sure, but the Soviets could afford to loose 10 tanks for every Tiger they managed to knock out. And the T-34s would tend to ambush Tigers or to 'sacrafice' a couple of T-34s to enable another couple of tanks to sneak around the Tiger and blow it to oblivion from the flanks and rear.
Any vehicle built without a turret is a defensive vehicle. It's best used when pointed at the enemy, thus opposing the most armour and smallest profile. Sure, you can use an Elephant as an assault weapon, as it had lots of armour, but it MUST be supported by infantry. Vision in those vehicles was limited, you could't hear much, any antitank gun would shoot at you cause you are a big target, so you would shoot only wat you see or what infatry points to you. How about those Elephants in Italy?
the front armor of a tiger is really heavy, and its nearly impossible to break it. but, it was upright and even. try that out, i dont know,maybe you got some snow right now? throw a snowball against an upright,even thing. now,throw one against an inclined thing,imagineits the front of a t34. you re gonna see that one part of the balle will slip away. the upright armour gets much more energy from a hit. and hey, sorry for my bad english xD
Just in the same way the Tiger could penetrate the armor of any tank of that time. The method is not different. The Soviet KV-1 (later model) has over 100mm of armor. The Tiger opened it up like a tin can, altough it was more heavily armored than the Tiger. The Tiger itself had the capacity to penetrate the frontal armor of itself. It just needs a gun with high enough muzzle velocity. The late war British 17pdr could do it, Soviet 122mm D-25T and 100mm D-25T could do this.
LOL leopard 2 was tested only against illiterate afghan shepherds. and I'm saying that an AT rocket doesn't necessarily needs to penetrate the armor of a tank to destroy it or render it inoperable. goodbye.
Their Kill Ratios doesnt mean anything when used in the Offensive Role, especially against the Hordes of Russian Tanks, but used Defensively, their Kill Ratios would have mattered and that they were hardly used in that manner in Tank Battle Tactics, which is one of the reasons why many were destroyed at their debut at Kursk.
Most Ferdinands at Kursk were destroyed by their own crews after their suspension was damaged by mines or artillery.
The 2 books on the 653rd and the 654th give excellent info on what really happenend with them and not the rubbish they say on just about every TV show.
That maybe true, but the True Role of the Ferdinand was misused and its Full Potential was never realized, because the Ferdinand couldve been considered as one of the Best German Heavy Tanks of WWII, if they were used as a Tank Destroyer in a Defensive Role, like the Jagd Tiger & Jagd Panther or as a Mobile Artillery, like the Nashorn and Wespe.
wrong again.Ferdinand assault tanks (or better called Assault Guns) were built only for one purpose.offence.and ofc support for the tigers.for defence there were other kinds of vehicles and artillery guns. it's simple. you can't use drumsticks to play guitar. besides...i don't think they could defend against bombs falling from the sky...
You are wrong. Dead wrong. Have ever read a book about the subject. Ferdinands were not offensive weapon, but purely a defensive one. It is not an assault gun, but a heavy tank destroyer. It was very slow, lacked close combat support. It was ment purely to take out targets from massive ranges. The Ferdinand/Elephant was built when Germany was defending, and it suited the purpose. EvilFingers is correct. Read a book, or at least the wikipedia before you make these claims.
I'm not beeing unfair to the doc, it's riddled with old myhs that these documentaries just follow blindly without even looking is it's true or not, yes ferdinands were lost but not like these documentaries claim by soviet tankhunting infantry who carried molotov contails in vast numbers.
I have both the 653 and 654 book so I know how just about every ferdinand lost met it's end, also the germans didn't loose halve of them in the few days, a good nubmer of them were lost after Kursk
"Their Kill Ratios doesnt mean anything when used in the Offensive Role".....are you serious? these were ASSAULT tanks.that's the job of these tanks.pure offence.
Think again...every tank is an Assault Tank and every tank is used Offensive and Defensively.
But in the case with the Elefant, it was used in the wrong way, sure it had an 88, so did the Tiger I, but the Tiger has a Turret and is able to manuever faster than the Elefant, also the Tiger I can operate without Infantry Support, the Elefant cant, because of its design and the lack of a Ball Machine Gun to defend itself and other German tanks.
"every tank is an Assault Tank and every tank is used Offensive and Defensively" reading this i realised that there's no point in discussing with you.
i don't have to and i don't want to. you proved yourself wrong and that's enough for me. if you want to learn about tank offence and defence tactics and wich tanks are suitable for each task just make a research,read books,etc etc. get educated and stop thinking how would you have used them without even knowing anything. now if you feel the need to talk go find someone else and stop waisting my time.
so wie geil hab 3 brüste
DenaDelanaiu345 2 months ago
I really don't know why Soviets didn't use smoke screen to increase effectives of T-34 against Tigers.
Vladek385 2 months ago
The comments in the video on Kursk are vastly out of date. Read Jonathan House and David M. Glantz on that battle.
300 Soviet and 70 to 80 II SS AFVs were lost in the German offensive actions
Most of those German AVFs were back in action within a few days.
Wien1938 1 year ago
The comments in the video on Kursk are vastly out of date. Read Jonathan House and David M. Glantz on that battle.
Wien1938 1 year ago
sure, but the Soviets could afford to loose 10 tanks for every Tiger they managed to knock out. And the T-34s would tend to ambush Tigers or to 'sacrafice' a couple of T-34s to enable another couple of tanks to sneak around the Tiger and blow it to oblivion from the flanks and rear.
DaviesMotionPictures 1 year ago
hitler sucks.
skinni45 2 years ago
Any vehicle built without a turret is a defensive vehicle. It's best used when pointed at the enemy, thus opposing the most armour and smallest profile. Sure, you can use an Elephant as an assault weapon, as it had lots of armour, but it MUST be supported by infantry. Vision in those vehicles was limited, you could't hear much, any antitank gun would shoot at you cause you are a big target, so you would shoot only wat you see or what infatry points to you. How about those Elephants in Italy?
nyctasiaselesq 2 years ago
"How about those Elephants in Italy"?
Wat ? R dey beeing mistreeted ? I come frum da old countree , i luv elepants dey remine mee of mi sistern en law .
Shee no two brigt bulbed en beetwen da eers butt chee hase big wasermellen smily. Knot eben aw germane 88 getts thru her tick skul .
Qestione : Wat dis waffle ss ? Good w/da buter & sirup ?
cdddraftsman 2 years ago
@nyctasiaselesq
Vehicle built without a turret draws MUCH less enemy fire than those with a turret.
skinni45 2 years ago
I dont understand how any AT gun would destroy the massive armor of Tiger tank.Can some1 explain that to me?Thanks
magemaatikko 2 years ago
the front armor of a tiger is really heavy, and its nearly impossible to break it. but, it was upright and even. try that out, i dont know,maybe you got some snow right now? throw a snowball against an upright,even thing. now,throw one against an inclined thing,imagineits the front of a t34. you re gonna see that one part of the balle will slip away. the upright armour gets much more energy from a hit. and hey, sorry for my bad english xD
1993heavenshallburn 2 years ago
Just in the same way the Tiger could penetrate the armor of any tank of that time. The method is not different. The Soviet KV-1 (later model) has over 100mm of armor. The Tiger opened it up like a tin can, altough it was more heavily armored than the Tiger. The Tiger itself had the capacity to penetrate the frontal armor of itself. It just needs a gun with high enough muzzle velocity. The late war British 17pdr could do it, Soviet 122mm D-25T and 100mm D-25T could do this.
aaKonda 2 years ago
@magemaatikko
LOL
back then heavy tank armor varied from 100mm to 200mm. today tanks have from 300 to 650mm armor, and still end up destroyed by a $50 rocket launcher.
skinni45 2 years ago
@skinni45 Very wrong. Give me one example of a rocket launcher that one can buy for $50 that will take out an Leopold II.
Rivethead109 1 year ago
@Rivethead109
LOL leopard 2 was tested only against illiterate afghan shepherds. and I'm saying that an AT rocket doesn't necessarily needs to penetrate the armor of a tank to destroy it or render it inoperable. goodbye.
skinni45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
teen+blowjob equals lots of views . CHECK ME OUT D
burningottsel 3 years ago
Some excellent footage of the ferdinand is is very rare these days.
Dreachon 4 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thats the worst Tank that the Germans ever built.
EvilFingers 3 years ago
No they weren't ferdinands had a kill ratio of 13 to 1, far better than most other german AFv's, even beating tigers.
Dreachon 3 years ago
Their Kill Ratios doesnt mean anything when used in the Offensive Role, especially against the Hordes of Russian Tanks, but used Defensively, their Kill Ratios would have mattered and that they were hardly used in that manner in Tank Battle Tactics, which is one of the reasons why many were destroyed at their debut at Kursk.
EvilFingers 3 years ago
Most Ferdinands at Kursk were destroyed by their own crews after their suspension was damaged by mines or artillery.
The 2 books on the 653rd and the 654th give excellent info on what really happenend with them and not the rubbish they say on just about every TV show.
Dreachon 3 years ago 13
That maybe true, but the True Role of the Ferdinand was misused and its Full Potential was never realized, because the Ferdinand couldve been considered as one of the Best German Heavy Tanks of WWII, if they were used as a Tank Destroyer in a Defensive Role, like the Jagd Tiger & Jagd Panther or as a Mobile Artillery, like the Nashorn and Wespe.
EvilFingers 3 years ago
wrong again.Ferdinand assault tanks (or better called Assault Guns) were built only for one purpose.offence.and ofc support for the tigers.for defence there were other kinds of vehicles and artillery guns. it's simple. you can't use drumsticks to play guitar. besides...i don't think they could defend against bombs falling from the sky...
xXturbo86Xx 2 years ago
You are wrong. Dead wrong. Have ever read a book about the subject. Ferdinands were not offensive weapon, but purely a defensive one. It is not an assault gun, but a heavy tank destroyer. It was very slow, lacked close combat support. It was ment purely to take out targets from massive ranges. The Ferdinand/Elephant was built when Germany was defending, and it suited the purpose. EvilFingers is correct. Read a book, or at least the wikipedia before you make these claims.
aaKonda 2 years ago
@Dreachon Yes, lot's of poor information floating around about the Ferdinand.
SIG551P 1 year ago
@Dreachon Thats still destroyed, I htink you are being unfair to the TV/Docs. A tank which is disabled and cannot be recovered is still destroyed.
Xiolablu3 1 year ago
@Xiolablu3
I'm not beeing unfair to the doc, it's riddled with old myhs that these documentaries just follow blindly without even looking is it's true or not, yes ferdinands were lost but not like these documentaries claim by soviet tankhunting infantry who carried molotov contails in vast numbers.
I have both the 653 and 654 book so I know how just about every ferdinand lost met it's end, also the germans didn't loose halve of them in the few days, a good nubmer of them were lost after Kursk
Dreachon 1 year ago
"Their Kill Ratios doesnt mean anything when used in the Offensive Role".....are you serious? these were ASSAULT tanks.that's the job of these tanks.pure offence.
xXturbo86Xx 2 years ago
Think again...every tank is an Assault Tank and every tank is used Offensive and Defensively.
But in the case with the Elefant, it was used in the wrong way, sure it had an 88, so did the Tiger I, but the Tiger has a Turret and is able to manuever faster than the Elefant, also the Tiger I can operate without Infantry Support, the Elefant cant, because of its design and the lack of a Ball Machine Gun to defend itself and other German tanks.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
"every tank is an Assault Tank and every tank is used Offensive and Defensively" reading this i realised that there's no point in discussing with you.
xXturbo86Xx 2 years ago
Because you refuse to understand how a tank is used in combat.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
i refused nothing. you proved that you know nothing about that matter and that's why there's no point for me in discussing it further.
xXturbo86Xx 2 years ago
Then prove me wrong on how a Tank is used, Offensively and Defensively?
EvilFingers 2 years ago
i don't have to and i don't want to. you proved yourself wrong and that's enough for me. if you want to learn about tank offence and defence tactics and wich tanks are suitable for each task just make a research,read books,etc etc. get educated and stop thinking how would you have used them without even knowing anything. now if you feel the need to talk go find someone else and stop waisting my time.
xXturbo86Xx 2 years ago
Youre right, they needed just sharks with LAZOR BEAMS on their frikken heads
PrinceMustDie666 3 years ago
lol
and we shall call it the allan parson project
infernalzen 2 years ago
much better then Yank's M26 Pershing
awush 3 years ago
oh yea and it looks better too
davcas113 2 years ago
kick ass vid!!!!
Nicl1230 4 years ago 2
awesome uploads kingtiger88,keep it up!
prgamer 4 years ago
A very clear documentary
Superior film coverage
Best documentary of this type that I have seen, (and I have seen a lot)
Thanks!
sugarpuddin88 4 years ago