Well atleast backthen they got GOODstuff when PAYED much, like TIGER.
Today when noobody cares nothing about anything exept MONEY even you pay 30k for car... wont take even 2weeks when 1st "warninglight" starts blink :( All is shit cause bullshitside what prefers AMOUNT instead QUALITY won. But it will change soon, when pedofilia comes legal, im gonna kill asmuch randomlypeople i can until fucks kill me!
@88Phobos Amount better than quality you say ? A single Tiger would score an average of 6 allied tank kills (in those numbers the Tigers blown by bombers are counted too). Now you tell me, which one is easier to build, one Tiger or six tanks ?
It wasn't the allied tanks who actually defeated the Tigers, it was mostly the allied heavy air superiority combined with the abandonment of Tigers by their own crew after running out of ammo and fuel.
@shadowdancerRFW And the costs ;) The german industry was too low after the heavy bomber-attacks and the war that was longer then the leadership was planning it.
@shadowdancerRFW and mecahnical failure was very high at times only half of all tigers were engaged.. the other half getting fixed. later part like 44-45 the 510 abteilung was down to like two tigers on a total number of 20
@33sscharlemagne And M1 abrams is COPY of tiger after M-60 "panthercopy" Over 50% of abramses are lying broken after iraqs sand... Mostly enginefailures, some blown to pieces by RPG7vl's
Wittmann and his crew died when 007 was destroyed by a Canadian Sherman at a range of less than 300m into the rear left side. See the Youtube article showing how this was accomplished.
The real reason Germans lost is Standard Oil finally stopped selling oil to Germans around 1943 and Rothschilds stopped financing Hitler's war machine and started investing in rusian communism again.
@MomentOFtruth666 If Standard Oil countinued to supply Germany, US would have bombed the fuck out of them in 45. And i mean atomic bombs not the usual crap.
@MomentOFtruth666 Fail!These companys stopped financing him much earlyer. The reason was, that he tried to destroy the russians completely. He banned a whole Heeresgruppe in Leningrad, to kill the whole population. If he just conquered the City, the "Heeresgruppe Nord" were able to fight together with the "Heeresgruppe Mitte" against Moscow and the russians had lost. THEN 3 complete "Heeresgruppen" were be able to fight in France and the allies wouldnt have any chance. No need for fairy-tales...
@HolzbierProductions who says that russia would have capitulated after the loss of moscow.? they should have given up the fight after the kesselschlachten earlier in the year.
stop dreaming germany lost and it is very good that the nazi-bunch of killers were send to hell
@livadi9 If Moscow would have failed, then the russian army would have been greatly affected by the lack of leadership. Cut the head and the body will faulter. Don't you know art of war ? Of course they would have continued guerilla warfare, but Russia would have been defeated. If that happened, then the rest of allies would have been easy pickings.
@shadowdancerRFW you are wrong honeypot, moscow is only a city. without it the russians would have fought even harder. Napoleon made th same mistake earlier than hitler, and napoleons army captured moscow... anyway go on to think what happened if... all praise should go to the heroic red army
the true winning of the war came about from hitlers refusel to allow rommel to move the fifteenth army to normandy as the invasion started, when given the ok it was 3 weeks to late
@ToonandBBfan The British in even early stages of WWII had trouble developing firepower - particularly the 2 pounder which was practically useless when the updated Panzer IV and Tigers took it to the desert war, whilst the 6 pounder had a poor HE performance. First Churchills - they were expecting AT performance rather than HE against infantry and soft targets - hence the 6 pounder sacrificed HE for AT performance. Then they mounted a QF 75mm for better general performance, sacrificing AT.
@ToonandBBfan Also the Churchill had a small turret ring design - to rearm it would mean extensive retooling and design. And as the war progressed there were less German tanks but more bunkers/soft targets/ambush StuG destroyers hence HE was better against soft targets and general performance. And the Allies made the mistake of the 'German tank problem' - thinking Tiger I's and Panthers would be small in number - that was woefully wrong when they realized there were more Panthers in Normandy!
@ToonandBBfan Also the Churchill had a small turret ring design - to rearm it would mean extensive retooling and design. And as the war progressed there were less German tanks but more bunkers/soft targets/ambush StuG destroyers hence HE was better against soft targets and general performance. And the Allies made the mistake of the 'German tank problem' - thinking Tiger I's and Panthers would be small in number - that was woefully wrong when they realized there were more Panthers in Normandy!
They did try to work on the Black Prince and the A34 Challenger as a means to upgrade the Churchill/Cromwell designs with better firepoweer but like the Mayfly Sherman VC 1c hybrid tanks - they were few in number in the early days of Normandy :(
Essentially the QF 75mm was a means for better firepower and good HE performance against infantry and basic targets. It sacrificed AT for better general HE performance. And besides its expensive to test, design and fund a new gun :) Hope this helps.
@ToonandBBfan Of course the QF 17 pounder had its vices; long barrel, huge recoil, flash powder issues and initially poor HE performance, compared to even a QF 75mm gun. The QF 17 pounder also had issues with the APDS - although it could punch theoretically over 200mm of rolled plate at 500 yards it was inaccurate and did not do as good as others in terms of internal damage. The Cromwell had one advantage - SPEED and Maneuvering over the Tiger I and Panther (well if you try to outflank sides)
@ToonandBBfan THe 88mm KwK 36 on the Tiger I was an excellent weapon already - it was accurate and very powerful - almost like a big tank version of the Kar98k Mauser if I may say so. The PaK 43 however was even BETTER and BIGGER - it was a bit of a joke though - you heard of the PaK 36? The 'doorknocker' in France? Well the PaK 43 was the opposite - it was the 'barn door' due to its huge size. But the PaK 43 in the Bengal Tiger, Jagdpanther, Elefant and Nashorn were even better
@ToonandBBfan A muzzle velocity of 1130 metres in the PaK 43/Kwk 43 was superior due to a longer barrel at L71 vs L56 of the Tiger I made it capable of punching well over 230mm of armour at less than 1000 metres if using Panzergranate 40/43 but it was expensive and rarer in WWII. Essentially again both the kwk 36 and the 43 had better accuracy, range, hitting power, AT and damage compared to most Allied tank guns, although bigger calibers like the IS-2's 122mm could deal more HE in a 1-1 shot.
@ToonandBBfan Indeed the PaK 43/41/42 provided a good account of itself in WWII although it was expensive, heavy to maneuver and it could wear out in some early versions - hence later versions had a 2 piece barrel. An excellent gun though - but imagine trying to maneuver ijn tight spots with the long overhanging gun - that would be a tactical disadvantage - the Panther had this problem already in the bocage of Normandy as its 75mm PaK 42 was longer than most other 75mm guns.
@ToonandBBfan I personally prefer the Jagdpanther myself - more mobile plus good armour inherited from the Panther and being able to upgrade its firepower to the PaK 43 88mm gun.
@ToonandBBfan Not to mention there was the Panther where it got some benefits from :) Only problem was... too little and too late - quite surprising that the Jagdpanther - whilst 'heavy' for a TD of its time was surprisingly speedy yet didn't have to sacrifice too much other than a turret to make good of itself compared to the collosal Jagdtiger or Bengal Tiger - considering the Jagdpanther wasn't even 50 tonnes - yet the Tiger's simply increased to almost 70 tonnes in the Jagdtiger...
Any idea whether crews of Jagdpanthers might have been Panther veterans? I'm just wondering thats all or were they more likely to have been veterans form special Panzerjager Abteilungs? As for example the Jagdtiger operators were formerly Elefant operators of the 653 (or was it 654 Panzer Jager Abteilungs). THis is because I was thinking given the Jagdpanther was meant to have similar components to a Panther tank surely veteran crews might get familiar with it if a Panther wasn't available?
I dont know. I suspect not because Jagdpanther was not a tank but more of a mobile SP gun. I heard one case of a Jagdtiger being knocked out when the commander made the idiotic decision of turning the vehicle around in combat (The Jagdtiger got hit up the backside). He obviously was not a Panther veteran! LOL I think Tankers wore black uniforms and StuG III, IV and Jagdpanther/tigers wore grey?
@ToonandBBfan Interesting question! I'm afraid I've not seen any WWII tank upclose and in person yet - nor have I seen pictures of the shells compared to one another I'm afraid - but I reckon its obvious the 88mm was bigger than a 75mm (and I'm talking Tiger I) - if the Jagdpanther had a gun that the Nashorn, Elefant and the Bengal Tiger shared - its obvious the shell of the 88mm PaK 43 was bigger than a TIGER I's shell :S...
The Panther was probably the best overall (cheaper and quicker to make) but Tiger 1 is my favourite. The King Tiger was very good too. All 3 tanks were outstanding for their era
@ToonandBBfan Jagdpanther would have more or less been more cost-effective than all 3 though it may rival the Panther tank (the Panther has a smaller gun whilst Jagdpanther doesn't need a turret). Bengal Tiger - was really due to its size, gun and armor - Bengal Tiger tanks aren't exactly known to be 'super mobile' tanks or the fact they were easy to drive around with.
@ToonandBBfan Tiger I's cost like over 250 K Reichmarks in WWII currency that was very expensive at the time and still expensive by standards of today!
Thanks - does anyone know roughly how much 250,000 Reichmarks would be in todays money? (euro's). The Panther was probably the best all round tank of WW2. Its high velocity 75mm could take out pretty much anything at combat ranges
@ToonandBBfan Well it was said to be comparable to an M1A1 Abrams - I'm roughly quessing over 1 million dollars - after all if you think about it in about 30-40 years or so the Tiger I would be considered a WWII antique/weapon and that would be worth quite abit of money that is the surviving examples - no doubt Bovington's 131 is one :)
@ToonandBBfan Correct! Only one that works and one of the earliest ones captured by the Western Allies in WWII :) - Tiger 131 only had a short time with the Germans when it was captured February '43 :(
@ToonandBBfan Lastly British heavy and cruiser tank prototypes were tested with 3.74 inch or QF 17 pounder - most of these tanks were later abandoned due to priority on the Comet and the famous Centurion tanks :) And henceforth the British later as of today incorporates all 3: Speed, Protection and Armament - in the 1950-1960's the British apparently sacrificed speed for protection and armament. Take the Crusader Cruiser Tank Mark III - it was speedy but had very poor armour :(
@ToonandBBfan Lastly British heavy and cruiser tank prototypes were tested with 3.74 inch or QF 17 pounder - most of these tanks were later abandoned due to priority on the Comet and the famous Centurion tanks :) And henceforth the British later as of today incorporates all 3: Speed, Protection and Armament - in the 1950-1960's the British apparently sacrificed speed for protection and armament. Take the Crusader Cruiser Tank Mark III - it was speedy but had very poor armour :(
@ToonandBBfan Lastly British heavy and cruiser tank prototypes were tested with 3.74 inch or QF 17 pounder - most of these tanks were later abandoned due to priority on the Comet and the famous Centurion tanks :) And henceforth the British later as of today incorporates all 3: Speed, Protection and Armament - in the 1950-1960's the British apparently sacrificed speed for protection and armament. Take the Crusader Cruiser Tank Mark III - it was speedy but had very poor armour :(
@ToonandBBfan Hello again! I just realized one thing though the 'shitty QF75mm gun' or the M3 75mm gun; compared to the QF 17pdr on the Sherman Mayfly or Panther's PaK/KwK 42 and M1 76mm guns the Sherman 75mm had better HE performance because unlike these three long barrelled guns the Sherman 75 or the QF75mm gun didn't need a high muzzle velocity nor a bigger propellant charge to allow more force through the barrel; due to this the shell cartridge was lighter and hence more HE could be filled
Yes the Panthers gun whilst a formidable armour penetrater - was less effective than the Panver IV's gun with HE ammo. Panzer IV and Sherman were designed to engage soft targets in support of infantry.
Tiger tanks were designed to kill tanks but also had great HE power. Tiger was a leap forward in Tank design
@ToonandBBfan and like I once exlained the general rule of thumb is the shorter the barrel and pretty much the thinner the shell of a gun with similar caliber (so were' comparing a 75mm M3/QF 75 to the PaK/KwK 42, QF17 pdr and the M1 76mm) means you can have more HE rather than more propellant charges or simply a bigger thicker case hence while you sacrifice AP against general targets its useful as a whole - though if the caliber is much bigger thats a different story in HE :)
@TheKraut88 Oh come come - 007 was the last tank he commanded before he got tragically killed :( And Wittmann was a legend amongst the Germans and SS - hence he's essentially the '007' of the SS atleast during WWII - with acredited kills :)
Put forward a piece of proof that shows the T-34 was vastly better thn the sherman as you claim, your not gonan find any as the sherman was better, it carried thicker armour and better armour plate quality, the M3 75mm was better than the 76.2mm of the T-34, the same goes for the M1 76mm to the 85mm.
In Korea sherman killed t-34/85 by the dozens, sherman was also far easier to service.
@Dreachon Sounds almost like the MiG 15 facing off against the F-86 Sabres more or less though the Sherman was a tank of course! It is amazing the Sherman armed with a smaller caliber gun was nonetheless effective against the T-34/85 as both had troubles with Tiger I and Panthers in WWII yet the Sherman had the advantage of better optics, more userfriendly and of course better turret rotations. Unfortunately the M24 Chaffees in 1950 in Korea didn't do so well against the T-34/85.
@peterhawkfan Many tanks can be good - in quality and quantity. Take a mass of Bengal Tiger tanks or even better many Panther tanks and that would pretty much superior to a mass of T-34/85's - but again crew skill also counts. As for the Sherman - the 76mm, Mayfly 17 pounder and later variants of the Israeli Armed Forces such as the M50 and M51 Super Sherman would give a good account of themselves.
BoricuaFlowHotBoyPR1 - true the Sherman had much critics to point out compared to the Panther tank but you know the Sherman Mayfly 1c with the 17 pounder wasn't too shabby though - it had firepower that could take on the Tiger and Panther although there were issues with gun installation and availability of ammunition. On the other hand Sherman also had numbers, was easy to maintain and user friendly and lastly cost-effective. Tiger I's may have benefit of engineering but VERY FUEL HUNGRY + COST!
If you want to watch the full video, you tube German War Files Tiger heavy tank, theres many episode's and there Very Very Good. Theres also The War Files that covers other country's tanks/units/planes. Thumbs up so people can see.
@sidewinder0811 I can not understand, the allies built very good planes, battleshipes and other weapons. But only such a stupid tank like a sherman. They lost hundreds of them in short time. Better one good tank, which save the soldiers and destroys a tiger, than 10 shermans which get destroyed.
@Prinz1981 Unfortunately the Allies, particularly the Soviets also saw that thier men and equiptment were expendable - look at the losses the Red Army took - along with the T-34/85 - said to be the best all rounder tank due to numbers - though not as good as the Panther (thats debatable - T34/85 is faster and has a bigger 85mm gun) - the Soviets also had the Iosef Stalin 2 - certainly a bigger challenge than a T-34/85 in a one-one engagement and to German soldiers. Germans also had good planes.
@Prinz1981 Ah - Americans had the Thunderbolt, Mustang, Hellcat and Corsairs. The Germans though had the Me262, FW190, ME109 K and later the Dora 9 (though few were available when the war ended in Europe.) The Japanese planes - some were superior to the Zero and in the hands of a good pilot were the Nakajima Ki84 Frank, A7M2 Reppu Sam and the Kawanishi N1KJ-2 Shiden Kai George. Russians, had the formidable MiG 3 and La-7...
I´m glad that those germans had to fight the whole world because of this manic hitler...otherwise they would have beaten russia / great britan / usa in a 1vs1 engagement.
Thanks to good this didnt happen and those damn nazis lost the war. Now germany is a fine country :)
@SUNSETRETREATSXM Indeed Hitler made a personal contribution to the defeat of Normandy where he overrulled his Generals - the July 20 plot cost him Rommel - he sacked Von Rundstealdt and replaced him with his SS clowns and yes have you heard of the Amerika Bomber project? Or even the fact he insisted the Me262 be used as a BOMBER rather than a jet fighter to shoot down the Allied bombers. He even ordered development of a 50mm heavy gun to be installed on advanced planes...
@SUNSETRETREATSXM Hence by 1944 he was deemed by some to be insane - there's even controversy on his medical/mental health - particularly his personal Doc' - that is even his personal doc was said to be a nut...and such :) It was said he'd have atleast 3 spoonfuls of sugar everyday in his tea by '44 - not sure if I should mention it but it was funny haha...Untergang - have you watched it before? Not the parodies of it but the actual film...Ganz does a good emotional Hitler... :)
@oOIYvYIOo same rule applies to soviets,they only winned cuz of their mass infinite number of men that they could afford,but they were unskilled,untrained,undisciplined.
@SkadTheReaper And expendible unfortunately - the Soviets responded to Allied criticisim on the crudeness of thier tank designs by simply stating the relatively fast expdiency of thier tanks in the battle were compensated by numbers of 'expendible machines and men' more or less.
@oOIYvYIOo And those whacky atomic bombs & strategic airforces with long range heavy bombers & escort fighters, and 2 ocean navies & amphibious forces complete with aircraft carriers & naval airpower & the ability protect and transport & supply forces over 3,000 miles of ocean to a fully motorized armed forces that didn't depend on horse drawn wagons for transport like 4/5 ths of the german wehrmacht did probably is nothing else, dumbfuck.
@CaptHawkeye hey fuckface, why dont you fuck off. we all know germany was the supreme millitary force and army of the 20th century. they were 60 years ahead of their time. meanwhile the allies were too busy cheering for their crappy shitanks the M4 and T34
@0willsy01 So you don't like arrogant Americans? Cool neither do I. Now if only you actually wanted to learn about history in an impartially. Nah, you've got a shit list to satisfy.
@0willsy01 Protip: When you say all that shit about German stuff being magically superior because it's German, who do you think you sound like? I shouldn't have to spoon feed this stuff to you.
@0willsy01 And you don't understand how an argument works. But thanks for spelling out your agenda bold faced. "Wah, I saw some web pages I don't like!" My god you're an expert! Like a true expert you break out into character attacks and whining when someone asks you to back your shit up. Sorry I have a brain, i'm sure you're not used to dealing with people like that.
@0willsy01 You obviously have an agenda here. You think heavy tanks were reliable? That's a laugh, read up about the KV-1, IS-2, Churchill, and T29 sometime if you can. Oh wait! You won't, because they wank to your precious German super tanks. It's already ridiculous that you think the nationality of a source contributes to its quality, but hey, it turns out Youtube is populated by all manner of self obsessed crazies.
@CaptHawkeye I dont care about your discussion! But the KV-1, the Josef Stalin and Churchill were absolutely shit compared to a tiger! The KV-1 was way too old, in the first contact between tigers and JS-2 13 js-2 were destroyed but no tiger. and the Churchill goodness me... the 88 could hammer through the front of Churchill still at a range of 1500 metres!
@lfcdave8 Too bad neither tank was designed to fight the Tiger? The Churchill was poorly designed from the start and the KV-1 was facing a tank design 3 years newer than it. The Russians had no intention of keeping it in service. You know their is a lot more to warfare than just going "lol my tank can beat up yours".
@CaptHawkeye Well it was just a comparison between the major allied tanks and the tiger! Churchill and JS-2 were actually built to fight against heavy german tanks! And I am not one of those blokes saying "my tank is better than yours". It is just a comparison without any patriotism
@lfcdave8 No. The Churchill and IS-2 were designed as breakthrough tanks not tank destroyers. The whole reason the Churchill had a long track base was so it could cross trenches and the 122mm gun used on the IS-2 was literally designed FOR attacking bunkers and dug in positions. German Heavy armour simply wasn't frequent enough to specifically design vehicles against it. Tanks like that wouldn't win the war.
@lfcdave8 Thank you for being polite about this. It was the face of Heavy Tanks and one of the most prolific AFVs in history, a lot of myths about WW2 armor have come about because of the Tiger. Even the Tiger wasn't originally designed to fight enemy armor. Like all heavies it was a breakthrough vehicle, designed to smash through an enemy defense line and prevent a stalemate. The inclusion of the 88 gun was included later when the Germans encountered the T-34 and from lessons learned in France
Another factor that contributed to German tank sucess was the superior optics, not that the germans could see farther than Allied tank optics, but the German ones had a wider field of vision and much better range adjustments.
And another advantage for the Germans was the fact that the Americans didnt want to built in UK guns in their tank. Though the Firefly had better chances against german armor...Therefore ( at the end) there were at max 4 normal M4's and 1 Firefly. The Germans targeted the Firefly immediatly of course.
@CaptHawkeye Correction, you said "The inclusion of the 88mm gun was included later when the Germans encountered the T-34" that's false, The Tiger was only built with the 88mm gun from the beginning, it always had a turret w/88mm from beginning of production, no tigers were ever built without the 88mm gun period!
@haiherosner No it wasn't. The original design sketch called for a low velocity 75mm gun just like the Panzer IV but with heavier armour. Both early prototypes were fitted with low velocity guns and indeed, the preliminary design for Henschel's "VK" series finally included the *option* of the 88mm, the high velocity 75mm was also offered.
@CaptHawkeye There were 6 VK3601H hulls produced, and 6 turrets w/KWK 7.5cm L/24, L/43 and L/70 gun produced to fit these hulls, but none were ever mounted on these hulls, but instead used as static defence on the Atlantic wall. In May-June 1941, Henschel built 2 prototypes of Tiger 1 hull, called VK4501H1 w/KWK 8.8cm L/56 gun, and VK4501H2 w/KWK 7.5cm L/70 cannon, they were just prototypes, the 75mm canon version never made it to production. So Im right the 75mm version never went in PRODUCTION
@CaptHawkeye Your Quote is misleading "Like all heavies it was a breakthrough vehicle, designed to smash through an enemy defence line and prevent a stalemate. The inclusion of the 88mm gun was included later when the Germans encountered the T-34", you make it sound like it went to combat without the 88mm gun, and that it was added on later, when confronted by T-34, which would be totally false. All Production versions of Tiger 1, came with KWK 8.8cm L/56 gun period. You should have said DEMOS!
@haiherosner I'm going to throw you a bone here and assume you're not just being a dishonest little weasel. "Even the Tiger wasn't originally designed to fight enemy armor."
From the very same post you quoted that I wasn't clear on. No I should not have said "lawl demos" because guess what? I'm not you. If you can't understand other people when they try to communicate than that's not my problem.
@CaptHawkeye Then you obviously have problems communicating your point of view to others since you don't say Demo tank, or your the dishonest little weasel, whom wants people to think that the Tiger was originally manufactured without the 88mm, and instead with the KWK 75mm L/70 gun originally! I suspect that it's the latter, and your just trying to cover your tracks, so that you don't look foolish mate!
@haiherosner No, you just don't like it when people aren't just like you. Stop trying to make this look like an epic battle of teh facts!!11! This is all started because you don't like trying to talk to other people because I guess that's hard or something. Fine, you want easy communication? How about this? Fuck off.
@CaptHawkeye Well then, you just proved my point, that you don't know how to communicate with people, so you have to resort to swearing, with F-Bombs!
@CaptHawkeye What you should have said was "The Tiger PROTOTYPE with KWK 7.5cm L/70 gun was designed as a breakthrough vehicle to prevent a stalemate. The inclusion of the 88mm gun was included in the Production version because other German tanks Mark IV and III, encountered the formidable T-34". That would have been much clearer and concise, without any misunderstanding and hard feelings. That's probably what you meant to say, but you had difficulty saying it. No need for F-Bombs Mate, later!
@haiherosner Blah blah more "my semantics are holier than yours". It's nice to know throughout this whole 5+ post disagreement you literally didn't one-single-relevant-thing to say or add.
@haiherosner And some people realize when the person they're talking to is functionally illiterate and deserve no more than scorn. Tell me, what makes you think you deserve to be taken so seriously about this subject? Is it pride? What gives you the right have any pride?
Sorry to say but your wrong here, one of the requirements for the VK4501 programm was a gun that could penetrate at least 100m of armour at a distance of 1500m, even from the start of the programm the Tiger I was indeed intended to tackle enemy armour.
At first it was plannend to use the 7.5cm L70 but because this weapon was still under develloptment the 8.8cm got chosen as it met the requirements and could be fitted far sooner.
@Dreachon Which still wasn't my point. You even said it. The first plans called for a 7.5cm L70. Clearly the threat of enemy armour was enough to warrant a gun with sufficient tank killing ability, but not exclusively so. The Panzer IV had this in mind as well, and was armed with HEAT and AP rounds despite the gun's primary use for attacking dug in positions. Which means that tank vs. tank combat was not exclusive in the designs at the time.
Actually you did make it your point that the Tiger I was not meant to battle enemy tanks, yet one of it's design specifications demands for a main gun to deal with them, it doesn't asl for a medium gun as well, no it calls penetration of at least 100mm at 1500m, that requires a very powerfull gun.
From day 1 the Tiger was meant to battle tanks, it's the same reason why the VK3601 got cancelled as it's couldn't mount the turret with the 8.8cm in it.
@CaptHawkeye The Russians were also dissapointed in the performance of thier KV-1 tanks when it was showing that its armour was starting to screw up against German 88's and HV 75mm guns. Worse then was it was expensive and complex compared to a T-34 which wasn't perfect a tank but cheaper and could achieve many tasks the KV-1 did. Hence the the proposed KV-1 prototypes plus the KV-3 led to the development of a breakthrough tank like the IS-series tanks. The 122mm did do well in Kursk though.
@0willsy01 Ever heard of a final drive? Did you know the Germans found parts failures on their tanks so common they would routinely throw them on train cars for trips as short as 25km? Very few Jagdtigers were even built during the war and I notice how you don't actually state what the requirements or details for Russian tests were on the Jagdtiger. You're vague about important details, which is usually indicative of a liar.
@0willsy01 How about you name these sources other than go "hurf americans suck lawl". But hey it's obvious you've got an agenda here. The 80mm frontal armour was on the Panzer IV's front hull but it only covered a small portion of the hull. It's effectiveness was so-so considering all the Germans did was bolt another 30mm plate over a 50mm plate.
American sources are actually notorious for over rating the effectiveness of German tanks. Which you would know if you read them.
@0willsy01 This is a completely subjective opinion and goes against all of the documented history. Have you actually done any research to show why you believe this, or are you just saying it because "teh panzors are kewl"?
@0willsy01 Again, you being subjective. The Panzer IV's turret face was only 50mm and it was at a straight angle. It's armour was totally insufficient and mobility wise the late models like the H suffered from armour overload and a needlessly complex transmission which lowered the vehicles cross country speed and parts lifespans to near that of the Tiger. The main gun was competitive, but best all around tank of the war? No, not in a 26 ton design not even possible.
You sometimes wonder if the Allies were really interested in the safety of their tank crews when they provided them with such inferior armor in response to the Tigers and the Panther.
Well the US didn't expect the germans to class the Panther as a main battle tank, they though like the tiger it would be only available in small numbers like the Tiger, guess they got one hell of as shock in normandy.
@49bobbyk The Tiger and Panther were heavy tanks. The Sherman was a medium so they're not designed to fight eachother at all. The reality is the infamous "Sherman Vs. Tiger" match up is a fantasy that occured about as frequently as you'd be struck by lightning.
The biggest killer of Sherman tanks in Normandy was Panzershreck infantry and concealed Anti Tank guns. Not other tanks.
@Perica1983 Minor correction, both tanks were around 44-46 tons in weight. The Panther was very heavy for a medium tank. With none of the benefits of being a heavy tank.
@CaptHawkeye For german standards,panther was medium tank.No mater how tons he weight,if they say that it is medium,then it is medium tank.Tiger and King tiger was heavy tanks,and weight was not reason for plaseing them in heavy category.American standars was much lower for that time,and it is normal for them to call panther heavy,because everything that came from german was heavy for them.They win wor not because they were better,but because they had more tanks.So...that is it.
@Perica1983 Who cares what German standards were? We're talking about a country that thought it was totally reasonable to invade England with barges towed across the channel.
They won the war because they had more tanks and German tanks were nowhere near as good as the legends claimed they were. I mean Germany's No. 1 tank during the war, the Panzer IV was 10 tons lighter than the Sherman. loloops there goes your heavier tanks argument lol.
@CaptHawkeye You doesnt know anything about panzers.First,panzer 4 was not no.1 germany tank,and he has better gun then sherman,and second,tiger and panther was able to hit sherman or crommwell from great distances,when allied tanks couldnt even see them.All known story about 3 tigers reatreating from Moscow manage to destroy 51 T-34 and of course Michael Wittman,Kurt Knispel and Otto Carius was some of tiger aces who prove that your statement is so stupidness and foolish.
@Perica1983 It is when you realize that the Panzer IV participated in every major German victory of the war, and the Tiger and Panther never once won a major campaign. Battles here and there, but battles don't win wars.
No one cares about what a few guys who got really lucky did. Heroes don't win wars. They do imply your forces suck though.
@CaptHawkeye Which nationality are you?You calling 150+ destroyed enemy tanks and AT guns from soviet union to Normandy a luck???Listen,I see you are depressed but,germans were the best tank makers in past and they are now-they have Leopard 2 A7,best tenk in the world right now.So you cannot undervalue german tehnology and briliant mind,they were mighty in the past,they will be mighty in future so...Long live Nazi Germany!!!
@CaptHawkeye And you are just another dumb american-propaganda poisoned boy who dont want to accept facts.Truth is hard,i know.Americans now is much biger evil nation than german nazis.They killing they own people,and people all ower the world spreading chaos and death.
@Perica1983 - Nazi Germany has been dead and gone for over 65 years, thank God. The Nazi party has also been outlawed in Germany. It's illegal. Get your head out of fantasy-land, kid.
geil bin aus hamburg
DeannaGiagi486 1 month ago
Well atleast backthen they got GOODstuff when PAYED much, like TIGER.
Today when noobody cares nothing about anything exept MONEY even you pay 30k for car... wont take even 2weeks when 1st "warninglight" starts blink :( All is shit cause bullshitside what prefers AMOUNT instead QUALITY won. But it will change soon, when pedofilia comes legal, im gonna kill asmuch randomlypeople i can until fucks kill me!
88Phobos 2 months ago
@88Phobos Amount better than quality you say ? A single Tiger would score an average of 6 allied tank kills (in those numbers the Tigers blown by bombers are counted too). Now you tell me, which one is easier to build, one Tiger or six tanks ?
It wasn't the allied tanks who actually defeated the Tigers, it was mostly the allied heavy air superiority combined with the abandonment of Tigers by their own crew after running out of ammo and fuel.
shadowdancerRFW 2 months ago
@shadowdancerRFW And the costs ;) The german industry was too low after the heavy bomber-attacks and the war that was longer then the leadership was planning it.
HolzbierProductions 2 months ago
@shadowdancerRFW and mecahnical failure was very high at times only half of all tigers were engaged.. the other half getting fixed. later part like 44-45 the 510 abteilung was down to like two tigers on a total number of 20
33sscharlemagne 2 months ago
@33sscharlemagne Yes, the tigers broke down, but not before killing their share of allied tanks. I don't see a problem in that.
shadowdancerRFW 2 months ago
@33sscharlemagne And M1 abrams is COPY of tiger after M-60 "panthercopy" Over 50% of abramses are lying broken after iraqs sand... Mostly enginefailures, some blown to pieces by RPG7vl's
88Phobos 2 months ago
@shadowdancerRFW Yea i KNOW without BOMBERS usa wouldnt be still at normandy xD, wouldnt had neverwon...
88Phobos 2 months ago
Wittmann and his crew died when 007 was destroyed by a Canadian Sherman at a range of less than 300m into the rear left side. See the Youtube article showing how this was accomplished.
tac
tacfoley 2 months ago
Haupsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann died because the amo blew up when a firefly hit his Tiger.
Zukatsr125 3 months ago
The real reason Germans lost is Standard Oil finally stopped selling oil to Germans around 1943 and Rothschilds stopped financing Hitler's war machine and started investing in rusian communism again.
MomentOFtruth666 3 months ago 3
@MomentOFtruth666 Standard oil was broken up in 1911 you fucking idiot
jackzero99 3 months ago
@MomentOFtruth666 If Standard Oil countinued to supply Germany, US would have bombed the fuck out of them in 45. And i mean atomic bombs not the usual crap.
zumpster 3 months ago
@MomentOFtruth666 Fail!These companys stopped financing him much earlyer. The reason was, that he tried to destroy the russians completely. He banned a whole Heeresgruppe in Leningrad, to kill the whole population. If he just conquered the City, the "Heeresgruppe Nord" were able to fight together with the "Heeresgruppe Mitte" against Moscow and the russians had lost. THEN 3 complete "Heeresgruppen" were be able to fight in France and the allies wouldnt have any chance. No need for fairy-tales...
HolzbierProductions 2 months ago 3
@HolzbierProductions who says that russia would have capitulated after the loss of moscow.? they should have given up the fight after the kesselschlachten earlier in the year.
stop dreaming germany lost and it is very good that the nazi-bunch of killers were send to hell
livadi9 2 months ago
@livadi9 If Moscow would have failed, then the russian army would have been greatly affected by the lack of leadership. Cut the head and the body will faulter. Don't you know art of war ? Of course they would have continued guerilla warfare, but Russia would have been defeated. If that happened, then the rest of allies would have been easy pickings.
shadowdancerRFW 2 months ago
@shadowdancerRFW you are wrong honeypot, moscow is only a city. without it the russians would have fought even harder. Napoleon made th same mistake earlier than hitler, and napoleons army captured moscow... anyway go on to think what happened if... all praise should go to the heroic red army
livadi9 2 months ago
@livadi9 i don't care what you think. I know how war goes on better than you ever will.
shadowdancerRFW 2 months ago
@shadowdancerRFW is little sissy hurt? obviously you are better at crying than war-making
livadi9 2 months ago
The best tank ever built is american made Chuck Norris.
MomentOFtruth666 3 months ago
@MomentOFtruth666
chuck norris is made by chuck norris. not from amis ^^
TheKraut88 3 months ago
the true winning of the war came about from hitlers refusel to allow rommel to move the fifteenth army to normandy as the invasion started, when given the ok it was 3 weeks to late
OHNGAI 3 months ago
Why did we Brits continue to use the shitty 75mm gun on the Churchill and Cromwells when it was almost useless against Tigers and Panthers?
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan The British in even early stages of WWII had trouble developing firepower - particularly the 2 pounder which was practically useless when the updated Panzer IV and Tigers took it to the desert war, whilst the 6 pounder had a poor HE performance. First Churchills - they were expecting AT performance rather than HE against infantry and soft targets - hence the 6 pounder sacrificed HE for AT performance. Then they mounted a QF 75mm for better general performance, sacrificing AT.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Also the Churchill had a small turret ring design - to rearm it would mean extensive retooling and design. And as the war progressed there were less German tanks but more bunkers/soft targets/ambush StuG destroyers hence HE was better against soft targets and general performance. And the Allies made the mistake of the 'German tank problem' - thinking Tiger I's and Panthers would be small in number - that was woefully wrong when they realized there were more Panthers in Normandy!
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToonandBBfan Also the Churchill had a small turret ring design - to rearm it would mean extensive retooling and design. And as the war progressed there were less German tanks but more bunkers/soft targets/ambush StuG destroyers hence HE was better against soft targets and general performance. And the Allies made the mistake of the 'German tank problem' - thinking Tiger I's and Panthers would be small in number - that was woefully wrong when they realized there were more Panthers in Normandy!
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
They did try to work on the Black Prince and the A34 Challenger as a means to upgrade the Churchill/Cromwell designs with better firepoweer but like the Mayfly Sherman VC 1c hybrid tanks - they were few in number in the early days of Normandy :(
Essentially the QF 75mm was a means for better firepower and good HE performance against infantry and basic targets. It sacrificed AT for better general HE performance. And besides its expensive to test, design and fund a new gun :) Hope this helps.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Thanks
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Of course the QF 17 pounder had its vices; long barrel, huge recoil, flash powder issues and initially poor HE performance, compared to even a QF 75mm gun. The QF 17 pounder also had issues with the APDS - although it could punch theoretically over 200mm of rolled plate at 500 yards it was inaccurate and did not do as good as others in terms of internal damage. The Cromwell had one advantage - SPEED and Maneuvering over the Tiger I and Panther (well if you try to outflank sides)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
The Tigers 88 on the other hand was great at AT and HE.
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan THe 88mm KwK 36 on the Tiger I was an excellent weapon already - it was accurate and very powerful - almost like a big tank version of the Kar98k Mauser if I may say so. The PaK 43 however was even BETTER and BIGGER - it was a bit of a joke though - you heard of the PaK 36? The 'doorknocker' in France? Well the PaK 43 was the opposite - it was the 'barn door' due to its huge size. But the PaK 43 in the Bengal Tiger, Jagdpanther, Elefant and Nashorn were even better
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan A muzzle velocity of 1130 metres in the PaK 43/Kwk 43 was superior due to a longer barrel at L71 vs L56 of the Tiger I made it capable of punching well over 230mm of armour at less than 1000 metres if using Panzergranate 40/43 but it was expensive and rarer in WWII. Essentially again both the kwk 36 and the 43 had better accuracy, range, hitting power, AT and damage compared to most Allied tank guns, although bigger calibers like the IS-2's 122mm could deal more HE in a 1-1 shot.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Thanks again, the King Tigers 88 was pretty the king pin of that era. the sight of it never fails to take my breath away!
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Indeed the PaK 43/41/42 provided a good account of itself in WWII although it was expensive, heavy to maneuver and it could wear out in some early versions - hence later versions had a 2 piece barrel. An excellent gun though - but imagine trying to maneuver ijn tight spots with the long overhanging gun - that would be a tactical disadvantage - the Panther had this problem already in the bocage of Normandy as its 75mm PaK 42 was longer than most other 75mm guns.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan I personally prefer the Jagdpanther myself - more mobile plus good armour inherited from the Panther and being able to upgrade its firepower to the PaK 43 88mm gun.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Yes the Jagdpanther was a formidable machine and an ingenius design for its time
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Not to mention there was the Panther where it got some benefits from :) Only problem was... too little and too late - quite surprising that the Jagdpanther - whilst 'heavy' for a TD of its time was surprisingly speedy yet didn't have to sacrifice too much other than a turret to make good of itself compared to the collosal Jagdtiger or Bengal Tiger - considering the Jagdpanther wasn't even 50 tonnes - yet the Tiger's simply increased to almost 70 tonnes in the Jagdtiger...
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Yeah the Jagdpanther was formidable and it weighed less than 50 tonnes, its gun was fantastic. Best tank destroyer of WW2
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
Any idea whether crews of Jagdpanthers might have been Panther veterans? I'm just wondering thats all or were they more likely to have been veterans form special Panzerjager Abteilungs? As for example the Jagdtiger operators were formerly Elefant operators of the 653 (or was it 654 Panzer Jager Abteilungs). THis is because I was thinking given the Jagdpanther was meant to have similar components to a Panther tank surely veteran crews might get familiar with it if a Panther wasn't available?
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
I dont know. I suspect not because Jagdpanther was not a tank but more of a mobile SP gun. I heard one case of a Jagdtiger being knocked out when the commander made the idiotic decision of turning the vehicle around in combat (The Jagdtiger got hit up the backside). He obviously was not a Panther veteran! LOL I think Tankers wore black uniforms and StuG III, IV and Jagdpanther/tigers wore grey?
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Have you ever seen a picture of a Panthers 75mm shell next to the Jagdpanthers 88mm? I havent but would love to see one.
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Interesting question! I'm afraid I've not seen any WWII tank upclose and in person yet - nor have I seen pictures of the shells compared to one another I'm afraid - but I reckon its obvious the 88mm was bigger than a 75mm (and I'm talking Tiger I) - if the Jagdpanther had a gun that the Nashorn, Elefant and the Bengal Tiger shared - its obvious the shell of the 88mm PaK 43 was bigger than a TIGER I's shell :S...
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
I've sent you a private message about the Tiger shells
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
The Panther was probably the best overall (cheaper and quicker to make) but Tiger 1 is my favourite. The King Tiger was very good too. All 3 tanks were outstanding for their era
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Jagdpanther would have more or less been more cost-effective than all 3 though it may rival the Panther tank (the Panther has a smaller gun whilst Jagdpanther doesn't need a turret). Bengal Tiger - was really due to its size, gun and armor - Bengal Tiger tanks aren't exactly known to be 'super mobile' tanks or the fact they were easy to drive around with.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
I think I read somewhere that the cost and man hours required to build a single Tiger 1 would nearly equal 3 ME-109 dog fighters!!!!!
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Tiger I's cost like over 250 K Reichmarks in WWII currency that was very expensive at the time and still expensive by standards of today!
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Thanks - does anyone know roughly how much 250,000 Reichmarks would be in todays money? (euro's). The Panther was probably the best all round tank of WW2. Its high velocity 75mm could take out pretty much anything at combat ranges
ToonandBBfan 2 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Well it was said to be comparable to an M1A1 Abrams - I'm roughly quessing over 1 million dollars - after all if you think about it in about 30-40 years or so the Tiger I would be considered a WWII antique/weapon and that would be worth quite abit of money that is the surviving examples - no doubt Bovington's 131 is one :)
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
I think Bovingtons 131 is the worlds only operating Tiger 1
ToonandBBfan 2 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Correct! Only one that works and one of the earliest ones captured by the Western Allies in WWII :) - Tiger 131 only had a short time with the Germans when it was captured February '43 :(
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Lastly British heavy and cruiser tank prototypes were tested with 3.74 inch or QF 17 pounder - most of these tanks were later abandoned due to priority on the Comet and the famous Centurion tanks :) And henceforth the British later as of today incorporates all 3: Speed, Protection and Armament - in the 1950-1960's the British apparently sacrificed speed for protection and armament. Take the Crusader Cruiser Tank Mark III - it was speedy but had very poor armour :(
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToonandBBfan Lastly British heavy and cruiser tank prototypes were tested with 3.74 inch or QF 17 pounder - most of these tanks were later abandoned due to priority on the Comet and the famous Centurion tanks :) And henceforth the British later as of today incorporates all 3: Speed, Protection and Armament - in the 1950-1960's the British apparently sacrificed speed for protection and armament. Take the Crusader Cruiser Tank Mark III - it was speedy but had very poor armour :(
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToonandBBfan Lastly British heavy and cruiser tank prototypes were tested with 3.74 inch or QF 17 pounder - most of these tanks were later abandoned due to priority on the Comet and the famous Centurion tanks :) And henceforth the British later as of today incorporates all 3: Speed, Protection and Armament - in the 1950-1960's the British apparently sacrificed speed for protection and armament. Take the Crusader Cruiser Tank Mark III - it was speedy but had very poor armour :(
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Hello again! I just realized one thing though the 'shitty QF75mm gun' or the M3 75mm gun; compared to the QF 17pdr on the Sherman Mayfly or Panther's PaK/KwK 42 and M1 76mm guns the Sherman 75mm had better HE performance because unlike these three long barrelled guns the Sherman 75 or the QF75mm gun didn't need a high muzzle velocity nor a bigger propellant charge to allow more force through the barrel; due to this the shell cartridge was lighter and hence more HE could be filled
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91
Hi.
Yes the Panthers gun whilst a formidable armour penetrater - was less effective than the Panver IV's gun with HE ammo. Panzer IV and Sherman were designed to engage soft targets in support of infantry.
Tiger tanks were designed to kill tanks but also had great HE power. Tiger was a leap forward in Tank design
ToonandBBfan 1 week ago
@ToonandBBfan and like I once exlained the general rule of thumb is the shorter the barrel and pretty much the thinner the shell of a gun with similar caliber (so were' comparing a 75mm M3/QF 75 to the PaK/KwK 42, QF17 pdr and the M1 76mm) means you can have more HE rather than more propellant charges or simply a bigger thicker case hence while you sacrifice AP against general targets its useful as a whole - though if the caliber is much bigger thats a different story in HE :)
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
Hauptsturmfurer Michael Wittmann - the '007' of the Germans in WWII :D
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Wittmann wasnt a agent. he was a tankcommander ^^
TheKraut88 3 months ago
@TheKraut88 Oh come come - 007 was the last tank he commanded before he got tragically killed :( And Wittmann was a legend amongst the Germans and SS - hence he's essentially the '007' of the SS atleast during WWII - with acredited kills :)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
Thumbs up if you noticed the Bengal Tiger Tanks are the Porsche variants! :D
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
Sherman, the probably most worse tank ever...
aldjals54423 4 months ago
@aldjals54423 believe me, there were much worse tanks than the sherman.
BigMek456 4 months ago
@BigMek456 which ones?
aldjals54423 4 months ago
@aldjals54423 japanese tanks, polish tanks, the first soviet tanks, for example.
BigMek456 4 months ago
@aldjals54423 The sherman was a good tank......... in numbers.
peterhawkfan 4 months ago
@peterhawkfan but the tiger was better ;)
even the T-34 was much better...
aldjals54423 4 months ago
@aldjals54423
Actually the sherman proved to be a better tank than the T-34, better firepower, FCs and crew comfort.
Dreachon 4 months ago
@Dreachon expert haha
aldjals54423 4 months ago
@aldjals54423
Put forward a piece of proof that shows the T-34 was vastly better thn the sherman as you claim, your not gonan find any as the sherman was better, it carried thicker armour and better armour plate quality, the M3 75mm was better than the 76.2mm of the T-34, the same goes for the M1 76mm to the 85mm.
In Korea sherman killed t-34/85 by the dozens, sherman was also far easier to service.
Dreachon 4 months ago
@Dreachon Sounds almost like the MiG 15 facing off against the F-86 Sabres more or less though the Sherman was a tank of course! It is amazing the Sherman armed with a smaller caliber gun was nonetheless effective against the T-34/85 as both had troubles with Tiger I and Panthers in WWII yet the Sherman had the advantage of better optics, more userfriendly and of course better turret rotations. Unfortunately the M24 Chaffees in 1950 in Korea didn't do so well against the T-34/85.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@peterhawkfan Many tanks can be good - in quality and quantity. Take a mass of Bengal Tiger tanks or even better many Panther tanks and that would pretty much superior to a mass of T-34/85's - but again crew skill also counts. As for the Sherman - the 76mm, Mayfly 17 pounder and later variants of the Israeli Armed Forces such as the M50 and M51 Super Sherman would give a good account of themselves.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
Sherman, the probably most worse tank ever...
aldjals54423 4 months ago
BoricuaFlowHotBoyPR1 - true the Sherman had much critics to point out compared to the Panther tank but you know the Sherman Mayfly 1c with the 17 pounder wasn't too shabby though - it had firepower that could take on the Tiger and Panther although there were issues with gun installation and availability of ammunition. On the other hand Sherman also had numbers, was easy to maintain and user friendly and lastly cost-effective. Tiger I's may have benefit of engineering but VERY FUEL HUNGRY + COST!
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
Read history instead of storys.
And did you ever saw me writing anything about Hitler ?
Try to read before posting....
And try to grow up a bit more ,if you do not know how to have a argew go talk with dogs they will listen you well...
The more you write here the more you show youre limited IQ ,if i were you i alerady had killed myself for beeing so dumb.
oOIYvYIOo 5 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo
LOL, because only a nut can give such a comment!!
SUNSETRETREATSXM 5 months ago
If you want to watch the full video, you tube German War Files Tiger heavy tank, theres many episode's and there Very Very Good. Theres also The War Files that covers other country's tanks/units/planes. Thumbs up so people can see.
SkullKing11841 5 months ago 16
Ab 8:15 Königstiger Vorbeifahrt :-)) Sahne !!! :-)
sidewinder0811 5 months ago
@sidewinder0811 Ja - wohles beschmutztes. .thank Sie für Sie Anmerkung
spottydog4477 5 months ago
@sidewinder0811 I can not understand, the allies built very good planes, battleshipes and other weapons. But only such a stupid tank like a sherman. They lost hundreds of them in short time. Better one good tank, which save the soldiers and destroys a tiger, than 10 shermans which get destroyed.
Prinz1981 4 months ago
@Prinz1981 Unfortunately the Allies, particularly the Soviets also saw that thier men and equiptment were expendable - look at the losses the Red Army took - along with the T-34/85 - said to be the best all rounder tank due to numbers - though not as good as the Panther (thats debatable - T34/85 is faster and has a bigger 85mm gun) - the Soviets also had the Iosef Stalin 2 - certainly a bigger challenge than a T-34/85 in a one-one engagement and to German soldiers. Germans also had good planes.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@Prinz1981 Ah - Americans had the Thunderbolt, Mustang, Hellcat and Corsairs. The Germans though had the Me262, FW190, ME109 K and later the Dora 9 (though few were available when the war ended in Europe.) The Japanese planes - some were superior to the Zero and in the hands of a good pilot were the Nakajima Ki84 Frank, A7M2 Reppu Sam and the Kawanishi N1KJ-2 Shiden Kai George. Russians, had the formidable MiG 3 and La-7...
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
In summary, I feel the Panzer tanks had superior armor to the Hayabusa. Although this may offend someone and cause an election.
seapeddler 5 months ago
one great german tank comander once says... "tiger can destroy 4 shermans,, but always come 5" ...
Ivanong92 5 months ago
@Ivanong92
Yep. The victory in Normandy was not won with technology, but buckets of Allied blood.
WunderDoob 5 months ago
Only numbers gave victory to the allyes ,nothing else.
oOIYvYIOo 6 months ago 29
@oOIYvYIOo Bullshit. Industrial superiority + Air superiority + Naval superiority + Tactical superiority + Economic superiority gave victory to te allies.
ebola92 6 months ago
@ebola92 theres a old saying ," do not argew with dumb people to much or else you become one ".
That one suits you like a glove.
oOIYvYIOo 6 months ago
@ebola92 in fact numbers
Panz82 5 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo
I´m glad that those germans had to fight the whole world because of this manic hitler...otherwise they would have beaten russia / great britan / usa in a 1vs1 engagement.
Thanks to good this didnt happen and those damn nazis lost the war. Now germany is a fine country :)
apathy85 6 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo and stupid German supreme commander!
SUNSETRETREATSXM 5 months ago
@SUNSETRETREATSXM and youre IQ of - 0 .
oOIYvYIOo 5 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo HAHA he made some pretty stupid decisions.
Like attacking Russia.
Like not retreating from Stalingrad which costed him a whole army.
Like starting Wacht am Rhein which costed him his last reserves.
Like not listening to his generals.
Like building tanks which where much to heavy and almost useless for attack (KingTiger Mouse and the Protype E100)
Should i go on.
Yeah he was really smart! And you too!
LOL
SUNSETRETREATSXM 5 months ago
@SUNSETRETREATSXM exactly, hitler was a dumb cunt
jumbi100 5 months ago
@SUNSETRETREATSXM Indeed Hitler made a personal contribution to the defeat of Normandy where he overrulled his Generals - the July 20 plot cost him Rommel - he sacked Von Rundstealdt and replaced him with his SS clowns and yes have you heard of the Amerika Bomber project? Or even the fact he insisted the Me262 be used as a BOMBER rather than a jet fighter to shoot down the Allied bombers. He even ordered development of a 50mm heavy gun to be installed on advanced planes...
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 Yes he made some stupid decisions.
SUNSETRETREATSXM 5 months ago
@SUNSETRETREATSXM Hence by 1944 he was deemed by some to be insane - there's even controversy on his medical/mental health - particularly his personal Doc' - that is even his personal doc was said to be a nut...and such :) It was said he'd have atleast 3 spoonfuls of sugar everyday in his tea by '44 - not sure if I should mention it but it was funny haha...Untergang - have you watched it before? Not the parodies of it but the actual film...Ganz does a good emotional Hitler... :)
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo thats war dipshit, allies won the war fairly
jumbi100 5 months ago
@jumbi100 ,allies won due hitler stupidity not by military skill and tecnology superiority from the allies ,because all of this were on german side .
oOIYvYIOo 5 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo no, the allies had military skill, better than the germans.
jumbi100 5 months ago
@jumbi100 really ?
So how did THE ALLYS TOOK 1 YEAR TO CONQUER WHAT GERMAN TOOK THE SAME TIME TO CONQUER ON Europe ?
20-1 in quantity.
oOIYvYIOo 5 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo lol umad? hitler and his shit army lost period
jumbi100 5 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo same rule applies to soviets,they only winned cuz of their mass infinite number of men that they could afford,but they were unskilled,untrained,undisciplined.
SkadTheReaper 5 months ago
@SkadTheReaper And expendible unfortunately - the Soviets responded to Allied criticisim on the crudeness of thier tank designs by simply stating the relatively fast expdiency of thier tanks in the battle were compensated by numbers of 'expendible machines and men' more or less.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@oOIYvYIOo And those whacky atomic bombs & strategic airforces with long range heavy bombers & escort fighters, and 2 ocean navies & amphibious forces complete with aircraft carriers & naval airpower & the ability protect and transport & supply forces over 3,000 miles of ocean to a fully motorized armed forces that didn't depend on horse drawn wagons for transport like 4/5 ths of the german wehrmacht did probably is nothing else, dumbfuck.
fluffy1931 3 months ago
@0willsy01 This is like, what, the 5th time you've said goodbye? I'm sure you'll be back. With all the vitriol to boot.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@CaptHawkeye hey fuckface, why dont you fuck off. we all know germany was the supreme millitary force and army of the 20th century. they were 60 years ahead of their time. meanwhile the allies were too busy cheering for their crappy shitanks the M4 and T34
dividednation44 8 months ago
@0willsy01 So you don't like arrogant Americans? Cool neither do I. Now if only you actually wanted to learn about history in an impartially. Nah, you've got a shit list to satisfy.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01 Protip: When you say all that shit about German stuff being magically superior because it's German, who do you think you sound like? I shouldn't have to spoon feed this stuff to you.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01 Ahahahahaha. This kind of stereotypical racism is just as offensive to Germans as it is to everyone else. And he has no clue! I love it!
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01 And you don't understand how an argument works. But thanks for spelling out your agenda bold faced. "Wah, I saw some web pages I don't like!" My god you're an expert! Like a true expert you break out into character attacks and whining when someone asks you to back your shit up. Sorry I have a brain, i'm sure you're not used to dealing with people like that.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01 You obviously have an agenda here. You think heavy tanks were reliable? That's a laugh, read up about the KV-1, IS-2, Churchill, and T29 sometime if you can. Oh wait! You won't, because they wank to your precious German super tanks. It's already ridiculous that you think the nationality of a source contributes to its quality, but hey, it turns out Youtube is populated by all manner of self obsessed crazies.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@CaptHawkeye I dont care about your discussion! But the KV-1, the Josef Stalin and Churchill were absolutely shit compared to a tiger! The KV-1 was way too old, in the first contact between tigers and JS-2 13 js-2 were destroyed but no tiger. and the Churchill goodness me... the 88 could hammer through the front of Churchill still at a range of 1500 metres!
lfcdave8 8 months ago
@lfcdave8 Too bad neither tank was designed to fight the Tiger? The Churchill was poorly designed from the start and the KV-1 was facing a tank design 3 years newer than it. The Russians had no intention of keeping it in service. You know their is a lot more to warfare than just going "lol my tank can beat up yours".
CaptHawkeye 8 months ago
@CaptHawkeye Well it was just a comparison between the major allied tanks and the tiger! Churchill and JS-2 were actually built to fight against heavy german tanks! And I am not one of those blokes saying "my tank is better than yours". It is just a comparison without any patriotism
lfcdave8 8 months ago
@lfcdave8 No. The Churchill and IS-2 were designed as breakthrough tanks not tank destroyers. The whole reason the Churchill had a long track base was so it could cross trenches and the 122mm gun used on the IS-2 was literally designed FOR attacking bunkers and dug in positions. German Heavy armour simply wasn't frequent enough to specifically design vehicles against it. Tanks like that wouldn't win the war.
CaptHawkeye 8 months ago
@CaptHawkeye I will check this information! However, thank you very much!
lfcdave8 8 months ago
@lfcdave8 Thank you for being polite about this. It was the face of Heavy Tanks and one of the most prolific AFVs in history, a lot of myths about WW2 armor have come about because of the Tiger. Even the Tiger wasn't originally designed to fight enemy armor. Like all heavies it was a breakthrough vehicle, designed to smash through an enemy defense line and prevent a stalemate. The inclusion of the 88 gun was included later when the Germans encountered the T-34 and from lessons learned in France
CaptHawkeye 8 months ago
Another factor that contributed to German tank sucess was the superior optics, not that the germans could see farther than Allied tank optics, but the German ones had a wider field of vision and much better range adjustments.
federalwarhawk 8 months ago
@federalwarhawk
And another advantage for the Germans was the fact that the Americans didnt want to built in UK guns in their tank. Though the Firefly had better chances against german armor...Therefore ( at the end) there were at max 4 normal M4's and 1 Firefly. The Germans targeted the Firefly immediatly of course.
TheNovaAxon 8 months ago
@CaptHawkeye Correction, you said "The inclusion of the 88mm gun was included later when the Germans encountered the T-34" that's false, The Tiger was only built with the 88mm gun from the beginning, it always had a turret w/88mm from beginning of production, no tigers were ever built without the 88mm gun period!
haiherosner 7 months ago
@haiherosner No it wasn't. The original design sketch called for a low velocity 75mm gun just like the Panzer IV but with heavier armour. Both early prototypes were fitted with low velocity guns and indeed, the preliminary design for Henschel's "VK" series finally included the *option* of the 88mm, the high velocity 75mm was also offered.
CaptHawkeye 7 months ago
@CaptHawkeye There were 6 VK3601H hulls produced, and 6 turrets w/KWK 7.5cm L/24, L/43 and L/70 gun produced to fit these hulls, but none were ever mounted on these hulls, but instead used as static defence on the Atlantic wall. In May-June 1941, Henschel built 2 prototypes of Tiger 1 hull, called VK4501H1 w/KWK 8.8cm L/56 gun, and VK4501H2 w/KWK 7.5cm L/70 cannon, they were just prototypes, the 75mm canon version never made it to production. So Im right the 75mm version never went in PRODUCTION
haiherosner 7 months ago
@haiherosner Note how I had been talking about the Tiger's *design* not its production, on that quote you so conveniently ripped from the context.
CaptHawkeye 7 months ago
@CaptHawkeye Your Quote is misleading "Like all heavies it was a breakthrough vehicle, designed to smash through an enemy defence line and prevent a stalemate. The inclusion of the 88mm gun was included later when the Germans encountered the T-34", you make it sound like it went to combat without the 88mm gun, and that it was added on later, when confronted by T-34, which would be totally false. All Production versions of Tiger 1, came with KWK 8.8cm L/56 gun period. You should have said DEMOS!
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner I'm going to throw you a bone here and assume you're not just being a dishonest little weasel. "Even the Tiger wasn't originally designed to fight enemy armor."
From the very same post you quoted that I wasn't clear on. No I should not have said "lawl demos" because guess what? I'm not you. If you can't understand other people when they try to communicate than that's not my problem.
CaptHawkeye 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye Then you obviously have problems communicating your point of view to others since you don't say Demo tank, or your the dishonest little weasel, whom wants people to think that the Tiger was originally manufactured without the 88mm, and instead with the KWK 75mm L/70 gun originally! I suspect that it's the latter, and your just trying to cover your tracks, so that you don't look foolish mate!
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner No, you just don't like it when people aren't just like you. Stop trying to make this look like an epic battle of teh facts!!11! This is all started because you don't like trying to talk to other people because I guess that's hard or something. Fine, you want easy communication? How about this? Fuck off.
CaptHawkeye 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaptHawkeye Well then, you just proved my point, that you don't know how to communicate with people, so you have to resort to swearing, with F-Bombs!
haiherosner 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye What you should have said was "The Tiger PROTOTYPE with KWK 7.5cm L/70 gun was designed as a breakthrough vehicle to prevent a stalemate. The inclusion of the 88mm gun was included in the Production version because other German tanks Mark IV and III, encountered the formidable T-34". That would have been much clearer and concise, without any misunderstanding and hard feelings. That's probably what you meant to say, but you had difficulty saying it. No need for F-Bombs Mate, later!
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner Blah blah more "my semantics are holier than yours". It's nice to know throughout this whole 5+ post disagreement you literally didn't one-single-relevant-thing to say or add.
CaptHawkeye 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye Whatever, some people can never admit they were mistaken, and have to resort to insults, have a nice day!
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner And some people realize when the person they're talking to is functionally illiterate and deserve no more than scorn. Tell me, what makes you think you deserve to be taken so seriously about this subject? Is it pride? What gives you the right have any pride?
CaptHawkeye 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye Your pride is your downfall mate, your too proud to admit your mistake, and resort to attacks, like I said have a nice day, goodbye!
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner This is like, what, the 3rd time you've said goodbye. Remember kids, i'm supposed to be the one with too much pride or something.
I love this.
CaptHawkeye 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye = PRIDE!!! :D
haiherosner 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye
Sorry to say but your wrong here, one of the requirements for the VK4501 programm was a gun that could penetrate at least 100m of armour at a distance of 1500m, even from the start of the programm the Tiger I was indeed intended to tackle enemy armour.
At first it was plannend to use the 7.5cm L70 but because this weapon was still under develloptment the 8.8cm got chosen as it met the requirements and could be fitted far sooner.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon Which still wasn't my point. You even said it. The first plans called for a 7.5cm L70. Clearly the threat of enemy armour was enough to warrant a gun with sufficient tank killing ability, but not exclusively so. The Panzer IV had this in mind as well, and was armed with HEAT and AP rounds despite the gun's primary use for attacking dug in positions. Which means that tank vs. tank combat was not exclusive in the designs at the time.
CaptHawkeye 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye
Actually you did make it your point that the Tiger I was not meant to battle enemy tanks, yet one of it's design specifications demands for a main gun to deal with them, it doesn't asl for a medium gun as well, no it calls penetration of at least 100mm at 1500m, that requires a very powerfull gun.
From day 1 the Tiger was meant to battle tanks, it's the same reason why the VK3601 got cancelled as it's couldn't mount the turret with the 8.8cm in it.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@CaptHawkeye The Russians were also dissapointed in the performance of thier KV-1 tanks when it was showing that its armour was starting to screw up against German 88's and HV 75mm guns. Worse then was it was expensive and complex compared to a T-34 which wasn't perfect a tank but cheaper and could achieve many tasks the KV-1 did. Hence the the proposed KV-1 prototypes plus the KV-3 led to the development of a breakthrough tank like the IS-series tanks. The 122mm did do well in Kursk though.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@0willsy01 Ever heard of a final drive? Did you know the Germans found parts failures on their tanks so common they would routinely throw them on train cars for trips as short as 25km? Very few Jagdtigers were even built during the war and I notice how you don't actually state what the requirements or details for Russian tests were on the Jagdtiger. You're vague about important details, which is usually indicative of a liar.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01 How about you name these sources other than go "hurf americans suck lawl". But hey it's obvious you've got an agenda here. The 80mm frontal armour was on the Panzer IV's front hull but it only covered a small portion of the hull. It's effectiveness was so-so considering all the Germans did was bolt another 30mm plate over a 50mm plate.
American sources are actually notorious for over rating the effectiveness of German tanks. Which you would know if you read them.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01 This is a completely subjective opinion and goes against all of the documented history. Have you actually done any research to show why you believe this, or are you just saying it because "teh panzors are kewl"?
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
Comment removed
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01 Again, you being subjective. The Panzer IV's turret face was only 50mm and it was at a straight angle. It's armour was totally insufficient and mobility wise the late models like the H suffered from armour overload and a needlessly complex transmission which lowered the vehicles cross country speed and parts lifespans to near that of the Tiger. The main gun was competitive, but best all around tank of the war? No, not in a 26 ton design not even possible.
CaptHawkeye 10 months ago
@0willsy01- The mechanical unreliability of the Tiger tank and then the even worse Tiger II/King Tiger, are well known and extensively documented.
JohnQuincyAdams1 10 months ago
Rest in Peace Michael Vitmann.
You did well, best tank Ace ever!
0Forgive 1 year ago
I love the Panthers
0Forgive 1 year ago
You sometimes wonder if the Allies were really interested in the safety of their tank crews when they provided them with such inferior armor in response to the Tigers and the Panther.
49bobbyk 1 year ago
@49bobbyk
Well the US didn't expect the germans to class the Panther as a main battle tank, they though like the tiger it would be only available in small numbers like the Tiger, guess they got one hell of as shock in normandy.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@49bobbyk The Tiger and Panther were heavy tanks. The Sherman was a medium so they're not designed to fight eachother at all. The reality is the infamous "Sherman Vs. Tiger" match up is a fantasy that occured about as frequently as you'd be struck by lightning.
The biggest killer of Sherman tanks in Normandy was Panzershreck infantry and concealed Anti Tank guns. Not other tanks.
CaptHawkeye 1 year ago
Panther was medium tank.Everybody knows that,just you dont.Thats describe everything that you know about tanks
Perica1983 11 months ago
@Perica1983 The Panther was upwards of 60 tons in weight. It was 1 ton lighter than the IS-2. It was a medium tank on paper, but hardly in practice.
And try being less snarky.
CaptHawkeye 11 months ago
@Perica1983 Minor correction, both tanks were around 44-46 tons in weight. The Panther was very heavy for a medium tank. With none of the benefits of being a heavy tank.
CaptHawkeye 11 months ago
@CaptHawkeye For german standards,panther was medium tank.No mater how tons he weight,if they say that it is medium,then it is medium tank.Tiger and King tiger was heavy tanks,and weight was not reason for plaseing them in heavy category.American standars was much lower for that time,and it is normal for them to call panther heavy,because everything that came from german was heavy for them.They win wor not because they were better,but because they had more tanks.So...that is it.
Perica1983 11 months ago
@Perica1983 Who cares what German standards were? We're talking about a country that thought it was totally reasonable to invade England with barges towed across the channel.
They won the war because they had more tanks and German tanks were nowhere near as good as the legends claimed they were. I mean Germany's No. 1 tank during the war, the Panzer IV was 10 tons lighter than the Sherman. loloops there goes your heavier tanks argument lol.
CaptHawkeye 11 months ago
@CaptHawkeye You doesnt know anything about panzers.First,panzer 4 was not no.1 germany tank,and he has better gun then sherman,and second,tiger and panther was able to hit sherman or crommwell from great distances,when allied tanks couldnt even see them.All known story about 3 tigers reatreating from Moscow manage to destroy 51 T-34 and of course Michael Wittman,Kurt Knispel and Otto Carius was some of tiger aces who prove that your statement is so stupidness and foolish.
Perica1983 11 months ago
@Perica1983 It is when you realize that the Panzer IV participated in every major German victory of the war, and the Tiger and Panther never once won a major campaign. Battles here and there, but battles don't win wars.
No one cares about what a few guys who got really lucky did. Heroes don't win wars. They do imply your forces suck though.
CaptHawkeye 11 months ago
@CaptHawkeye Which nationality are you?You calling 150+ destroyed enemy tanks and AT guns from soviet union to Normandy a luck???Listen,I see you are depressed but,germans were the best tank makers in past and they are now-they have Leopard 2 A7,best tenk in the world right now.So you cannot undervalue german tehnology and briliant mind,they were mighty in the past,they will be mighty in future so...Long live Nazi Germany!!!
Perica1983 11 months ago
@Perica1983 You're a freak.
CaptHawkeye 11 months ago
@CaptHawkeye And you are just another dumb american-propaganda poisoned boy who dont want to accept facts.Truth is hard,i know.Americans now is much biger evil nation than german nazis.They killing they own people,and people all ower the world spreading chaos and death.
Perica1983 11 months ago
@Perica1983 - Stop skipping the appointments with your psychiatrist.
JohnQuincyAdams1 10 months ago
@Perica1983 - Nazi Germany has been dead and gone for over 65 years, thank God. The Nazi party has also been outlawed in Germany. It's illegal. Get your head out of fantasy-land, kid.
JohnQuincyAdams1 10 months ago