satellite sent into space by the Russians. What few people know is that it was a T-34 turret.
ivanlagrossemoule 2 years ago 2
Yes, tiger tank design looks batter than allies
tanks design,including my lovely T34. But why I HATE so much this "beauty" and survived crew of it ?
deCaravagio 2 years ago
I personally think that Erwin Rommel's tactic to keep them as near to the beaches as possible while still keeping them safe is better to repel the invasion.
I don't like the idea of Runstedt (sorry for spelling) of placing them once the location of the landings are known. It would mean that the invasion forces are probably breaking through the lines already, they would just contain something uncontainable.
Erwin's plans are better since it will try to repel the invasion in it's weakest state.
SchwarzeProminence 2 years ago 24
I personally think that was the best strategy too. If you attempt to beat the Allies once they hold a deep beachhead/bridgehaed your going to loose everytime.
kingtiger88 2 years ago 10
well to be honest i like the first idea, cause if you know where the invasion is "primarily" located, you could send all the battle groups and annihilate the enemy, considering the beach guard stalled the allies long enough. If you put the tanks close together with the beach it meant that allied ships could attack and the tanks could be destroyed much easier than if they were in a group
MrDesiballer 2 years ago
x3 , the more firepower the stronger the defense
MetalDrummer1974 2 years ago
@kingtiger88 you all forget usaaf.....some divisions lost about 40 percent of vehicles on way to invasion.And if divisions would have been close to beach,then USAAF + Guns of 5000 ships...anyway we would have lost.too less men,too less ressources and too much fronts.we had quality,that gave us 2 more years time to die and get bombed the shit out.
If we only had invasion to repel and no russia..or other way...we would have won,no doubt for me.But germany anyway ,as people, would have lost ALSO
wilhelmspw 1 year ago
@kingtiger88 This is a moot point. If you don't control the battlefield air-space all else is futile.
130panzerlehr 7 months ago
@kingtiger88
von rundstedt had a good tactic because there where reserves in france and if hitler did not take a nap there would be panzers already there at morning. While allies are on the beaches but they came only in the afternoon early evening.
loewie3007 6 months ago
@SchwarzeProminence I disagree. Panzers are best when kept mobile. If kept near the beaches where there were allied paratroopers, air and naval support, the panzers would have been wiped out early in the battle. Then France would be wide open for the allies to attack Germany. It was better to keep them out of range and in reserve to be used to counter-attack. The problem was the way Hitler had organized his Army so there was chaos in the D-Day as to who would control the panzers.
AccordGTR 1 year ago
@SchwarzeProminence there is one more reason on top of the ones you counted. By 1944 germans had a terrible fuel supply, so by placing tanks like tigers and king tigers close to beach, they had a very short way to travel. By holding them back in pools to deploy them later at critical points, they have a very long way to travel, requiring refueling, which they did not have. Remember Rommel at Alamein, split his panzer force in 2 for the same reason.
Zamolxes77 1 year ago
Well im unsure, the tanks would not be very effective so that they can make a decisive role in the beach landings. I mean do you imagine Tiger Tanks along the beaches firing at allied landing boats and infantry or even ships?
For that role the costal armour was made, the tiger tanks mobility is getting useless if they just have to stand tehre and spray fire on the landing troops. I think its better to let them in the backland and strike against enemy tank forces inland.
JSLegoMaster 1 year ago
@SchwarzeProminence
Also Rommel had practical experience when going against allied air superiority and air domination.
PanterausfG 1 year ago
@SchwarzeProminence as long as the allies had air superiority, it would had matter im afraid......
norwayitalo 6 months ago
The beauty of German engineering baby!
A Tiger tank hit 227 times in a single engagement and was still functional!?
It is unbelievable! Amazing!
SchwarzeProminence 2 years ago
Most countries regarded tanks merely a tracked transporter for (then) stationary artilery - to cross trnches, nothing more.
Especially the americans needed a tank that could be shipped across the atlantic in large numbers - hence the relatively light Shermans.
The Brits caught on faster due to the experiences in africa, but fought in the war department over different designs for too long. The soviets had to produce a mass product with half their available ressources already cut off
bogomir67 2 years ago
im sure shipping was not the problem, americans made the super heavy m26 later in the war with had better armament then the tiger
MrDesiballer 2 years ago
What the hell is that thing flying up at 3.47???
sebbbo77 2 years ago
a russian T -34 Turret...probably with 1 of those inbreds head in it...Cheers
hockeydudeluv 2 years ago
that's a T-34 turret...ouch!!
bullviii 2 years ago
Don't ever knock the germans.... they were TOP engineers producing TOP quality gear.
sebbbo77 2 years ago 30
not TOP. T34 and KV-1 best tank from 1941-1942. 1944-1945 t34/85 and IS-2. Russia had some quality armor too.
RedPower012 2 years ago
T-34 in 1941 I agree, but Germans had a lot better tanks from 1943-45. The Panther, Tiger and the King Tiger were far superior to IS-2, which might have had a potent armor a powerful gun, it was clumsy and the gun had a VERY slow fire rate.
aaKonda 2 years ago
They perhaps had some tanks that were better then the soviets, but on the whole the soviets were equal. And the did have LOTS more of them. The first IS-2 version had a slow gun but it got a better one later on.
arveduilastking 2 years ago
Yes they had some tanks that were better than the Soviets. And on the whole, Soviets werent equal, the average quality of the tanks were lower in the late war, the quality and experience of the crews were far inferior.Their tank tactics generally werent so effective. The only thing they had, was massive numerical superiority. The T-34 was an excellent tank, but when commanded by inexperienced crews with red wave tactics did not give the results they coudl have.
aaKonda 2 years ago
You should read up on Operation Bagration. The Soviets were definately superior the Germans in conceling the offensive. They had a very good Operational plan who just rolled the Germans over. The Soviets put their tanks to good use against German Infantry cause the germans had too few tanks. Sometimes its better to have 5 medium tanks then 1 good. As the Germans learned the hard way....
arveduilastking 2 years ago 2
haha very bad comparison: at this time germany had moost of his tanks at the invasion front, despite of that, the Heeresgruppe Mitte at all had only 3 panzer divisions with nearly 100 tanks. And now the soviet came, with million of soldiers, 10thounds of tanks, artelleriy and planes and you think thats a good operational plan? hahaha you make me laugh dude, the germans were completly exhajusted, nearly without any tanks, anti-tank gns and artellery. thats a fact, read books!
mathiehesse 2 years ago
Well the tanks on the easternfront were concentrated in south where they thought the soviets would attack. Why attack the opponents strong side when you can go for the soft spot? The germans did this too with their "blitzkrieg" using speed to defeat less "speedier" units. 1 medium tank is as good as a heavy tank at the right place. Now if you place 10 medium tanks at the right place you get outstanding results,,,
arveduilastking 2 years ago
dude u forget, that the reich fought at that time on 4 fronts at the same time! on the south fron with the 10th and 14th army against the allies, at the invasion front (westfront), at the eastfront against russia and at the homefront, wehre day and night the anglo-americans bombers destryed completyl city after city.
mathiehesse 2 years ago
Those other fronts you talk about were very small compared by the eastern front. The airwar over germany though ate up the whole of Luftwaffe and forced Germany to build lots of Flak instead of tanks.
arveduilastking 2 years ago
the other fronts where small? Did u read books? Cause of the invasion of Italy in 43, the germans had to stop the attack of Kurs and gave lots of Panzergreandier and Panzerdivisions to italy, included the Leibstandarte Panzer Division, the Wehrmacht in Italy was exellently mobilizied, with exellent Divisions. In Italy the wehrmacht had up 28 Divison, so what the fuck are u talking about?
mathiehesse 2 years ago
@arveduilastking True, if they put those guns and planes on the Eastern Front, they would have ate up the Russian armor
jakefree25 2 years ago
btw: you mentioned the fact, that the wehrmacht had "concentraded" their tank "forces" in the south: very funny thing, cause even if they conetrated their whole panzerforces at one point at the medium front, they wouldn't got more than 1200 tanks ans stugs. the soviet had at only one front (u know, that they had many front sectors) way, way, way more than that. so PLS don't bring the word "taktics and russia" in one sentance. thx
mathiehesse 2 years ago
Well if you build expensive and complicated tanks not geared toward massproduction you end up with less tanks, right? Its no point in having good tanks if they are not there when needed. German tactics at that time were influenced by Hitler. The No retreat order hurt the germans alot in Bagration. No if the Soviets had bad tactics why did they win at Moscow 41, Stalingrad 42, Kursk 43, Bagration(Minsk) 44 and Berlin 45?
arveduilastking 2 years ago
are u kidding me? Moscow 41? Did u ever read a history book? What where the great tactics of russia? The wehrmacht came until 15km near to moscow, without any winter clothes, no reserves and fought against fresh troops from siberia that were exellented equipped for the winter war. Kurk 43?
mathiehesse 2 years ago
Kursk 43? I hope u know, that cause of the agents and spions the russian knew lots of month before the attack Zitadelle, WHERE the germans will attack? They knew it until february/march 43 and so built at the Kursk/orel front sector a defense line who was 300KM of breadth. DESPITE of all this facts the german, who had much less tanks, soldiers, artelleriy etc. pp could fuck the Russians. At the end of operation Zitadell the Russians had lots more casualtys (tanks, soldiers destroyed, dead)
mathiehesse 2 years ago
Thats why the Red army opened 2 simultaneous new offensives at Belgarod and spreading south, causing the collapse of the hagen line and the crossing of the Dneipr a relatively short time later? A strategic defeat.
5000433 2 years ago
Even with the fact, that they ecactly knew where the wehrmacht will attac, even with the fact, that they had much more soldiers, tanks, artellery, more planes, EVEN all these facts, they loss much more tanks, soldiers, planes, artelleriy. Look at the casualtys of Operation Zitadelle Battle of Kurs and compare it with the losses of the wehrmacht :).
And Berlin 45: Are u kidding me? In berlin 45, the germans had no tanks, only child-soldiers and depsite of that Berlin had been a cemetery forrussa
mathiehesse 2 years ago
I dont feel that we are getting anywhere. We obviously think quite differently. I´ll give you that in smallunit tactics and a bit larger the germans were generally superior their opponents. Strategywise and in the Diplomacydepartment they were really bad and alot of that is mr Adolf´s fault. My point is that Germany must have done something wrong cause did loose the war. What did they do wrong then despite their superior tactics?
arveduilastking 2 years ago
@sebbbo77 they still are
stipplegripple 10 months ago
Now that´s quality! Unlike those cheap ass sherman garbage cans
RCRobst3rguy 2 years ago 3
König does mean King!
RCRobst3rguy 2 years ago
ApocDevTeam 2 years ago
The Löwe was never built. And there was also Panzer IX and Panzer X but they were not any actuall blueprints for them, just Drawings. Then we have the Rattle Pz1000 and monster Pz 1500
rifal004 2 years ago
König is the german term for "king".
Duphe 2 years ago
Oh my apologizes. Thought that the Tiger1 was the IV not the VI as Kingtiger88 said.
Necroimpaler2 2 years ago
Isn't the Tiger Panzerkampfwagen IV? Not VI as Kingtiger88 says
Necroimpaler2 2 years ago
Nope VI the VIB is the "king Tiger "
kingtiger88 2 years ago 5
Yes but i didn't meen the Königstiger. Isn't the Tiger1 "panzerkampfwagen IV"?
Necroimpaler2 2 years ago
I will send you an e-mail.
kingtiger88 2 years ago
nope, they are sepparate models, but to an untrained eye them may have similarities
arasaka2020tm 2 years ago
@Necroimpaler2 no i think the 1V was dumbered ie IVd IVG and the tiger was the VI tiger and the VI king tiger
TheitaniofRome 1 year ago
@Necroimpaler2 Panzer I, Panzer II, Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panzer V (panther), Panzer IV 1 (tiger), Panzer IV 2 (King tiger)
ShakaRommel 1 year ago
@Necroimpaler2
Panzer IV is the 75mm medium tank.
Panzer V is the Panther
Panzer VI E is the Tiger.
Panzer VI B is the King Tiger
Wien1938 1 year ago
@Necroimpaler2 IV is mark 4 pzkpfw V is the panther and the tiger is VI (IV = 5-1)
dardo1201 11 months ago
@Necroimpaler2 nope. V is the Panther,VI is the Tiger.
egerhardcore 9 months ago
@Necroimpaler2 The Panzerkampfwagen IV (4) was an entirely different tank, going through modifications and upgrades throughout the war as Pzkw IV E, F2, G, and H.
The Tiger was the Panzerkampfwagen VI (6) with the Pzkw VI B (6B) being the Kingtiger.
peri2502 7 months ago
i believe Konig is the German equivalent of King, hence Konig tiger is Kingtiger
jimmyzen 2 years ago 2
great vids
BubbaMetal 2 years ago
no wonder that allies got their panties full of shit when they saw that powerful amazing weapon xD
badconker83 2 years ago 20
Tiger tank was hit over 200 times? O.o Goodness..
DancinGarou 2 years ago 4
It is not mentionned but that specific "over-hit" tiger suffered from any caliber hit -not only heavy 75 mm from tanks, but from anti-tanks rifle, etc..
It's yet a performance that was cited in Tiger manuals after that!
latexlover888 2 years ago 2
Weird the way the narrator does a russian accent....
Sounds a bit scottish :D
pathammond 2 years ago
it sounds pretty impossible lol but that is 1 fine piece of engineering
onestylinmofo 2 years ago
227 hits and continued on another 40 miles...It really is incredible and very difficult to comprehend.....
swiftshaw 2 years ago 3
Absolutely!
dsjaggers 2 years ago
This is a great series. Thanks for posting them. Even as a kid growing up in America I was fascinated by WWII tanks, especially the German's because they were the best, excepting the mighty T-34.
dsjaggers 2 years ago
These comments are interesting, but what do they have to do with the Tiger Tank??
konigtigertank 2 years ago
At least the comments refer to WW2 and not politics or UFO's or something.lol
kingtiger88 2 years ago
I contuine. Americans delivered the Soviets a huge mass of war equipments. It has been seen in the Finish front.
pinomaus07 2 years ago
Finns captured from Russians ore Soviets as we call them. thei were delivered to Lend and lease program. There are in Finnish collectors hands Thompsons ehich are captured.
pinomaus07 2 years ago
yep, had to be the thompson
TysMx6 2 years ago
It may very well be a Thompson, a lend and lease material. If you recognize it, e.g. from wood under barrel and straight magazine it should be that one. InPPSh-41 the magazine was a little curved. There are in Finnish collections Thompsons which Finnsh captured from Soviets in 1944 fightings. What else could they be than lend & lease?
pinomaus07 2 years ago
tompsons were captures during the invation of france. they used tompsons for truck drivers or armored trains.
88pie88 2 years ago
At exactly 5:53- the Russian infantryman has a Thompson?
PRS3333 3 years ago
thats what it looks like, the americans did give weapons and tanks to the russians in ww2
MomsAccident 3 years ago
that is the PPSh-41. The first was the Winter War with Finland in 1939-1940 when the Finns used submachine guns with devastating effect during close combat in the forests, and the second was the German invasion of 1941 when the Russians lost in the retreats both huge quantities of small arms and much of their engineering capability. There then arose an urgent demand for a light and simple weapon capable of a high volume of fire, and the answer to this was the PPSh-41
xfender4lifex 3 years ago
Definitely not. Wood under the barrel and PPSh-41 had a drum magazine. 5:53 mark has a clip. It's a Thompson.
PRS3333 3 years ago
the PPSh-41 also had a regular magazine as well, not just a drum.
xfender4lifex 3 years ago
but i do see the wood under the barrel, nice catch : )
xfender4lifex 3 years ago
It only looked strange in a Soviet film but I wanted some comment. Interesting if it is because they would obviously have to have .45 caliber ammunition as well. US supplied a lot for a while but I've never seen a Thompson in film--I'm sure they didn't advertise foreign equipment in films.
PRS3333 3 years ago
Who knows? WW2 was all about development, countries captured others technology to learn of their pros and cons, like the tanks. Maybe the Soviets picked up the gun. =]
wangchung008 3 years ago
The tiger used during the reenactments is actually a modified t-34.
poisonx4 3 years ago
Even though the design of the tiger predates the idea of sloping armor, its armor was so tough that allied tanks couldnt pierce it. Allso its gun and targeting equipment were far superior compare to both the russian and allied forces. Yet..these superior tanks where diffucult to produce.. ww2 germany had a habit of egineering cutting edge weaponry but not being able to produce enough to turn the tide.
MalkavianMadness 3 years ago 5
In 6 Hours a Tiger was hit 227 times ! And still alive !!! WTF :D
Pressdrankla81 3 years ago 4
4:25
love that part
shinymarshtop2 3 years ago
not all the ss, the elgemaine ss(spelling), totenkompf and death squads yea, but not all formations.
besides most of the army had already broken the german tradition of ethics due to the prior civil war, the nazis that didnt courtmartial enough of their own guys, etc etc...
DimitrisKs 3 years ago
Russia left geneve convention before 1910 so.....why to treat them like geneve when they slaughter almost any pow?and this from very beginning
spw488 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the SS is the true evil in the war. These guys commited countless tragedies which were all just blamed on the averager german soldier.
ProjectCC 3 years ago
Here, here, my good sir! How very true the saying, "while every SS was a German, not every German was an SS." May Erwin Rommel's immortal soul rest peacefully in Heaven.
netfoo 3 years ago 4
The SS had about 840 000 men at the end of war. It had volunteers of several european, occupied countries, ( SS-Division Nederland, SS-Division"Skanderbeg", Albanian a.o.)
Bodelhamsun 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Didn't rommel fucking kill thousands of innocent people? I think hes in hell...
GrandPimp20 3 years ago
IDIOT. another armchair Nazi watching movies and looking at footage. If you had relatives caught up in that slaughter as i did (SS Viking Division) and watched as an old man cryed like a baby as he re-called, it would make you think hard about what you say.
prunch72 3 years ago
That last message was for "netfoo" and "spw488"..... you think the SS were cool or something? had you been there they would probibly have murdered you and your families for fun.
prunch72 3 years ago
This Otto Carius account of his ordeal is somewhat different than that in his book, "Tigers in the Mud". He was actually reconnoitering on a motorcycle because his kubel was being used elswhere. His orderly was driving and he was in the sidecar. That is when he was taken under fire from a MG. His orderly refused to leave and only another infantry officer who he met on the way told his tanks where he was.
1olddavid 4 years ago
I think the same was written in Panzer Aces II and I also have Tigers in the Mud, but Ive yet to read it..working too much.
EvilFingers 3 years ago
lang lebe der tiger!!!
tomers86 4 years ago
Hail Tigers & King Tigers!...
mattabiko24 4 years ago 2
Hail the Tigers!
toolwerkz 4 years ago
Amazing machine
tiger2tiger06 4 years ago
Otto Carius.. I knew he was still alive but never saw him. This is great footage , thank's for posting. If you got a chance, make a Google Search of Otto Carius and read his combat stories, absolutly amazing.
ExpensionPack 4 years ago 2
My jaw dropped when I first saw him on this video.
kingtiger88 4 years ago
Same here!
FutureWarrior2006 3 years ago
Cool! The tiger one of the best tank in world
friedric 4 years ago
fve stars man
MxwellSlipp 4 years ago
gute panzer 1*
RhastaFlex 4 years ago
Please rate
kingtiger88 4 years ago