Most of us have been discussing tank vs. tank engagements, but bear in mind that tanks engage non-armored targets much of the time. The T34 and Sherman may have been lacking in certain ways, when punching it out with a Tiger or a Panther, but they excelled as infantry support weapons and in fast-moving mobile operations. The much-lamented short-barrelled 75mm cannon on the Sherman was quite inadequate against the latest German tanks, but it fired a very good HE round for infantry support.
@GeorgiaBoy1961: The image that often comes to mind of the T34 is one in which there is a squad or more of Soviet tank-rider infantrymen clinging to the exterior of the tank, PPSH submachineguns in hand. The German tank aces and 88mm At gunners knocked out hundreds of them at a time in various battles, but there were always more and they kept coming - right into Berlin. As the saying goes, quantity has its own quality.
How fearsome a sight a King Tiger must have been to the Allied crews that encountered it!
At 70 tons, this tank is still a monster by today's standards. I can only imagine what it must have looked like to our GIs during the Battle of the Bulge, for example.
I would not say they lacked they just divided it up to much. Three battle tanks come on pick one stick with it until you come across something it can't talk. America made Sherman's massive amounts 5 US tanks to 1 German tank. If the Germans built nothing but Tiger 1s well it be different.
what wins a war is mass production Germany had better quality but lacked production Soviet tanks had the firepower to destroy the German tanks not only that but they had the quantity as well if Hitler had mass produced the king tiger and deployed en mass on the eastern front the Soviet union would have fallen not only dew to the superiority of the king tiger but the strategic capability of the German high command
The Germans were too far ahead of their time. The Germans believed in fighting with heavily armed tanks with excellent crews similar to what Israel perfected in the Arab-Israeli Wars. Whilst that is the future of tank warfare, that wasn't WWII, WWII was a war where quantity was a quality in itself. The Allies got that and beat the Germans.
@iamnobodyism: Don't forget Allied control of the air as a key weapon that beat back Germany's elite tankers. Even the largest and best-protected tanks of that time were quite vulnerable to rocket attacks, especially in their thinner top and rear armor and engine compartment. Even without penetrating, cannon and heavy MG fire could tear up the gunner's periscope, radio aerials, etc. Even the largest and heaviest tanks were destroyed or simply turned over by the detonation of 500 lb. bombs.
And this is another myth, ground attack aircraft were not as dangerous to tanks as the US propaganda wants us to believe, research by the US and Uk in normandie revealed tha of all the german tanklosses less than 10% was by ground atattk aircraft, 13 Tiger tanks were lost due to aircraft, 7 of which were by high altitude bombers.
@Dreachon: My sources say otherwise. Virtually every German general of note, from Rommel on down, identified Allied airpower - especially tactical airpower - as a key factor in deciding the war in the west. Tac Air didn't have to destroy a Tiger or other tank for it to be effective; the threat of being destroyed was often enough to get German armor and supporting infantry to retreat or postpone an attack, or - in the closing months of the war - surrender outright.
Well your sources are either outdated, based on myths or lying.
Close support airpower has been proven to be vastly overrated, US and British researchers went into Normandy follwoing the battle of Normandy and investigated every german vehicle they came across and their findibngs are quite clear,
During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles)
In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed)
During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 252 tanks, respectively.
It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.
In the Falaise gap examiners found 385 tanks and armoured vehicles. Of these 13 were confirmed as destroyed by aircraft. 11 by rocket and two by bombs.
@Dreachon: I have been studying the history of WWII for over forty years; I've forgotten more about it than you'll ever know. I don't give a damn what you think. That clear enough for you?
I couldn't give a damn about an old fool to dumb to understand the truth, if you foolishly believe that ground attack aircraft were that great against tanks, then I pitty you.
@Dreachon: It is easy to disprove your misinformed post by making reference to the career of the most successful ground attack pilot of all time, Stuka pilot and Knights Cross recipient Hans Ulrich-Rudel, who flew some 2,500 missions on the eastern front and destroyed over 2,00 targets including more than 500 tanks. Rudel was that effective, and he was flying a largely obsolete aircraft. Allied pilots took a similar toll, albeit spread out among many more pilots.
The only thing proven is that you believe in lies and old myths, Rudel claims have been proven for at least 10 years now to have been vastly inflated by the propaganda, instances like his claim of a battleship do not match, his claim of 12 tansk in 1 engagament do not add up.
@Dreachon: If ground attack aircraft were not as dangerous as "U.S. propaganda" would have us believe, why then did the typical German landser so fear the hated "Jabos" or fighter-bombers (P-47s, British Tempests and Typhoons, etc)?
These tactical air strikes also destroyed trains and trucks carrying tanks, fuel, ammo, and more. It is established fact, not myth, that German forces in the west could only move during bad flying weather or at night, or risk being shot up.
There is a world of difference between the threats to an armoured vehicle and the infantry in the open, once the infatry became entrenches as well the threat to them was also low.
Beeing under attack by ground atatck airrcaft was more of a psychological threat than a real threat.
@iamnobodyism: The Germans believed in keeping their crews together for as long as possible, to develop team work and comradeship. The best German tankers were among the elite in the world, if not the standard of it, but the best Allied crews were as good. In it could be argued that the best allied crews were even better than their German counterparts, since they won using inferior equipment, but better tactics and raw courage.
@iamnobodyism: The German armortruppen stressed complete and thorough training on their equipment, and mastery of long-range gunnery using their world-best optical equipment. Footage taken on the Russian front shows different German tanks making kills at distances of 1,000-1,500 meters, very long-distaces for tank gunnery in those days. The panzertruppen not only outranged their opponents in terms of gunnery, but in terms of optics and being first to see and target the enemy.
After the war however, the Soviet Army didn't learn that the future of warfare was the German way, the Western Allies did, and therefore Western armoured doctrine learnt from the Germans and tank designs learnt accordingly: heavily armoured with excellent firepower and fire control systems slightly slower and less numerous but well built.
Soviet doctrine however, continued the WWII route of massed expendable tank formations and all their tanks were accordingly designed to be light, cheap, simple and mobile with heavy firepower. This was put to the test in the Arab-Israeli wars and proved the Germans right.
the soviet union did have the best tanks during the second war In response to better German tanks, the Soviets began to produce the T-34 which outclassed all of the German tanks on the eastern front
@horseshitandyouknowi Too bad an American designed the T-34, provided the trucks to get them to the front. Feats the Soviets couldn't manage themselves. Also, the T-34 didn't outclass anything. It was a poorly designed vehicle with no exhaust or heating, no useful aiming system. The only good thing about a T-34 is that it was cheap and easy to build.
@zzsql no thats not true, dont bash the Russians that badly, and the T-34 did outclass something, they outclassed the Japanese tanks they faced during the Manchurian Campaign lol.
@horseshitandyouknowi the T-34 was a piece of junk. Just like the Sherman. Both tanks were for mass production. The only reason the Russians and the Allies overwhelmed the German tanks was through their huge numbers. for every T-34 or Sherman a Tiger or Panther killed, there were 5 more to replace it. The T-34 had brittle armor, poor suspension, and a terrible sight system. Sherman had terrible gun, bad suspension, an thin armor.
@akulaknight: It is mostly accurate to state that the Allies won the war using the mass-produced technology of the 1930s (with exceptions like the atomic bomb, etc.) while the Germans lost it using sophisticated designs of the 1950s before their time. Yes, the Germans had some very good technology, but do not forget that they relied on horses more than any other western military force.
@horseshitandyouknowi here are a few things about the T-34 historians forget. The T-34's were more unreliable than even the Panther. For a good part of the war, spare transmissions were carried into combat on the tanks back. weak, brittle armor and engines that were prone to breaking down after 300 m of driving. The track links were very weak, and were prone to breakage, and the suspension was horrible. It beat the crews to death. Inovative, maybe. Best tank? I strongly disagree.
@akulaknight: The T34 was firmly in the Russian/Soviet tradition of effective, durable weapons simple-enough for illiterate peasants to operate. By our standards, crude... but there is no arguing that the T34 was a very effective weapon in its prime. There were mechanical teething problems in the beginning, as the new tank was rushed to the front before being perfected, but by war's end, thousands of T34-85s formed the vanguard of Soviet armored might.
@akulaknight: You do have a point, though, that the Soviets never have placed that much of a premium on crew comfort, ergonomics, or survivability. The Russians have always been willing to trade space and lives to stop invaders, and their designs reflect this. I have not heard your criticism of the Christie suspension elsewhere; do you have a source? The outcome of the war proves that the T34 was good-enough to get the job done, if not up to the standards of the best German engineering.
1:18 in the west the enemy tanks didnt give us problems...Sherman firefly no problem for us :))).... ....tank nr 1:)...on dyscovery or other imperialist channels :) is not nr 1
@0willsy01 Ok read this again SLOWLY the Russians would ram the German tank stopping it dead in its tracks then out flank the German tank with more tanks and hit the German tanks on its sides and back. Out flanking german tanks is pretty much the norm to defeating them. the russians stopped them in place and out flanked them the US drove circles around them until they had a shot at the thinner back and sides...Why does this mystify you????
I think you have been playing too much WoT, ramming panzers rarely happened, it barely shows up in any german or soviet records, it's another piece that been overblow by soviet propaganda, they did the same with Kursk, not too mention tha ramming a heavier vehicle is gonna do more damage to you then them, you make youraself also very vulnerable to enemy fire as you need to build up momentum.
Moving in a straight line made it even easier for them to hit you.
@Dreachon All of my info came from historians. Are you a historian? Your points means NOTHING. your apllying A logic the russians didnt . The russians used to attack in waves. they didnt have enough rifles. so when someone with a rifle died. someone else picks it up and keeps fighting...THAT is the logic and reality of Russian warfare. They considered those tanks expendable. thier sole purpose is to bring the German tank to a stop reguardless of damage. once its stopped outflank it.
No you do not, the ramming of tanks barely shows up in the german and soviet records, there is only 1 recorded case of a Tiger II beeing rammed and that was in Normandy.
And my point do mean alot, alot more than people like you who pull ther info from the history channel, a channel that a serious researcher knows is deeply flawed and you continue to fantachise further.
T-34 ramming panzers was more due to accident thansk to the poor vision inside the tank.
Are you just beeing that dumb, given all the comments on your page I think so, that historian that says it was never ever a russian tank commander, Dr. Aryeh Nusbacher makes that comment.
@Dreachon Copy and paste this video"Military Channel: Top 10 Tanks (T-34) NO.1 " at 4:08 there a T-34 doing just what you siad they didn't. The commentaters are history professors, Drs, and curators from museums...FAR MORE qualified than you....
Oh god you really are even dumber than I thought, many of those make mistakes, and the ones from History channel like Dr Nusbacher have made plenty of them, a lot of his comments are unsupported.
Also given that you seem to be blind like a bat the vehicle beeing rammed there is a truck, a damn normal truck.
One doesn'tt need a docterate to know about WWII, I know more about WWII than just about every teacher I met and I did bachelor, it's the one just below university.
I also know a lot more than most curators I have met and i have been to museum all over europe, have one to Kubinka plannend for next year.
@Dreachon: The Soviets used tanks as rams often in battle; if you examine the various histories of battles such as Kursk, you will be able to document this was the case. Comparatively few King Tigers were rammed, but that may be because not many were produced.... At Kursk, outgunned T-34s closed as quickly as possible to negate the German range advantage and to give their guns a better chance to inflict damage. They rammed the German tanks if all else failed.
The ramming of Tiger I at Kursk is nothing more than soviet propaganda created to make the soviets look great, it's the same they did with inflating the numbers of german machines available and the numers they lost, russians have long claimed that 700 german machines went up against 800 russians machines.
In truth it was just 115 german machines against just over 500 russians machines.
@0willsy01 Oh Im sorry appearantly you cannot read... I did mention they had russian veterans from the war that were thier sources......If I cannot depend on people who accually did it . What source would you recommend?
@0willsy01 Spoken like a true person who has no idea WTF they are talking about.Who should I believe. military historins from the History channel or you.....I think I will take the word of the russian Tank veteran from WW2 over yours.....They ram the tank to stop it and hold it in a particular spot. if the Tank cannot move forward it become a sitting duck.
@0willsy01 The Super Pershing was real but i wasn't like people think it is it was just a normal Pershing that had extra armor wielded on the front and some sources said it had the 105mm T5E1 but its mostly accepted that it never saw combat.
The Russians T-34 tank was a great tank but it was how they used it, that won the day. The German tanks had thick armour and big guns. The Russians would RAM them. If a T-34 slamed into the front of a Tiger tank or even a King Tiger. it stopped them dead in thier tracks. thier engines couldn't produce enough power to run over the other tank. Then the Russians surround the German and hit it in its thin armour on the sides and back.
@0willsy01 WHAT? The American;s captured a King Tiger during the battle of the bulge. I have seen one at Aberdeen, MD. I dunno if its the one they captured or not, I dont think it is.
@ xAlexTobiasxB... Your praise for the Tigers are accurate exept for one little thing... a "thousand dead American Sherman crews who were killed every day"? I think you'd better check your details on that meine freund.
@xAlexTobiasxB I watched a documentary stating that the russians made better tanks that out classed the german tanks. These tanks had sloping armor. Thus the king tiger was created, to fight of these tanks. so sorry forgot the name of the tanks.
They were cheaper and simple to make thus they can create thousands of them unlike the king tiger.. Just sharing...
the other thing i love is when people claim the tiger II was an unmanuverable beast. thats simply not true. it shared the same steering gear with her sister, the tiger I. they both could pivot on the spot, unlike the junk sherman, or t-34 with bulldozer controls. she was far from slow, she could do 20-25 mph. again, we are comparing tigers to shermans. lets compare tigers to IS-2's or KV tanks that are in tigers weight class. she simply out classes them with armor, speed and firepower.
@liberalinthedesertaz the IS-1/2 platform was terrible. 2 piece ammo, and hard brittle armor that was prone to spalling. panthers ate IS-1/2 for lunch and so did the tigers. i would still prefer my tiger 1/2 platforms over the soviet answer. were the tiger's the perfect tank? no, but they were the be all and end all of KT's in WWII until the IS-3 came out in the last few months of the war. the tiger's were a reliable tank, far more reliable than the pershings that were ment to challenge them.
@akulaknight: Akula, you are clearly biased for some reason entirely in favor of German tanks, even to the expense of the better Allied designs. Technological superiority is important in war, but it is often not the determining factor in who wins or loses. A skilled and experienced crew could minimize the specific weaknesses of a given design, and exploit its strengths. In many cases, Germany had the best weapons on the battlefield, but they lost anyway. There's a lesson in that.
@akulaknight They're not slow but because the Germans at the time had no time to perfect their technical innovations the King Tiger ended up unreliable.
@iamnobodyism The Tiger I and II were very reliable, if the crews did regular maintance. But by this point in the war, parts were running out, and the crews were on a constant retreat. They could not stop for repairs like they used to earlier in the war. Yes, the IS-2 used a large howitzer that couldn't peirce the armor of a tiger. However, the cuncussion would kill everyone inside a tiger or tiger II, but the germans would re-arm it and re-crew it and put them back in battle the next day.
@akulaknight: "The Tiger I and II were very reliable, if the crews did regular maintance." yes, but in wartime, "regular" maintenance sometimes isn't possible. That's why smart designers strive to make their designs "soldier proof," and able to withstand abuse. Many German general officers hated the Tigers, because they were so heavy and prone to getting stuck in soft ground, and had to be transported by train. They were also too heavy for most bridges of the time.
Your repeating old myths, the Tiger I was less likely to get stuck in the mud than a panzer IV or a sherman thanks to it's low ground pressure and wide tracks.
Also Tiger I could cross bridges, you don't need a 56 ton bridge to gett hem across, bridges in europe could easily handle their weight.
@akulaknight: The Tiger I and II were fearsome in static defense, lying in ambush, but they were problematical in mobile offensive operations. They consumed huge amounts of POL, and required sophisticated maintenance skills. They were also slower than the Panthers and Pzkw IVs, and required wider roads. If one broke or bogged down, only another Tiger could tow or pull it out. Since the Germans had no battlefield armored recovery system in place, many were simply abandoned in place.
@akulaknight: Re: "the other thing i love is when people claim the tiger II was an unmanuverable beast. thats simply not true. it shared the same steering gear with her sister, the tiger I. they both could pivot on the spot" Yes, this was an important feature that many Allied designs lacked, but that does not mean it was by any sensible definition agile. It was a superb weapon in the defense, but a bust in fast-moving, mobile operations. Read up on the Battle of the Bulge for proof.
@verboten77 listen to reason. the chances that really happened are slim and none. its propaganda. nothing more. most tankers would claim killing a tiger II and later find out it was really a Panzer V panther. they looked similar, and shared alot of the same componets. some even claimed tiger I kills, and it turned out to be a panther IV. the 88MM L71 gun layed any tank to waste that it hit. unlikely the us tank would have lived. i believe it was a panter V that they killed.
@0willsy01 actualy they made around 20-25 but they were just heavily modified pershings with loads of armor welded on and a new longer 90mm gun that had alot higher velocity but only 1 went to europe and it had more engine problems then the King Tiger.
@redshark618 lolz no, but a KT got disable and had 231 shots from a platoon of Churchills. It was of course abandoned because one of those shots hit the bottom of the gun near the mantlet and disabled the gun.
@gargmel I guess that was from the side and it happened in city which will always be on close range so this time the american penetrated the panther armour but it happened only once rofl! pershing couldnt even fight a tiger 1 so king tiger!!! man!!
@commandplay no way. yes this tank is good, but what good is a tank that doesn't have fuel? the german commanders were told they would be able to rely on capturing allied fuel dumps and fuel their tanks that way.
Germans call the bengal tiger a 'konigstiger', which literally means king tiger. So when you say it is 'incorrectly translated' you are being misleading. It still means king tiger, the germans dont know what the hell a 'bengal' is; to them, the bengal is a 'king tiger'. In other words, a bengal tiger is a king tiger. They have a different name for the animal than we do.
@leksss4 because they didnt have the resources. They only made two Maus tanks. They also only built a few of the E100 series tanks also. (I dont even think they did the trial sfor the E-100.
@liberalinthedesertaz The T34 was the right tank, not the best one! The Tiger family was ,if I'm to be asked, the best, but not worth the amount of very capable T-34's or even Panzer IV's they could have had instead for the production time and price.
Just 492 King Tiger tanks were ever produced, against more than 40,000 Soviet T-34 and more than 50,000 Sherman tanks. Numbers are numbers. I live in Brazil.
@daltonagre: Your post says it all. As the Soviets liked to say, "quantity has its own quality." A single Tiger II might hold up the advance of an armored company, and knock out 6-8 Allied tanks or vehicles, but they would simply bypass it, or call in an air or artillery TOT (time on target) to knock it out for force it to retreat. The Germans were so short of gas by war's end that few of their Tigers were still in action.
Strange that the commander said Firefly's weren't a problem... I read an atricle last year that described an engagement between 3 Sherman Fireflies and a squadron of King Tigers (5-6 tanks ?) The firefly's got the drop on them knocked out 2, 1 fell into a shell crater and the others retreated... No matter how you look at it the Firefly's DID prove a problem, not too mention the shell crater :)
@TheTeej08 what you discribed was a suprise raid on Tiger Is, actually once german tank crews were instructed to spot and destroy fireflys first they didn't worry about them as much. Despite the excellent 17pdr main gun, the firefly was still hampered by the Shermans less than optimal armour.
The King Tiger was a total POS. It's like a professional bodybuilder, it looks badass but all that muscle just leads to frequent injuries from an overtaxed system.
T-34 might be the greatest tank I agree but the king tiger was vastly more powerful in gun and armour than any t-34. They only made 492 so not enough to make a big diff to the either front.
Kinda silly of the Germans to build these overpowered complicated tanks when they could have used their industial capasity to mass produce simpler versions. Quantity has a quality in its own.
@1TtidnaB: A very good point... if they'd have standardized on the Panther alone, they could have caused a great deal more of trouble than they did. As far as tank destroyers went, the Jagtpanther was widely feared by the Allies and rightly so. That would have been a good choice for an TD.
@1TtidnaB: The Germans were on the right track also, when they started making panzerfausts by the thousands late in the war. Simple to use, enormously effective, and cheap. Instead, Hitler wanted ridiculous projects like the Maus supertank.
lol this aint nothing t34 ate them for breakfast maybe its good in coh but there its overpowered dont see me like some game freak but cod5 shows it real power^^
@kiki0391 excuse me? Are you seriously considering that the t34 to be more superior to the King Tiger? okay "kiki" lets compare.
King Tiger-180mm armour, 88mm gun
T34-90mm armour, 85mm gun
Now, pray tell, which tank you think can win in a firefight?
I've played Cod 5 and know what level youre talkin bout. A single t34 cannot destroy what seems to be a division of panzers. Also, company of heroes do not have a unit of king tigers avilable.
and not introducing amazing war machines like the STG44 and the me262 jet sooner. Im not even going to mention Russia and his idiotic approach of trying to beat them in 6 weeks.
Echeque5 - TOTALLY not true the Germans could have won the war on many occasions if Hitler had just for once listened to his generals. A number of his failings included: Not pushing the panzers forward to destroy the British at dunkirk (thankgod he didnt), leaving the battle of britain planning to an idiot like Goering, declaring war on the USA when he should have simply left Japan to fight them,
cant imagine the horror of seeing one of these beasts on the battlefield, such an amazing piece of engineering..but then again why wouldnt it be its German :)
@MrAquafan oh what the Sherman was the best tank of ww2 just because we won??????? you mad????????? the mg42 was the best damn machine gun of the war but just because the allies won youre inclined to say the browning was the best. Such arrogance
und achja @ Echeque den WW1 haben nicht wir sondern die Serben an dem Mord vom Össtereichischen Herzog Ferdinand Deutschland hat sich nur an sein Büdniss gehalten und du wilst das studiert haben bezweifle ich . Das alles hat Mit dem Mord an einem Össtereicher begonnen und mit dem Selbstmord eines Össtereiches aufgehört ironie des Schicksales ^^.
problem war Hitler wollte immer größere ideen umsetzten klar den krieg hättn wir eh verloren was passiert sonst wenn eine Armiesenkolonie über eine Gottesanbeteren hereinfällt, doch was er bauel lassen hat und wollte wie die Englandkanone oder P1000 Ratte oder der P1500 irsinn ganz einfach die SS war nur ein Propaganda schieber die waren die ersten die geflohen waren vom Schlachtfeld
very heavy beast, and a gas guzzling armor. if they had mass produced one specific tank, like the russians did with 50,000 t-34s, it would have given them a chance for an armistice.
had hitler fled berlin, it would have bought some time. the v-4 rockets, were almost ready, it would have revolutionized the way artillery was delivered.
lessons learned: u never start a war in 2 fronts. and don't place ur hopes and dreams in the hands of an austrian born, messenger boy with jewish ancestry.
@TombstoneAnnieOakly oh please shut up you moron and tell that to the thousand dead american sherman crews who were killed every day by only a frew German Tiger aces.
Michael Wittmann took out 30 tanks in only 15 minutes. and he was by far not even the only tiger ace with more than +100 tank kills. I just say Otto Carius he destroyed over 130 of your ugly and weak sherman tanks and he survived the war. A genius of a tank commander.
der komische typ Echeque5 ist doch krank....monate lang sülzt der unter sämtlichen panther und tiger-panzer videos rum und quasselt irgend eine verwirrte scheisse. der hat doch nen tank fetish...hehe!!!
Russians tank can't even beat the King tiger,Only the British Fire Fly tank can pwn it...
warlordson123 2 days ago
the allies tanks are not worth mentioning in the same breath as the german ww2 tanks
67tim1888 1 week ago
Most of us have been discussing tank vs. tank engagements, but bear in mind that tanks engage non-armored targets much of the time. The T34 and Sherman may have been lacking in certain ways, when punching it out with a Tiger or a Panther, but they excelled as infantry support weapons and in fast-moving mobile operations. The much-lamented short-barrelled 75mm cannon on the Sherman was quite inadequate against the latest German tanks, but it fired a very good HE round for infantry support.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961: The image that often comes to mind of the T34 is one in which there is a squad or more of Soviet tank-rider infantrymen clinging to the exterior of the tank, PPSH submachineguns in hand. The German tank aces and 88mm At gunners knocked out hundreds of them at a time in various battles, but there were always more and they kept coming - right into Berlin. As the saying goes, quantity has its own quality.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
How fearsome a sight a King Tiger must have been to the Allied crews that encountered it!
At 70 tons, this tank is still a monster by today's standards. I can only imagine what it must have looked like to our GIs during the Battle of the Bulge, for example.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
I would not say they lacked they just divided it up to much. Three battle tanks come on pick one stick with it until you come across something it can't talk. America made Sherman's massive amounts 5 US tanks to 1 German tank. If the Germans built nothing but Tiger 1s well it be different.
LordHannigan 3 weeks ago
what wins a war is mass production Germany had better quality but lacked production Soviet tanks had the firepower to destroy the German tanks not only that but they had the quantity as well if Hitler had mass produced the king tiger and deployed en mass on the eastern front the Soviet union would have fallen not only dew to the superiority of the king tiger but the strategic capability of the German high command
horseshitandyouknowi 2 months ago
The Germans were too far ahead of their time. The Germans believed in fighting with heavily armed tanks with excellent crews similar to what Israel perfected in the Arab-Israeli Wars. Whilst that is the future of tank warfare, that wasn't WWII, WWII was a war where quantity was a quality in itself. The Allies got that and beat the Germans.
iamnobodyism 2 months ago
@iamnobodyism: Don't forget Allied control of the air as a key weapon that beat back Germany's elite tankers. Even the largest and best-protected tanks of that time were quite vulnerable to rocket attacks, especially in their thinner top and rear armor and engine compartment. Even without penetrating, cannon and heavy MG fire could tear up the gunner's periscope, radio aerials, etc. Even the largest and heaviest tanks were destroyed or simply turned over by the detonation of 500 lb. bombs.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
And this is another myth, ground attack aircraft were not as dangerous to tanks as the US propaganda wants us to believe, research by the US and Uk in normandie revealed tha of all the german tanklosses less than 10% was by ground atattk aircraft, 13 Tiger tanks were lost due to aircraft, 7 of which were by high altitude bombers.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon: My sources say otherwise. Virtually every German general of note, from Rommel on down, identified Allied airpower - especially tactical airpower - as a key factor in deciding the war in the west. Tac Air didn't have to destroy a Tiger or other tank for it to be effective; the threat of being destroyed was often enough to get German armor and supporting infantry to retreat or postpone an attack, or - in the closing months of the war - surrender outright.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
Well your sources are either outdated, based on myths or lying.
Close support airpower has been proven to be vastly overrated, US and British researchers went into Normandy follwoing the battle of Normandy and investigated every german vehicle they came across and their findibngs are quite clear,
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon
To give some examples.
During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles)
In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed)
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon
During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 252 tanks, respectively.
It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon
In the Falaise gap examiners found 385 tanks and armoured vehicles. Of these 13 were confirmed as destroyed by aircraft. 11 by rocket and two by bombs.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon: I have been studying the history of WWII for over forty years; I've forgotten more about it than you'll ever know. I don't give a damn what you think. That clear enough for you?
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
Nice arrogance.
I couldn't give a damn about an old fool to dumb to understand the truth, if you foolishly believe that ground attack aircraft were that great against tanks, then I pitty you.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon: It is easy to disprove your misinformed post by making reference to the career of the most successful ground attack pilot of all time, Stuka pilot and Knights Cross recipient Hans Ulrich-Rudel, who flew some 2,500 missions on the eastern front and destroyed over 2,00 targets including more than 500 tanks. Rudel was that effective, and he was flying a largely obsolete aircraft. Allied pilots took a similar toll, albeit spread out among many more pilots.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
The only thing proven is that you believe in lies and old myths, Rudel claims have been proven for at least 10 years now to have been vastly inflated by the propaganda, instances like his claim of a battleship do not match, his claim of 12 tansk in 1 engagament do not add up.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon: If ground attack aircraft were not as dangerous as "U.S. propaganda" would have us believe, why then did the typical German landser so fear the hated "Jabos" or fighter-bombers (P-47s, British Tempests and Typhoons, etc)?
These tactical air strikes also destroyed trains and trucks carrying tanks, fuel, ammo, and more. It is established fact, not myth, that German forces in the west could only move during bad flying weather or at night, or risk being shot up.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
There is a world of difference between the threats to an armoured vehicle and the infantry in the open, once the infatry became entrenches as well the threat to them was also low.
Beeing under attack by ground atatck airrcaft was more of a psychological threat than a real threat.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@iamnobodyism: The Germans believed in keeping their crews together for as long as possible, to develop team work and comradeship. The best German tankers were among the elite in the world, if not the standard of it, but the best Allied crews were as good. In it could be argued that the best allied crews were even better than their German counterparts, since they won using inferior equipment, but better tactics and raw courage.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@iamnobodyism: The German armortruppen stressed complete and thorough training on their equipment, and mastery of long-range gunnery using their world-best optical equipment. Footage taken on the Russian front shows different German tanks making kills at distances of 1,000-1,500 meters, very long-distaces for tank gunnery in those days. The panzertruppen not only outranged their opponents in terms of gunnery, but in terms of optics and being first to see and target the enemy.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
After the war however, the Soviet Army didn't learn that the future of warfare was the German way, the Western Allies did, and therefore Western armoured doctrine learnt from the Germans and tank designs learnt accordingly: heavily armoured with excellent firepower and fire control systems slightly slower and less numerous but well built.
iamnobodyism 2 months ago
Soviet doctrine however, continued the WWII route of massed expendable tank formations and all their tanks were accordingly designed to be light, cheap, simple and mobile with heavy firepower. This was put to the test in the Arab-Israeli wars and proved the Germans right.
iamnobodyism 2 months ago
the soviet union did have the best tanks during the second war In response to better German tanks, the Soviets began to produce the T-34 which outclassed all of the German tanks on the eastern front
horseshitandyouknowi 3 months ago
@horseshitandyouknowi Too bad an American designed the T-34, provided the trucks to get them to the front. Feats the Soviets couldn't manage themselves. Also, the T-34 didn't outclass anything. It was a poorly designed vehicle with no exhaust or heating, no useful aiming system. The only good thing about a T-34 is that it was cheap and easy to build.
zzsql 2 months ago
@zzsql no thats not true, dont bash the Russians that badly, and the T-34 did outclass something, they outclassed the Japanese tanks they faced during the Manchurian Campaign lol.
iamnobodyism 2 months ago
@horseshitandyouknowi the T-34 was a piece of junk. Just like the Sherman. Both tanks were for mass production. The only reason the Russians and the Allies overwhelmed the German tanks was through their huge numbers. for every T-34 or Sherman a Tiger or Panther killed, there were 5 more to replace it. The T-34 had brittle armor, poor suspension, and a terrible sight system. Sherman had terrible gun, bad suspension, an thin armor.
akulaknight 2 months ago
@akulaknight: It is mostly accurate to state that the Allies won the war using the mass-produced technology of the 1930s (with exceptions like the atomic bomb, etc.) while the Germans lost it using sophisticated designs of the 1950s before their time. Yes, the Germans had some very good technology, but do not forget that they relied on horses more than any other western military force.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@horseshitandyouknowi here are a few things about the T-34 historians forget. The T-34's were more unreliable than even the Panther. For a good part of the war, spare transmissions were carried into combat on the tanks back. weak, brittle armor and engines that were prone to breaking down after 300 m of driving. The track links were very weak, and were prone to breakage, and the suspension was horrible. It beat the crews to death. Inovative, maybe. Best tank? I strongly disagree.
akulaknight 2 months ago
@akulaknight: The T34 was firmly in the Russian/Soviet tradition of effective, durable weapons simple-enough for illiterate peasants to operate. By our standards, crude... but there is no arguing that the T34 was a very effective weapon in its prime. There were mechanical teething problems in the beginning, as the new tank was rushed to the front before being perfected, but by war's end, thousands of T34-85s formed the vanguard of Soviet armored might.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@akulaknight: You do have a point, though, that the Soviets never have placed that much of a premium on crew comfort, ergonomics, or survivability. The Russians have always been willing to trade space and lives to stop invaders, and their designs reflect this. I have not heard your criticism of the Christie suspension elsewhere; do you have a source? The outcome of the war proves that the T34 was good-enough to get the job done, if not up to the standards of the best German engineering.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
Hail to the king baby!
MinecaftGamer 3 months ago
yes, but they broke down, drank gas, and oh yes, fought for nazis.
kaitimebb 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If germany had won, we'd be watching this film on mars.
tomchch 5 months ago
1:18 in the west the enemy tanks didnt give us problems...Sherman firefly no problem for us :))).... ....tank nr 1:)...on dyscovery or other imperialist channels :) is not nr 1
86razva 6 months ago
Comment removed
86razva 6 months ago
German steel!
Timx4 6 months ago 22
Wow look at these guys battle it out.. Anyway, I love the King Tiger, looks SICK!
TheBBoyJmE 6 months ago
KING TIGER CREW: 1 Sherman down 1000 more to go.
Sherman 1: We are getting raped here!!!!
Sherman 2: Hey guys he made it we made the biggest hit of the day!
KING TIGER CREW: STOP SCRATCHING OUR PAINTJOB!!
OPENXAIMER 7 months ago
@OPENXAIMER Trolololol, though the Sherman used a 76mm, thats good enough to penetrate Tiger II armor.
Southpark124 6 months ago
@Southpark124
Only from the side, from the front it's useless.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@OPENXAIMER i think if the king tiger where used in battle it would be lethal but if the persing was too it would be a good battle
rucajuda 6 months ago
@rucajuda sure
OPENXAIMER 6 months ago
stop playing WoT !
bogatir1 7 months ago
@0willsy01 Ok read this again SLOWLY the Russians would ram the German tank stopping it dead in its tracks then out flank the German tank with more tanks and hit the German tanks on its sides and back. Out flanking german tanks is pretty much the norm to defeating them. the russians stopped them in place and out flanked them the US drove circles around them until they had a shot at the thinner back and sides...Why does this mystify you????
shellback1970 7 months ago
@shellback1970
I think you have been playing too much WoT, ramming panzers rarely happened, it barely shows up in any german or soviet records, it's another piece that been overblow by soviet propaganda, they did the same with Kursk, not too mention tha ramming a heavier vehicle is gonna do more damage to you then them, you make youraself also very vulnerable to enemy fire as you need to build up momentum.
Moving in a straight line made it even easier for them to hit you.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon All of my info came from historians. Are you a historian? Your points means NOTHING. your apllying A logic the russians didnt . The russians used to attack in waves. they didnt have enough rifles. so when someone with a rifle died. someone else picks it up and keeps fighting...THAT is the logic and reality of Russian warfare. They considered those tanks expendable. thier sole purpose is to bring the German tank to a stop reguardless of damage. once its stopped outflank it.
shellback1970 6 months ago
@shellback1970
No you do not, the ramming of tanks barely shows up in the german and soviet records, there is only 1 recorded case of a Tiger II beeing rammed and that was in Normandy.
And my point do mean alot, alot more than people like you who pull ther info from the history channel, a channel that a serious researcher knows is deeply flawed and you continue to fantachise further.
T-34 ramming panzers was more due to accident thansk to the poor vision inside the tank.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon So who should I believe to or the historian, The fomer russian tank commander who accually did it and explained in detail. or you.......?
shellback1970 6 months ago
@shellback1970
Are you just beeing that dumb, given all the comments on your page I think so, that historian that says it was never ever a russian tank commander, Dr. Aryeh Nusbacher makes that comment.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon Copy and paste this video"Military Channel: Top 10 Tanks (T-34) NO.1 " at 4:08 there a T-34 doing just what you siad they didn't. The commentaters are history professors, Drs, and curators from museums...FAR MORE qualified than you....
shellback1970 6 months ago
@shellback1970
Oh god you really are even dumber than I thought, many of those make mistakes, and the ones from History channel like Dr Nusbacher have made plenty of them, a lot of his comments are unsupported.
Also given that you seem to be blind like a bat the vehicle beeing rammed there is a truck, a damn normal truck.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon Ok do you have a doctorate? no? nuff said....unqualified......
shellback1970 6 months ago
@shellback1970
Grasping at straws aren't you.
One doesn'tt need a docterate to know about WWII, I know more about WWII than just about every teacher I met and I did bachelor, it's the one just below university.
I also know a lot more than most curators I have met and i have been to museum all over europe, have one to Kubinka plannend for next year.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon: The Soviets used tanks as rams often in battle; if you examine the various histories of battles such as Kursk, you will be able to document this was the case. Comparatively few King Tigers were rammed, but that may be because not many were produced.... At Kursk, outgunned T-34s closed as quickly as possible to negate the German range advantage and to give their guns a better chance to inflict damage. They rammed the German tanks if all else failed.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
The ramming of Tiger I at Kursk is nothing more than soviet propaganda created to make the soviets look great, it's the same they did with inflating the numbers of german machines available and the numers they lost, russians have long claimed that 700 german machines went up against 800 russians machines.
In truth it was just 115 german machines against just over 500 russians machines.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@0willsy01 Oh Im sorry appearantly you cannot read... I did mention they had russian veterans from the war that were thier sources......If I cannot depend on people who accually did it . What source would you recommend?
shellback1970 7 months ago
@0willsy01 Spoken like a true person who has no idea WTF they are talking about.Who should I believe. military historins from the History channel or you.....I think I will take the word of the russian Tank veteran from WW2 over yours.....They ram the tank to stop it and hold it in a particular spot. if the Tank cannot move forward it become a sitting duck.
shellback1970 7 months ago
@0willsy01 The Super Pershing was real but i wasn't like people think it is it was just a normal Pershing that had extra armor wielded on the front and some sources said it had the 105mm T5E1 but its mostly accepted that it never saw combat.
ahnilator123 7 months ago
The Russians T-34 tank was a great tank but it was how they used it, that won the day. The German tanks had thick armour and big guns. The Russians would RAM them. If a T-34 slamed into the front of a Tiger tank or even a King Tiger. it stopped them dead in thier tracks. thier engines couldn't produce enough power to run over the other tank. Then the Russians surround the German and hit it in its thin armour on the sides and back.
shellback1970 7 months ago
@finlandman123 our you that retarded?
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
@0willsy01 WHAT? The American;s captured a King Tiger during the battle of the bulge. I have seen one at Aberdeen, MD. I dunno if its the one they captured or not, I dont think it is.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
@0willsy01 where do you get your information?
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
Achtung Panzer, KONIGSTIGER!, run for your lives.
haiherosner 7 months ago
@ xAlexTobiasxB... Your praise for the Tigers are accurate exept for one little thing... a "thousand dead American Sherman crews who were killed every day"? I think you'd better check your details on that meine freund.
sirvyver 7 months ago
@xAlexTobiasxB I watched a documentary stating that the russians made better tanks that out classed the german tanks. These tanks had sloping armor. Thus the king tiger was created, to fight of these tanks. so sorry forgot the name of the tanks.
They were cheaper and simple to make thus they can create thousands of them unlike the king tiger.. Just sharing...
MegaChinav 7 months ago
wow
xmikerinehartx 8 months ago
wow, somebody is mad that the german tanks didn't commit genocide on the rest of the world. Damn, get out of the house more...
psychoclown420 8 months ago
Hitler lost. The end.
masterbarnard 9 months ago
the other thing i love is when people claim the tiger II was an unmanuverable beast. thats simply not true. it shared the same steering gear with her sister, the tiger I. they both could pivot on the spot, unlike the junk sherman, or t-34 with bulldozer controls. she was far from slow, she could do 20-25 mph. again, we are comparing tigers to shermans. lets compare tigers to IS-2's or KV tanks that are in tigers weight class. she simply out classes them with armor, speed and firepower.
akulaknight 10 months ago 12
@akulaknight IS-122? which btw was another major thorn in the German's side like the KV-1/KV-2 earlier in teh war
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
@liberalinthedesertaz the IS-1/2 platform was terrible. 2 piece ammo, and hard brittle armor that was prone to spalling. panthers ate IS-1/2 for lunch and so did the tigers. i would still prefer my tiger 1/2 platforms over the soviet answer. were the tiger's the perfect tank? no, but they were the be all and end all of KT's in WWII until the IS-3 came out in the last few months of the war. the tiger's were a reliable tank, far more reliable than the pershings that were ment to challenge them.
akulaknight 7 months ago
@akulaknight: Akula, you are clearly biased for some reason entirely in favor of German tanks, even to the expense of the better Allied designs. Technological superiority is important in war, but it is often not the determining factor in who wins or loses. A skilled and experienced crew could minimize the specific weaknesses of a given design, and exploit its strengths. In many cases, Germany had the best weapons on the battlefield, but they lost anyway. There's a lesson in that.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@akulaknight love u'r comment dude i say fuck russians when they claim they have the best tanks and shit ...
EMIR72CC 5 months ago 7
@akulaknight Well, IS-2 has a bigger explosive round
iamnobodyism 2 months ago
@akulaknight They're not slow but because the Germans at the time had no time to perfect their technical innovations the King Tiger ended up unreliable.
iamnobodyism 2 months ago
@iamnobodyism The Tiger I and II were very reliable, if the crews did regular maintance. But by this point in the war, parts were running out, and the crews were on a constant retreat. They could not stop for repairs like they used to earlier in the war. Yes, the IS-2 used a large howitzer that couldn't peirce the armor of a tiger. However, the cuncussion would kill everyone inside a tiger or tiger II, but the germans would re-arm it and re-crew it and put them back in battle the next day.
akulaknight 2 months ago
@akulaknight: "The Tiger I and II were very reliable, if the crews did regular maintance." yes, but in wartime, "regular" maintenance sometimes isn't possible. That's why smart designers strive to make their designs "soldier proof," and able to withstand abuse. Many German general officers hated the Tigers, because they were so heavy and prone to getting stuck in soft ground, and had to be transported by train. They were also too heavy for most bridges of the time.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961
Your repeating old myths, the Tiger I was less likely to get stuck in the mud than a panzer IV or a sherman thanks to it's low ground pressure and wide tracks.
Also Tiger I could cross bridges, you don't need a 56 ton bridge to gett hem across, bridges in europe could easily handle their weight.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@akulaknight: The Tiger I and II were fearsome in static defense, lying in ambush, but they were problematical in mobile offensive operations. They consumed huge amounts of POL, and required sophisticated maintenance skills. They were also slower than the Panthers and Pzkw IVs, and required wider roads. If one broke or bogged down, only another Tiger could tow or pull it out. Since the Germans had no battlefield armored recovery system in place, many were simply abandoned in place.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@akulaknight: Re: "the other thing i love is when people claim the tiger II was an unmanuverable beast. thats simply not true. it shared the same steering gear with her sister, the tiger I. they both could pivot on the spot" Yes, this was an important feature that many Allied designs lacked, but that does not mean it was by any sensible definition agile. It was a superb weapon in the defense, but a bust in fast-moving, mobile operations. Read up on the Battle of the Bulge for proof.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@0willsy01 Propaganda????? It happened get over it.
verboten77 10 months ago
@verboten77 listen to reason. the chances that really happened are slim and none. its propaganda. nothing more. most tankers would claim killing a tiger II and later find out it was really a Panzer V panther. they looked similar, and shared alot of the same componets. some even claimed tiger I kills, and it turned out to be a panther IV. the 88MM L71 gun layed any tank to waste that it hit. unlikely the us tank would have lived. i believe it was a panter V that they killed.
akulaknight 10 months ago 2
@0willsy01 actualy they made around 20-25 but they were just heavily modified pershings with loads of armor welded on and a new longer 90mm gun that had alot higher velocity but only 1 went to europe and it had more engine problems then the King Tiger.
ahnilator123 10 months ago
At first I thought he was gonna say:
"A tiger tank took 300,000 Sherman hits to disable it" or something like that...
redshark618 10 months ago
@redshark618 lolz no, but a KT got disable and had 231 shots from a platoon of Churchills. It was of course abandoned because one of those shots hit the bottom of the gun near the mantlet and disabled the gun.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
King Tiger = Badass
summer20105707 10 months ago
search this people
German Panther tank vs M26 Pershing - The Battle of Köln
gargmel 10 months ago
@gargmel I guess that was from the side and it happened in city which will always be on close range so this time the american penetrated the panther armour but it happened only once rofl! pershing couldnt even fight a tiger 1 so king tiger!!! man!!
SuperTigerNo1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gargmel already seen it.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
quality not quantity
blackjack4700 1 year ago
Too bad IS-3 came out in the late 1945 that tank could really stand up against King Tiger.
Vykuk123 1 year ago
@Vykuk123 actually those were used in the Russian advance to Berlin, andknocked out JagDTigers and KTs.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
if they could have more time with the tiger 1 and 2 to fix the bugs out the germans could have won the war
crackernumber2 1 year ago
@crackernumber2 maybe, more likely is that they needed to have a nuke tho.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
Is german mercedes benz
Timx4 1 year ago
they might of won the battle of the buldge if they had more of those
commandplay 1 year ago
@commandplay no way. yes this tank is good, but what good is a tank that doesn't have fuel? the german commanders were told they would be able to rely on capturing allied fuel dumps and fuel their tanks that way.
navyman221 1 year ago
Thumbs up if Company of Heroes brought you here!
Best get ever!
chrisispoop 1 year ago
@chrisispoop my interest came before I played any video games. But I play World of Tanks.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
Germans call the bengal tiger a 'konigstiger', which literally means king tiger. So when you say it is 'incorrectly translated' you are being misleading. It still means king tiger, the germans dont know what the hell a 'bengal' is; to them, the bengal is a 'king tiger'. In other words, a bengal tiger is a king tiger. They have a different name for the animal than we do.
jamen256 1 year ago
why they didnt made "Ratte tank"........ :( ?
i know why but would be badass big tank xD
leksss4 1 year ago
@leksss4 it was simply impossible and impractical.
nsx4life2008 1 year ago
@nsx4life2008 what did i tjust say...."i know why ....."
leksss4 1 year ago
@leksss4 because they didnt have the resources. They only made two Maus tanks. They also only built a few of the E100 series tanks also. (I dont even think they did the trial sfor the E-100.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
@liberalinthedesertaz i know.....
leksss4 7 months ago
The best tank of the war yes...but the best tank isn't always the right tank!
athame57 1 year ago 2
@athame57 The best tank of the war is usually considered the T-34.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
@liberalinthedesertaz The T34 was the right tank, not the best one! The Tiger family was ,if I'm to be asked, the best, but not worth the amount of very capable T-34's or even Panzer IV's they could have had instead for the production time and price.
Again, the best isn't always what you need.
athame57 7 months ago
Just 492 King Tiger tanks were ever produced, against more than 40,000 Soviet T-34 and more than 50,000 Sherman tanks. Numbers are numbers. I live in Brazil.
daltonagre 1 year ago
@daltonagre and they built a few hundred JagDTiger which were KTs without turrets.
liberalinthedesertaz 7 months ago
@daltonagre: Your post says it all. As the Soviets liked to say, "quantity has its own quality." A single Tiger II might hold up the advance of an armored company, and knock out 6-8 Allied tanks or vehicles, but they would simply bypass it, or call in an air or artillery TOT (time on target) to knock it out for force it to retreat. The Germans were so short of gas by war's end that few of their Tigers were still in action.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
hm... 65 tiger v a millions russian tanks
who wins ???
65 tiger !!!
osnajo 1 year ago
65 tiger v over a million russian tanks hmmm who will win.
IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA 1 year ago
@IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA
The Russians, because no tankgroup can stand against over a million tanks.
eselpopo 9 months ago
Shermans suck dick
watchmyshoes22 1 year ago
@watchmyshoes22 Like you
327pir 1 year ago
@327pir Sorry I don't feed trollz
watchmyshoes22 1 year ago
@watchmyshoes22 No you get fed big pink lollipops sammyboy.
327pir 1 year ago
@327pir Troll moar
watchmyshoes22 1 year ago
Strange that the commander said Firefly's weren't a problem... I read an atricle last year that described an engagement between 3 Sherman Fireflies and a squadron of King Tigers (5-6 tanks ?) The firefly's got the drop on them knocked out 2, 1 fell into a shell crater and the others retreated... No matter how you look at it the Firefly's DID prove a problem, not too mention the shell crater :)
TheTeej08 1 year ago
@TheTeej08 what you discribed was a suprise raid on Tiger Is, actually once german tank crews were instructed to spot and destroy fireflys first they didn't worry about them as much. Despite the excellent 17pdr main gun, the firefly was still hampered by the Shermans less than optimal armour.
MadMilitiaMen 1 year ago
Just a mobile pillow box on tracks too heavy for many bridges in europe and prone to breaking down plus can u imagine try to fill it with gas
FingersGreen0 1 year ago
The King Tiger was a total POS. It's like a professional bodybuilder, it looks badass but all that muscle just leads to frequent injuries from an overtaxed system.
ijl1i 1 year ago
Ah meine Kampfwagen Ausfuhrung VI !
DeathlyPureEvil 1 year ago
The king tiger tank did look very tough; but the T-34 tank was the greatest and powerful tank in the war.
Pickdivision 1 year ago
@Pickdivision
T-34 might be the greatest tank I agree but the king tiger was vastly more powerful in gun and armour than any t-34. They only made 492 so not enough to make a big diff to the either front.
Gonzoidzz 1 year ago
@Pickdivision
No way, they just had so many of them.
eselpopo 9 months ago
at 0.42 to 0.56 there was like at least 40 tiger II tanks thats quite alot considering it was only about 457 tiger II tanks made during ww2.
parus59 1 year ago
Comment removed
tommywalhall 1 year ago
".....to sall ther manpower problems the NAZIS...."
do you know what nazi mean?
i hate things like this........
when you are from german....you are a nazi.....
the best tank in WW2 was the " Panzer V" or " Phanther"
when you want to know,then ask me ;)
tommywalhall 1 year ago
@tommywalhall: the panther wasn't the best tank in wwII, you can't proof that
Kampfwagenkanone 1 year ago
1:39 what tank was that i forgot
Xiia0Sn00pY 1 year ago
@Xiia0Sn00pY looks like a stug.
ARomanianKid14 1 year ago
@Xiia0Sn00pY: that's not a tank. it's the hunterversion of the former tank mkIII it's called stugIII
Kampfwagenkanone 1 year ago
Kinda silly of the Germans to build these overpowered complicated tanks when they could have used their industial capasity to mass produce simpler versions. Quantity has a quality in its own.
1TtidnaB 1 year ago
@1TtidnaB: A very good point... if they'd have standardized on the Panther alone, they could have caused a great deal more of trouble than they did. As far as tank destroyers went, the Jagtpanther was widely feared by the Allies and rightly so. That would have been a good choice for an TD.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
@1TtidnaB: The Germans were on the right track also, when they started making panzerfausts by the thousands late in the war. Simple to use, enormously effective, and cheap. Instead, Hitler wanted ridiculous projects like the Maus supertank.
GeorgiaBoy1961 3 weeks ago
lol this aint nothing t34 ate them for breakfast maybe its good in coh but there its overpowered dont see me like some game freak but cod5 shows it real power^^
kiki0391 1 year ago
@kiki0391 excuse me? Are you seriously considering that the t34 to be more superior to the King Tiger? okay "kiki" lets compare.
King Tiger-180mm armour, 88mm gun
T34-90mm armour, 85mm gun
Now, pray tell, which tank you think can win in a firefight?
I've played Cod 5 and know what level youre talkin bout. A single t34 cannot destroy what seems to be a division of panzers. Also, company of heroes do not have a unit of king tigers avilable.
romanlegions 1 year ago
@romanlegions Well there is King Tiger in COH, but you get it only once. And of course King tiger is better than T-34
InfernumThe 1 year ago
@InfernumThe Yea, just realized that when playing COH online, my bad :p
romanlegions 1 year ago
@kiki0391: you truley are an idiot. believe in a game???
Kampfwagenkanone 1 year ago
King Tiger: "Ja, three-inches of Russian steel still in my ribs."
MingmingHill400 1 year ago
Q: what did the Sherman commander say when he saw a Tiger?
A: 'oh shit!'
Q: what did the Tiger commander say when he saw a Sherman?
A: 'snack-time'
TigerIPanzer 1 year ago
@TigerIPanzer what did the allied 'jabo' say dude? A; air superiority = buffet.
fluffy1931 1 year ago
@fluffy1931 'fluffy' - ahahahahahahaha..what kinda name is that?...stick to feeding your pet bunnies and leave the real world to the men
TigerIPanzer 1 year ago
@TigerIPanzer congratulations your gay!
fluffy1931 1 year ago
and not introducing amazing war machines like the STG44 and the me262 jet sooner. Im not even going to mention Russia and his idiotic approach of trying to beat them in 6 weeks.
TalonMercenary 1 year ago
Echeque5 - TOTALLY not true the Germans could have won the war on many occasions if Hitler had just for once listened to his generals. A number of his failings included: Not pushing the panzers forward to destroy the British at dunkirk (thankgod he didnt), leaving the battle of britain planning to an idiot like Goering, declaring war on the USA when he should have simply left Japan to fight them,
TalonMercenary 1 year ago
cant imagine the horror of seeing one of these beasts on the battlefield, such an amazing piece of engineering..but then again why wouldnt it be its German :)
TalonMercenary 1 year ago
The sherman was the best tank of ww2 why? because the allies won and the krauts lost so SHUT THE FUCK UP .
MrAquafan 1 year ago
@MrAquafan oh what the Sherman was the best tank of ww2 just because we won??????? you mad????????? the mg42 was the best damn machine gun of the war but just because the allies won youre inclined to say the browning was the best. Such arrogance
TalonMercenary 1 year ago
are the king tigers at around 0:45 doing the nazi salute or is it just to keep theyre guns pointed away?
seany150 1 year ago
@seany150
Pointed away of course.
Xterminatorbond 1 year ago
und achja @ Echeque den WW1 haben nicht wir sondern die Serben an dem Mord vom Össtereichischen Herzog Ferdinand Deutschland hat sich nur an sein Büdniss gehalten und du wilst das studiert haben bezweifle ich . Das alles hat Mit dem Mord an einem Össtereicher begonnen und mit dem Selbstmord eines Össtereiches aufgehört ironie des Schicksales ^^.
PS ich ahbe nichts gegen Österreicher.
N08TankerSoS 1 year ago
problem war Hitler wollte immer größere ideen umsetzten klar den krieg hättn wir eh verloren was passiert sonst wenn eine Armiesenkolonie über eine Gottesanbeteren hereinfällt, doch was er bauel lassen hat und wollte wie die Englandkanone oder P1000 Ratte oder der P1500 irsinn ganz einfach die SS war nur ein Propaganda schieber die waren die ersten die geflohen waren vom Schlachtfeld
N08TankerSoS 1 year ago
I wonder how many hits it would take to knock out an M1A2 abrams from today
CapSlapAHoe 1 year ago
very heavy beast, and a gas guzzling armor. if they had mass produced one specific tank, like the russians did with 50,000 t-34s, it would have given them a chance for an armistice.
had hitler fled berlin, it would have bought some time. the v-4 rockets, were almost ready, it would have revolutionized the way artillery was delivered.
lessons learned: u never start a war in 2 fronts. and don't place ur hopes and dreams in the hands of an austrian born, messenger boy with jewish ancestry.
dvsxavier 1 year ago
after WW2 the Soviets melted-down most of the Tiger I/II's and turned 'em into T-55's...what a waste
RifledBarrel 2 years ago
@RifledBarrel god that makes me want to cry!
Danie9989 2 years ago
@TombstoneAnnieOakly oh please shut up you moron and tell that to the thousand dead american sherman crews who were killed every day by only a frew German Tiger aces.
Michael Wittmann took out 30 tanks in only 15 minutes. and he was by far not even the only tiger ace with more than +100 tank kills. I just say Otto Carius he destroyed over 130 of your ugly and weak sherman tanks and he survived the war. A genius of a tank commander.
xAlexTobiasxB 2 years ago 15
der komische typ Echeque5 ist doch krank....monate lang sülzt der unter sämtlichen panther und tiger-panzer videos rum und quasselt irgend eine verwirrte scheisse. der hat doch nen tank fetish...hehe!!!
StepSequencer 2 years ago
@StepSequencer Sohn, wachsen auf. Gehen Sie tun Ihre Heimarbeit, spielen Ihre Videospiele, oder was auch immer es ist, dass Kinder derzeit tun.
Echeque5 2 years ago