The term "bounce off" is being misused and doesn't do full justice to the KV-1s armour - those pock marks are full impacts that failed to penetrate not bounce offs.
Would the enemy crew still fire their gun? How are they to know that it was the main gun that was hit while closed off inside? But if they fire it, the shell would jam on the disfigured barrel and explode! Did the enemy tank explode?
In 1944 Germany was not alone, here are some of her allies, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Finland, Japan, and Albania, to name a few. Even the Ukrainians were helping so great was their hatred of Stalin. To say that Germany was fighting alone displays a lack of knowledge. The fight against the growth of communism was a pan European movement, and it is debatable who was worse Hitler or Stalin.
It is little wonder that the Germans have an it's your problem now attitude toward world affairs
@Zyworski Correct me if i am wrong but Italy surrendered, Japan was too far away and the other tiny nations you mentioned were in no way of any help unless germany was only fighting 1 large nation.. but it fought 3 and therefore those tiny nations were useless.
Unfortunately all the early series tanks were cannon fodder for the German tanks so maligned in the early stages of the war (Panzer IV Ausf. B, Panzer III).
The T-34, KV/IS are mentioned so often because they were the tanks that were capable of giving the Germans hell and forcing them to rethink their tank designs.
Considering that the T-60s, T-26, etc were incapable of penetrating light armor and had light armor themselves, they are not worthy of mention versus even KwK 75 L/48
Great statistics everybody. Too bad you're forgetting the main stats: sheer numbers. The Americans and Russians way out produced the Germans. No matter how many Tigers may have been in the field, there were always going to be way out numbered by Shermans or T-34's.
There were about 200-300 Pershings in Europe during the last fays of WWII and few saw action but they did see action. USA produced over 2,000 Pershings during and shortly after WWII.
wrong, do more research. only 20 pieces of the M26 Pershings of the 3rd and 9th Armored division saw action against the Germans during WW2 in the Cologne city. 3 Pershings were lost during encounters against german tanks. the first M26 was lost to a Tiger, the second one was destroyed by a Jagdpanzer "Nashorn" (armed with the high velocity 8,8cm) and the third one was killed by a king tiger at the Rhine river near Elsdorf.
xNexus65x, I do research, and what I said was that there were 200-300 Pershings in Europe and there were, since most were never issued to troops but remained in Britain. The USA did indeed produce over 2,000 Pershings in 1944-1945 but only shipped between 200- 300 to Europe. Yes, the 3rd and 9th AD had some (an uncle of mine was in the 9AD in the Bulge, at Remagen etc.), and a few were knocked out at Remagen Bridge. Personally, I believe that it is possible a few more Pershings saw combat.
No, German Panzers were still powerful enough to counter all enemy tanks. Even the Panzer 4 could destroy theIS-2 fromt he sides. The King Tiger was still able to kill any Allied tanks (inclusive IS-2) at distance of 2,000 m - 3,000 m ! Only 26 Pershings arrived in cologne in late February 1945. At this time the War was already won for the Allies. The IS-3 saw never combat in WW2! And the most IS-2's fought as spearhead in the ultimate Battle for Berlin against SS soldiers.
Pershing taks saw action in Europe, in one combat a single M26 destroyed a Tiger plus two pzIV, the russian T-34 used sloped armor so they didn´t need a heavy armor, german heavy tanks were very difficult to maintenace and produce
The T34 was NOT the only tank in WW2 with sloped armor. Yes, they were one of the first with all-arround sloped hulls but the Panther, king Tiger and Jagdpanther had also slopped armor but much thicker and hevier. The T34/76 was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the heavy german tanks. That's why they construed the T34/85. Also notice, the first Pershing lost by enemy fire was killed by a Tiger ;) And Karl Körner, who commanded a King Tigeer claimed to have killed many IS-2's in Berlin.
yeah its shal be greate tank but the need to replace so much T75 AND 85 ,,its shal be long tim eto do that but wen finisht the shal have strongest armor in the world..
then i have to say that your knowledge about WW2 history is outdated. Even the Soviet union would get in trouble if they would fight against the Whole Word... but it was Germany who had no Allies in 1944/45 and fought alone on 2 fronts against the 3 biggest Allied Nations. Even though the Germans had the best tanks with the best kill ratios, they couldn't defeat USA, USSDR, UK and Canada which have flooded and overhelmed the Germans with their mass-produced tanks.
this is exactly what I wated to say: in 1941-42 russian tanks were better than german: the result is well known. the opposite story in 1944-45. IMHO it woud be much more effective to produce 10 hetzers instead of 1 tiger
The most produced T34's were armed with the 76,2 mm gun, only about 30% of all produeced T34s had the 85mm gun. Even though, the 85mm was very powerful and could kill Panther or Tiger, german Panzers were still superior in 1 vs 1 because of better armor. The T34-85 had the same weak armor as the standart T34. Even the M60/T55 MBTs in 1960 were equal to the King Tiger. In 1945 it was planned to replace the Tiger II with the new Tiger III (only a project).
The super heavy tank Tiger III would have 270mm armor of massive steel and a very powerful 170mm Kwk44 anti-tank gun. It would be the most powerful tank at that time and if you think it was only on paper then you are wrong. there was a half-prototype at the end of the War only the gear chassis but it was never completed. It seems that you forgot how the Russians and Americans have won the War - with quantity. 80,000 T34s + 60,000 Shermans against only 2,000 Tigers & King Tigers. just imagine...
#1 in 1941 T34 and KV1 were the most powerful tanks in the world.
#2 there were 54,000 t34s produced during WWII
#3 Germany had more then Tigers and King Tigers
#4 Tiger II was a piece of garbage what makes you think that Tiger III would be any better.
Its funny how everyone says that German armor was superior when in reality it wasn't, the advantage Germans had was training and good strategies. Russian armor was plainly better during most of the war.
@Onesonofthelaw In no way is it wrong that germany was alone in 1944/45 VS 3 great nations who had mass produced tanks. IF thats what you replyed to. If not them soz, my bad.
@colacas Mnn, interesting one that..10 of these better than 1of those because, assuming, quantity matters. It is often said the tiger was so costly etc etc. compared to the ease of manufacturing the T-34 or Sherman. But I don't think Germany had the fuel or trained crews to fill them. Look at the aircraft situation in late '44. Billions of new planes (peak of whole war Sep-Oct '44) - no pilots, little fuel
@mistersmith6000 Germany produced 119,307 aircraft during WW2. Britain (the smallest of the major allies) 131,549 & mostly 4 engine bombers in 1944/45 while Germany produced mostly single engine fighters in this time period. The Nazi's were incompetent at running the German war economy. Peak German weapons production in WW2 was July 1944 & then only 95% of it's peak WW1 production of July 1918. The western allies stopped bombing 6 months prior to d-day, recommencing in August 44
@binaway My point is that had they been able to manufacture more planes etc., they would have been useless because they simply didn't have the skilled manpower to use them, nor the fuel to take them anywhere. Germany were always short of material in the '39-'42 period, but so were their adversaries. Only in '42 did they begin to ramp up production for a war economy and I think Speer did a pretty good job/evil job (let's face it) at prolonging the war with armaments production.
@holyt86 canada kicked ass in world war 1 and 2, in terms of per capita supply and enlistment they outperformed every allied country in the war other then russia
@snyp0r65 I see this myth stated so many times and its rubbish The Germans had loads of Allies. Italy, Hungary, Romania, Japan, Finland, Thailand, Bulgaria etc
@snyp0r65 My thought here is that you say that the germans didnt have any allies in 1944/45? thats wrong they hade japan some was almoust usless then but they where allies. Btw they hade 3 front war dont forget italy (monte casino ect). The germans might hade the best quality tanks theres armour was kinda wrong with only 85-80 degrees armor against the russian (USSR) some hade 70-65 degree armour some did do so the shells did bounce off the t-34 and many other tanks.
German used sloping armour on every tank since the Panther.
Also only the lowe powered shells bounce once they german got to long 75mm guns and the Tigers 88mm they shells no longer bounced but instead smashed throuh the armour.
@Limskjordan Hungary was a III Reich ally and wasnt anexed nor was a puppet state. Their inferior training dosnt make them less allied. Austria was an ally of Germany just like Scotland was an ally of England.
@Paciat You are right about Hungary but wrong about Austria. Austria was a non-violent conquest. In other words, an annexation. Poor training and out-dated equipment means military defeat. It is not a question of alliance.
@snyp0r65 If germany had the best tanks they would have won
No
Germany had tanks wich where good in armor and firepower, but where inreliable, very expensive to produce, where a logistical nightmare and had fauly armour after 1943.
@leksss4 Actually molotov cocktails are extremely effective against tanks. Provided you can get close enough without getting shot. So are sub-machine-guns, if you can get on the tank, open the hatch and spray the crew. Tanks are, even today, surprisingly vulnerable in close quarter combat. Of course a good commander won't send in tanks without infantry cover.
@evildeathmonkey1 "Actually molotov cocktails are extremely effective against tanks."..........
¿rly?! ...... you keep that easy trick?..... in Winterwar there was like 3 to 1 manpower, 80 to 1 tanks and so one.....so there was hellewy muts infantry supporting tanks mostly... before they all die.....
/watch?v=VThSjGVjOMM&feature=related... USSR and FIN manpowers.... see difference....
@strunx10 Sorry about two comments, as I was saying in 1942 when the Tiger and Panther tanks were made the T-34 was no longer dominant. Untill The KV-1 and IS seres tanks came. This, AND they were easier and faster to produce.
The panther came later in 1943. The kv-1 came before all of them in 1938. The IS came in 1943. the Kv-1 was easily defeated by a Tiger or Panther. But earlier german tanks had problems knocking out kv's. The IS-2 was only effective because of its gun range and decent frontal turret armor. but its gun had poor penitraition at medium to long ranges. In nearly all cases the panther and tiger defeated the IS-2. The IS-2 had to get lucky with an 1 hit K.O. ambush. It would die in toe to toe fighting.
Of course the IS-2s other advantage is that there was always 3 IS-2's to every 1 Tiger. So if that Tiger was caught in a cross fire ambush it was doomed. But if that same Tiger hid somewhere and let all the IS-2's roll foward it could knock out 5 before the 6th one was close enough to get a accurate penitraiting fatal hit. Thats why they saved the IS-2 for its better role of shattering structures with infintry hiding inside. Its 122mm shell's huge explosion did that job well.
@Potts132 yeah, its just in nearly all cases 1 IS-2 ambushing Tigers never went nearly as well as 1 Tiger ambushing IS-2's. Because of the IS-2's almost more than twice as slow reloading time and the fact that the gun wasn't nearly as accurate as the German 88mm gun the IS-2 if well hidden (which would have to be long range to not be pin pointed right off) could fire twice before they know the general direction (considering they don"t retreat and stand ground) then by the time the IS-2 fires
@Potts132 the 3rd and 4th shot he would be pin pointed exactly. Then the return fire from the remaining Tiger(s) would knock out the IS-2 quickly before he had a chance to fire the 5th or 6th shot. So in 4 long range shots it would have been lucky to fatally hit in the right spot and destroy 2 Tigers before located and killed by the remaining Tigers considering at least 1 or 2 of those shells is gonna miss at long range. The Tigers much quicker reload time and more accurate gun excels in ambush.
@Potts132 of course that whole scenario is based in open country. If there is more brush and woods to sneek around in then that IS-2 could use Fire-relocate-fire tactics. Increasing all his chance's, but also increasing the time meaning the Germans would have more time to organize or hide too.
@Potts132 Tank warfare today is kind bad. Infantry got anti tank weaponry to take out any modern tanks, truly the mechanized warfare is best since mechanized infantry can get all over the place and destroy anything in it's past
@Dreachon RPG-7 was indeed a typo, I meant the RPG-2 which was first officially used in the Korean war but prototypes were used in WW2, thank you for pointing that out.
@Dreachon That's actually one of the more common errors, The RPG-2 was in a prototype phase during the early closing moths of the war. The development for the RPG-2 used in Korea was started in 1947, yes.
i touched the holes of a jagdpanther in london. it had 3 holes like these of an american sherman 75mm i think from pointblank at its left tail to cripple the engine.
88mm steel between you and nirvana. these poor bastards. Almost every of jagdpanther crews survived becasue of a door lock at its tail.
It was in a village, so Bix outmanuevered and shot first a couple of times. The KV1 then tried to ram him and Bix backed up and the KV1 got stuck in a stone wall and was taken out by hand. This is what I recall from the book.
If you would like to know how he did it, I recommend a book titled Panzer Aces. Bix is in it. Great book. He later went on to command a Panther and then Jagdpanther.
The term "bounce off" is being misused and doesn't do full justice to the KV-1s armour - those pock marks are full impacts that failed to penetrate not bounce offs.
Twirlyhead 5 months ago
Would the enemy crew still fire their gun? How are they to know that it was the main gun that was hit while closed off inside? But if they fire it, the shell would jam on the disfigured barrel and explode! Did the enemy tank explode?
drchen054 6 months ago
what was the name of this documentary?
theblacksheep1000 11 months ago
Finnish subs
noobstuntguy 1 year ago
In 1944 Germany was not alone, here are some of her allies, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Finland, Japan, and Albania, to name a few. Even the Ukrainians were helping so great was their hatred of Stalin. To say that Germany was fighting alone displays a lack of knowledge. The fight against the growth of communism was a pan European movement, and it is debatable who was worse Hitler or Stalin.
It is little wonder that the Germans have an it's your problem now attitude toward world affairs
Zyworski 1 year ago
@Zyworski Correct me if i am wrong but Italy surrendered, Japan was too far away and the other tiny nations you mentioned were in no way of any help unless germany was only fighting 1 large nation.. but it fought 3 and therefore those tiny nations were useless.
WorstCommenter2008 1 year ago
A 1950 T-54 is so much (underlined) better than the 1960 American M60!
Onesonofthelaw 1 year ago
most of dudes know only about soviets T34 & KV/ IS
Dont forget about
ISU/SU/ZSU & light tanks T26/ T 60/ T 70 etc /BT serie/multiturret soviet tanks T28/T 35/armored cars BA & and land lease tanks also.
They all used by russians in WW2
m741ex 2 years ago
super! who dont know???
sdkfz162kingtiger 2 years ago
Unfortunately all the early series tanks were cannon fodder for the German tanks so maligned in the early stages of the war (Panzer IV Ausf. B, Panzer III).
The T-34, KV/IS are mentioned so often because they were the tanks that were capable of giving the Germans hell and forcing them to rethink their tank designs.
Considering that the T-60s, T-26, etc were incapable of penetrating light armor and had light armor themselves, they are not worthy of mention versus even KwK 75 L/48
Redfingers 2 years ago
Great statistics everybody. Too bad you're forgetting the main stats: sheer numbers. The Americans and Russians way out produced the Germans. No matter how many Tigers may have been in the field, there were always going to be way out numbered by Shermans or T-34's.
Flaheat 2 years ago
There were about 200-300 Pershings in Europe during the last fays of WWII and few saw action but they did see action. USA produced over 2,000 Pershings during and shortly after WWII.
christof139 2 years ago
wrong, do more research. only 20 pieces of the M26 Pershings of the 3rd and 9th Armored division saw action against the Germans during WW2 in the Cologne city. 3 Pershings were lost during encounters against german tanks. the first M26 was lost to a Tiger, the second one was destroyed by a Jagdpanzer "Nashorn" (armed with the high velocity 8,8cm) and the third one was killed by a king tiger at the Rhine river near Elsdorf.
xNexus65x 2 years ago
xNexus65x, I do research, and what I said was that there were 200-300 Pershings in Europe and there were, since most were never issued to troops but remained in Britain. The USA did indeed produce over 2,000 Pershings in 1944-1945 but only shipped between 200- 300 to Europe. Yes, the 3rd and 9th AD had some (an uncle of mine was in the 9AD in the Bulge, at Remagen etc.), and a few were knocked out at Remagen Bridge. Personally, I believe that it is possible a few more Pershings saw combat.
christof139 2 years ago
No, German Panzers were still powerful enough to counter all enemy tanks. Even the Panzer 4 could destroy theIS-2 fromt he sides. The King Tiger was still able to kill any Allied tanks (inclusive IS-2) at distance of 2,000 m - 3,000 m ! Only 26 Pershings arrived in cologne in late February 1945. At this time the War was already won for the Allies. The IS-3 saw never combat in WW2! And the most IS-2's fought as spearhead in the ultimate Battle for Berlin against SS soldiers.
snyp0r65 2 years ago
Pershing taks saw action in Europe, in one combat a single M26 destroyed a Tiger plus two pzIV, the russian T-34 used sloped armor so they didn´t need a heavy armor, german heavy tanks were very difficult to maintenace and produce
colacas 2 years ago
The T34 was NOT the only tank in WW2 with sloped armor. Yes, they were one of the first with all-arround sloped hulls but the Panther, king Tiger and Jagdpanther had also slopped armor but much thicker and hevier. The T34/76 was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the heavy german tanks. That's why they construed the T34/85. Also notice, the first Pershing lost by enemy fire was killed by a Tiger ;) And Karl Körner, who commanded a King Tigeer claimed to have killed many IS-2's in Berlin.
snyp0r65 2 years ago
not to mention many german tank destroyers also had sloped as well and a multitude of other tanks l8er on in some way or another
hofgeneric 2 years ago
after Germany rusia/ussr had the best tank 4 longe time :)))
KRAJISNIK21 2 years ago
now i heard russkis get the t-95
this will be the best ;)
sdkfz162kingtiger 2 years ago
yeah its shal be greate tank but the need to replace so much T75 AND 85 ,,its shal be long tim eto do that but wen finisht the shal have strongest armor in the world..
KRAJISNIK21 2 years ago
then i have to say that your knowledge about WW2 history is outdated. Even the Soviet union would get in trouble if they would fight against the Whole Word... but it was Germany who had no Allies in 1944/45 and fought alone on 2 fronts against the 3 biggest Allied Nations. Even though the Germans had the best tanks with the best kill ratios, they couldn't defeat USA, USSDR, UK and Canada which have flooded and overhelmed the Germans with their mass-produced tanks.
snyp0r65 2 years ago 28
this is exactly what I wated to say: in 1941-42 russian tanks were better than german: the result is well known. the opposite story in 1944-45. IMHO it woud be much more effective to produce 10 hetzers instead of 1 tiger
Ariamkin 2 years ago
in these days the russian had the t34/85, su122, iosef Stalin 2 and 3
the american used the Pershing with 90 mm gun and the British developed in 1945 the fantastic Centurion tank
the German tanks were simply outdated at that days
colacas 2 years ago
The most produced T34's were armed with the 76,2 mm gun, only about 30% of all produeced T34s had the 85mm gun. Even though, the 85mm was very powerful and could kill Panther or Tiger, german Panzers were still superior in 1 vs 1 because of better armor. The T34-85 had the same weak armor as the standart T34. Even the M60/T55 MBTs in 1960 were equal to the King Tiger. In 1945 it was planned to replace the Tiger II with the new Tiger III (only a project).
snyp0r65 2 years ago
The super heavy tank Tiger III would have 270mm armor of massive steel and a very powerful 170mm Kwk44 anti-tank gun. It would be the most powerful tank at that time and if you think it was only on paper then you are wrong. there was a half-prototype at the end of the War only the gear chassis but it was never completed. It seems that you forgot how the Russians and Americans have won the War - with quantity. 80,000 T34s + 60,000 Shermans against only 2,000 Tigers & King Tigers. just imagine...
snyp0r65 2 years ago
#1 in 1941 T34 and KV1 were the most powerful tanks in the world.
#2 there were 54,000 t34s produced during WWII
#3 Germany had more then Tigers and King Tigers
#4 Tiger II was a piece of garbage what makes you think that Tiger III would be any better.
Its funny how everyone says that German armor was superior when in reality it wasn't, the advantage Germans had was training and good strategies. Russian armor was plainly better during most of the war.
RedPower012 2 years ago
your comment is just typically biased as your name proves. but it's OK, all of you Russians are biased like that lol.
well, you just prove that you understand NOTHING of the conversation below.
#1 the Tiger III was a project which was designed in 1945, guess what, that was 4 years after 1941!
#3 - what do you mean? this sentence makes no sense. i don't even understand the meaning of this...
#4 - the Tiger II was the best tank killer in terms of kills per loss during WW2 - fact!
snyp0r65 2 years ago
@snyp0r65 Wrong!
Onesonofthelaw 1 year ago
@Onesonofthelaw In no way is it wrong that germany was alone in 1944/45 VS 3 great nations who had mass produced tanks. IF thats what you replyed to. If not them soz, my bad.
WorstCommenter2008 1 year ago
the Pershing saw very limited action as did some of the Russian tanks and the centurion was after the war had ended.
hofgeneric 2 years ago
@colacas Mnn, interesting one that..10 of these better than 1of those because, assuming, quantity matters. It is often said the tiger was so costly etc etc. compared to the ease of manufacturing the T-34 or Sherman. But I don't think Germany had the fuel or trained crews to fill them. Look at the aircraft situation in late '44. Billions of new planes (peak of whole war Sep-Oct '44) - no pilots, little fuel
mistersmith6000 1 year ago
@mistersmith6000 Germany produced 119,307 aircraft during WW2. Britain (the smallest of the major allies) 131,549 & mostly 4 engine bombers in 1944/45 while Germany produced mostly single engine fighters in this time period. The Nazi's were incompetent at running the German war economy. Peak German weapons production in WW2 was July 1944 & then only 95% of it's peak WW1 production of July 1918. The western allies stopped bombing 6 months prior to d-day, recommencing in August 44
binaway 1 month ago
@binaway My point is that had they been able to manufacture more planes etc., they would have been useless because they simply didn't have the skilled manpower to use them, nor the fuel to take them anywhere. Germany were always short of material in the '39-'42 period, but so were their adversaries. Only in '42 did they begin to ramp up production for a war economy and I think Speer did a pretty good job/evil job (let's face it) at prolonging the war with armaments production.
mistersmith6000 1 month ago
@snyp0r65
Everything ok, but Canada? Are you serious?
holyt86 1 year ago
@holyt86 canada supplied a lot of equipment, manpower and resources to england
wood1155 1 year ago
@wood1155 I can say that about any country.
Canada just another country, that have no war in her land.
holyt86 1 year ago
@holyt86 canada kicked ass in world war 1 and 2, in terms of per capita supply and enlistment they outperformed every allied country in the war other then russia
101andrewj 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@101andrewj
I repeat: "I can say that about any country."
holyt86 9 months ago
@snyp0r65 I see this myth stated so many times and its rubbish The Germans had loads of Allies. Italy, Hungary, Romania, Japan, Finland, Thailand, Bulgaria etc
Xiolablu3 1 year ago
@Xiolablu3 hahahaha, then please compare the german allies to the ALLIES. you must be joking
satanic666sonic 9 months ago
@snyp0r65 My thought here is that you say that the germans didnt have any allies in 1944/45? thats wrong they hade japan some was almoust usless then but they where allies. Btw they hade 3 front war dont forget italy (monte casino ect). The germans might hade the best quality tanks theres armour was kinda wrong with only 85-80 degrees armor against the russian (USSR) some hade 70-65 degree armour some did do so the shells did bounce off the t-34 and many other tanks.
88Tomm88 7 months ago
@88Tomm88
German used sloping armour on every tank since the Panther.
Also only the lowe powered shells bounce once they german got to long 75mm guns and the Tigers 88mm they shells no longer bounced but instead smashed throuh the armour.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@snyp0r65 Germany who had no Allies in 1944/45? What about Hungary, Austria and Czech Republic (its factories)?
Paciat 6 months ago
@Paciat Well, they weren't Allies. They were annexed. Besides, their armies aren't as well trained or well equipped as the Wehrmacht.
Limskjordan 6 months ago
@Limskjordan Hungary was a III Reich ally and wasnt anexed nor was a puppet state. Their inferior training dosnt make them less allied. Austria was an ally of Germany just like Scotland was an ally of England.
Paciat 6 months ago
@Paciat You are right about Hungary but wrong about Austria. Austria was a non-violent conquest. In other words, an annexation. Poor training and out-dated equipment means military defeat. It is not a question of alliance.
Limskjordan 6 months ago
@snyp0r65 If germany had the best tanks they would have won
No
Germany had tanks wich where good in armor and firepower, but where inreliable, very expensive to produce, where a logistical nightmare and had fauly armour after 1943.
German tanks are heavily overrated.
F4Wildcat 6 months ago
@F4Wildcat
Funny how these overrated tanks caused so much destruction to their enemies, have you look at the german AFV compared to their enemies.
Russia alone lost 3 times the AFV that the germans lost on the eastern front.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@F4Wildcat They where still better than the Shermans.
4shacks1house 3 months ago
What are the chances of hitting the actual gun of a tank with a 50mm cannon?
bungabeast1988 3 years ago
Depends on the distance and how well he can aim. I guess it should be possible with 3 shots at close range.
samipso 2 years ago
The T-34 anf the KV-1 were really amazing for their time.
2bn442RCT 3 years ago 11
@2bn442RCT heh... and Finnish infrantry destroy these tanks like toys.
on Winterwar KV-1 tank destroyed whit submachine guns and molotov cocktails =).
/watch?v=f7CmKG6Dj7o
leksss4 1 year ago 2
@leksss4 Actually molotov cocktails are extremely effective against tanks. Provided you can get close enough without getting shot. So are sub-machine-guns, if you can get on the tank, open the hatch and spray the crew. Tanks are, even today, surprisingly vulnerable in close quarter combat. Of course a good commander won't send in tanks without infantry cover.
evildeathmonkey1 9 months ago
@evildeathmonkey1 "Actually molotov cocktails are extremely effective against tanks."..........
¿rly?! ...... you keep that easy trick?..... in Winterwar there was like 3 to 1 manpower, 80 to 1 tanks and so one.....so there was hellewy muts infantry supporting tanks mostly... before they all die.....
/watch?v=VThSjGVjOMM&feature=related... USSR and FIN manpowers.... see difference....
you shoud watch this whole document.....
leksss4 9 months ago
@2bn442RCT not the tanks.. whats amazing is the production.
strunx10 8 months ago
@strunx10 Sorry about two comments, as I was saying in 1942 when the Tiger and Panther tanks were made the T-34 was no longer dominant. Untill The KV-1 and IS seres tanks came. This, AND they were easier and faster to produce.
Potts132 8 months ago
The panther came later in 1943. The kv-1 came before all of them in 1938. The IS came in 1943. the Kv-1 was easily defeated by a Tiger or Panther. But earlier german tanks had problems knocking out kv's. The IS-2 was only effective because of its gun range and decent frontal turret armor. but its gun had poor penitraition at medium to long ranges. In nearly all cases the panther and tiger defeated the IS-2. The IS-2 had to get lucky with an 1 hit K.O. ambush. It would die in toe to toe fighting.
TheFishMilitiaShow 8 months ago
Of course the IS-2s other advantage is that there was always 3 IS-2's to every 1 Tiger. So if that Tiger was caught in a cross fire ambush it was doomed. But if that same Tiger hid somewhere and let all the IS-2's roll foward it could knock out 5 before the 6th one was close enough to get a accurate penitraiting fatal hit. Thats why they saved the IS-2 for its better role of shattering structures with infintry hiding inside. Its 122mm shell's huge explosion did that job well.
TheFishMilitiaShow 8 months ago
@TheFishMilitiaShow To be fair, a hidden IS-2 could also destroy many Tiger's if it was hidden.
Potts132 8 months ago
@Potts132 yeah, its just in nearly all cases 1 IS-2 ambushing Tigers never went nearly as well as 1 Tiger ambushing IS-2's. Because of the IS-2's almost more than twice as slow reloading time and the fact that the gun wasn't nearly as accurate as the German 88mm gun the IS-2 if well hidden (which would have to be long range to not be pin pointed right off) could fire twice before they know the general direction (considering they don"t retreat and stand ground) then by the time the IS-2 fires
TheFishMilitiaShow 8 months ago
@Potts132 the 3rd and 4th shot he would be pin pointed exactly. Then the return fire from the remaining Tiger(s) would knock out the IS-2 quickly before he had a chance to fire the 5th or 6th shot. So in 4 long range shots it would have been lucky to fatally hit in the right spot and destroy 2 Tigers before located and killed by the remaining Tigers considering at least 1 or 2 of those shells is gonna miss at long range. The Tigers much quicker reload time and more accurate gun excels in ambush.
TheFishMilitiaShow 8 months ago
@Potts132 of course that whole scenario is based in open country. If there is more brush and woods to sneek around in then that IS-2 could use Fire-relocate-fire tactics. Increasing all his chance's, but also increasing the time meaning the Germans would have more time to organize or hide too.
TheFishMilitiaShow 8 months ago
@TheFishMilitiaShow Indeed
Potts132 8 months ago
@Potts132 yes indeed. gotta love tank warfare lol
TheFishMilitiaShow 8 months ago
@TheFishMilitiaShow Tank warfare, the best kind of warfare. (If there is a best form)
Potts132 8 months ago
@Potts132 Tank warfare today is kind bad. Infantry got anti tank weaponry to take out any modern tanks, truly the mechanized warfare is best since mechanized infantry can get all over the place and destroy anything in it's past
SMGJohn 7 months ago
@SMGJohn So did infantry in WW2, RPG 32 can destroy an Abram's just like how a well placed RPG 7 took out Tiger 2's
Potts132 7 months ago
@Potts132
Funny you say that as the thing close to RPG was the german panzerfaust, russians didn't have RPG at all.
RPG-7 idn't see serive until amost 2 decades later so this comment of yours is an odd one.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon RPG-7 was indeed a typo, I meant the RPG-2 which was first officially used in the Korean war but prototypes were used in WW2, thank you for pointing that out.
Potts132 6 months ago
@Potts132
I doubt it got used in ww2 as devellopment of it didn't start until 1947, first deliveries to the red army was in 1949.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon That's actually one of the more common errors, The RPG-2 was in a prototype phase during the early closing moths of the war. The development for the RPG-2 used in Korea was started in 1947, yes.
Potts132 6 months ago
@Potts132
Ah interesting, got a sources for that?
Dreachon 6 months ago
@2bn442RCT not really
22tasos22 8 months ago
i touched the holes of a jagdpanther in london. it had 3 holes like these of an american sherman 75mm i think from pointblank at its left tail to cripple the engine.
88mm steel between you and nirvana. these poor bastards. Almost every of jagdpanther crews survived becasue of a door lock at its tail.
Santoslhelpa 4 years ago
It was in a village, so Bix outmanuevered and shot first a couple of times. The KV1 then tried to ram him and Bix backed up and the KV1 got stuck in a stone wall and was taken out by hand. This is what I recall from the book.
1olddavid 4 years ago 3
Were the crew in the KV1 taking a nap at the time?
abaj006 5 years ago
They were laughing their arses off, arround the corner!
hazbizarai 5 years ago
If you would like to know how he did it, I recommend a book titled Panzer Aces. Bix is in it. Great book. He later went on to command a Panther and then Jagdpanther.
1olddavid 4 years ago 4
I agree and that I have both Panzer Aces and Panzer Aces II, Panzer Aces II is more exciting to read.
EvilFingers 4 years ago