I like how we are comparing a tank that's considered a medium to another tank that would have been considered a heavy tank [as in a 30 ton difference] Pershing medium would have at-least been the proper match-up but those were in short supply. also due to the metallurgy there were incidentally fewer tanker deaths in the sherman than other tanks of the day. I ask that you guys bear in mind, M4 was designed to fight the Pkw IV even then admitted to being obsolete before arriving to the theater
And it is BECAUSE of this that we have the M1 ABRAMS.... to all of you you did your duty lived.. and died in those death coffins I salute you.Because of your sacrifice OUR TANKS ARE FEAR!
Tigers would rarely act alone if so they would be more likely to be destroyed by air power rather than the Sherman, the tigers like the U-boats hunted in packs this situation is overly simplified and really would never happen, no commander is dumb enough to post one of his most critical assets alone in a ambust more like a Japanese tactic to sacrifice one tank, thats not how the Germans operated they were aware that they were at a numbers disadvantage and guarded their tanks very well
@canadiandrumer Tigers would rarely act alone if so they would be more likely to be destroyed by air power rather than the Sherman...
Yes it would be partly true that air power was used to destroy German tanks but these armored vehicles were more likely to be destroyed by other weapons such as anti-tank guns, tanks, mines, artillery, and etc.
Using air power during WWII was not really the best way to destroy tanks because most of the time they would missed their targets
@jc1200u I was specifically refering to the normandy situation where air power proved one of the decisive factors for the Americans, clogging german suply lines and wrecking havoc on thier armoured forces, the americans and british aside from the M10 didn't have much that could penetrate the armour of a Tiger and nothing could touch the frontal armour of a king tiger the panther also proved a though nut to crack. In the bocage it was very easy to hide from artillery bombardments
They may consume massive amount of resources to build and run, but you know you'd be well equipped with 2 way radio, thick armor, powerful guns and a fear factor to an enemy who opposes you.
Pure bullshit. Tiger's turret rotation speed is much faster than that. That scenario would result in 2 dead shermans, with other 2 retreating as best as they could. And the Villers Bocage thing, most of those British vehicles were trucks and armoured cars. But yes, with good tactics, about 5 shermans were needed to kill 1 tiger. And be respectful to the Ruski, ssmusic214.
I love how everyone is like" STUPID AMERICANS, U SUCK, TIGAR OWNS, LOLPKKLBNOKNKNM!" STFU, first of all this Tiger, wasnt Wittmans, second, if it was Amerian Propaganda, all the Shermans would have lfanked and killed the Tiger. I say," STUPID PEOPLE!" They DO point out how bad the Sherman was, and how the Tiger was superior, they only say that Sherman had the numbers.
Yeah, the only way to beat the Tiger was to bum-rush the Tiger tank and shoot it in the back, what a stupid strategy, do you guys know how many tanks would be destroyed by then? The Tiger had a kill ratio of 5.7 to 1 in the entire war, so this show is inaccurate, only 3 Shermans die, it's propaganda.
I knew turning the turret on a Tiger was slow, but I didn't know it was that slow. I guess that is one of the reasons why Wittman was so successful. Coming from commanding a turret-less 'sturmgeschutz', he and his crew were used to turning the whole vehicle instead of the turret and as far as I know he kept the habbit even when driving tanks with a turret.
This was exaggerated, The Tiger's 88mm gun was 100% accurate at 1,000 metres away targets, the 4 Shermans would not stand a chance, you really needed 8-10 Shermans, this is pure propaganda. Michael Wittman's Tiger tank destroyed over 45 British armoured vehicles in Villers Bocage Normandy in 1944. That's 1 Tiger attacking 45 enemy tanks and destroying them all, awesome!
@haiherosner Most of which couldn't hurt his Tiger even at the rear armour due to having machine guns instead of cannons, if they had a weapon at all. Kind of takes away the impressiveness, no? Not saying Wittman wasn't good, but people always exaggerate that encounter. In fact most of Wittman's (and any tank ace's) kills were small crap-vehicles and scout-tanks that wouldn't stand a chance.
@Inkompetent 20 of them were Cromwell and other tanks, which could hurt the Tiger at sides and rear, no problem, Michael Wittman was just much quicker, he took the initiative at Viller Bocage and won , that's all!
@haiherosner Meaningless ###s. There are many more ways to put a tank out of action other than sending another another tank against it. Considering ALL the factors in real life warfare Tiger was disaster.
@ssmusic214 Yeah, your funny, the Tiger 1's kill ratio was about 10 to 1 on Eastern front and 5.7 to 1 throughout the entire WW2 period from 1942-45, that's a fact. Tiger is the reason why the Russians had to build the IS-1, and IS-2 heavy tanks with 122mm gun in WW2, to counter it, because the T-34's were getting killed at long-distance, between 1-3 km. The Russian "crash-boom" 76mm anti-tank guns were useless against the Tiger tank, they would just bounce off 80mm side armour and 120mm front
@haiherosner So what? All those ##s completely ignore amount of resources were spent on building, repairing, maintaining, supplying and transporting tigers. Resources that could have been used somewhere else. It took 350 000 man/hours of work to built 1 tiger. Only 1800 I and II were ever built. Many never made it into battle due to nightmare of mechanical and logistical problems.
Tigers worked great creating big news headlines and war stories. But that's not what wins the wars.
@ssmusic214 I'll tell you so what? The Tiger tank created fear and panic in Soviet and allied armies, this was psychological warfare, it slowed the allies down considerably because they knew what the L/56 88mm gun could do. Most allied tankers realized that vs the Tiger tank, their own tanks were death traps in comparison, this put the fear of God and Death into soldiers minds. Those 1,800 Tigers destroyed over 10-11,000 enemy tanks in WW2, pretty good numbers, so it wasn't useless as you say.
1800 Tigers produced means that 99% WWII fighting man never got to see a Tiger, never mind fighting it.
And while Tigers were making big news headlines only mile away German Troops were mowed down by Shermans and T-34 without tank support.
Dumbest thing any country can do is to design and spent huge resources on a weapon that can not be built, maintained, supplied, transported in quantities necessary to win the war. It always will contribute to defeat. Not victory.
@ssmusic214 A mile away, German soldiers had Flak 88mm, Pak 40 75mm anti-tank guns, Pak 43 L/71 88mm anti-tank guns, Stug III's with 75mm, Nashorns with PAK 43 L/71 88mm, Panzer IV's with L/48 75mm guns, and Panther's with L/70 high velocity75mm guns etc, etc, etc... Your over simplifying the situation in WW2, the Tiger was used in concert with other elements in combat. Sure the Germans would have been better off producing 100,000 Panzer IV's but that was impossible because of allied bombings.
4-5 Stug III's could be produced instead of 1 Tiger, or 15-16 fighter planes. Which contributed more to war effort than single Tiger.
However no matter what Germans would do, they didn't stand a chance against combined US+UK+USSR industrial output. But Hitler's obsession with expensive "wonder weapons" (Tiger, ME-262, V-2) only speed up inevitable defeat.
@ssmusic214 Your oversimplifying and don't get the point , the Tiger was invented to stop the KV-1 heavy tank in Russia, but what you are saying is the Germans should have let the KV-1 over-run German positions and not built a machine like the Tiger to counter it, and instead should have built more Stug III's that could easily be killed by KV-1's? History does not work that way, the German's had to respond to KV-1 threat, with Tiger's , then Russians had to respond with IS-2, it was arms race.
@haiherosner KV-1 was hardly a factor in WWII. Only 255 were ever produced. Design was quickly dropped after disastrous performance. Even though it did make big PR headlines in Russia by destroying 22 German Tanks in Single engagement near Leningrad in 1941. (Soviets never mentioned in their story that some of those tanks were Panzer 1 that were only armed with dual machine guns).
@ssmusic214 KV-1 was a big factor in WW2 on Eastern Front 5,200 were built with different variants, such as KV-85 with 85mm gun, and KV-2, so your number of 255 is way too little, it was the main reason why Germans were motivated to build Tiger 1 tank. The Panzer III's L/60 50mm long barrel was ineffective against the KV-1 tanks, they had to use 88mm flak to kill it instead. Those German tanks in Leningrad were stuck in mud and there were plenty of Panzer III tanks that got destroyed as well.
Germans were "motivated" to built heavier tanks when during the Battle of Arras 21 May 1940 Rommel had to use anti-aircraft guns against British "Matilda" tanks that couldn't be stopped by any German Tanks available at that time. And "Main Factor" was T-34 not KV. (With road speed of 28Kmh not much use in mobile warfare).
KV-85 did not appear until 1943 when Tiger was already in full production. KV-2 (armored heavier than Tiger - only 255 produced). Only 500 KV-1 were operational until 1942.
@ssmusic214 You just contradicted your previous comment that only 255 KV-1's were ever made, now you say only 500 KV-1 were operational until 1942, your back-tracking. The Germans could destroy the T-34 tank, no problem, but they had great difficulty against the KV-1 series of tanks, they could not penetrate it even at the sides. The KV-1 threat in 1941 was the main reason for the introduction of the Tiger 1 in 1942 in Leningrad Front, and Eastern front, not the pathetic Matilda tank in 1940!
@haiherosner KV series were completely dropped from production in 1943 (poor performance)
1st operational Tiger was presented to Hitler on his birthday 20 April 1942.
"On 26 May 1941, at an armaments meeting, Henschel and Porsche were asked to submit designs for heavy tank"
"German combat experience with the French Somua S35 cavalry tank and Char B1 heavy tank, and the British Matilda I and Matilda II infantry tanks in June 1940 showed that the German Army needed better armed and armoured tanks"
@ssmusic214 The KV-1 series was never really dropped from production, the KV-85 tank was the ultimate KV tank that used the Hull Chassis of improved KV-1S (Skorostniy=Speed),which was an updated KV-1 with up-rated transmission and improved turret,it could do 45km/h with improved cross country performance. Kliment Vorishilov fell out of favour with Stalin and the communist party and the KV-85 was renamed IS-1 tank for political reasons. All the IS1,2,3 tanks used hull/chassis of KV-1s, until 1945
@haiherosner Voroshilov never "fell out of favour with Stalin and the communist party" his career peaked in 1952 still under Stalin. His portraits were always prominently displayed everywhere next to Stalin's.
КВ-1С KV-1S was last desperate attempt to solve mobility and mechanical problems by thinning out armor and lightening the tank. All the great victories of KV were achieved by using it as stationary pillbox in ambush positions.
@ssmusic214 Kliment Vorishilov "FELL OUT OF FAVOUR" with Stalin because of two major incidents. Kliment Vorishilov commanded the Finland winter war front from Nov/1939-Jan/1940, and was dismissed by Stalin as commander for his failure and replaced by Timoshenko,at a meeting at Stalins Dachau,Stalin and Kliment shouted at each other and Kliment blamed Stalin for his Great Purges, for the failure. In Sept 1941 Kliment was commander of Leningrad front failure, was dismissed and relpaced by Zhukov.
@haiherosner You have zero knowledge about USSR Communist Elite. If Kliment Vorishilov "FELL OUT OF FAVOUR" with Stalin he would be dead very shortly. Like 1000 of other top military commanders.
And not present BESIDE STALIN at 1943 Tehran Conference with Churchill and Roosevelt. And appointed a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee in 1952.
@ssmusic214 Talking to a Russian is like talking to a BRICK WALL, you people are so DOGMATIC, only you are right, and only black and white exists,right and wrong, no gray areas. Stalin could not start killing Big Generals again during the War, because the great purges caused the disaster of 1941. You have your Soviet biased opinion, and we in the West have a different opinion than you do. Therefore I can see that talking further is a waste of time, have a very nice day sir!
@haiherosner You have no clue what you are talking about. Voroshilov was old buddy of Stalin who helped him ascend to the top in internal power struggle. "Voroshilov played a central role in Stalin's Great Purge of the 1930s". And while his MILITARY skills turned out to be total disaster Stalin still kept him by his side for his LOYALTY, not because he was "TOP COMMANDER" essential for war effort.
His falling out of favor and removal would be improvement for Soviet Military.
@ssmusic214 Like I said before, talking to Russians is like talking to a BRICK WALL, you don't listen and you stick to your Dogma that only you know what's right. The fact is every Tank book I have ever read says that Kliment Vorishilov "FELL OUT OF FAVOUR" with Stalin as a military leader and because his KV tanks had troubles mechanically, there was also some jealousy with Stalin wanting fame to attach his name to Tanks. Apparently you think you know better than published authors, LOL:D
@haiherosner Stupid! I don't need to read "Published authors".
I served in Soviet Army in 1970-71 under very officers who fought in WWII. They know better than any "published authors". And was 7 years old when Stalin died. And Voroshilov was standing next to him on top of Lenin's Mausoleum at every military parade. That DOESN'T HAPPEN to anybody "out of favor".
@ssmusic214 continued part 2.... Your argument reversed would be like saying the Russians would have been better off not building the IS-1 and IS-2 heavy tanks to counter the Tiger Tank, but instead they should have built more and more T-34's and and SU-150 tank destroyers instead! Do you think the Russians had a choice when they were facing an assault by Tiger tanks? They had to respond to the Tiger, they had no choice practically, the Russian troops were screaming for help to fight the Tiger!
Soviets had unlimited resources compared to Germans they could built 50 000 T-34s AND ISs and many more. Plus about 20 000 tanks were delivered to them by allies. They had no problems with oar and oil supplies, production facilities out of range of German bombers etc....
And BTW IS was not very effective against Tigers. "It was mainly a breakthrough tank, firing a heavy high-explosive shell that was useful against entrenchments and bunkers"
In actual fact, the figure was closer to 14 tanks being destroyed between Wittmann and the rest of heavy SS 101 Panzer Battalion. Other vehicles attributed may have included lesser armoured vehicles and support equipment. Still awesome though!
No. I just believe that this doesn't change reports that a minority of kills were attributed to the rest of his 101. It doesn't change the fact that the majority of those kills were not tanks either. From photos, you can see many burnt bren carriers, and AT guns that had little time to react. The odd stuart, matilda. Fireflies would have been first to perish, as Wittmann and his crew were expert soldiers.
I think We should remember all of those that gave that day.
guys u have to realize that u can produce 5 shermans for on tiger. The soviet t-34 was in many aspects like the sherman. So for one Tiger Tank comes 5 t-34 and 5 shermans. no question the tiger was a better tank than the sherman but it needs much more resources to build.So the Allied try to win with quantity against quality and see´s who is the winner.... greets from germany
@Forgetmequick Top ten german commander TIGER acers killed 1000 allied tanks, do i have to explain that better, 10 tanks vs 1000 tanks plus other (trucks ,anti tank,etc) . Did allies had anything like that ratio with shermans or t34(bad turret, no radio etc..). NO.
TIGER was a superb tank even had steering wheel, almost invincible.
Recent meeting with TANK COMMANDERS of WWII allies and axis were asked WHICH TANK WOULD YOU PREFER TO GO TO BATTLE ? the answer UNANIMOUS was THE TIGER TANK.
Funny how much info people can get wrong, Tiger I was not slow, it was faster than just about every other heavy tank and was very manuverable and agile for a tank of it's size and weight, it would also traverse diffuclt terrain easier than a sherman thanks to it's wide tracks and surprisingly low ground pressure.
@Metalhead15712 Slow and clumsy? You do realise the Tiger was rather fast and had less ground pressure due to the wide tracks than a Sherman tank? Sure it was heavy but it was mobile and deadly. Only places it got stuck was in russia in the bogs on the fall or spring.
maybe they can destroy a usual tiger, but not a Tiger II (Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B Königstiger, Sdkfz. 182 in its full name), Becuz it was armored at the rear to.
tiger wasnt finished(he had a problems with some things),but even with the problems tiger was better tank and germans had better tanks than the americans and their friends,only russians had some good tanks but tiger is a superior(sorry for my bad english)
This makes it sound like Tiger was the only tank Germany had :P And why are they compering Heavy Tank to Medium Tank in the first place? Will they next time compeare Anti-Tank rifle to normal rifle or STG to some random SMG? Man this show seems retarded.
It wasnt impossible for the shermans to kill a tiger, just very very very very very unlikely. Usually it was like 5 shermans flanking around one side and 5 more flanking around the other and you still lost half of them. The only problem I have with the Tiger is that everyone thinks its the greatest tank. But considering it wasnt built for mass production like the T34 or M4, I think that on a strategic level it's inferior to both those tanks. Tactically its still King, pun intended.
In that shoot the serman would damage the engene room to tiger. It dosent have enoguh pover to penetrate into the crew section, so the tiger would easily detroy and 4th sherman........;))
That's very optimistic thinking on your part. Have U ever been neer a veh. on fire with several hundred liters of gas still in tanks? I do not know any man who has the balls to sit in one knowing that it is on fire.
Also, once U heat up that stell to a particulat temp. it looses its chemical structure and becomes worthless as armour.
Look up any Tigers that were set ablaze in France and today are used as monuments. Their torsion susp. is sagging in all cases.
sry for my bad english but to kill the tiger that easy it looks to me very stupid.......tiger could rotate to front armor when sherman showed up.....shermans gun cant penattrate the tigers front armor it dosent mater how far they are.....;))
I addmit, it took balls to take on a Tiger. There were some very successful cases when Sherman knocked out a Tiger without much effort: I have read about one case, when Sherman gunner used phosphorus filled amo and placed a shot on a Tiger right at fresh air intake on the Tiger. Tiger crew panicked thinking they are on fire and left the veh. becomming an easy kill for machine gunners. That's psychology!
@hetmanbasza I don't see your discussion with the huligan, but yes the story is true. It was during the Battle of Bulge. The King Tiger was not damaged in any manner but the crew THOUGHT that the tank was on fire because of the phospherous shell smoke and bailed out.
Huligan I am refering to told me that in person so you will not find this story on my posts. The rest is exactly as you said. By the way, its a good recipe for an intact tank! Like I always said "its not the tank, but the people in it, that are the problem!"
At the beginning of the Sherman's introduction, the crews were told they had the best tank in the world, that was partly true to begin with. What baffles me, is that when they did decide to upgun, they decided to use the 76mm instead of the Brit 17 pounder. We built Merlins under license here in the US, why not the 17's. I guess it was because of logistics of ammunition as the 76 was already being used in the TD units.
@KingMopar7 US doctrine was to kill tanks with tank destroyers, and to use tanks to kill lines of communications, and enemy artillery. The US 75mm and 76mm/3 inch guns had superior high explosive rounds that were used for those purposes. The British also put 17 pounder guns on their version of the M-10 tank destroyer, as well as a 17 pounder towed antitank gun.
@DonMeaker Tis true-but, the US doctrine was flawed as far as TD's were concerned, and thus later abandoned. TD's work best for ambush situations and hitting/ambushing breakthru's. Even with the 3 incher, it was subpar at longer ranges-aka, killing ranges for Panthers/Tigers. I read where a US Tanker got a look at the German optics as well, which were superior to ours as well. Too bad they didn't implement the 90mm Shermy that Chrysler prototyped, might have saved some crews.
@KingMopar7 The attempt was to stop tanks with guns, and certainly Rommel managed to do that with 88 guns in france and africa, but was able to do it when the enemy attacked. TD doctrine was flawed, but it was one of the most successful failures in history. There was also a 90mm prototype for the hornet. The TD doctrine was flawed because it depended on the enemy attacking, and our strategic position had us mostly attacking. Gen McNair died doing his best, accepting risk. RIP
@Scahhi Dude not cool i mean i didnt call you anything rude and you call me a fucking idiot and sorry i thought this included firefly so sorry think twice before you speak in this case type lol
@Scahhi I agree with OlderG0ds I choose the firefly it is still a variant from the Sherman so i choose the Sherman firefly or maybe simply a regular Sherman that has a stronger gun then the default Sherman and the tiger there fore it makes the Sherman stronger
@MattDirector It is true but i bet the tigers tracks were re enforced so it made it impenetrable or maybe the standard Sherman tank could not aim that low to "destroy" the tracks this is just my theory i dont know if its true or not
Adding to TheParanormal's point, this scenario is assuming that the Tiger is operating alone (which sure, maybe could happen, and maybe more frequently between 44-45), but how can the Shermans be sure that there isn't a Panzer IV or an assault gun of some sort supporting the Tiger? Or even just some Grenadiers with a panzerfaust?
Even as an American, I have to admit that our tank pretty much sucked. The Sherman seems like it was designed with a zerg rushing tactic in mind. Sacrifice a bunch of expendable tanks and let the American industrial machine replace them.
@CobaltX07 it was never meant to engage with other tanks especially a beast like Tiger. its infantry support. Our military had a tank destroyer doctrine and those would fight tanks. M4 was just maid quickly for mass production and every allied force used them, even Russia.
However if our gov wasn't so stubborn and untrusting they should have put the British 17 lb gun on all of them as those could kill a Tiger from even further than the Tiger could engage. Firefly FTW!
@OlderG0ds Agreed Firefly is the "best" Sherman variant the Us had although only few Firefly's went into service in the Us army .Since Britain was the one who upgraded it with the 17 pounder gun so it was noticed as "their" tank although it was developed by Us tank factories
@PvtMarx45 Ya but even with the 17 lb gun it had the big weakness lack of armor , which is good and bad since it had better mobility but would be penetrated easily, and it was too high of a profile. I like the M26 design a lot better and at least that could go against Panthers and other German tanks.
Anyway I dont think our country was on the cutting edge of tanks til the M1 came. Though Sherman had some innovations like the gyro stabilized gun that could shoot on the move.
@OlderG0ds the Sherman was the best tank in the world in spring of 1942. The Tiger came out in fall of 1942, but was so obsolete that the Germans only built about 1000. So there you go, you have a choice of being in a tiger and being outnumbered 50 to one, or in a Sherman, and using 50 of them to go after the Tiger's logistic system, and some risk of occasionally finding a Tiger. It is pretty obvious which is the winning strategy. With the Tiger you also get the horrible cause and odds
@DonMeaker No, the Germans built 1,350 Tigers, and the reason they only built that many is because they were so hard to build ans cost 300,000 ReichsMarks a peice! Obsolete? The Tiger? No way. Amazing gun, amazing armor, a turret that really couldnt ot be penetrated in the front.
@calimar28 Yes, obsolete, as the tiger could not get out of its own way, its major use was as a roadblock to stop up the germans. Trying to move it forward would suck the inadequate german logistics dry for miles around. Ever since the Tiger was fielded, the Germans were pushed back and back. In 1940 the Germans taught the rest of us the virtue of combined arms, then created monsters which made german combined arms operations impossible.
@DonMeaker But the situation was quite different in 1940. The German blitzkreig against poorly prepared opponents worked well. But once in Russia, the German outran their supplies, and the Stukas could no longer help in the attack because they were too far back. So the stratagy changed. Then, the T34 was unleashed, the German tank forces were in trouble. Then the Tiger was released, and helped save them.
@calimar28 The odd thing is, one of the worst German defeats occurred when the Panzer arm had its best qualitative superiority. At Kursk the Soviets had only T-34-76, but were able to defeat the Tigers, Ferdinands, Panthers in the new and improved Panzer Bell (Glocke). Still tactics and correct operations won. Germans squandered their superior tanks on bad operations. Superiority was not enough to make up for having to attack.
@DonMeaker But at Kursk the Germans were outnumbered 2 to 1...on top of that the Soviets had a good stratagy and captured the German plans and knew when and where the Germans would strike. It had nothing to do with the Germans superior tanks.
@calimar28 Exactly. Germans had superior tanks for a different strategy. Where Germans attacked with Panthers and Tigers, they lost. Where they defended, using their heavy tanks as mobile guns, they had better performance. By contrast, Sherman was able to attack where the Tiger wasn't...rolling up the always fragile German logistics lines. Patton would prepare as much as he could to break the thin defensive crust, then push as hard as possible, eating as much pie as he could 'til gas was gone
@calimar28 And why were they out of supplies? They had hundreds of different kinds of trucks. No standardization! They attacked their number 1, 2 and 3 trading partners, USSR, Poland and France. Then they pissed their iron away on monster tanks with rotten quality control on their armor. While their aircraft industry dealt with shortages of aluminum, they made their soldier's water canteens out of---Aluminum! Really, the German failures were those of a command economy, commanded by fools.
@DonMeaker I didnt say they ran anything effeciantly...they didnt! You make good points. But yeah, they were fighting on too many fronts and that also depleted them. I didnt say they made good war decisions. But just from a standpoint of might, they knew how to make tanks (although complex and too expensive). One Tiger would sometimes hold off as many as 15 tanks at once. In Russia 3 Tigers near stanlingrad were attacked by 52 T34's...and destroyed all 52. But Russian numbers did finally win out
@calimar28 The overly expensive design of the Tiger was key to the German tanks being always outnumbered, and poorly supplied. It was manufactured in a facility previously used to assemble locomotives. Of course the Germans were also short of locomotives, and that shortage meant they could not supply the Tigers. That expense was why the Tiger was obsolete. Yet, they built the even more expensive and more poorly suited Tiger II aka Royal Tiger, with a better gun, better armor, and less mobility
Dispersion often would fail, as tiger tanks were often well camoflauged and extremely accurate to distances that rivalled some ally artillery, let alone the mass produced sherman
@Skunbunnys I agree-partly-with what you are saying. My objection is that the "scenario" presented in this video is contrary to military common sense. When under fire, you don't bunch up, you do NOT follow a staight (and therefore predictable) line of movement, you use evey possible terrain cover, anything to screw up the enemy's attack geometry.
@Skunbunnys Of course there are limitations to every option, but any action is better than being a sitting duck and praying that one of your fellows gets the enemy in time before you get your ass shot off.Even zigzagging and variations in course and speed may improve your odds-it's harder to hit an unpredictably moving target, and a near miss or track damage(possible injuries) is better than a direct hit (certain death).
@savvas just remember, that while smoke screens were helpful they were not very affective against more than one tiger. A standard tiger group would be a dealy wolfpack of 3 to 10 tanks. Close airsupport was near impossible most of the time, due to Luftwaffle Flak teams and the lack of advanced battlefield communications
What idiot thought of this "tactic", for crying out loud? What about smoke screens, a call for air or artillery support, dispersion (to take advantage of the slow moving turret of the Tiger), etc? Aimlessly sacrificing your troops for one enemy tank was a tactic?
Who thought of this, General Mechett from Blackadder Goes Forth?
@savvas74 Yea this is a pretty bad tactic but i guess no-one came up with those ideas yet...........But a War cannot be won without sacrifice-Viktor Reznov COD BO besides the Sherman could not hold a gun stronger then the tiger because of its turret size otherwise new designs would have to be made.
@savvas74 Yea this is a pretty bad tactic but i guess no-one came up with those ideas yet...........But a War cannot be won without sacrifice-Viktor Reznov COD BO besides the Sherman could not hold a gun stronger then the tiger because of its turret size otherwise new designs would have to be made for the tank chassis and turret so the gun would fit onto the tank .
@PvtMarx45 I agree. But there is a difference between sacrifice and pure idiocy.Why sacrifice your tanks and troops when you already have the advantage? At that phase of the war, the Allies enjoyed total air dominance, the Germans were having serious material and fuel shortages, their major cities were bombed daily-and they had to fight on 2 fronts. Don't forget the Soviets were also charging from the East.And they had LOTS of tanks.
@savvas74 Heroism and sacrifice may win battles, but not wars. Timing, mobility, audacity and logistics win wars. It is unromantic, but it is proven time and again in human history. Charge valiantly-you may win the battle. Cut off the enemy's supply lines-you will win the war. Even a Tiger tank is useless without ammo and fuel.
What idiot thought of this "tactic", for crying out loud? What about smoke screens, a call for air or artillery support, dispersion (to take advantage of the slow moving turret of the Tiger), etc? Aimlessly sacrificing your troops for one enemy tank was a tactic?
And what about the at least 1 guy usually sitting near the tank to watch the battle? he would have told the Tiger crew "Hey, there comes a toy-tank from behind us", they'd have turned and BOOM.
@MrBobe9 That is not actually true mate! over the entire war the tiger1 ratio was a 5.74:1 kills. now that is not shermans only... when the shermans first encountered the tiger the ratio was approximatley 7:1... but by the end of the war that ratio had dropped to 3.5:1!
I think what you are quoting is that... even a 10:1 kill ratio would not have been enough for the tiger to beat the enemy tanks!
Final numbers over the entire war "9,850 tank kills for a loss of 1,715 Tigers"
that Tiger is one of two T34s converted for the film Saving Private Ryan. They are now both kept at Bovington Tank Museum in Dorset. Random bit of rubbish, I'm sure no one cares lol.
have scored more kills. In fact the battle of the bulge proves that because the sherman killed more german tanks when on the defensive but the sherman IS NOT a tank killer but rather an infantry support tank. The US went with a tank destroyer doctrine and there were some mean tank destroyers that made even the german crews shiver
why didn't the tiger turn itself to at least have its side armor facing the sherman when it realised the sherman was flanking him? because 3:1 kill ratio is not worth it at all for a tiger, in fact i heard in real life it was closer to 9:1
also to say that sherman is a better tank is foolish even if it produced 54,000 compared to 1347 tigers, the shermans themselves are definitely worth the sacrifice to take out a tiger but you also lose many crew casualties and as the old saying goes
@Smeagollum86 the 9:1 ratio is false but this video is actually very biased too. one the tiger was in ambush and odds of getting a kill when shooting first go way up, say the sherman was in ambush. The sherman could wait until the tiger passed and gotten a rear shot. Im not knocking the tiger by any means but to say its so much better than a sherman isnt true either. the tigers were on the defensive the shermans were on the attack if it was the other way around then the shermans would
Old Russian saying: Quantity has a quality all it's own.
I should also add that American tankers were told to avoid combat with German panzers if at all possible. Instead, they were told to call in the position of the enemy tanks for an air or artillery strike.
Even being badly outnumbered the Germans still would have won if it weren't for allied air superiority. If the Germans had won I wouldn't have to be worrying about communist "jews" and their negro henchmen conspiring to kill me just because I'm white!
@cryteeek the Sherman was American dipshit
intervention1131 2 days ago
Sherman = pure british shit
Tiger = #1
cryteeek 1 month ago
I like how we are comparing a tank that's considered a medium to another tank that would have been considered a heavy tank [as in a 30 ton difference] Pershing medium would have at-least been the proper match-up but those were in short supply. also due to the metallurgy there were incidentally fewer tanker deaths in the sherman than other tanks of the day. I ask that you guys bear in mind, M4 was designed to fight the Pkw IV even then admitted to being obsolete before arriving to the theater
phantomkitsunezero 1 month ago
sure.. the tiger could have locked its track and turned frontal armour AND I am sure the tiger tanks turret turned WAY Faster than that
22tasos22 1 month ago 2
And it is BECAUSE of this that we have the M1 ABRAMS.... to all of you you did your duty lived.. and died in those death coffins I salute you.Because of your sacrifice OUR TANKS ARE FEAR!
deepdragon2 1 month ago
Tigers would rarely act alone if so they would be more likely to be destroyed by air power rather than the Sherman, the tigers like the U-boats hunted in packs this situation is overly simplified and really would never happen, no commander is dumb enough to post one of his most critical assets alone in a ambust more like a Japanese tactic to sacrifice one tank, thats not how the Germans operated they were aware that they were at a numbers disadvantage and guarded their tanks very well
canadiandrumer 3 months ago
@canadiandrumer Tigers would rarely act alone if so they would be more likely to be destroyed by air power rather than the Sherman...
Yes it would be partly true that air power was used to destroy German tanks but these armored vehicles were more likely to be destroyed by other weapons such as anti-tank guns, tanks, mines, artillery, and etc.
Using air power during WWII was not really the best way to destroy tanks because most of the time they would missed their targets
jc1200u 1 month ago
@jc1200u I was specifically refering to the normandy situation where air power proved one of the decisive factors for the Americans, clogging german suply lines and wrecking havoc on thier armoured forces, the americans and british aside from the M10 didn't have much that could penetrate the armour of a Tiger and nothing could touch the frontal armour of a king tiger the panther also proved a though nut to crack. In the bocage it was very easy to hide from artillery bombardments
canadiandrumer 1 month ago
right in the ass!! nice! XD
Lasarus89 3 months ago
Im not a tank officer....but surely....Take the last one out first,,,Its just common sence
graae2181 3 months ago
Michael Wittman !!!! awesome solo effort ,....though he was shooting at me granddad so that not so good :-/
w25711 3 months ago
Why does it look like the Tiger is hitting the ground every time it kills a Sherman?
stoogemoedude 4 months ago
SHermans Pea shooter would never penetrate that Monster. Bulll!!!
sustantivo1espritu 4 months ago
Yes sir! the tiger indeed :)
They may consume massive amount of resources to build and run, but you know you'd be well equipped with 2 way radio, thick armor, powerful guns and a fear factor to an enemy who opposes you.
ByrneBeatsInc 4 months ago
Pure bullshit. Tiger's turret rotation speed is much faster than that. That scenario would result in 2 dead shermans, with other 2 retreating as best as they could. And the Villers Bocage thing, most of those British vehicles were trucks and armoured cars. But yes, with good tactics, about 5 shermans were needed to kill 1 tiger. And be respectful to the Ruski, ssmusic214.
Floodturka 4 months ago
I love how everyone is like" STUPID AMERICANS, U SUCK, TIGAR OWNS, LOLPKKLBNOKNKNM!" STFU, first of all this Tiger, wasnt Wittmans, second, if it was Amerian Propaganda, all the Shermans would have lfanked and killed the Tiger. I say," STUPID PEOPLE!" They DO point out how bad the Sherman was, and how the Tiger was superior, they only say that Sherman had the numbers.
SpadXIIIFlyer 5 months ago in playlist Tanks
STUPID AMERICANS... ill say nothing more...
91SPB 5 months ago
Yeah, the only way to beat the Tiger was to bum-rush the Tiger tank and shoot it in the back, what a stupid strategy, do you guys know how many tanks would be destroyed by then? The Tiger had a kill ratio of 5.7 to 1 in the entire war, so this show is inaccurate, only 3 Shermans die, it's propaganda.
haiherosner 5 months ago
numbers aside a if a sherman and a tiger go head to head im prety suer the tiger will win
pitster110 6 months ago
Total Crap....
tentheagle 6 months ago
I knew turning the turret on a Tiger was slow, but I didn't know it was that slow. I guess that is one of the reasons why Wittman was so successful. Coming from commanding a turret-less 'sturmgeschutz', he and his crew were used to turning the whole vehicle instead of the turret and as far as I know he kept the habbit even when driving tanks with a turret.
TrangleC 6 months ago
tigers better
mrsjohnnydeppluver 7 months ago
This was exaggerated, The Tiger's 88mm gun was 100% accurate at 1,000 metres away targets, the 4 Shermans would not stand a chance, you really needed 8-10 Shermans, this is pure propaganda. Michael Wittman's Tiger tank destroyed over 45 British armoured vehicles in Villers Bocage Normandy in 1944. That's 1 Tiger attacking 45 enemy tanks and destroying them all, awesome!
haiherosner 7 months ago 14
@haiherosner Most of which couldn't hurt his Tiger even at the rear armour due to having machine guns instead of cannons, if they had a weapon at all. Kind of takes away the impressiveness, no? Not saying Wittman wasn't good, but people always exaggerate that encounter. In fact most of Wittman's (and any tank ace's) kills were small crap-vehicles and scout-tanks that wouldn't stand a chance.
Inkompetent 6 months ago
@Inkompetent 20 of them were Cromwell and other tanks, which could hurt the Tiger at sides and rear, no problem, Michael Wittman was just much quicker, he took the initiative at Viller Bocage and won , that's all!
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner Meaningless ###s. There are many more ways to put a tank out of action other than sending another another tank against it. Considering ALL the factors in real life warfare Tiger was disaster.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 Yeah, your funny, the Tiger 1's kill ratio was about 10 to 1 on Eastern front and 5.7 to 1 throughout the entire WW2 period from 1942-45, that's a fact. Tiger is the reason why the Russians had to build the IS-1, and IS-2 heavy tanks with 122mm gun in WW2, to counter it, because the T-34's were getting killed at long-distance, between 1-3 km. The Russian "crash-boom" 76mm anti-tank guns were useless against the Tiger tank, they would just bounce off 80mm side armour and 120mm front
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner So what? All those ##s completely ignore amount of resources were spent on building, repairing, maintaining, supplying and transporting tigers. Resources that could have been used somewhere else. It took 350 000 man/hours of work to built 1 tiger. Only 1800 I and II were ever built. Many never made it into battle due to nightmare of mechanical and logistical problems.
Tigers worked great creating big news headlines and war stories. But that's not what wins the wars.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 I'll tell you so what? The Tiger tank created fear and panic in Soviet and allied armies, this was psychological warfare, it slowed the allies down considerably because they knew what the L/56 88mm gun could do. Most allied tankers realized that vs the Tiger tank, their own tanks were death traps in comparison, this put the fear of God and Death into soldiers minds. Those 1,800 Tigers destroyed over 10-11,000 enemy tanks in WW2, pretty good numbers, so it wasn't useless as you say.
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner SO WHAT?
1800 Tigers produced means that 99% WWII fighting man never got to see a Tiger, never mind fighting it.
And while Tigers were making big news headlines only mile away German Troops were mowed down by Shermans and T-34 without tank support.
Dumbest thing any country can do is to design and spent huge resources on a weapon that can not be built, maintained, supplied, transported in quantities necessary to win the war. It always will contribute to defeat. Not victory.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 A mile away, German soldiers had Flak 88mm, Pak 40 75mm anti-tank guns, Pak 43 L/71 88mm anti-tank guns, Stug III's with 75mm, Nashorns with PAK 43 L/71 88mm, Panzer IV's with L/48 75mm guns, and Panther's with L/70 high velocity75mm guns etc, etc, etc... Your over simplifying the situation in WW2, the Tiger was used in concert with other elements in combat. Sure the Germans would have been better off producing 100,000 Panzer IV's but that was impossible because of allied bombings.
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner Finally! You got the point.
4-5 Stug III's could be produced instead of 1 Tiger, or 15-16 fighter planes. Which contributed more to war effort than single Tiger.
However no matter what Germans would do, they didn't stand a chance against combined US+UK+USSR industrial output. But Hitler's obsession with expensive "wonder weapons" (Tiger, ME-262, V-2) only speed up inevitable defeat.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 Your oversimplifying and don't get the point , the Tiger was invented to stop the KV-1 heavy tank in Russia, but what you are saying is the Germans should have let the KV-1 over-run German positions and not built a machine like the Tiger to counter it, and instead should have built more Stug III's that could easily be killed by KV-1's? History does not work that way, the German's had to respond to KV-1 threat, with Tiger's , then Russians had to respond with IS-2, it was arms race.
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner KV-1 was hardly a factor in WWII. Only 255 were ever produced. Design was quickly dropped after disastrous performance. Even though it did make big PR headlines in Russia by destroying 22 German Tanks in Single engagement near Leningrad in 1941. (Soviets never mentioned in their story that some of those tanks were Panzer 1 that were only armed with dual machine guns).
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 KV-1 was a big factor in WW2 on Eastern Front 5,200 were built with different variants, such as KV-85 with 85mm gun, and KV-2, so your number of 255 is way too little, it was the main reason why Germans were motivated to build Tiger 1 tank. The Panzer III's L/60 50mm long barrel was ineffective against the KV-1 tanks, they had to use 88mm flak to kill it instead. Those German tanks in Leningrad were stuck in mud and there were plenty of Panzer III tanks that got destroyed as well.
haiherosner 5 months ago
Germans were "motivated" to built heavier tanks when during the Battle of Arras 21 May 1940 Rommel had to use anti-aircraft guns against British "Matilda" tanks that couldn't be stopped by any German Tanks available at that time. And "Main Factor" was T-34 not KV. (With road speed of 28Kmh not much use in mobile warfare).
KV-85 did not appear until 1943 when Tiger was already in full production. KV-2 (armored heavier than Tiger - only 255 produced). Only 500 KV-1 were operational until 1942.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 You just contradicted your previous comment that only 255 KV-1's were ever made, now you say only 500 KV-1 were operational until 1942, your back-tracking. The Germans could destroy the T-34 tank, no problem, but they had great difficulty against the KV-1 series of tanks, they could not penetrate it even at the sides. The KV-1 threat in 1941 was the main reason for the introduction of the Tiger 1 in 1942 in Leningrad Front, and Eastern front, not the pathetic Matilda tank in 1940!
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner KV series were completely dropped from production in 1943 (poor performance)
1st operational Tiger was presented to Hitler on his birthday 20 April 1942.
"On 26 May 1941, at an armaments meeting, Henschel and Porsche were asked to submit designs for heavy tank"
"German combat experience with the French Somua S35 cavalry tank and Char B1 heavy tank, and the British Matilda I and Matilda II infantry tanks in June 1940 showed that the German Army needed better armed and armoured tanks"
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 The KV-1 series was never really dropped from production, the KV-85 tank was the ultimate KV tank that used the Hull Chassis of improved KV-1S (Skorostniy=Speed),which was an updated KV-1 with up-rated transmission and improved turret,it could do 45km/h with improved cross country performance. Kliment Vorishilov fell out of favour with Stalin and the communist party and the KV-85 was renamed IS-1 tank for political reasons. All the IS1,2,3 tanks used hull/chassis of KV-1s, until 1945
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner Voroshilov never "fell out of favour with Stalin and the communist party" his career peaked in 1952 still under Stalin. His portraits were always prominently displayed everywhere next to Stalin's.
КВ-1С KV-1S was last desperate attempt to solve mobility and mechanical problems by thinning out armor and lightening the tank. All the great victories of KV were achieved by using it as stationary pillbox in ambush positions.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 Kliment Vorishilov "FELL OUT OF FAVOUR" with Stalin because of two major incidents. Kliment Vorishilov commanded the Finland winter war front from Nov/1939-Jan/1940, and was dismissed by Stalin as commander for his failure and replaced by Timoshenko,at a meeting at Stalins Dachau,Stalin and Kliment shouted at each other and Kliment blamed Stalin for his Great Purges, for the failure. In Sept 1941 Kliment was commander of Leningrad front failure, was dismissed and relpaced by Zhukov.
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner You have zero knowledge about USSR Communist Elite. If Kliment Vorishilov "FELL OUT OF FAVOUR" with Stalin he would be dead very shortly. Like 1000 of other top military commanders.
And not present BESIDE STALIN at 1943 Tehran Conference with Churchill and Roosevelt. And appointed a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee in 1952.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 Talking to a Russian is like talking to a BRICK WALL, you people are so DOGMATIC, only you are right, and only black and white exists,right and wrong, no gray areas. Stalin could not start killing Big Generals again during the War, because the great purges caused the disaster of 1941. You have your Soviet biased opinion, and we in the West have a different opinion than you do. Therefore I can see that talking further is a waste of time, have a very nice day sir!
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner You have no clue what you are talking about. Voroshilov was old buddy of Stalin who helped him ascend to the top in internal power struggle. "Voroshilov played a central role in Stalin's Great Purge of the 1930s". And while his MILITARY skills turned out to be total disaster Stalin still kept him by his side for his LOYALTY, not because he was "TOP COMMANDER" essential for war effort.
His falling out of favor and removal would be improvement for Soviet Military.
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 Like I said before, talking to Russians is like talking to a BRICK WALL, you don't listen and you stick to your Dogma that only you know what's right. The fact is every Tank book I have ever read says that Kliment Vorishilov "FELL OUT OF FAVOUR" with Stalin as a military leader and because his KV tanks had troubles mechanically, there was also some jealousy with Stalin wanting fame to attach his name to Tanks. Apparently you think you know better than published authors, LOL:D
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner Stupid! I don't need to read "Published authors".
I served in Soviet Army in 1970-71 under very officers who fought in WWII. They know better than any "published authors". And was 7 years old when Stalin died. And Voroshilov was standing next to him on top of Lenin's Mausoleum at every military parade. That DOESN'T HAPPEN to anybody "out of favor".
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@ssmusic214 continued part 2.... Your argument reversed would be like saying the Russians would have been better off not building the IS-1 and IS-2 heavy tanks to counter the Tiger Tank, but instead they should have built more and more T-34's and and SU-150 tank destroyers instead! Do you think the Russians had a choice when they were facing an assault by Tiger tanks? They had to respond to the Tiger, they had no choice practically, the Russian troops were screaming for help to fight the Tiger!
haiherosner 5 months ago
@haiherosner No it wouldn't be.
Soviets had unlimited resources compared to Germans they could built 50 000 T-34s AND ISs and many more. Plus about 20 000 tanks were delivered to them by allies. They had no problems with oar and oil supplies, production facilities out of range of German bombers etc....
And BTW IS was not very effective against Tigers. "It was mainly a breakthrough tank, firing a heavy high-explosive shell that was useful against entrenchments and bunkers"
ssmusic214 5 months ago
@haiherosner
In actual fact, the figure was closer to 14 tanks being destroyed between Wittmann and the rest of heavy SS 101 Panzer Battalion. Other vehicles attributed may have included lesser armoured vehicles and support equipment. Still awesome though!
mongoliandude 3 months ago
@mongoliandude I suppose you forgot Wittman ordered those SS panzers to hold position and stay out of it.
WorstCommenter2008 1 month ago
@WorstCommenter2008 apparently that didn't happen because the battlefield photos show Wittman's Tiger next to a Pzr IV that was knocked out
jackzero99 1 month ago
@WorstCommenter2008 Thumbs up!
No. I just believe that this doesn't change reports that a minority of kills were attributed to the rest of his 101. It doesn't change the fact that the majority of those kills were not tanks either. From photos, you can see many burnt bren carriers, and AT guns that had little time to react. The odd stuart, matilda. Fireflies would have been first to perish, as Wittmann and his crew were expert soldiers.
I think We should remember all of those that gave that day.
mongoliandude 1 month ago
@haiherosner
While Wittman's tank sure bagged a lot of vehicles, not all 45 of them were tanks.
funstuff2006 2 months ago
@haiherosner they were not 45 tanks
Sallytheg4y 2 months ago
@haiherosner Wittman wasn't alone. He had a company of Tigers under his command along with a few Panzer IV tanks.
jackzero99 2 months ago
@jackzero99 He wasn't alone, but they were ordered to stay back and hold their positions.
WorstCommenter2008 1 month ago
guys u have to realize that u can produce 5 shermans for on tiger. The soviet t-34 was in many aspects like the sherman. So for one Tiger Tank comes 5 t-34 and 5 shermans. no question the tiger was a better tank than the sherman but it needs much more resources to build.So the Allied try to win with quantity against quality and see´s who is the winner.... greets from germany
Forgetmequick 7 months ago
@Forgetmequick Top ten german commander TIGER acers killed 1000 allied tanks, do i have to explain that better, 10 tanks vs 1000 tanks plus other (trucks ,anti tank,etc) . Did allies had anything like that ratio with shermans or t34(bad turret, no radio etc..). NO.
TIGER was a superb tank even had steering wheel, almost invincible.
Recent meeting with TANK COMMANDERS of WWII allies and axis were asked WHICH TANK WOULD YOU PREFER TO GO TO BATTLE ? the answer UNANIMOUS was THE TIGER TANK.
MrBobe9 7 months ago
@Forgetmequick making it was only half of the problem. I consumed 1 gal of fuel per 1/4 of a mile. plus it was slow and clumsy and got stuck easy.
Metalhead15712 6 months ago
@Metalhead15712
Funny how much info people can get wrong, Tiger I was not slow, it was faster than just about every other heavy tank and was very manuverable and agile for a tank of it's size and weight, it would also traverse diffuclt terrain easier than a sherman thanks to it's wide tracks and surprisingly low ground pressure.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Metalhead15712 Slow and clumsy? You do realise the Tiger was rather fast and had less ground pressure due to the wide tracks than a Sherman tank? Sure it was heavy but it was mobile and deadly. Only places it got stuck was in russia in the bogs on the fall or spring.
Miratesus 6 months ago
maybe they can destroy a usual tiger, but not a Tiger II (Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B Königstiger, Sdkfz. 182 in its full name), Becuz it was armored at the rear to.
Ratzo123ify 7 months ago
Some Tiger units had a kill/death ratio of 16:1 on average. I believe one unit even got as high as 19:1 - that's just crazy lol.
ApocDevTeam 7 months ago
the Tiger is the definition of win
thatrandomguy53 7 months ago
and the tiger woudnt just turn the whole tank around^^
100alias 7 months ago
Ha ha ha ha.
Funny.
The Tiger commanders rotated the tank, not the gun when threatened by a tank.
christosswc 7 months ago
I'm a German and i found this German tank was the best tank at WW2
The230395 8 months ago in playlist geschichte
@savvas74 True True, this video doesn't exactly display perfect truthfulness, I mean at a range of 200m the 88 will not fail, you will die.
Skunbunnys 8 months ago
tiger wasnt finished(he had a problems with some things),but even with the problems tiger was better tank and germans had better tanks than the americans and their friends,only russians had some good tanks but tiger is a superior(sorry for my bad english)
TheGitakTV 8 months ago
@MrTigerPL yes thats right the sherman gun is 40 mm and tiger gun 88mm
TrophiePlayEr 8 months ago
@TrophiePlayEr 75mm, 76mm, 76mmHV and 17 pounder QF. The 2 latter would have quite easily killed a Tiger.
Malakhi75 7 months ago
this is another one big pile of amerikan propaganda crap. nazi or not. german or not. amerikan or not, we all know that this is a pile of crap.
dividednation44 9 months ago
That re-enactment is a load of bollocks.
SuckmyHobnob 9 months ago
This makes it sound like Tiger was the only tank Germany had :P And why are they compering Heavy Tank to Medium Tank in the first place? Will they next time compeare Anti-Tank rifle to normal rifle or STG to some random SMG? Man this show seems retarded.
JohQx3 9 months ago
It wasnt impossible for the shermans to kill a tiger, just very very very very very unlikely. Usually it was like 5 shermans flanking around one side and 5 more flanking around the other and you still lost half of them. The only problem I have with the Tiger is that everyone thinks its the greatest tank. But considering it wasnt built for mass production like the T34 or M4, I think that on a strategic level it's inferior to both those tanks. Tactically its still King, pun intended.
make1up726 10 months ago
In that shoot the serman would damage the engene room to tiger. It dosent have enoguh pover to penetrate into the crew section, so the tiger would easily detroy and 4th sherman........;))
SkaraAco 10 months ago
@SkaraAco
That's very optimistic thinking on your part. Have U ever been neer a veh. on fire with several hundred liters of gas still in tanks? I do not know any man who has the balls to sit in one knowing that it is on fire.
Also, once U heat up that stell to a particulat temp. it looses its chemical structure and becomes worthless as armour.
Look up any Tigers that were set ablaze in France and today are used as monuments. Their torsion susp. is sagging in all cases.
hetmanbasza 9 months ago
@hetmanbasza
sry for my bad english but to kill the tiger that easy it looks to me very stupid.......tiger could rotate to front armor when sherman showed up.....shermans gun cant penattrate the tigers front armor it dosent mater how far they are.....;))
SkaraAco 9 months ago
@SkaraAco
I addmit, it took balls to take on a Tiger. There were some very successful cases when Sherman knocked out a Tiger without much effort: I have read about one case, when Sherman gunner used phosphorus filled amo and placed a shot on a Tiger right at fresh air intake on the Tiger. Tiger crew panicked thinking they are on fire and left the veh. becomming an easy kill for machine gunners. That's psychology!
hetmanbasza 9 months ago
@hetmanbasza
well yeah that is something...;))
SkaraAco 9 months ago
@hetmanbasza Yes, that was a KING Tiger tank as well and is a well-documented true story but about as rare as hen's teeth.
Robert111 9 months ago
@Robert111
The huligan that was telling me this story never mentioned the "King" part! I was more likely incorrect.
As long as the gist of the story is corect, I'll live with it!
Thanks!
hetmanbasza 9 months ago
@hetmanbasza I don't see your discussion with the huligan, but yes the story is true. It was during the Battle of Bulge. The King Tiger was not damaged in any manner but the crew THOUGHT that the tank was on fire because of the phospherous shell smoke and bailed out.
Robert111 9 months ago
@Robert111
Huligan I am refering to told me that in person so you will not find this story on my posts. The rest is exactly as you said. By the way, its a good recipe for an intact tank! Like I always said "its not the tank, but the people in it, that are the problem!"
hetmanbasza 9 months ago
In case of a Zombie Apocalypse, i need this Tiger Tank
vitorgaray 10 months ago
At the beginning of the Sherman's introduction, the crews were told they had the best tank in the world, that was partly true to begin with. What baffles me, is that when they did decide to upgun, they decided to use the 76mm instead of the Brit 17 pounder. We built Merlins under license here in the US, why not the 17's. I guess it was because of logistics of ammunition as the 76 was already being used in the TD units.
KingMopar7 11 months ago
@KingMopar7 US doctrine was to kill tanks with tank destroyers, and to use tanks to kill lines of communications, and enemy artillery. The US 75mm and 76mm/3 inch guns had superior high explosive rounds that were used for those purposes. The British also put 17 pounder guns on their version of the M-10 tank destroyer, as well as a 17 pounder towed antitank gun.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker Tis true-but, the US doctrine was flawed as far as TD's were concerned, and thus later abandoned. TD's work best for ambush situations and hitting/ambushing breakthru's. Even with the 3 incher, it was subpar at longer ranges-aka, killing ranges for Panthers/Tigers. I read where a US Tanker got a look at the German optics as well, which were superior to ours as well. Too bad they didn't implement the 90mm Shermy that Chrysler prototyped, might have saved some crews.
KingMopar7 10 months ago
@KingMopar7 The attempt was to stop tanks with guns, and certainly Rommel managed to do that with 88 guns in france and africa, but was able to do it when the enemy attacked. TD doctrine was flawed, but it was one of the most successful failures in history. There was also a 90mm prototype for the hornet. The TD doctrine was flawed because it depended on the enemy attacking, and our strategic position had us mostly attacking. Gen McNair died doing his best, accepting risk. RIP
DonMeaker 10 months ago
"A Tiger tank can take on 3 Shermans at a time, Problem is they always got 4"
-Famous Tiger tank Commander saying.
xnow13 11 months ago
It's not a trick - it's a german tank!
critical242 11 months ago
FUCK WHY CHOOSE THE TIGER!?!? THE SHERMAN KICKS ASS
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@PvtMarx45
If you wanna die then take the sherman
Scahhi 11 months ago
@Scahhi DUH THE SHERMAN FIREFLY U IDIOT! and maybe a sherman with a 76mm gun so u fail
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@PvtMarx45
The video was about normal sherman fucking idiot. SO YOU FAIL :D:D:D:Dsadasd
Scahhi 11 months ago
@Scahhi Dude not cool i mean i didnt call you anything rude and you call me a fucking idiot and sorry i thought this included firefly so sorry think twice before you speak in this case type lol
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@PvtMarx45
u said im idiot, so you asked for what you got.
Scahhi 11 months ago
@Scahhi nub lololololololdsaidjsaoifdhsaufasfpdsoigf9udg hfrhdsayiufygisahfg8ysafcBZ8cgdsaydgBIDhuahfudshfusabitchsafasfuagsfaisgfysagfhgdsyftw87ef
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@Scahhi I agree with OlderG0ds I choose the firefly it is still a variant from the Sherman so i choose the Sherman firefly or maybe simply a regular Sherman that has a stronger gun then the default Sherman and the tiger there fore it makes the Sherman stronger
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
the weakest point of a tank are the tracks so hit it with grenades or bazooka and it will just sit there
MattDirector 11 months ago
@MattDirector It is true but i bet the tigers tracks were re enforced so it made it impenetrable or maybe the standard Sherman tank could not aim that low to "destroy" the tracks this is just my theory i dont know if its true or not
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@PvtMarx45 All tracks are penetrable, you can use grenades, bazooka or explosive etc to destroy it, Im not sure if heavy machine guns will work
MattDirector 11 months ago
Adding to TheParanormal's point, this scenario is assuming that the Tiger is operating alone (which sure, maybe could happen, and maybe more frequently between 44-45), but how can the Shermans be sure that there isn't a Panzer IV or an assault gun of some sort supporting the Tiger? Or even just some Grenadiers with a panzerfaust?
Brynjarbjorn 11 months ago
Even as an American, I have to admit that our tank pretty much sucked. The Sherman seems like it was designed with a zerg rushing tactic in mind. Sacrifice a bunch of expendable tanks and let the American industrial machine replace them.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07 it was never meant to engage with other tanks especially a beast like Tiger. its infantry support. Our military had a tank destroyer doctrine and those would fight tanks. M4 was just maid quickly for mass production and every allied force used them, even Russia.
However if our gov wasn't so stubborn and untrusting they should have put the British 17 lb gun on all of them as those could kill a Tiger from even further than the Tiger could engage. Firefly FTW!
OlderG0ds 11 months ago
@OlderG0ds Agreed Firefly is the "best" Sherman variant the Us had although only few Firefly's went into service in the Us army .Since Britain was the one who upgraded it with the 17 pounder gun so it was noticed as "their" tank although it was developed by Us tank factories
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@PvtMarx45 Ya but even with the 17 lb gun it had the big weakness lack of armor , which is good and bad since it had better mobility but would be penetrated easily, and it was too high of a profile. I like the M26 design a lot better and at least that could go against Panthers and other German tanks.
Anyway I dont think our country was on the cutting edge of tanks til the M1 came. Though Sherman had some innovations like the gyro stabilized gun that could shoot on the move.
OlderG0ds 11 months ago
@OlderG0ds the Sherman was the best tank in the world in spring of 1942. The Tiger came out in fall of 1942, but was so obsolete that the Germans only built about 1000. So there you go, you have a choice of being in a tiger and being outnumbered 50 to one, or in a Sherman, and using 50 of them to go after the Tiger's logistic system, and some risk of occasionally finding a Tiger. It is pretty obvious which is the winning strategy. With the Tiger you also get the horrible cause and odds
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker No, the Germans built 1,350 Tigers, and the reason they only built that many is because they were so hard to build ans cost 300,000 ReichsMarks a peice! Obsolete? The Tiger? No way. Amazing gun, amazing armor, a turret that really couldnt ot be penetrated in the front.
calimar28 10 months ago
@calimar28 Yes, obsolete, as the tiger could not get out of its own way, its major use was as a roadblock to stop up the germans. Trying to move it forward would suck the inadequate german logistics dry for miles around. Ever since the Tiger was fielded, the Germans were pushed back and back. In 1940 the Germans taught the rest of us the virtue of combined arms, then created monsters which made german combined arms operations impossible.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker But the situation was quite different in 1940. The German blitzkreig against poorly prepared opponents worked well. But once in Russia, the German outran their supplies, and the Stukas could no longer help in the attack because they were too far back. So the stratagy changed. Then, the T34 was unleashed, the German tank forces were in trouble. Then the Tiger was released, and helped save them.
calimar28 10 months ago
@calimar28 The odd thing is, one of the worst German defeats occurred when the Panzer arm had its best qualitative superiority. At Kursk the Soviets had only T-34-76, but were able to defeat the Tigers, Ferdinands, Panthers in the new and improved Panzer Bell (Glocke). Still tactics and correct operations won. Germans squandered their superior tanks on bad operations. Superiority was not enough to make up for having to attack.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker But at Kursk the Germans were outnumbered 2 to 1...on top of that the Soviets had a good stratagy and captured the German plans and knew when and where the Germans would strike. It had nothing to do with the Germans superior tanks.
calimar28 10 months ago
@calimar28 Exactly. Germans had superior tanks for a different strategy. Where Germans attacked with Panthers and Tigers, they lost. Where they defended, using their heavy tanks as mobile guns, they had better performance. By contrast, Sherman was able to attack where the Tiger wasn't...rolling up the always fragile German logistics lines. Patton would prepare as much as he could to break the thin defensive crust, then push as hard as possible, eating as much pie as he could 'til gas was gone
A
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker but by then the Germans were out of supplies, men, and most of all an airforce. What do you expect?
calimar28 10 months ago
@calimar28 And why were they out of supplies? They had hundreds of different kinds of trucks. No standardization! They attacked their number 1, 2 and 3 trading partners, USSR, Poland and France. Then they pissed their iron away on monster tanks with rotten quality control on their armor. While their aircraft industry dealt with shortages of aluminum, they made their soldier's water canteens out of---Aluminum! Really, the German failures were those of a command economy, commanded by fools.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker I didnt say they ran anything effeciantly...they didnt! You make good points. But yeah, they were fighting on too many fronts and that also depleted them. I didnt say they made good war decisions. But just from a standpoint of might, they knew how to make tanks (although complex and too expensive). One Tiger would sometimes hold off as many as 15 tanks at once. In Russia 3 Tigers near stanlingrad were attacked by 52 T34's...and destroyed all 52. But Russian numbers did finally win out
calimar28 10 months ago
@calimar28 The overly expensive design of the Tiger was key to the German tanks being always outnumbered, and poorly supplied. It was manufactured in a facility previously used to assemble locomotives. Of course the Germans were also short of locomotives, and that shortage meant they could not supply the Tigers. That expense was why the Tiger was obsolete. Yet, they built the even more expensive and more poorly suited Tiger II aka Royal Tiger, with a better gun, better armor, and less mobility
DonMeaker 10 months ago
The Titel Should Be: 'Pwned'
zewenwu 1 year ago
Dispersion often would fail, as tiger tanks were often well camoflauged and extremely accurate to distances that rivalled some ally artillery, let alone the mass produced sherman
Skunbunnys 1 year ago
@Skunbunnys I agree-partly-with what you are saying. My objection is that the "scenario" presented in this video is contrary to military common sense. When under fire, you don't bunch up, you do NOT follow a staight (and therefore predictable) line of movement, you use evey possible terrain cover, anything to screw up the enemy's attack geometry.
savvas74 11 months ago
@Skunbunnys Of course there are limitations to every option, but any action is better than being a sitting duck and praying that one of your fellows gets the enemy in time before you get your ass shot off.Even zigzagging and variations in course and speed may improve your odds-it's harder to hit an unpredictably moving target, and a near miss or track damage(possible injuries) is better than a direct hit (certain death).
savvas74 11 months ago
@savvas just remember, that while smoke screens were helpful they were not very affective against more than one tiger. A standard tiger group would be a dealy wolfpack of 3 to 10 tanks. Close airsupport was near impossible most of the time, due to Luftwaffle Flak teams and the lack of advanced battlefield communications
Skunbunnys 1 year ago
What idiot thought of this "tactic", for crying out loud? What about smoke screens, a call for air or artillery support, dispersion (to take advantage of the slow moving turret of the Tiger), etc? Aimlessly sacrificing your troops for one enemy tank was a tactic?
Who thought of this, General Mechett from Blackadder Goes Forth?
savvas74 1 year ago
@savvas74 Yea this is a pretty bad tactic but i guess no-one came up with those ideas yet...........But a War cannot be won without sacrifice-Viktor Reznov COD BO besides the Sherman could not hold a gun stronger then the tiger because of its turret size otherwise new designs would have to be made.
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@savvas74 Yea this is a pretty bad tactic but i guess no-one came up with those ideas yet...........But a War cannot be won without sacrifice-Viktor Reznov COD BO besides the Sherman could not hold a gun stronger then the tiger because of its turret size otherwise new designs would have to be made for the tank chassis and turret so the gun would fit onto the tank .
PvtMarx45 11 months ago
@PvtMarx45 I agree. But there is a difference between sacrifice and pure idiocy.Why sacrifice your tanks and troops when you already have the advantage? At that phase of the war, the Allies enjoyed total air dominance, the Germans were having serious material and fuel shortages, their major cities were bombed daily-and they had to fight on 2 fronts. Don't forget the Soviets were also charging from the East.And they had LOTS of tanks.
savvas74 11 months ago
@savvas74 Heroism and sacrifice may win battles, but not wars. Timing, mobility, audacity and logistics win wars. It is unromantic, but it is proven time and again in human history. Charge valiantly-you may win the battle. Cut off the enemy's supply lines-you will win the war. Even a Tiger tank is useless without ammo and fuel.
savvas74 11 months ago
What idiot thought of this "tactic", for crying out loud? What about smoke screens, a call for air or artillery support, dispersion (to take advantage of the slow moving turret of the Tiger), etc? Aimlessly sacrificing your troops for one enemy tank was a tactic?
savvas74 1 year ago
And what about the at least 1 guy usually sitting near the tank to watch the battle? he would have told the Tiger crew "Hey, there comes a toy-tank from behind us", they'd have turned and BOOM.
EdmansTube2008 1 year ago
Sherman is such a ugly tank , Pershing is sexy , but Sherman ....ugh .
Vykuk123 1 year ago
@ubiobscene correct. but, the firefly was a sherman, just with a bigger cannon.
1993heavenshallburn 1 year ago
whats the name of this documentary? i cant find it anywhere :S
Rommel5055Returns 1 year ago
tiger is the best but i think you need more than 4 shermans to take out 1 tiger. (look at the battle of caen )
chelseafcolee 1 year ago
nice toys you play whit, i will have the tiger!!
MrSpy3000 1 year ago
I think the Allies came to equal German heavy tanks,when the Pershing appeared...
flabmaster2000 1 year ago
@flabmaster2000 no, not really. it was the mass of them that was the key to victory.
1993heavenshallburn 1 year ago
I liked russian T-34
TheNothing38 1 year ago
Eum what if the tiger tank in the last shot would just turn around using its tracks to kill the sherman?
nowp1 1 year ago
@nowp1 The shermans would be screwed up the ass if that happened but whats the likelyhood of that happening?
TheNothing38 1 year ago
THE STRATEGY to beat the TIGER was " abandon the tank call for air support ".
4 to 1 ratio killing for the TIGER that is very optimistic, the real killing ratio was 10 to 1.
MrBobe9 1 year ago 27
@MrBobe9 the sherman dindt have radio it was only german tank wich had radio
MrSpy3000 11 months ago
@MrBobe9 That is not actually true mate! over the entire war the tiger1 ratio was a 5.74:1 kills. now that is not shermans only... when the shermans first encountered the tiger the ratio was approximatley 7:1... but by the end of the war that ratio had dropped to 3.5:1!
I think what you are quoting is that... even a 10:1 kill ratio would not have been enough for the tiger to beat the enemy tanks!
Final numbers over the entire war "9,850 tank kills for a loss of 1,715 Tigers"
Gooseman2k2 7 months ago
Stupid propaganda!!!!The 88 don't fail at 200 meters,assholes!!!
Raubritter1488 1 year ago 16
tiger all day
2003m36sp 1 year ago
The German Tiger or he King Tiger was the best Tanks in World War 2 and not the Sherman Tank. 1 Tiger destroy 4 Sherman.
Tobi9983 1 year ago
fake!!!!! usa will die!!!!! you asholes
deutscher16 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sherman tank is probably the ugliest looking tank in the world history.
MeBest777 1 year ago
sherman is propably the uggliest panzer in the worlds history.
MeBest777 1 year ago
Sherman turret can pull a far quicker turn than it did in this video.
Not to mention the scenario itself is just tactically stupid.
revolrz22 1 year ago
that Tiger is one of two T34s converted for the film Saving Private Ryan. They are now both kept at Bovington Tank Museum in Dorset. Random bit of rubbish, I'm sure no one cares lol.
pimpUK1 1 year ago 4
@pimpUK1
Wrong,the SPR replicas were made using T-34's running gear and this one is using a T-55's,but still kicks ass,it looks really realistic.
Raubritter1488 1 year ago
i was voting for the Sherman. =|
TheGreendude0 1 year ago
@TheGreendude0 Same..........still, my all time favorite tank is the M26 Pershing. I dont care if it came into WW2 late, it was there.
SpadXIIIFlyer 1 year ago
And still the king tiger...
0adireita 1 year ago
have scored more kills. In fact the battle of the bulge proves that because the sherman killed more german tanks when on the defensive but the sherman IS NOT a tank killer but rather an infantry support tank. The US went with a tank destroyer doctrine and there were some mean tank destroyers that made even the german crews shiver
lynx69able 1 year ago
best tank i ww1 was the sherman and the russian ground attack fridge ...
bozimo1 1 year ago
a good crew is more valuable than any tank
but really, a tiger that ambushes shermans should take out way more than three before being taken out itself
Smeagollum86 1 year ago
why didn't the tiger turn itself to at least have its side armor facing the sherman when it realised the sherman was flanking him? because 3:1 kill ratio is not worth it at all for a tiger, in fact i heard in real life it was closer to 9:1
also to say that sherman is a better tank is foolish even if it produced 54,000 compared to 1347 tigers, the shermans themselves are definitely worth the sacrifice to take out a tiger but you also lose many crew casualties and as the old saying goes
Smeagollum86 1 year ago
@Smeagollum86 the 9:1 ratio is false but this video is actually very biased too. one the tiger was in ambush and odds of getting a kill when shooting first go way up, say the sherman was in ambush. The sherman could wait until the tiger passed and gotten a rear shot. Im not knocking the tiger by any means but to say its so much better than a sherman isnt true either. the tigers were on the defensive the shermans were on the attack if it was the other way around then the shermans would
lynx69able 1 year ago
Old Russian saying: Quantity has a quality all it's own.
I should also add that American tankers were told to avoid combat with German panzers if at all possible. Instead, they were told to call in the position of the enemy tanks for an air or artillery strike.
agwhitaker 1 year ago
Even being badly outnumbered the Germans still would have won if it weren't for allied air superiority. If the Germans had won I wouldn't have to be worrying about communist "jews" and their negro henchmen conspiring to kill me just because I'm white!
IsraeliteMessenger 1 year ago 4
@IsraeliteMessenger
ignorant ass hole, I,m white and you are a disgrace to your race.
scottduncan44 1 year ago
@scottduncan44 NO....Wiggers like you are a disgrace!
IsraeliteMessenger 1 year ago
Well but sherman kicked some japanese butt in pacific :p
kirbyksn 1 year ago