It was a peice of marvelous german engineering (when you consider they had a very short time to design, prototype, test and produce this tank). Plus in the hands of a tank ace with a good crew who took care of it, it was very deadly. They were useless in the Ardennes because they ran out of fuel before any of the other tanks. The germans had plenty of weapons and the best tanks and aircraft but had no gas to burn in them.
@IvanBeSerious A fallacy. King Tiger was actually one of the most reliable tanks of the war. The book "King Tiger Heavy Tank 1942-45" states that by late 44/early 45, King Tigers had a 59% operational rate. That's something modern tanks can't even do.
As for suffering, it had a power/weight ratio of 12 horsepower/ton..which isn't bad at all. With the governor removed, it was very fast for a heavy tank..Varying sources say 41.5-45kph.
@wun1gee it was the most unreliable piece of crap ever it had a great design but with germanys factory's getting destroyed by the second they made it with terrible parts its engine would randomly died its gas tank would leak its armor would crack after 1 hit from a t-34 and not to mention the shells would crack the barrel when it fired
@327pir Because any vehicle, be it a tank, a modern car, etc, will break down without a support structure. A vehicle needs fuel. The Germans, toward the end of the war, simply didn't have any, or couldn't get it where it needed to go..
If you were in a vehicle that ran out of gas, and it was being over-run or shot at, would you stay with it?
It sounds better when you say "Oh it was an unreliable piece of German crap and we owned it!", when you weight that against "it ran out of gas.."
@wun1gee Bullshit. If you poorperly engineered vehicle there is less likelihood of that happening. The Americans were able to transport a support stucture over 3000 miles away.
Its sounds better (to you and other nazi apologist) when you make excuses. The tanks were over compilcated pieces of junk
@wun1gee More bullshit. Operation for a Aufs B was to be albe to sit hull down and snipe.. Even so the shit pile was only introduced in late 1944 so they were virtually brand new.
Ungoverned the weakly motor burned out in less than 2 kiicks The Ordinance Corp found that out when they captures KT 204 after the Battle of the Bulge before they sold it to the Belgians for scrap.
well, why dnt we ask Hamas and Hezbollah abt the Merkava, Chechen insurgents abt the T-64, T-72, T-80 or T-90 and Iraqi insurgents abt the M1A2 Abrams or Challenger 2?
Maybe an interesting fait divers: after the war, the French Army not only employed Panthers but also Tiger II's <-- until ±1952 and with a newly constructed 1,000 HP Maybach engine. Whether that's also in this T II?
Well, my fault. I misinterpreted the clip "King Tiger 104 goes for a ride", which is also shown on YT.
Saumur is a distance from my hometown, but I'd like to be there someday, when they show them all ! Bovington should try to buy an engine, and let the King Tiger roar again ...
konigstiger mit porsche turm strongly influenced the american m-60a1 and m-60a3tts...this king tiger has the henschel turret-5stars...excellent-milwaukee m-60a3tts company commander usar
I'm not trying to be rude but the Russian T-26 only had a 45 mm gun and would have had a tough time even penetrating the Panther unless it was parked beside it !!!
Dumb bunny!. T-26, was the original designation of the Pershing tank with the 90mm gun. There was alsoa T-29, 30 and 31. With guns ranging from 105-155mm
Well you learn something new every day. I had no idea that the Pershing was not only designated T-26 (which is also the name of a light Russian tank) but also M-26. Thanks for the heads up!
Hey Guys (Robert111 and ocolumbia) do you like each other? You are both intelligent and educated. I have learnt alot from BOTH of you through you but you are starting to slide down the road of just insulting each other! I thought better of you both than that!!!
Beets, someone had to put this guy's B.S. away because newbies to the subject of WWII tanks might just believe ocolumbine. The guy did a 15-minute Google search and started pasting from 1945 Russian propaganda and other online snippets without even understanding/full reading what he was posting. I caught him stone cold on that twice. The King Tiger was supreme, and the quality of German Krupp steel was second to none. Read any serious source on WWII tanks and you will find the same again/again.
Here is one for you: I have recently been talking (via his Grandson) to a Gunner from the 6th Panzer Division. He was the gunner on a StuG III, Tiger and Kingtiger. We debate using books, TV, etc. But this gentleman was there!!! Truly very interesting!
Yes, I've known one gentleman (now deceased) that was a Tiger I gunner on the eastern front. It is books and documentaries that compile hundreds of eyewitness account and interviews with tank crews, etc. I recommend you read "Michael Wittman: Tiger Ace." Great photos in that book as well. I have an uncle in-law that commanded a Sherman tank in the Battle of the Bulge. Great story he has: He said his tank and 5 others were driving down road in single file about 20 yards apart. The road opened to
a field on one side and the lead tank was immediately knocked out in ball of fire (they used to call the Shermans "Ronsons" for this reason). The remaining tanks went off the road and scattered in field. He says they were screaming on the radio telling each other to get out of the way and where the German tank was. He said you could her high velocity tank round screaming through air. He was screaming as his driver "GO GO GO" and they turned the tank over in a bomb crater. My uncle broke his leg
and was given the Purple Heart medal. He learned later that it was an 88mm firing from a single Tiger I that took out 4 Shermans and caused his to roll! It took the U.S army most of the afternoon to locate the Tiger tank in its heavy cover and take it out with air strikes. This is a common story where a single Tiger tank would hold up an allied advance column for hours. The same thing happened in a famous account in fighting near Monte Cassino in Italy. You could not take them out from front.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yeah , but because of the bad weather, there minimal of any airstrikes during the main Battle of the Bulge. If you are really a studen tof History talk to survviors of the 3rd AD. Today I march with my former comrades of the 1st Cav. and surviviors of 73 Easting. You read books, I have taken part in it. But why this digression of the shoddy steel of the Tiger II?
My friend shared a story after being transfered back to German and refitted with a King Tiger. He said one day he ran into a Sherman by accident. They didn't see the Sherman until they were face to face. The Sherman got off the first round and hit the turret. My friend thought he was dead. But the shell didn't penetrate. The King Tiger returned fire and hit the Sherman point blank blowing it 20 meters (65 feet)into the air.
They also nicknamed the Shermans "tomcookers", a morbid nickname but unfortuately true due to there tendancy to catch fire after a hit to the ammo and burn the crew alive. Horrible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Worlsd wide lie shitty dick. Bethleham Steel made the best RHSA in the world for over 70 years. many of the workers were former Krupp and Thyseen workers who immigrated to the US prior too, and following WWI. There STS was the Worlds best, partly because the US had Chromium, Molybdenum, Tungsten,Manganese, Cobalt, and Vanadium the Germans almost totally lacked by '44. The junk pile was seamed together with dove tails, the wields were so poor. Clean that jiz out your ears queenie.
Tell your mate to show the photos of the KT glacis and turret stove in, pieerced and cracked. If you have an email that can receive jpegs, I will show you. Just be willing to accept what you see. Or do a seach on the DTIC unclassfied tests of RHSA 1946-60.
ocolumbine, rather than make a fool of yourself, which you have proved extraordinarily apt to doing, why don't you just ask questions and learn instead? Let me say it again for you, the glacis of the King Tiger was never defeated during WWII. Yes, if you shoot at it with AP point black from another King Tiger L71 88mm, you'll do it, or if you shoot artillery at the same pieces repeatedly as the Russians did after the war! LOL! How much more of an ass can you make of yourself with stupid argument
I would very much like to see the pictures. I do ask that you give me your word that these pictures are not from a tank target range in US, England or the USSR. That is where some of the old German WWII tanks ended up and blown to bits by more modern tanks. A couple have been recovered from these sources in the last decade and resored. Send me a private message.
The photos were, as I said, taken from Russian propaganga after the war in which they actually admit firing on the tanks with a German L71 88mm and various artillery. You can simply search Google to find what ocolumbine is talking about. Find photos of the King Tiger in La Gleize and you will see what happens when an M10 and Sherman fire at the glacis plate of a King Tiger. You can message me your email address and I will email you 1-2 high resolution photos.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are such a nutless fool. If you ahd nuts or brain you would know, that the flank shot has always been perfered by gunners. Even with the DU APFSDS sabot a galcis shot kills the DRIVER. A SIDE TURRET hit kills the TC, Gunner and Loader and may detonate the ammo.
The galcis of the Tiger in La Glieze was never fired upon during the conflict but a 57mm AT and bazookas were used by AB troopers after the fight. Dam if your mouth is't big enough to give a Kt a blowjob
"Tigers in Combat", Wolfgang Schneider, Stack Pole Books 2006
22 Dec 1944 After knocking out a Sherman, Tiger 334 is hit by 9 cm gun. Crew is forced to bailout and escape to La Glieze. Tanks in La Glieze are fixed by superior enemy forces.Tigers 211 and 213 commanded by Oberst Furher Dolligner are knocked out by numerous hits. A portion of the gun and muzzle brake of 213 are shot away.
Again, doing a quick Google search and quickly skimming informaition on Tigers makes you look like a COMPLETE fool! You were already slammed on your prior Shaeffer quotes and yet you bury yourself again with "Tigers in Combat." You are quoting a QUOTE within the book of propaganda enemy combat reports (or "diary") you idiot!!!
Schneider, a German national, and historian, spouting "enemy propaganda"? He is alot more balanced and believable than the a accounts and excuse by the losers, ie Pieper(sic) and Guerderian.
The AUTHOR of "Tigers in Combat" himself writes: "Due to its undisputed battlefield superiority, which was based on its armor protection and unparalleled lethality for the time, it has exerted an almost mystical fascination, particularly among its former enemies." It is hard to imagine you are this stupid that you can't read/understand a book and think Tigers were not superior, so it must be a foolish sense of nationalism to U.S. or U.K.? Which is it?
By the way, the "diary" or account (regardless who made it) you are quoting is DEAD wrong. Specifically, the "muzzle brake" of King Tiger 213 was not shot away. A whole section of maybe 4-5 feet of barrel was blown away by a charge placed into the barrel by the crew when the tank was abandoned due to lack of fuel. Stop trying to argue with a certified military historian by doing a 15-minute Google searcha and copying/pasting what you don't even read/understand. It is pathetic and embarrasing.
Yes, Oberst Dollinger is a liar. You were there he wasn't. Did you set the"charge" too? Since they were under fire when did they get the chance, and if they were'nt why disable the gun?
Stop spamming the board, get your thoughts together and post what will fit into a single comment. Like I said, stop trying to become a 30-minute Google historian. Read real books on the matter include those on Kampfgruppe Pieper. They were surrounded in La Gleize with heavy equipment and no fuel. Several King Tigers were disabled and Pieper and many of his men slipped through the porous U.S. lines and made it back to Germany.
Hauptmann Erhardt testifed in that 2/3 of the gun was blown off by enemy fire. But of course bein there, and the gunner, he msut be a liar, since he proves Rob's statements are lies.
Try again. Like I said before, trying to become a WWII tank historian after a 15 minute Google search and then copying/pasting snippets of what you skimmed without reading the whole article or even understanding what you read is hilarious. You've been caught and slammed TWICE - let me know what else you've got. Reading/tracking down your B.S. is actually funnier and funner everytime I visit this video! LOL! The Panther/Tiger I/Tiger II were KING of tanks, any serious historian can tell you fool!
You seem very angry. Relax. This is simply words and debate. Some postings are fact and some are opinion. But at the end of the day it's just words that won't change the world. Try and have a nice day!
It was regular practive to put a charge into the barrel to disable it to prevent it from falling into enemy hands and being used against them. I'm not going to lecture you on all these details here - read some real books if you are interesting in ridding yourself of your profound ignorance. STOP SPAMMING THIS VIDEO with your supremely ignorant B.S. You know nothing of WWI tank warefare and cut/past what you don't understand/didn't even read (but found skimming a 10-minute Google search). Idiot.
Make me leave this board you bloody wanker. "Spiking" a barrel was practised to a limited extent. But not in this case. Are "real" books the ones which adhere to your dim witted view? Face it the King tiger was the wrong tank at the wrong time. Its effect on the outcome of the war was minimal at best. Why don't you finish HS or try for a college degree? Study objectivity and critical thinking.
The final report of 16 February 1945 on the "Tiger-B" tests:"The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower."
ocolumbine, reading 1945 political reports from Germany's enemies and treating it like your bible is truly naive: "do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower." The King Tiger's armor was superior - simply out-classing any other tank, not even close. AND FIREPOWER! LOL! The L71 88mm of the King Tiger not enough firepower!??! That is a new one, surprising even for a wartime propaganda report! WOW!
These test have been duplicated in the US. Here at the Anniston Army Tank Depot we have a portion of armour from the turret face and glacis removed from tank 332 before if was prepared for diaplay at the Patton Museum. It failed at 900m from an M2 90mm gun firing HVAP and HESH. The Brinell Hardness Test too so a decrease in armour quality between 1943-45. Cemical analysis hsoe this due to lack of Elemental and Hexavalent Cr whic is well documented to be lacking in late war Germany.
ocolumbine, like I said before, your "patriotism" is misplaced and plain foolish. No Allied tank could knock out the King Tiger from the front and none did. I would believe the results of "tests" conducted at Anniston Army Tank Depot about as much as I would believe George Bush - zero. After WWII is was total embarrassment that army FORBADE engagement with Panther/Tigers unless you have at LEAST FIVE Shermans. Allied tankers often panicked when faced with near impossible chance.
First of all I was born in the UK. The King Tiger was far from invincible and fell to the IS2, M-36, M-10 variants, 17pounder Shermans, TE15 90mm rounds. You want to live in your fantasy land--live on. I invite you again to come here, to RTV Museum Bovington, US Ordinance Aberdeen, proving ground or the Russian Army Kubinka data, or request unclassified data from the DTIC. But you won't. You are afraid of anything that will disprove you worhship of a myth.
The Russian tests of captured tanks post war show clear penetration. It is physically documented. IS this a fair analysis? It is of the armour, but not the tactics. Panzers would not lie still to be shot at, but neither would allied tanks attempt to fire at the strongest portion of the armour. Even when no apparent penetration was observed careful analysis of the interior show that the armour scabbed, that is a convex portion broke loose killing or maiming the crew from the inside
By the way, what part of "German armor thickness on King Tiger was exactly proportional to its protection - no record of anything piercing front glacis plate" didn't you understand? Far FAR weaker tanks utilizing cheap cast armor can actually be seen with CHUNKS of armor missing in gaping holes where the piece cracked and blew off! It is not hard to find photos of Shermans in this condition. You will never see such a thing on a German panzer - never.
There s nothing to understand about a falsehood. I HAVE seen such things in a german Panzer. I have seen 4 of the surviving examples. But you ahve never seen one up close. You are mis and uneducated with no academic or hands on credentials. I have both.
1.) German rolled steel plate was far superior to the cast armor of all other tanks. Cast armor is done only for ease of manufacturing/cheapness.
2.) The Germans made their tanks like the King Tiger almost invulnerable by using immensely thick rolled armor plate with interlocking tabs for incredible strength.
3.) The overall result was that it took an average of 7 U.S. Shermans or 4.5 T34s to take out a Tiger I or Tiger II. The Panther was also far superior.
1)RSHA was not exclusive to Germany. But in a war of production and attrition. The rolling pocess is too consuptive of time, labour and material.
2)The KT was not even close to being inveunerable. By using "immensely thick" plates without Cr, or Mo prevented inner core hardness, and gave way to brittleness and scabbing.RATC Bovington, The US Ordinance Corp, and the USSR have all proven this. Come to my workpalce and you can see the physicall evidence and data
Another important factor is the "scale effect", which causes armor to grow more brittle as it INCREASES in thickness. The reason is that the necessary rapid temperature drop is difficult to obtain deep inside multi-inch thick plates. Certain alloys such as chromium deepen the internal hardening,but Cr supplies in Germany quickly became limited.Due to the difficulties in making thick plate, optimum BHN (BRinell Hardness Number) drops as the thickness increases.(Shaefer&Livingston,1993)
WOW, do you have difficulty reading or a penchant for spamming boards with B.S.? "It is my understanding, though, from previous discussions and years-ago engineering study, that during WWII, only the Germans utilized decent-quality rolled alloy plate for tanks. Both the Russians and the Brits were
short on both first-class mill capability and alloy steel capability, relative to the widely disparate numbers of AFVs they built. " - Quoting your boy Shaeffer
Your boy Shaeffer goes on to write: "We in the U.S.A. had no absolute resource limits, but chose not to build even a better
version of the tank design we had, because of the armor-utilization doctrinal mess in the U.S. Army at the time." Not that I afford Shaeffer any exceptional knowledge or credit, but it is amazing that you quote the guy without even reading what he says! Amazing!
many M4s (Shermans)we produced had cast turrets, and a majority had cast hulls. Castings, though, have certain inherent disadvantages. No
matter how metallurgically sophisticated a nation is, the physics dictates that grain orientation cannot be controlled, and grain growth is mostly uncontrollable, in large castings." "Rolled plate, on the other hand, may not be perfect, but it can offer
fairly good and consistent grain size, work hardening, and especially
All this information quoted comes from your boy Shaeffer. Any damn fool knows (excepting yourself of course) that German tanks and their armor were FAR FAR FAR superior to anything produced by any other country at the time. Hell, the King Tiger couldn't be knocked out from the front at any distance by the U.S. crap.
Cast hulls and turrets can easily be curved, which results in less exterior surface area for the same volume enclosed.They were good at taking glancing hits on the curved sides. Photos DO NOT usually show cracks in Shermans. Curved surfaces distribute stress better than sharp-cornered welded boxes,;curved mantlets acted a bit thicker than their weak granular structure would lead us to expect. That is, they were somehwat the same as if they were RHA. (Shaeffer and Livingston WWII Armour, 1996)
Okay. Why do think it was so heavy = heavy steel armour! Come on you have to have known that when you posted your comment! I hope you had known that. If not... what do you want me to say? And what does a Japanese battleship really have to do will with a heavy German tank? That's grasping for straws to prove a point = pointless. I hate to be rude but you insult people who seem to know more than you = ignorance. Why? You just seem to desire to embarrass yourself. Why bother?
Use the intellect we I know you have. The armour of the KT was of poor quality steel, therefore a lot more had to be used to get the same level of protection as the MArk VI. Same as the 64,000 tonne Yamato class as compared to the Iowa class. Heaviness and thickness of armour does not=strengh of armour.
ocolumbine, you are wrong again. The Germans used very high-quality rolled steel plate (best in world) in their tanks - all of them. Contrast the cast steel of the Sherman that was prone to CRACKING and breaking when hit. Rolled steel will not crack, but you can only use it in flat or bent pieces -like you see the bent "horseshoe plate" on the turrent of Tiger I. German armor thickness on King Tiger was exactly proportional to its protection - no record of anything piercing front glacis plate.
You are wrong. Its apparent you know nothing of metallurgy, or history. Rolled Homogenous Steel will fracture lacking Mg, Vn, and Mb which the Germans were short of. YOU have no record of of the failure of the galcis to protect the crew,I do. It (armour) spalled and fractured on #104, 204, 211, 213,332,and 334. The convex scab killed the crews w/o apparent penetration. The strongest ever RHS was on the Iowa Class BB which was cementised with Cr and C in an improvement of the Krupp method.
The following is a clear and concise history, definition and critque of RHSA and explanation of its demise in modern AFVs.
" Ballistic Evaluation of rolled Homogeneous Steel Armor with Tungsten Carbide and Titanium Carbide", US DTIC. Robert in which states do you hold your PE liscense, and where did you get your Engr degree?
Ocolumbia. Thank you for the compliment - very kind. Two quick points: 1. I don't know about battleships. I like tanks. I didn't feel the "gentlemans" comparison with a Japanese battleship had much relevance to a tank discussion. Why not compare other tanks? I believed he had little knowledge of tanks and used battleships to cover his lack of pertinent knowledge. Was I wrong?
2. I have a very basic understanding of metallurgy and it's theories. Therefore I must stand behind one simple and as far as I know undisputable fact. If the quality of steel was so poor and thickness has no relevance (I have done some reading and thickness does have a positive strength/protection factor), then I ask how come there is no known penetration by any land born method to penetrate the frontal (100 mm) armour of a King Tiger tank?
Thickness has revelance to a point, but without alloying metals it comes a liablilty. There is very little data MarkVI Aufs B series being penetrated frontally (thought it did happen), or any other Mark for that matter, because it was not Allied doctrine to make a frontal attack. The Henschel turreted tanks destroyed during the Normandy counterattack were destoryed via the infamous frontal shot trap, more by happinstance than intention.
ocolumbine, our "patriotism" is misplaced and you sound plainly foolish. "not Allied doctrine to make frontal attack" No shit, because they knew the strength/thickness of armor. U.S. doctrine FORBADE attack of a Panther/Tiger with LESS THAN 5 Shermans. 1-2 to draw fire and be destroyed while the others try to flank it! The main problem is you quote what you don't understand and you exhibit very little knowledge of actual wartime information - almost any fool knows about German heavy tanks.
NEVER was the front glacis plate of the King Tiger penetrated. beetstreet, if you ever get to Belgium, be sure to visit La Gleize where you can literally put your fist into the U.S. attempts to penetrate the frontal armor of one of Pieper's King Tigers from point black range. It was hopeless and the Allies realized that very fast - and this caused great fear and often panic when confronted with Tiger/King Tiger. Most often ir strike was called when possible and a single Tiger would stop advance
I would hazzard a guess that you are getting negatives on your comments for four reasons:
1. You are incorrect on some of your postings. 2. You are stating your opinion as fact. 3. You seem to need to sware and insult to try and support your "facts". 4. You are quite simply - RUDE! Have A Nice Day.
penndouche, it is true: It is still the heaviest tank ever to be fielded in any war, by any army, in any theatre, on any battlefied - ever. The results? As the U.S. tankers and soldiers that fled, running away ask fast as their legs could carry them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Came up for air? Wipe your facial off boy. The piece of shit broke down after 20 klicks.Over half of the KingTigers the US faces got taken out or the NAZI rats fled leaving them intact. Now IF it was the heaviest tank ever: What the Fuck? It was not the Most effective. The crew still got killed.
Maus never fought in combat, so it does not really count even if it was made. However there are rumors one fought in Berlin.
But, even so, King Tiger is not the heaviest armored fighting vehicle to ever fight in battle, the Jagdtiger is.
It was 71 tons. (Two tons heavier than King Tiger.) Jagdtiger was a tank destroyer with a King Tiger chassis, but unlike the King Tiger, it sported a bigger 128mm Anti-Tank gun.
From what I read the Maus Super Tank was used in the defence of the factory where it was built. It was then scuttled, I know ship term, to stop it from falling into Russian hands. The Russians did eventually get it and one other prototyped - which they combined into one complete tank. The only existing Maus is on display at the Kubinka tank museum.
That's because it is the largest and heaviest tank ever to see action on any battlefield, under any army, in any theatre, during any war. (Don't get confused with U.S. "ton" vs. "tonne". Tiger II way heavier than up-armored U.S. Abrams.
Sorry to be a bit picky on this subject but the T-28 was a medium Russian tank weighing in at only 28 tons and was a 30's tank. The PzKpfw VI Tiger II wieghed 66.93 tons (over twice the weight of the T-28) and entered service in 1944. Perhaps you have your Russian tank types a bit mixed up?
No, there was also a US T-28 that weighed in at 98 tonnes. An example is still at the Patton Armour museum. More heavilly armed and armoures with better quality steel than the Tiger Aufs B and and at least 27 tonnes heavier than the Jagdtiger
I was mistaken, you are right. US tanks have never really interested me that much. I looked up the US T28, the profile really reminded me of the German Jagdpanzer IV. I am always in heated debates about the manoverability of the German King Tiger, some feel it could barely move - 66.93 tons with only a V12 gasoline engine. But this tank, 84.8 tons with only a V8 gasoline engine - wow! It took 8 tankers to crew it. No wonder they only produced 5! Thanks for letting me know about the tank.
I have never read anything that gave the King Tiger's weight as empty of fuel and ammunition and full. I would suspect that it must be full. Add the weight of the shells (20.3 lb (9.2kg) x 84 = 1705.2 lb) plus the weight of gasoline (860 L (without gas tank dimensions can't give actual weight), the end weight would be even more staggering. At the end of the day, I don't know 100%. Maybe someone else knows for sure. Sorry.
The King Tiger was the heaviest tank to see the battlefield under any army in any theatre of any war ever - from beginning of the tank through today. Note that the weight is given in "tonnes", not tons. You can use an online conversion table to put it into "tons" as known here in the U.S. A tonne is heavier than a ton.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Several tanks after were war were heavier. That weight was not an attribute. More centimeters of inferior steel had to be used to get an equivalency to the Tiger I
As far as I know, the King Tiger was the heaviest tank ever to really operate anywhere (Maus didn't really operate). It was certainly the heaviest tank to ever to see the battlefield under any army in any theatre of any war ever - from beginning of the tank through today.
omg the sound of it moving and huge size just scares me
mrv2rocketman 1 week ago
It's pretty fast to be so fucking heavy as it is
SMGJohn 1 month ago
the beast rides again sweet tiger nice to see in action
kirbyd80 1 month ago
Dear Santa ... you will need a much bigger bag
starwarsoo4 2 months ago
I want to own one D:
Thing is pentagon would shit their pants
1MrLinuxz1 3 months ago
King tiger, Panther , Jagdpanther : still now these names are inspiring respect and fear
ex59neo53 4 months ago
Most feared tank ever
jackzero99 6 months ago
It was a peice of marvelous german engineering (when you consider they had a very short time to design, prototype, test and produce this tank). Plus in the hands of a tank ace with a good crew who took care of it, it was very deadly. They were useless in the Ardennes because they ran out of fuel before any of the other tanks. The germans had plenty of weapons and the best tanks and aircraft but had no gas to burn in them.
HunterHornet 6 months ago
@HunterHornet Should have gone with diesel fuel
jackzero99 6 months ago
great video
marechalrommel 8 months ago
The Germans didnt have enough fuel and ammo is because the americans destroyed their supply of ammo and fuel..
DrunkenRussian121 9 months ago
This is the kind of tank that crushes other tanks as it rolls over them. <3
mathias2992 10 months ago
Why do I live in this age?
denje123 10 months ago
A B-E-A-utiful tank and one of the best tanks of WW2. Great to see one operational, rare to see that now.
TheTeej08 1 year ago
Still looks like the meanest old bastard out there.
Oberst1488 1 year ago
Beautiful baby!
hummern4 1 year ago
OMFG thats one sick machine & how old ?
rewbardo 1 year ago
@rewbardo stupit???? does WW II germany says something to you?
jessejanssen000 1 year ago
Omg,Tankosaurusrex!
Hahalo3 1 year ago
Is hand cranking to start it common? Can't imagine doing that under battle conditions.
billace90 1 year ago
This is stolen from the Tamiya video!
BigAndTall666 1 year ago
Great piece of machinery to get early to work, as it would clear all traffic wherever you go. Thanks for posting!!!
billace90 1 year ago
Boy, listen to that baby pur!!
gtaclevelandcity 1 year ago
Pur? She is suffering!!! all that weight dude. Its no wonder that most King Tigers were disabled by mechanical problems rather than Combat
IvanBeSerious 1 year ago
@IvanBeSerious A fallacy. King Tiger was actually one of the most reliable tanks of the war. The book "King Tiger Heavy Tank 1942-45" states that by late 44/early 45, King Tigers had a 59% operational rate. That's something modern tanks can't even do.
As for suffering, it had a power/weight ratio of 12 horsepower/ton..which isn't bad at all. With the governor removed, it was very fast for a heavy tank..Varying sources say 41.5-45kph.
Not suffering at all.
wun1gee 1 year ago 4
@wun1gee it was the most unreliable piece of crap ever it had a great design but with germanys factory's getting destroyed by the second they made it with terrible parts its engine would randomly died its gas tank would leak its armor would crack after 1 hit from a t-34 and not to mention the shells would crack the barrel when it fired
ahnilator123 1 year ago
@ahnilator123 You should find some credible sources and stop relying on the History channel.
wun1gee 1 year ago 2
@wun1gee Wow what a vivid, but delusinal imagination
327pir 1 year ago
@wun1gee Then why are there only a handful left? Why were so many abandoned?
327pir 1 year ago
@327pir Because any vehicle, be it a tank, a modern car, etc, will break down without a support structure. A vehicle needs fuel. The Germans, toward the end of the war, simply didn't have any, or couldn't get it where it needed to go..
If you were in a vehicle that ran out of gas, and it was being over-run or shot at, would you stay with it?
It sounds better when you say "Oh it was an unreliable piece of German crap and we owned it!", when you weight that against "it ran out of gas.."
wun1gee 1 year ago
@wun1gee Bullshit. If you poorperly engineered vehicle there is less likelihood of that happening. The Americans were able to transport a support stucture over 3000 miles away.
Its sounds better (to you and other nazi apologist) when you make excuses. The tanks were over compilcated pieces of junk
327pir 1 year ago
@wun1gee More bullshit. Operation for a Aufs B was to be albe to sit hull down and snipe.. Even so the shit pile was only introduced in late 1944 so they were virtually brand new.
Ungoverned the weakly motor burned out in less than 2 kiicks The Ordinance Corp found that out when they captures KT 204 after the Battle of the Bulge before they sold it to the Belgians for scrap.
327pir 1 year ago
what a hellmachine oO
NukeDraco 1 year ago
No other Tank is capeble of Scaring the Shit outta your enemy then the Tiger Tank. 60 Years later, people STILL are afraid of it...
ThePanzerWarMachine 1 year ago 27
well, why dnt we ask Hamas and Hezbollah abt the Merkava, Chechen insurgents abt the T-64, T-72, T-80 or T-90 and Iraqi insurgents abt the M1A2 Abrams or Challenger 2?
EmperorTiger 1 year ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine Bullshit. You might be, but you're jsut a lily liverd eunuch
327pir 1 year ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine problem is an abrams would fuck this bitch up...
gnrisinmyblood1 7 months ago
@gnrisinmyblood1
Oh yeah real smart answer given there is over 40 years between them.
Dreachon 7 months ago
This P VIB is in Saumur, France. The only one in working condition.
zqmbvt 2 years ago 5
Maybe an interesting fait divers: after the war, the French Army not only employed Panthers but also Tiger II's <-- until ±1952 and with a newly constructed 1,000 HP Maybach engine. Whether that's also in this T II?
fearnoevilexceptbush 2 years ago 5
Woow Great info, never knew that!
What i do know is that Switserland is also restoring a Tiger II ;)
janusx66 2 years ago 4
@janusx66: you may want to take a look at the[dot]shadock[dot]free[dot]fr[forward slash]Surviving_Panthers.pdf
fearnoevilexceptbush 2 years ago
This is one mountain of a tank !!!
Not sure, but there might be a second one in working condition at Bovington Tank Museum GB
MegaLiopleurodon 2 years ago 5
@ 'MegaLiopleurodon'.......Bovington has a working Tiger I but not a Tiger II
RifledBarrel 2 years ago 4
Well, my fault. I misinterpreted the clip "King Tiger 104 goes for a ride", which is also shown on YT.
Saumur is a distance from my hometown, but I'd like to be there someday, when they show them all ! Bovington should try to buy an engine, and let the King Tiger roar again ...
MegaLiopleurodon 2 years ago 2
if I see this beautifull monster attacking my position,I would shit in my pants.....
pkolo1 2 years ago 38
@pkolo1 i think we would all do that one way or another
Danie9989 1 year ago
@pkolo1 I was thinking the same thing!! LMAO! Although it is at a disadvantage being so big, slow and cumbersome.
HollowForm222 1 year ago
@pkolo1
I'd rather masturbate at the sight of it ._.
TheColditz 8 months ago
Is there one of these in the U.S. anybody????? I would love to see one!!
davetileguy 2 years ago 4
There is one Tiger 2 in U.S. (search "king tiger 332" for info), in Patton museum but it's not in working condition.
zx749r 2 years ago 4
konigstiger mit porsche turm strongly influenced the american m-60a1 and m-60a3tts...this king tiger has the henschel turret-5stars...excellent-milwaukee m-60a3tts company commander usar
rocketshipstud2 2 years ago 5
The King Tiger from SAUMUR (FRANCE) Tank Museum is THE ONLY ONE still kept in working condition in the world !!!!
7707365w 2 years ago 3
drive it to Paris, hehehe i would and id be yelling " Werrrre Back!!!"
phonix032 2 years ago 7
This just in: Someone in Paris read your comment. The French have surrendered.
headinjuredkeeper 2 years ago 4
lololololololol
metube1120 2 years ago 2
LOL!!....Love these great machines even though they are for war....awesome stuff!
mkilner 2 years ago 5
Fantastico
8871 2 years ago 2
She's a beauty, outstanding
nightwishsky 2 years ago 4
Geil!! sehr schön,dieser Tiger! Geiler Sound!
powerheli777 2 years ago 5
Yes German Tanks forever
Schlachtkreutzer 2 years ago 5
at 1.04, groaaarr...nice vid
NichmitCommander 2 years ago 2
if i had a fortune, i would pay any price for this beauty !
CSSuser 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here is a Panther getting a hole shot in it by a T-26 with a 90MM.
ireload2 3 years ago
I'm not trying to be rude but the Russian T-26 only had a 45 mm gun and would have had a tough time even penetrating the Panther unless it was parked beside it !!!
beetstreet4 3 years ago 2
Haha!
Robert111 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Dumb bunny!. T-26, was the original designation of the Pershing tank with the 90mm gun. There was alsoa T-29, 30 and 31. With guns ranging from 105-155mm
penndeutschmann 2 years ago
Well you learn something new every day. I had no idea that the Pershing was not only designated T-26 (which is also the name of a light Russian tank) but also M-26. Thanks for the heads up!
beetstreet4 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes. That last remarked was aimed at Robert, but thanks for the acknowledgement.
penndeutschmann 2 years ago
In comes ireload2...
"Here is a fool with a hole in his head of about 90mm."
Not trying to be ruse, but the T26 would be a formidable tank in WWI, not WWII.
Robert111 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thats better tahn the 90ml of cum in your gut
penndeutschmann 2 years ago
"They see me rollin, they hatin..."
lol
mrlaird 3 years ago
The angry comment was for our friend Mr. Penndeutschmann whom seems to have a firm grasp on the swear words of the English language.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
No meant offence!!!
beetstreet4 3 years ago 2
Hey Guys (Robert111 and ocolumbia) do you like each other? You are both intelligent and educated. I have learnt alot from BOTH of you through you but you are starting to slide down the road of just insulting each other! I thought better of you both than that!!!
beetstreet4 3 years ago 2
Beets, someone had to put this guy's B.S. away because newbies to the subject of WWII tanks might just believe ocolumbine. The guy did a 15-minute Google search and started pasting from 1945 Russian propaganda and other online snippets without even understanding/full reading what he was posting. I caught him stone cold on that twice. The King Tiger was supreme, and the quality of German Krupp steel was second to none. Read any serious source on WWII tanks and you will find the same again/again.
Robert111 3 years ago
Here is one for you: I have recently been talking (via his Grandson) to a Gunner from the 6th Panzer Division. He was the gunner on a StuG III, Tiger and Kingtiger. We debate using books, TV, etc. But this gentleman was there!!! Truly very interesting!
beetstreet4 3 years ago
Yes, I've known one gentleman (now deceased) that was a Tiger I gunner on the eastern front. It is books and documentaries that compile hundreds of eyewitness account and interviews with tank crews, etc. I recommend you read "Michael Wittman: Tiger Ace." Great photos in that book as well. I have an uncle in-law that commanded a Sherman tank in the Battle of the Bulge. Great story he has: He said his tank and 5 others were driving down road in single file about 20 yards apart. The road opened to
Robert111 3 years ago 2
a field on one side and the lead tank was immediately knocked out in ball of fire (they used to call the Shermans "Ronsons" for this reason). The remaining tanks went off the road and scattered in field. He says they were screaming on the radio telling each other to get out of the way and where the German tank was. He said you could her high velocity tank round screaming through air. He was screaming as his driver "GO GO GO" and they turned the tank over in a bomb crater. My uncle broke his leg
Robert111 3 years ago
and was given the Purple Heart medal. He learned later that it was an 88mm firing from a single Tiger I that took out 4 Shermans and caused his to roll! It took the U.S army most of the afternoon to locate the Tiger tank in its heavy cover and take it out with air strikes. This is a common story where a single Tiger tank would hold up an allied advance column for hours. The same thing happened in a famous account in fighting near Monte Cassino in Italy. You could not take them out from front.
Robert111 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah , but because of the bad weather, there minimal of any airstrikes during the main Battle of the Bulge. If you are really a studen tof History talk to survviors of the 3rd AD. Today I march with my former comrades of the 1st Cav. and surviviors of 73 Easting. You read books, I have taken part in it. But why this digression of the shoddy steel of the Tiger II?
ocolumbia 3 years ago
My friend shared a story after being transfered back to German and refitted with a King Tiger. He said one day he ran into a Sherman by accident. They didn't see the Sherman until they were face to face. The Sherman got off the first round and hit the turret. My friend thought he was dead. But the shell didn't penetrate. The King Tiger returned fire and hit the Sherman point blank blowing it 20 meters (65 feet)into the air.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
you've got cool friend .
CSSuser 2 years ago
They also nicknamed the Shermans "tomcookers", a morbid nickname but unfortuately true due to there tendancy to catch fire after a hit to the ammo and burn the crew alive. Horrible.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He (Wittman) never commanded a King Tiger and is most famous for attacking a British column at tea time. He got his come uppance though!
ocolumbia 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Worlsd wide lie shitty dick. Bethleham Steel made the best RHSA in the world for over 70 years. many of the workers were former Krupp and Thyseen workers who immigrated to the US prior too, and following WWI. There STS was the Worlds best, partly because the US had Chromium, Molybdenum, Tungsten,Manganese, Cobalt, and Vanadium the Germans almost totally lacked by '44. The junk pile was seamed together with dove tails, the wields were so poor. Clean that jiz out your ears queenie.
penndeutschmann 3 years ago
Tell your mate to show the photos of the KT glacis and turret stove in, pieerced and cracked. If you have an email that can receive jpegs, I will show you. Just be willing to accept what you see. Or do a seach on the DTIC unclassfied tests of RHSA 1946-60.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
ocolumbine, rather than make a fool of yourself, which you have proved extraordinarily apt to doing, why don't you just ask questions and learn instead? Let me say it again for you, the glacis of the King Tiger was never defeated during WWII. Yes, if you shoot at it with AP point black from another King Tiger L71 88mm, you'll do it, or if you shoot artillery at the same pieces repeatedly as the Russians did after the war! LOL! How much more of an ass can you make of yourself with stupid argument
Robert111 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Then you avoided reading the DTIC. Your not ass but you blow jackasses, wehnyou are not gettn packed in the ass by one.
penndeutschmann 2 years ago
I would very much like to see the pictures. I do ask that you give me your word that these pictures are not from a tank target range in US, England or the USSR. That is where some of the old German WWII tanks ended up and blown to bits by more modern tanks. A couple have been recovered from these sources in the last decade and resored. Send me a private message.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
The photos were, as I said, taken from Russian propaganga after the war in which they actually admit firing on the tanks with a German L71 88mm and various artillery. You can simply search Google to find what ocolumbine is talking about. Find photos of the King Tiger in La Gleize and you will see what happens when an M10 and Sherman fire at the glacis plate of a King Tiger. You can message me your email address and I will email you 1-2 high resolution photos.
Robert111 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are such a nutless fool. If you ahd nuts or brain you would know, that the flank shot has always been perfered by gunners. Even with the DU APFSDS sabot a galcis shot kills the DRIVER. A SIDE TURRET hit kills the TC, Gunner and Loader and may detonate the ammo.
The galcis of the Tiger in La Glieze was never fired upon during the conflict but a 57mm AT and bazookas were used by AB troopers after the fight. Dam if your mouth is't big enough to give a Kt a blowjob
penndeutschmann 2 years ago
"Tigers in Combat", Wolfgang Schneider, Stack Pole Books 2006
22 Dec 1944 After knocking out a Sherman, Tiger 334 is hit by 9 cm gun. Crew is forced to bailout and escape to La Glieze. Tanks in La Glieze are fixed by superior enemy forces.Tigers 211 and 213 commanded by Oberst Furher Dolligner are knocked out by numerous hits. A portion of the gun and muzzle brake of 213 are shot away.
Tank 213 remains in the town to this day.
See Photo p237 compleat penetration thru mantlet.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Again, doing a quick Google search and quickly skimming informaition on Tigers makes you look like a COMPLETE fool! You were already slammed on your prior Shaeffer quotes and yet you bury yourself again with "Tigers in Combat." You are quoting a QUOTE within the book of propaganda enemy combat reports (or "diary") you idiot!!!
Robert111 3 years ago
Slammed in only your own dim mind. an't way to you go in a repeat thumbs down signalson your repeatedly
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Schneider, a German national, and historian, spouting "enemy propaganda"? He is alot more balanced and believable than the a accounts and excuse by the losers, ie Pieper(sic) and Guerderian.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
The AUTHOR of "Tigers in Combat" himself writes: "Due to its undisputed battlefield superiority, which was based on its armor protection and unparalleled lethality for the time, it has exerted an almost mystical fascination, particularly among its former enemies." It is hard to imagine you are this stupid that you can't read/understand a book and think Tigers were not superior, so it must be a foolish sense of nationalism to U.S. or U.K.? Which is it?
Robert111 3 years ago
Yes you are a victim of this mystical fascination alright. But in another post did'nt you discredit Schnieder?
ocolumbia 3 years ago
By the way, the "diary" or account (regardless who made it) you are quoting is DEAD wrong. Specifically, the "muzzle brake" of King Tiger 213 was not shot away. A whole section of maybe 4-5 feet of barrel was blown away by a charge placed into the barrel by the crew when the tank was abandoned due to lack of fuel. Stop trying to argue with a certified military historian by doing a 15-minute Google searcha and copying/pasting what you don't even read/understand. It is pathetic and embarrasing.
Robert111 3 years ago
Yes, Oberst Dollinger is a liar. You were there he wasn't. Did you set the"charge" too? Since they were under fire when did they get the chance, and if they were'nt why disable the gun?
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Stop spamming the board, get your thoughts together and post what will fit into a single comment. Like I said, stop trying to become a 30-minute Google historian. Read real books on the matter include those on Kampfgruppe Pieper. They were surrounded in La Gleize with heavy equipment and no fuel. Several King Tigers were disabled and Pieper and many of his men slipped through the porous U.S. lines and made it back to Germany.
Robert111 3 years ago
Thats not factual
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Hauptmann Erhardt testifed in that 2/3 of the gun was blown off by enemy fire. But of course bein there, and the gunner, he msut be a liar, since he proves Rob's statements are lies.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Try again. Like I said before, trying to become a WWII tank historian after a 15 minute Google search and then copying/pasting snippets of what you skimmed without reading the whole article or even understanding what you read is hilarious. You've been caught and slammed TWICE - let me know what else you've got. Reading/tracking down your B.S. is actually funnier and funner everytime I visit this video! LOL! The Panther/Tiger I/Tiger II were KING of tanks, any serious historian can tell you fool!
Robert111 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck you!
penndeutschmann 3 years ago
You seem very angry. Relax. This is simply words and debate. Some postings are fact and some are opinion. But at the end of the day it's just words that won't change the world. Try and have a nice day!
beetstreet4 3 years ago 2
It was regular practive to put a charge into the barrel to disable it to prevent it from falling into enemy hands and being used against them. I'm not going to lecture you on all these details here - read some real books if you are interesting in ridding yourself of your profound ignorance. STOP SPAMMING THIS VIDEO with your supremely ignorant B.S. You know nothing of WWI tank warefare and cut/past what you don't understand/didn't even read (but found skimming a 10-minute Google search). Idiot.
Robert111 3 years ago
Make me leave this board you bloody wanker. "Spiking" a barrel was practised to a limited extent. But not in this case. Are "real" books the ones which adhere to your dim witted view? Face it the King tiger was the wrong tank at the wrong time. Its effect on the outcome of the war was minimal at best. Why don't you finish HS or try for a college degree? Study objectivity and critical thinking.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
The final report of 16 February 1945 on the "Tiger-B" tests:"The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower."
ocolumbia 3 years ago
ocolumbine, reading 1945 political reports from Germany's enemies and treating it like your bible is truly naive: "do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower." The King Tiger's armor was superior - simply out-classing any other tank, not even close. AND FIREPOWER! LOL! The L71 88mm of the King Tiger not enough firepower!??! That is a new one, surprising even for a wartime propaganda report! WOW!
Robert111 3 years ago
This report was not public in 1945. Propaganda has to open to public immediately to have any effect.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
These test have been duplicated in the US. Here at the Anniston Army Tank Depot we have a portion of armour from the turret face and glacis removed from tank 332 before if was prepared for diaplay at the Patton Museum. It failed at 900m from an M2 90mm gun firing HVAP and HESH. The Brinell Hardness Test too so a decrease in armour quality between 1943-45. Cemical analysis hsoe this due to lack of Elemental and Hexavalent Cr whic is well documented to be lacking in late war Germany.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
ocolumbine, like I said before, your "patriotism" is misplaced and plain foolish. No Allied tank could knock out the King Tiger from the front and none did. I would believe the results of "tests" conducted at Anniston Army Tank Depot about as much as I would believe George Bush - zero. After WWII is was total embarrassment that army FORBADE engagement with Panther/Tigers unless you have at LEAST FIVE Shermans. Allied tankers often panicked when faced with near impossible chance.
Robert111 3 years ago
First of all I was born in the UK. The King Tiger was far from invincible and fell to the IS2, M-36, M-10 variants, 17pounder Shermans, TE15 90mm rounds. You want to live in your fantasy land--live on. I invite you again to come here, to RTV Museum Bovington, US Ordinance Aberdeen, proving ground or the Russian Army Kubinka data, or request unclassified data from the DTIC. But you won't. You are afraid of anything that will disprove you worhship of a myth.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
The Russian tests of captured tanks post war show clear penetration. It is physically documented. IS this a fair analysis? It is of the armour, but not the tactics. Panzers would not lie still to be shot at, but neither would allied tanks attempt to fire at the strongest portion of the armour. Even when no apparent penetration was observed careful analysis of the interior show that the armour scabbed, that is a convex portion broke loose killing or maiming the crew from the inside
ocolumbia 3 years ago
By the way, what part of "German armor thickness on King Tiger was exactly proportional to its protection - no record of anything piercing front glacis plate" didn't you understand? Far FAR weaker tanks utilizing cheap cast armor can actually be seen with CHUNKS of armor missing in gaping holes where the piece cracked and blew off! It is not hard to find photos of Shermans in this condition. You will never see such a thing on a German panzer - never.
Robert111 3 years ago
There s nothing to understand about a falsehood. I HAVE seen such things in a german Panzer. I have seen 4 of the surviving examples. But you ahve never seen one up close. You are mis and uneducated with no academic or hands on credentials. I have both.
Just temper your fantasy with a little fact.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Understand this:
1.) German rolled steel plate was far superior to the cast armor of all other tanks. Cast armor is done only for ease of manufacturing/cheapness.
2.) The Germans made their tanks like the King Tiger almost invulnerable by using immensely thick rolled armor plate with interlocking tabs for incredible strength.
3.) The overall result was that it took an average of 7 U.S. Shermans or 4.5 T34s to take out a Tiger I or Tiger II. The Panther was also far superior.
Robert111 3 years ago
1)RSHA was not exclusive to Germany. But in a war of production and attrition. The rolling pocess is too consuptive of time, labour and material.
2)The KT was not even close to being inveunerable. By using "immensely thick" plates without Cr, or Mo prevented inner core hardness, and gave way to brittleness and scabbing.RATC Bovington, The US Ordinance Corp, and the USSR have all proven this. Come to my workpalce and you can see the physicall evidence and data
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Another important factor is the "scale effect", which causes armor to grow more brittle as it INCREASES in thickness. The reason is that the necessary rapid temperature drop is difficult to obtain deep inside multi-inch thick plates. Certain alloys such as chromium deepen the internal hardening,but Cr supplies in Germany quickly became limited.Due to the difficulties in making thick plate, optimum BHN (BRinell Hardness Number) drops as the thickness increases.(Shaefer&Livingston,1993)
ocolumbia 3 years ago
WOW, do you have difficulty reading or a penchant for spamming boards with B.S.? "It is my understanding, though, from previous discussions and years-ago engineering study, that during WWII, only the Germans utilized decent-quality rolled alloy plate for tanks. Both the Russians and the Brits were
short on both first-class mill capability and alloy steel capability, relative to the widely disparate numbers of AFVs they built. " - Quoting your boy Shaeffer
Robert111 3 years ago
Your boy Shaeffer goes on to write: "We in the U.S.A. had no absolute resource limits, but chose not to build even a better
version of the tank design we had, because of the armor-utilization doctrinal mess in the U.S. Army at the time." Not that I afford Shaeffer any exceptional knowledge or credit, but it is amazing that you quote the guy without even reading what he says! Amazing!
Robert111 3 years ago
"Most of the
many M4s (Shermans)we produced had cast turrets, and a majority had cast hulls. Castings, though, have certain inherent disadvantages. No
matter how metallurgically sophisticated a nation is, the physics dictates that grain orientation cannot be controlled, and grain growth is mostly uncontrollable, in large castings." "Rolled plate, on the other hand, may not be perfect, but it can offer
fairly good and consistent grain size, work hardening, and especially
grain orientation."
Robert111 3 years ago
All this information quoted comes from your boy Shaeffer. Any damn fool knows (excepting yourself of course) that German tanks and their armor were FAR FAR FAR superior to anything produced by any other country at the time. Hell, the King Tiger couldn't be knocked out from the front at any distance by the U.S. crap.
Robert111 3 years ago
US doctine called for flanking in any tank engagement not forntal attack. US tank platoons at full strength always had 5-6 tanks.
The T15E1 gun knocked out a KT at 600yds.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Cast hulls and turrets can easily be curved, which results in less exterior surface area for the same volume enclosed.They were good at taking glancing hits on the curved sides. Photos DO NOT usually show cracks in Shermans. Curved surfaces distribute stress better than sharp-cornered welded boxes,;curved mantlets acted a bit thicker than their weak granular structure would lead us to expect. That is, they were somehwat the same as if they were RHA. (Shaeffer and Livingston WWII Armour, 1996)
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Okay. Why do think it was so heavy = heavy steel armour! Come on you have to have known that when you posted your comment! I hope you had known that. If not... what do you want me to say? And what does a Japanese battleship really have to do will with a heavy German tank? That's grasping for straws to prove a point = pointless. I hate to be rude but you insult people who seem to know more than you = ignorance. Why? You just seem to desire to embarrass yourself. Why bother?
beetstreet4 3 years ago
Use the intellect we I know you have. The armour of the KT was of poor quality steel, therefore a lot more had to be used to get the same level of protection as the MArk VI. Same as the 64,000 tonne Yamato class as compared to the Iowa class. Heaviness and thickness of armour does not=strengh of armour.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
ocolumbine, you are wrong again. The Germans used very high-quality rolled steel plate (best in world) in their tanks - all of them. Contrast the cast steel of the Sherman that was prone to CRACKING and breaking when hit. Rolled steel will not crack, but you can only use it in flat or bent pieces -like you see the bent "horseshoe plate" on the turrent of Tiger I. German armor thickness on King Tiger was exactly proportional to its protection - no record of anything piercing front glacis plate.
Robert111 3 years ago
You are wrong. Its apparent you know nothing of metallurgy, or history. Rolled Homogenous Steel will fracture lacking Mg, Vn, and Mb which the Germans were short of. YOU have no record of of the failure of the galcis to protect the crew,I do. It (armour) spalled and fractured on #104, 204, 211, 213,332,and 334. The convex scab killed the crews w/o apparent penetration. The strongest ever RHS was on the Iowa Class BB which was cementised with Cr and C in an improvement of the Krupp method.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
The following is a clear and concise history, definition and critque of RHSA and explanation of its demise in modern AFVs.
" Ballistic Evaluation of rolled Homogeneous Steel Armor with Tungsten Carbide and Titanium Carbide", US DTIC. Robert in which states do you hold your PE liscense, and where did you get your Engr degree?
ocolumbia 3 years ago
Ocolumbia. Thank you for the compliment - very kind. Two quick points: 1. I don't know about battleships. I like tanks. I didn't feel the "gentlemans" comparison with a Japanese battleship had much relevance to a tank discussion. Why not compare other tanks? I believed he had little knowledge of tanks and used battleships to cover his lack of pertinent knowledge. Was I wrong?
beetstreet4 3 years ago
2. I have a very basic understanding of metallurgy and it's theories. Therefore I must stand behind one simple and as far as I know undisputable fact. If the quality of steel was so poor and thickness has no relevance (I have done some reading and thickness does have a positive strength/protection factor), then I ask how come there is no known penetration by any land born method to penetrate the frontal (100 mm) armour of a King Tiger tank?
beetstreet4 3 years ago
Thickness has revelance to a point, but without alloying metals it comes a liablilty. There is very little data MarkVI Aufs B series being penetrated frontally (thought it did happen), or any other Mark for that matter, because it was not Allied doctrine to make a frontal attack. The Henschel turreted tanks destroyed during the Normandy counterattack were destoryed via the infamous frontal shot trap, more by happinstance than intention.
ocolumbia 3 years ago
ocolumbine, our "patriotism" is misplaced and you sound plainly foolish. "not Allied doctrine to make frontal attack" No shit, because they knew the strength/thickness of armor. U.S. doctrine FORBADE attack of a Panther/Tiger with LESS THAN 5 Shermans. 1-2 to draw fire and be destroyed while the others try to flank it! The main problem is you quote what you don't understand and you exhibit very little knowledge of actual wartime information - almost any fool knows about German heavy tanks.
Robert111 3 years ago
NEVER was the front glacis plate of the King Tiger penetrated. beetstreet, if you ever get to Belgium, be sure to visit La Gleize where you can literally put your fist into the U.S. attempts to penetrate the frontal armor of one of Pieper's King Tigers from point black range. It was hopeless and the Allies realized that very fast - and this caused great fear and often panic when confronted with Tiger/King Tiger. Most often ir strike was called when possible and a single Tiger would stop advance
Robert111 3 years ago
I would hazzard a guess that you are getting negatives on your comments for four reasons:
1. You are incorrect on some of your postings. 2. You are stating your opinion as fact. 3. You seem to need to sware and insult to try and support your "facts". 4. You are quite simply - RUDE! Have A Nice Day.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
Beautiful beast, if only Wittman got to command one of these.
AbjectBlitz 3 years ago 4
Been just as dead
327pir 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bored? lonely? hit me up on my msg messenger !! my Live ID is jane22fall Y
Vronhilldebrand 3 years ago
This tank still looks awsome, even after 60 plus years.
DET832 3 years ago 3
Yes, 60 plus years later and it is still the heaviest tank ever to be fielded in any war, by any army, in any theatre, on any battlefied - ever.
Robert111 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So what?( if that were true--its not) Sheer weight is no substitute for good armoured steel. Ask the dead INN sailors on the Yamato and Musashi.
Youever thought why any modern country never sought to dupicate this hunk of junk?
penndeutschmann 3 years ago
penndouche, it is true: It is still the heaviest tank ever to be fielded in any war, by any army, in any theatre, on any battlefied - ever. The results? As the U.S. tankers and soldiers that fled, running away ask fast as their legs could carry them.
Robert111 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Came up for air? Wipe your facial off boy. The piece of shit broke down after 20 klicks.Over half of the KingTigers the US faces got taken out or the NAZI rats fled leaving them intact. Now IF it was the heaviest tank ever: What the Fuck? It was not the Most effective. The crew still got killed.
penndeutschmann 3 years ago
amazing
centi521 3 years ago 4
tiger on the prowl ^^
lettersope 3 years ago
I can see why the final drive was so pron to breakdowns.
tron2102 3 years ago
if i knew this thing was after me i would shit my pants!
aaboi 3 years ago 2
And then you turned off your Xbox 360.
soulbow 3 years ago
0:56-0:57, sounds like it's steam powered.
Bf2009 3 years ago 2
in ww2 i will run like hell lol
SbeekFutsal 3 years ago 3
dude if I saw that in ww2 and all I had was a rifle id flip out.
zachary736 3 years ago
if i see one of thosse in my street,i will run to some place safe... LoL
can be older, but still put fear
telepreto 3 years ago 5
I love this tank!
viciostereo 3 years ago
Qualitativamente o armamento alemão era infinitamente superior.Faltou a quantidade. Wernerhenrique,Blumenau
carlosaint666 3 years ago
the king tiger wasnt the heavist look up the maus super heavy tank
PanzerFAUST1345 4 years ago
There were only like two of those ever made.
j5689 3 years ago
Maus never fought in combat, so it does not really count even if it was made. However there are rumors one fought in Berlin.
But, even so, King Tiger is not the heaviest armored fighting vehicle to ever fight in battle, the Jagdtiger is.
It was 71 tons. (Two tons heavier than King Tiger.) Jagdtiger was a tank destroyer with a King Tiger chassis, but unlike the King Tiger, it sported a bigger 128mm Anti-Tank gun.
Pain4547 3 years ago
From what I read the Maus Super Tank was used in the defence of the factory where it was built. It was then scuttled, I know ship term, to stop it from falling into Russian hands. The Russians did eventually get it and one other prototyped - which they combined into one complete tank. The only existing Maus is on display at the Kubinka tank museum.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
you are correct about the maus tank.
3819oli 3 years ago
Jesus ... it looks menacing, even after 60 years.
GR8TM4N 4 years ago
That's because it is the largest and heaviest tank ever to see action on any battlefield, under any army, in any theatre, during any war. (Don't get confused with U.S. "ton" vs. "tonne". Tiger II way heavier than up-armored U.S. Abrams.
Robert111 4 years ago 2
t-28 tank destroyer is much heavier
AngryBes88 3 years ago
Sorry to be a bit picky on this subject but the T-28 was a medium Russian tank weighing in at only 28 tons and was a 30's tank. The PzKpfw VI Tiger II wieghed 66.93 tons (over twice the weight of the T-28) and entered service in 1944. Perhaps you have your Russian tank types a bit mixed up?
beetstreet4 3 years ago
No, there was also a US T-28 that weighed in at 98 tonnes. An example is still at the Patton Armour museum. More heavilly armed and armoures with better quality steel than the Tiger Aufs B and and at least 27 tonnes heavier than the Jagdtiger
ocolumbia 3 years ago 2
I was mistaken, you are right. US tanks have never really interested me that much. I looked up the US T28, the profile really reminded me of the German Jagdpanzer IV. I am always in heated debates about the manoverability of the German King Tiger, some feel it could barely move - 66.93 tons with only a V12 gasoline engine. But this tank, 84.8 tons with only a V8 gasoline engine - wow! It took 8 tankers to crew it. No wonder they only produced 5! Thanks for letting me know about the tank.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
Hi.
Did the King Tiger weigh 66.93 tons empty or was that her full combat weight (with ammo, fuel etc) included?
ToonandBBfan 3 years ago
I have never read anything that gave the King Tiger's weight as empty of fuel and ammunition and full. I would suspect that it must be full. Add the weight of the shells (20.3 lb (9.2kg) x 84 = 1705.2 lb) plus the weight of gasoline (860 L (without gas tank dimensions can't give actual weight), the end weight would be even more staggering. At the end of the day, I don't know 100%. Maybe someone else knows for sure. Sorry.
beetstreet4 3 years ago
The King Tiger was the heaviest tank to see the battlefield under any army in any theatre of any war ever - from beginning of the tank through today. Note that the weight is given in "tonnes", not tons. You can use an online conversion table to put it into "tons" as known here in the U.S. A tonne is heavier than a ton.
Robert111 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Several tanks after were war were heavier. That weight was not an attribute. More centimeters of inferior steel had to be used to get an equivalency to the Tiger I
penndeutschmann 3 years ago
As far as I know, the King Tiger was the heaviest tank ever to really operate anywhere (Maus didn't really operate). It was certainly the heaviest tank to ever to see the battlefield under any army in any theatre of any war ever - from beginning of the tank through today.
Robert111 3 years ago