Most 'historians' who agree with you are not specialists in armour or experts on the Tiger battalions themselves. They have a peripheral knowledge and not a specialised one. Most of them repeat tired old cliches.
Those who comment in the video above are a case in point.
Please, tell me what they should have done if they built zero Tigers? What would they have built instead?
3:32 I agree that the Tiger had a lot of problems, but there is no way I would call it "totally useless." It caused a shitload of death and destruction.
@Theakker3B In essence, the cost was so high for germany to produce these tanks. That it effected the wareffort in a negative way, in that regard. The tank was a disaster, although a technological marvel. If Germany enacted quantity over quality, general mobilisation in 1939 and started the total war doctrine at the same time as its enemies, no doubt they would have won ww2.
@tyskbulle Tiger, with all it's flaws, had a 6 tank kills/tiger lost ratio. Only an idiot would call that a disaster, and that's you.
Oh, and quantity would have never worked, because you see, when it's quantity vs quantity, the side with the most quantity wins by default, and I doubt the over-bombed german factories could match up to the awesome industrial power of Russia or US.
Tiger was a very good choice, but it didn't have the Luftwaffe support, which lead to it's destruction
@shadowdancerRFW Most historians agrees whit me, but I can understand the value of the Tiger, still. It was a awsome tank, if Germany had the total war production under Spear at the start of the war I could agree whit its usage. But the Panther tank, whitch was better then the tiger whit its speed, is a perfect example of german engineering that was cheap and superior. That was a tank that needed praise, just like the T-34.
""But the Panther tank, whitch was better then the tiger whit its speed, is a perfect example of german engineering that was cheap and superior""
Did you know that the Panther tank wasn't declared combat ripe until February 1944 by Guderian? The Panther throughout the second half of 1943 was seen as a disappointment and it took a long time to iron out it's teething problems. The Tiger had already been in combat for a year and half and proving it's worth by then.
@shadowdancerRFW Just to nippick your argument, the german factorys was hardly tuched during the Tigers production, and it had air superiority during most of its service.
Not long after the Panther was declared 'fully combat capable' by Guderian in Feb 1944 the Tiger I ceased being produced.
You may argue that the King Tiger was probably not needed seeing as the Panther was fully functional by then but the Tiger I was a valuable and very worthy tanks to have on the battlefield in 1943 and the first half of 1944.
The Panther's loss rate from Kursk to early 1944 was very high and often the Tigers were the tanks to pull German ass out of the fire.
""In essence, the cost was so high for germany to produce these tanks.""
Mate it was only about 2 and a half times the cost of a Panzer IV.
3 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger wouldn't have made a difference and in fact the overall costs would have been more because 3 x Panzer IVs would need more support and logistics vehicles. You'd need more trucks to carry and supply the 3 x ammunition load for example...plus all the extra personnel numbers.
No, it knocked out circa 10,000 allied tanks, often slowed down and even halted enemy advances and was a great moral booster for the German soldiers and a great source of dread/trepidation for the allied tankers.
You should hear what British tankers thought about having to encounter Tigers in Normandy. Tiger phobia was a real fear and part of the reason why the allied advance through Normandy was so slow.
@LaughingGravy31 Actually it had a better ratio then 6:1. But the cost for the tank was catastrophic, and the maintenance it needed was also to mutch. The construction was even more expensive then normaly, sense Germany didnt have a centralised production until 1943. Even whit a kill ratio of 8/9:1 the cost would be doubtfull. The allies proved in France that the M4 Shermans shear numbers could just by pass most of the german armor. And the fear factor didnt stop engagements.
I repeat. It only cost two and a half times as much as a Panzer IV.
Maintenance was not too much. The Tiger's overall operational ratio percentage average was not much different to the Panzer IV, crew survivability was higher and the Tigers took up fewer supply and logistic problem than extra numbers of Panzer IVs would have.
I didn't say it's kill ratio was 6:1. It was over 10:1. Over 1,000 Tigers were not kod but self destroyed.
The argument goes that if they didn't make the Tiger then they could have built 3 Panzer IVs instead.
Superficially that 'sounds' like a good bet...until you start getting into the logistics. 3 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger would mean 15 crew members instead of 5. It would mean 260 rounds of ammo instead of 92 and a much larger number of trucks and other support vehicles needed to keep those extra Panzer IVs going.
It'd cost more money and resources to have extra Panzer IVs.
For a disaster the Tiger did force both the western allies and the russians to rethink about their own guns and tank design.
The tiger directly forced both of them to look for new weapons and tactics to combat the both the Tiger and the german heavy tank formations.
It was the Tiger that forced the russians to restart working on a new heavy tank, it was the Tiger that forced them to discard the 85mm gun and install the 122mm.
If the Tiger was such a disaster then why the the Soviets become desperate enough to come up with the SU-152, the SU-85, T-34/85 and finally the IS-2 and why did the British come up with the Firefly and Centurion and the Americans the Sherman 76mm, M36 and finally the Pershing.
The Tiger scared ALL three major allied powers into trying to counter it with bigger or better AFVs.
For the british you can actually ask why they were so franticly trying to cram that 17 pounder on almost any chassis they had in order to get it mobile, look at the archer, M10C, A30 challenger, A30 avenger, A34 comet, frantic attempts to get it in a churchill.
What this video tells me is that there are a fair few misguided people who think that somebody like a generalised military history professor such as Mary Habeck knows more about the specifics of the Tiger tank and it's usage than dedicated specialists such as Jentz, Schneider, Munch and actual Tiger combat veterans such as Carius, Rubbel, von Rosen etc etc.
True, although they have more in general knowledge than you and me, however they do certainly not at the specific and in this you can actually see them making very dumb mistakes.
By the way in the Sherman vs King Tiger story it was the German veteran's account that was proved right. The pictures of the two tanks show the King Tiger's gun pointing forwards at 11 o'clock and not pointing to the rear facing the Sherman...as the British tanker claimed.
Also the German tanker said friendly fire from a German PAK penetrated his King Tiger and that's why the crew abandoned it. The British tanker claimed he later returned in a Firefly and destroyed it.
@LaughingGravy31 : well the WW2 veterans only know how to kill with it . They never knew the strategic or long term implications of wat making of such a monster tank wud do to germany's war effort...
Of course the veterans know about the strategic implications. They knew about the logistics, the transport, how much fuel etc.
The fact is that the Tiger tank DID knock out a hell of a lot of enemy AFVs and DID slow down and even halt allied attacks/offensives.
Germany would never have won the war if they built 6,000 Panzer IVs instead of 1800 Tigers. It wouldn't have made a bit of difference and would have taken up MORE resources and personnel.
""implications of wat making of such a monster tank wud do to germany's war effort...""
It would take up less resources than extra Panzer IVs.
It WOULDN'T have been a case of just making extra Panzer IVs instead of Tigers. You'd have to also build extra trucks, half tracks, kubels etc etc to support those extra Panzer IVs and have more fuel, more ammo and more importantly more personnel
At 2:10 fake Tiger tanks made out of a real wheel drive 50's soviet tank in a probably B series movie.... Well made boys but is better to use all the ORIGINAL large footage of REAL Tigers
@bombarderoazul They look good but look at the tracks, and the rear wheel, its obviously a rear wheel drive tank and the road wheels are not overlapped. Look also the turret up panel inclination. These are well made replicas that today are very popular in reenactors groups. The t-54-t-62 with its flat road wheels work well to look good as a tiger. This ones are very similar to those on saving private ryan, but that ones were on t-34 chassis
That was an insult, since I CLEARLY know far more than you do.
Stop wasting my time with your idiotic History Channel worshipping.
You simply have no conception that more Panzer IVs = more crews, more ammo, more fuel, more support trucks and logistics and more support personnel and personnel logistics etc.
I'm not wasting any more time on an ignoramus who has no conception about Panzer IV battalions haha.
I was very amused today to find out that the design effect for the tiger had more to do with the germans inability to destroy the british matilda tanks than it did the soviet t34
""I was very amused today to find out that the design effect for the tiger had more to do with the germans inability to destroy the british matilda tanks than it did the soviet t34""
It was the Panther that was built as an answer to the T-34. The Tiger I's origins go back to the 1930s and the idea of a heavy tank with the 88mm gun was setted on in spring 1941 before the Germans had even invaded the Soviet Union.
@R3load3dW1n yeah in a fight it was awesome but the list also takes into account the circumstances surrounding the time of its inception and production and in a war the nature of the second world war it was a uselss idea in the grand scheme of things
The Best tank of World war 2? If production numbers and expense play a roll (cost-effective): T-34 from USSR! If production numbers and expense have no meaning (only performance of tank itself): Tiger or Panther from Germany! Anyway best tanks of WW2 are T-34 and Tiger or Panther! Sherman tank was only light toy against german heavy monster tanks!
Yes the Tiger was a fantastic technical achievment but it was a war loser while the 21/2 ton truck, the Sherman tank and the C-47 aircraft were war winners because together they meant that armored units had fuel and ammo when they needed it. Real war is not about tactics and tactical victories but logistic's.keeping divisions, corps, army,army group and combat theathers operational and effective.
Finally someone whos spot on ! UR absolutelly 100% right .Logistics was the Achiles Heel of the Wehrmacht ... is where the allies were absolutelly the masters ... coupled with the industrial capacity to provide large quantities of materials to keep the army fighting is what won the war .
"One on one" the Tiger was of course far superior to the T34 or M4 Sherman. Unfortunately for the Germans war doesn't work that way. War works by a solid mix of quality and quantity. In the REAL WORLD the Tiger was more of a propaganda ploy than an effective fighting machine. For a reality check go to Berlin on May 8th 1945 and talk to some tank commanders. (Hint; You had better be able to speak Russian.)
@randy95023 Oh wow, so Russian tanks were effective fighting machines? Let's see, 44,900 T-34's totally destroyed on the Eastern front, and 96,500 Russian tanks of all types totally destroyed from 1941-45, along with 15 million dead Russian soldiers. You know what one Russian tanker named IVAN said to another in Berlin? Hint "F***K ME BORIS, I CAN'T F*****N BELIEVE WE SURVIVED, I THOUGHT FOR SURE WE WOULD BECOME CANNON FODDER JUST LIKE ALL OUR OTHER COMRADES, A TOAST TO MOTHER RUSSIA" LOL!!!!:D
@hailherrosner You know what one Panzer commander said to the other in May 1945? Not a whisper, because he wasn't alive to respond...
Of course a Tiger was far superior to any single T34 or M4 Sherman but Soviets and Americans could build 10 to 12 Tanks for each German Tiger. If the Tiger could outfight the T34 at 8 to 1 advantage?? You can do the math...
Tiger was a large, expensive toy that sped the allies victory rather than hindered it. Tiger was built for Nazi propaganda purposes.
You`re severelly mistaken mate. Tiger was not a TOY ... you have to understand how the german tank doctrine operates to understand why the Tiger was prolly the most important tank in the german arsenal .
A Panzer division was basiclly a small operational , fully independant army ... with its own elements of tanks ofc , motorised infantry , motorised artilery , AA , scouts etc ... operateing as a single unit. Basiclly first combined arms operational units.
The whole Blitzkrieg doctrine was based on concentrateing armour on a narrow point of the front to force a breakthrough , with ofc the everpresent suport of the Luftwaffe ... breakthrough that was then exploited by the lighter tanks and infantry to widen and then strenghten the gap while the armour, suported ofc by the other elements of the panzer division pushed more and more inland to confuse , cutoff and destroy the enemy .
The Tiger was purposlly designed to be a breakthrough tank. To Spearhead the armoured advance , be so heavilly armoured that it could take enormous punishment from the defending AT Gun position , and most importantlly to be able to defeat the enemy armour counterattack which inevitablly followed the enemy lines beeing brokenthru. So basiclly the Tigers main job was to FIGHT OTHER TANKS. It did its job flawleslly , despite the obvious disatvantages it had .
@Cosmin1511 - I understand Tank warfare, and Blitzkrieg warfare quite well and I will concede that you are correct. Your logic is also correct. The Germans used your logic and lost the war because things like the Tiger Tank ate up resources that could have been better used in the more economical Panzers. Germans tried it their way and won many battles and lost the war...
"things like the Tiger Tank ate up resources that could have been better used in the more economical Panzers."
This is a myth. The flip side is this:
The Germans could have built more Panzer IVs etc....but they would have needed more resources than 1 Tiger.
3 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger I would need 15 crew members instead of 5 crew members, 261 rounds of ammo instead of 92 rounds, more fuel trucks, more supply & maintenance tucks, more railway wagons top get the to the front.
@LaughingGravy31 And dont forget the fact, that you need to build more and more Panzer IV, because they get destroyed at the front. But if you build a Tiger, you build that thing forever, especially the B-Version (King Tiger).
There is no CONFIRMED story of an destroyed King Tiger by allied troops. The Crew surrendered because of problems with the engine or the ressources. (Fuel, Ammo).
So you are definitly right, the tiger wasn't a fail or a tank for the german propaganda.
@LaughingGravy31 actually how is that a myth? the thing required orders of magnitude more fuel, metals and maintanance and manufacturing time than any other tank in the german war machine
I already explained how it's a myth that zero Tigers would have been better for resources. It would have been MORE of a problem to build, crew, supply and maintain 3 Panzer IVs.
The argument goes that 3 Panzer IVs could have been built for every Tiger but that argument doesn't take into account that you'd need 3 times the crew, 3 times the ammo, 3 times the support and logistics etc.
@LaughingGravy31 I suspect you dont know what youre on about. 3 panzer 4's for every tiger is pretty accurate, true you'd need more crew but that wasnt the problem in the long run, germanys problems were a shortage of materials and fuel which the tiger absorbed in huge quanties to build and run. I mean this thing had a front armour plate 100mm thick compared to the 80mm of the pz 4 and needed about 3 time the amount of fuel per mile as the panzer 4 and you think thats cheaper?
It is a FACT that if you build 4 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger then you'd need 20 crew members instead of 5, you'd need nearly 350 rounds of ammo instead of 90, you'd need more fuel trucks, more supply vehicles, more railway transport wagons etc etc. These 4 Panzer IVs would all take up MORE RESOURCES than 1 Tiger.
This is a FACT. Work it out and do the maths. 3 or 4 x Panzer IV vs 1 Tiger would not work out cheaper/easier in the long run.
@LaughingGravy31 bullshit do you know what youre on about if you think that the tiger would be better than 3 panzer 4's, do you what kinda war ww2 was? It was a war of production, those who can produce more win as the allies did, oh it'll save on crew so lets just forget the 30 extra tons of steel needed to build a tiger, the extra fuel it needs and forget that the allies were building thousands of shermans a month
You haven't listened to a thing I have written. You keep going on about the extra 30 tons of steel but you are simply not talking into account that more Panzer IVs in the long run would have needed more crews, more ammo and more importantly more SUPPORT AND LOGISTICS vehicles and personnel to support those extra Panzer IVs.
A large part of a panzer forces is the supply and logistics sections. It's not simply a question of TANK numbers.
And you are missing the very salient point here. Even if Germany did build 3 times as many Panzer IVs and zero Tigers they STILL wouldn't have approached anywhere near the total Soviet, USA and British Commonwealth tank numbers.
Germany could NEVER have competed with the allies production wise even if they just built Panzer IVs.
At least the Tiger I gave the Germans superiority in QUALITY. With just Panzer IVs the Germans wouldn't have had quantity OR quality superiority.
@LaughingGravy31 and yes there were the logistics of maintaining 3 tanks rather than 1 but 1 tiger alone was more hassle to keep going, they were prone to break downs so needed constant maintanence, they consumed tons more fuel per mile so logistics were an even bigger nightmare and in that kinda war 1 tiger next to 3 panzers is far less flexible
As for forgetting the ammo count of a panzer 4 big deal dude, one fact doesnt negate everything else so dont be a nob eh?
The Tiger I did not 'break down' as much as the myth tells us and the Panzer IV was not a super tanks that never broke down or never had mechanical problems.
Did you know that overall on average the Tiger I had an operational status ratio of 70% in the east, which was HIGHER than the Panzer IV on 68%. In the west the Tiger had a 65% average operation status compared to the Panzer IV 71%.
Not much difference overall.
The Tiger I was NEVER as unreliable as the myth says.
YOU are the one being a nob. How much extra steel, fuel, crews etc would all those additional support vehicles need in order to supply and keep those more Panzer IVs going.
Please don't listen to these idiots on a History Channel video. None of them have any idea how many logistics and supply vehicles would be needed to make those extra Panzer IVs function.
ANYBODY who says 3 x Panzer IVs wouldn't take up more resources than 1 x Tiger is an idiot.
@LaughingGravy31 and just as a quick responce to dont listen to people on the history channel the dudes youre talking about are authorities on the subject of tank warfare, not history channel employee's and most of commenting here read books and do our own research and form our own CORRECT opinions we arent stupid just because you seem to disagree, why are you so insulting and I think you might be getting to obsessed with this .. ive seen in other vids youre also insulting, why?
Expect that many of these experts go on on old myths and lies.
Mr. Atwater for exmaple still talks about Ferdinands at kursk beeing knocked out by soviet tank hunting infantry and that later a MG with a curved barrel was given to the, both of which are false.
Mrs. Nusbacher now, is also well known for making things sounds better then they were, like his comment on a T-34 ramming a Tiger tank.
@Dreachon and who are you to say they didnt do any of those things? ... im sorry but my own research more often than not tends to go with the authorities on the subject, and the people who say its not true have only words and no proof ... so I'm not trying to be smart or anything but its hard to beleive everything my fellow youtubers tell me
Actually they are the ones without proof, I take my info from the combathistory of the units, in the case of the ferdinand this would be the 653 and 654, all the things mr Atwater said about them is just plain wrong, it quite the contraty according to the combat histories.
The same goes for the T-34 ramming a Tiger, how many reports of these will you find, almost zero, there are barely any records on them.
@Dreachon fair enough, okey dokey I shall do a little research on the 653 and 654 units dude, always up for a good read (and i must confess this is the only documentary or source that mentions the T34 ramming stuff as if it were common)
As for the books, the ones your looking for are the "combat history of schwere panzerjager abteilung" and then either 653 or the 654.
Note that for the 653 there is a softback availalble from stackpole and is very cheap, the hardbacks for both the 653 and 654 are long OOP and will cost alot if you can find one.
@PhilosopherGaming The T-34 ramming to disable a 56 ton Tiger tank WAS A HABITUAL LYING of the WW2 Soviets ONLY TO FOOL THOSE BOORISH SIMPLE BRAINS AS U MORON STUFF!!! just read carefully my recent argument & USE YOUR ABSENTED SCIENTIFIC MIND & ILLY LOGICAL COMMON SENSE.(NOT YOUR HABITUAL "Simon Says So" forever widely-opening big yelling mouth) to think over!...Were the stiff-steering T-34 able to do so, the mother of swines could climb up to the tree top sky high!...... :-D
@9394JP731 I'm sorry to stoop to your level but is there a genetic problem with the majority of youtube users that makes them incapable of putting an opinion across in a polite manner? Or are you just a fuck wit?
As it happens I never went mental promoting the idea of T34 ramming tigers, I just asked how Dreachon knew otherwise and he answered very politely and pointed me to his source. Unlike you and laughinggravy31 who frankly need to get a grip on yourselves
You are quite right. There is NOT A SINGLE documented example of a T-34 actually ramming a Tiger. The Soviets have never even showed 1 picture of such an incident and not one German report has ever mentioned it.
It was a myth made up by Soviet propaganda around the time of the battle of Prokhorovka. The same time their other myth says they knocked out 70 Tigers there when the truth is only ONE Tiger was a total loss at Prokhorovka.
Yes, we have actual pictures of the British Sherman that rammed the King Tiger in Normandy. We know the date, the location, the Tiger unit, the Tiger turret number and we even have statements from both the Tiger and Sherman crew members.
What is interesting though is that the Tiger and Sherman crew members do have different accounts of the situation. The Sherman tanker said the King Tiger was swinging his gun around to hit him and that he captured the Tiger's crew while the King Tiger tanker says he didn't even see the Sherman and didn't swing his gun around and nor was he captured.
Both agree that the Sherman tank rammed the King Tiger on the left rear side and both crews abandoned their tanks when it caught fire.
@LaughingGravy31 it was by common sense, if the 30 ton T-34 were to disable a 56 ton Tiger by rams, the momentum @ impact was more than powerful enough to throw the crew of lighter tank deadly onto their hard, angular protruded features (eg. gun breech & control rods) inside the T-34, caused fractures of skulls & bones, internal breeding of organs, as there were no safely belts & decent seat backings for turret crew. How the crew kept their bodies to overcome the shocks @ impact
@LaughingGravy31 He who BELIEVED IN the NON-SENSE FARTING of ram to disable a 56 ton Tiger tank.ONLY REVEALED himself was nothing but only a boorish simple brain with serious mentally disorders. & FAILED HAVING SCIENTIFIC MIND & LOGICAL COMMON SENSES, DOOMED TO BE FOOLED by lies to full-fill their own wishful shallow day dreams. Since the fanboys shared the same illrational original sins with the blundering T-34 crews, NO WONDER tens of thousands were shot like pointless ducks
@LaughingGravy31 Not only the ram to disable a Tiger5 tank revealed a habitual lies of the WW2 Soviets, but also their official claims of destructions of 41 Tigers & Elephants with losing only 8 JS-2 tanks in Korsun Ukraine was reported UNRELIABLE as stated in "Russian WW2 Tanks, Stalin's Armored Mights"!...Not to mention their other claims of tank aces scored more than 65 panzers or female sniper killed 300 Germans, a LA-7 shot down a Me-262 jet plane, a T-34/85 owed 3 Tiger 2
"" and who are you to say they didnt do any of those things? ... im sorry but my own research more often than not tends to go with the authorities on the subject,""
Which are people like Jentz, Munch, Schneider etc and not these idiots on the History Channel.
I'd rather go with people who have studied the Bundesarchives in depth and seen the actual combat reports, combat orders, production orders etc etc and interviewed real life veterans and studied their war diaries.
As Dreachon said, these History Channel 'experts' are nothing of the sort. None of them have specific expertise. None of them are specialised in specific and detailed aspects of German armour of WW2.
I could ask them about particular panzer divisions or Tiger battalions and none of them would have a damn clue.
None of them know how many support vehicles it took to get a Panzer IV or Tiger unit functioning.
I'd rather listen to people like Jentz, Schneider, Munch etc.
@LaughingGravy31 (cont) if germany had the resources to build and maintain the number of tigers needed to be on par with the number of allied tanks then fair enough it would have been a war winner but german industry was just never in a position to do so, where as if you consider 3 panzer 4 for every tiger, there were just over 1500 tigers, thats around 4500 panzer 4's which would have served germany much better in the war of numbers it was fighting
I disagree that 5000 Panzer IVs would have served better than the 1800 Tigers. The Tigers proved their worth time and again and often stabilised the front line and even halted enemy advances.
Especially on the eastern front in the wide open terrain there, very often 2 Tigers could do a better job than 10 Panzer IVs, which were more vulnerable and couldn't hit as hard and neither were they vastly more reliable or manuverable.
To support a Panzer IV battalion you'd need circa 30 x heavy trucks like a Bussing Nag plus another 20 or so medium trucks like Opel Blitz plus a couple dozen various half track types and then all the jeeps (kubelwagens etc) and motorbikes...and then all the CREW PERSONNEL to manage them.
It's not just a question of simply extra Panzer IVs. It's all the OTHER stuff on top that you would need to make those extra Panzer IVs function.
@LaughingGravy31 dude I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, this is gonna go on forever otherwise and we're both getting pretty irrate and theres no need for it, you think the tiger would have been better I think they should have put more emphasis on panzer 4 production, lets leave it there
Have you also taken into account that the panzer IV design was at the end of it's lifecycle by 1944, it's rivals were beeing upgraded and the panzer IV could no longer be.
@Dreachon and yes I have taken into account the panzer 4's age but it had some life left in it and had proven itself to be effective in tank combat even at that point, in my opinion its advantages over the tiger out weighted the disadvantages. Mind you possibly it would have been even better if they hadnt over engineered the panther
Have you even considered what role the Tiger and the Panzer 4 had to fulfil according to german tank warfare doctrine ? You`ll see why the Tiger tank was probablly the most important tank in the german arsenal ... and no other tank could do the job that the Tiger fulfilled .
@Cosmin1511 the tiger was a break through tank and essentially there to maintain superiority over other tanks on the battlefield, I know it did this very well, infact it was almost unmatched but thats not the point I'm getting at, I'm saying in a war of production and when germany was desperate for resources needed to build such tanks that the tiger was far from the ideal choice next to the panzer 4
"germanys problems were a shortage of materials and fuel which the tiger absorbed in huge quanties to build and run."
Only twice as much as the Panzer IV.
Support vehicles for the extra number of Panzer IVs would take up more fuel in the long run.
A Panzer IV battalion had over 100 additional motorised support vehicles needed to keep the battalion going, ranging from bikes to kubelwagens to small trucks to big trucks to half tracks and maultiers etc.
@LaughingGravy31 as for the argument about ammunition youre thinking in the wrong terms, youre talking as if the panzer 4 was build with that amount of ammo as a feature, it stored that amount of ammo because thats what it could fit, the tiger only had 90 odd rounds because thats all they could fit inside! Have you ever seen an 88mm round next to a 75mm? The 88mm in HUGE in comparison, its amazing that they found room for 90 in the first place
@LaughingGravy31 I'm sorry but I just cant work out how youve come to this conclusion, I think you need to get a couple of good books detailing the various costs of both these tanks to build and the opinions of tactitions and stratergists before you just jump to this sort of idea
LOL, I've got PLENTY of books and I am well informed. It's not just about the 'cheapness' of the Tiger vs the Panzer IV. That's a naive and simplistic way to look at it. It's all the OTHER additional logistic and strategic additions besides just the tank cost. It's the crew numbers, ammo numbers, supply, maintenance, railway transportation. Then you have to account for the additional personal needed to support one panzer battalion.
I don't think you are aware of what went into making up a panzer battalion, be it Tiger or Panzer IV.
On top of the tank and tank personnel sections there was the command section, the medical section, the maintenance section, the ammunition section, the field kitchen section, the workshop section, the communications section, the signals section, the recovery section then the administration section.
A battalion isn't just made up of tanks. It's all the SUPPORT echelons too.
One Tiger tank battalion would take up far less tank crews, far less ammo, far less fuel, far less medical, administrative, signal, maintenance, recovery and transportation crews and resources than 3 or 4 times the number of Panzer IVs.
By the way the Tiger I roughly only consumed about twice the amount of fuel as a Panzer IV. It didn't consume 3 or 4 times the amount.
Its a naive myth that no Tigers vs 3 or 4 more Panzer IVs would have been better for resources.
@Cosmin1511 Allies were fighting a War of Attrition and Eisenhower and Zhukov knew very well how to fight the war their way. Germans lost because they used the very logic you describe and were given the "death of 1,000 cuts" and bled white, particularly on the steppe of Western USSR. I won't argue with you because we are BOTH correct. But please don't try to tell me the Germans won World War Two...
No mate...you dont understand . Im NOT pro nazi , nor pro German policy ... this is not about who won or lost...couse we all know who that was . Polithics has nothing to do with it now . War was over almost 80 years ago .
This is about the apreciateing the machine itself ... and the technology behind this tank . Also to understand why and how they did this technical achievment back then .... thats all .
In Feb 1944 Schwere Panzer Regiment Bake and especially his Tigers punched a hole right through Soviet lines in the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket and got close enough to the trapped German soldiers that thousands of them were able to reach the safety of the German relief column.
In early 1944 the Tigers of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 prevented the front line around Narva (near Leningrad) from totally collapsing and actually halted the Soviet Red army for a considerable time. The Tigers slowed the Soviets down for MONTHS.
In June 1944 a handful of Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 halted the advance of the British 7th Armoured Division through the town of Villers Bocage. The British were trying to outflank Caen via the south west. The Tigers stopped them and prevented the British from flanking Caen, which could have sped up the battle of Normandy by a month or so.
The Tigers physically slowed down and even halted the allied advance in Normandy for a considerable time.
@randy95023 The point I was trying to make mate, was that the Russians did not value human life and they had horrible tactics, they would use swarming tactics with their t-34's all bunched up together with no radio communications and really bad sighting optics in the 2 man turret on the earlier t-34's and as a result would get slaughtered in the thousands literally because German tankers used radios and had excellent long distance optics and excellent tactics, first shot usually always wins.
Tiger was too expensive, too complex, took too many man hours to produce and took too many highly trained maintenance personnel to maintain it in the field. All this at a time when Germany, and German industry was being bled white by the allies. Tiger WAS a superb tank without a doubt, but was actually just an overpriced, over engineered TARGET! If we lost 5 Sherman’s it was really no big deal (except for the poor crewmen's families). A Tiger destroyed in the field was a catastrophic loss...
Its not that simple mate. The role of the Tiger was unique in the german arsenal ...and no other tank could perform that role . Thats why the Tiger , despite beeing overpriced, and a nightmare to produce and mantain...achieved a force multiplying effect out of all proportions to their actual numbers and saved the german army numerous defeats .
In a war of attrition , the larger nation with the most resources will win ... its only natural .
@Cosmin1511 when in strategic games you see tiger tank approaching you, you better to have strategy to destroy it, if you don"t have it better turn off your game and go think how to destroy it
the best piece of evidence i have to confirm this is that it has the early production style commanders coupola...strange for a tiger still in service in late 1944. its a bit of a bummer knowing their are already pictures of this tank out there, but still really cool to have actual photos. i am actually building a 1/35 scale model of a tiger 1...if i had known more about this tank (or at least that there were more picture of it) i probabaly would have built it. would have been kind of neat to
taken from that you are referring to? also, i thought Abteilung 506 was a unit on the eastern front? i seem to remember in "tigers in the Mud" By Otto Carius that his unit was also the 506th but in Russia. it is very possible that there was more than one unit with the designation "506" but just trying to clarify. if i recall he was not with this unit (he was wounded and recovering) during the end of 1944, so they could have been moved to the area and the book made no (to my memory) reference to
Carius served with the 502 schwere abteiluing until he got sent to to command the 512 schwere panzerjager abteilung equipped with the jagdtiger as far as I know.
The 506 was formed in July 1943 and fought mostlly on the E front , mainlly at Dniepr , Korovograd and at Krivoi-Rog . In 1944 it was withdrawn to Germany and reequiped with the Tiger 2 and brought up to full strenght with 45 brand new Tiger 2s . In late September 1944 it was brought near Oosterbeck...so naturally it took part in the defense against Market Garden . The 506 was the only Heer heavy Tiger battalion that took part in the Ardennes offensive .
@LaughingGravy31 i cant see the gun mantlet, the picture is taken from the left rear of the tank (about 7 o'clock in relation of the hull) and the gun is aimed, guessing from the tool box position , between 1 and 2 o'clock. i cant see any of the cannon barrel, but it must be either aiming downwards or has been removed because i cant see any of it over the hull or turret top. i will try to find the picures of the tiger you mentioned and see if anything looks the same. what angle is the picture
on them either. did the germans attempt to bring tiger 1 units in during the battle of the bulge? thats the only time i would think these could have been taken, or sometime in the few months after...from my estimates there appears to be about 6 to 8 inches of snow on the ground.
You know what? I think I may be jumped the gun somewhat and been mistaken.
There was 1 unit with Tiger I tanks in the Battle of The Bulge. This was Schwere Panzer Kompanie Hummel (with around ten Tiger Is) . This Tiger I unit was attached to Tiger Battalion 506 (with King Tigers) at the time. It mostly saw combat east of Bastogne.
There is a well known pic of a snow covered Tiger I from this unit (turret number 411) which has been self sabotaged by it's own crew at Oberwampach, ten km east of Bastogne.
This area just crept into the sector that 3rd Army was advancing across in January 1945. In some of the pics two troopers from 90th Infantry Division are standing in front of it. That unit was in 3rd Army at the time.
Does the Tiger I in your pic have a blown forward gun mantlet?
By the way, thanks for explaining a bit more about what you meant in your other posts. No worries. I get it now. Apologies for misunderstanding.
I'm VERY interested in pics of the whitewashed Tiger I by grandfather. This would be very rare in NW Europe 44/45.
As I said the only unit possible must be Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel, east of Bastogne which was attached to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 but very few photos exist. You may well have something very rare and interesting.
that at short ranges the 75mm gun could penetrate the side armor of the tiger. He did get to see a few tiger while overseas and had pictures (i have them now, he passed a few years back). the tigers in the pictures are whitewashed and according to the snow build-up around it suggest that it hadnt moved in quite some time, in fact the tank itself looked like it hadnt been serviced by a crew in ages, the weatherproofing bag wasnt even on the muzzle brake... dont know where it was taken, no date
@BackBone404 i didnt think you were being a smartass, and your facts are correct. i know a few times the americans did engage tiger 1s, but like you said, we didnt engage many. when i said "from D-Day to VE Day" i meant that his date actually being attatched to Pattons 3rd army was June 6th 1944(what are the odds eh?), he arrived in england June 5th and reported for duty june 6th. He and his unit never engaged any tigers, but intel from other american units and british units circulated
You are right....i hate when alot of ppl tell about that the Tiger was a disaster or was usless...i know it absorbed alot of resources but those were not wasted...those resources went to build a tank that could take down all other tanks...doesnt matter of what you were going to throw at him he was capable to take it down...i was too suppresed about what he sayed....dissaster? hell no!
@Dreachon thats true. either the E-50 or Panther II, which from what i've seen of it resembles th E-50 pretty closely other than the layout of the frontal armor. the Panther II lookedmore like a regular panther than the plate on the E-50. Maybe they should have built the Landkreuzer P.1000 Ratte and parked in on the normant coast to go toe-to-toe with the Battleships and Destroyers during D-Day...would have been interesting lol.
@Dreachon that is entirely possible, it has been a long time since i've read the book. either way, that is a pretty dramatic example of how badly we were outgunned by german tanks. i still think that if the germans would have spent their resources (by resources i mainly mean metals) building mopre panthers instead of tigers, king tigers, etc. the wars outcome would have been a bit different.
It would have been better with larger numbers of Panthers and Jagdpanthers but these should have evovled as fast as possible into the E-50 series which is what Germany really needed as these were far easier to produce and maintain.
The Tiger was in combat and performing well WAY before the Panther made it's debut. You can argue that the Germans didn't need to build the King Tiger because by then the Panther was up and running but the Tiger was doing it;s stuff long before the Panther first saw combat and indeed, the Panther was seen as a disappointment through most of 1943. It was only Feb '44 that Guderian declared the Panther "fully combat capable". The Tiger I was the best German tank throughout 1943.
The Tiger I tank was discontinued on the production line in summer 1944 so in reality not long after the Panther started justifying it's design and production worth the Tiger I actually was no longer produced.
But make no mistake, the Tiger I was invaluable through 1943 and the first half of 1944 and generally performed better than the Panthers when they teamed up together in operations because the Panthers still had teething problems while the Tigers did not.
of the war, he fired through a two story house with that gun at 1500 meters (i think it was 1500, may have been just 1000, but still, pretty impressive) and destroyed a sherman. if the germans had put that in a tank thatactually had a turret that would have been an incredibly devastating weapon.
I am aware of that shot but i believe the distance was between 500 and 800m, not entirely sure but it did indeed fire straight through the building and the unfortunate sherman on the other side.
@Dreachon its just a good thing thegermans didnt get some of their "paper panzers" into production. The Maus would have been totally useless except for a fixed position (drive from the factory, park at a strategic point, defend until enemy aircraft find it) but the E-100 and E-90 would have been pretty tough targets even for P-47s or medium bombers. Putting that Pak 44 128mm gun on a king tiger frame would have been devastating. when Otto Carius was commanding a Jagdtiger outfit near the end
to argue, just sayin what i know. according to some sources i've seen, the Panthers long barreled 75mm gun was actually pretty close to the power of the tiger's 88. it didnt really measure up to the king tigers 88 though.
Correct at short ranges the 7.5cm L70 of the Panther could penetrate more armour than the 8.8cm L56 of the Tiger though it did get better at longer ranger due to the extra mass of the shell.
The 8.8cm L71 of the Tiger II spotted noth a longer barrel and a heavier shell than the 7.5cm L70 so it's no surprise it did alot more damage.
army from D-Day to VE day, and according to him the panther was alot more damgerous than the tiger. he explained that with the tiger, the only advantage they really had was the gun, because at close range the shermans 75mm gun could penetrate the side/rear armor of the tiger, and the sherman had a pretty big mobility advantage over the tiger. however, with the Panther its mobility was pretty even (if not better than) the Sherman, and the panther had the firepower and armor advantage. not trying
Hmmm Patton's 3rd Army didn't serve from D-Day and Patton's 3rd Army didn't encounter the Tiger I at any time in Europe.
Only 3 units had Tiger Is in Normandy and they were all in the British/Canadian sectors. Patton's 3rd Army was nowhere near the Tiger units during Operation Cobra.
Patton's 3rd Army then raced to the Lorraine. No Tiger Is were ever there. The only Tiger Is were in Holland (British sector) and then later in the sector of the US First Army not Third Army.
Very few Tiger Is were encountered by the Americans in Europe in 1944/45. The British/Canadians faced all of them in France (battle of Normandy). After Normandy the Tiger I was a rare tank to encounter as production had ended. There were only 2 units with Tiger Is in NW Europe post Normandy from autumn 1944 and these were Schwere Panzer Kompanie Hummel and Panzerabteilung (Fkl)316.
Neither of these units ever faced Patton's 3rd Army. Your grandfather can't have faced Tiger Is.
By the way I'm trying not to come across as a smart arse so apologies if I am. I'm only giving facts.
Patton's 3rd Army didn't really face all that much German armour in 1944/45 compared to the British and other American armies further to the north. Even when Patton raced to Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge there was comparatively few German armoured units in his way (just a couple of brigades) becuase most of the German armour pushed on westwards towards the river Meuse.
@DonMeaker after the initial production tiger's teething problems were solved, it actually proved to be a pretty reliable tank.....keeping the fuel tanks full was the main problem after that. @akulaknight Don is right, bazookas used shaped charges (they were modified mortar rounds i believe) and a few well-placed rounds could get a mobility kill on a tiger. but most of the time, if it was just tigers on shermans or tank destroyers, the tigers won. my great grandfather served in Pattons third
The Tiger Tank was the best Tank in ww 2 but Ehen you know from the Maus . Yeahh that was a Tank And thus Tank was producer to Late but when he Werke Producer quiklier then he change tha warfare an a Little Bit the war
US tactics used shaped charges from in close, or antitank guns from the side. The Germans spend as much on a Tiger as the US spent producing a navy destroyer. The Tigers were routinely abandoned, after tracks were broken, or they were hit with a White Phosphorous round. 4 US TDs took out 30 Panthers and Tigers north of Bastogne.
@DonMeaker Shape charges? In what? The bazooka didnt use them, the panzerfaust and panzerschreck used them. If you are refering to the special ammo that the Sherman could use, that was extremely rare, and hardly ever used in combat. The US was about mass formations and overwhelming numbers with inferior tanks. The german idea on tank design was crew survival and firepower. There were more than 4 TD's used at Bastogne, and the tanks killed were Panthers and Panzer IV.
@akulaknight Yes, bazooka did use shape charges. US tank idea was to use reliability and mobility to move TDs in front of german attacks. Germany never took its objectives against US. US tank attacks hit German weakness. germans ended war with 5th largest army in Germany. 4TDs were (with platoon of infantry) north of bastogne, and killed 30 PzV and PzVI.
You just cut the elephant. Lots and you're done.
Nanovirus5995 1 day ago
Something tells me that if you took a Panzer Tiger vs a Carthaginian elephant, the Tiger would win.
weirdguy564 2 days ago
""Most historians agrees whit me""
Most 'historians' who agree with you are not specialists in armour or experts on the Tiger battalions themselves. They have a peripheral knowledge and not a specialised one. Most of them repeat tired old cliches.
Those who comment in the video above are a case in point.
Please, tell me what they should have done if they built zero Tigers? What would they have built instead?
LaughingGravy31 5 days ago
Calling the tiger useless. lol. Looks like someone had a bit of tank envy going on.
MaceandSword 1 week ago
It's funny they compare it to an elephant.
The Elefant/Ferdinand was a German WWII tank destroyer (ca 200mm front armour).
The155mmHowitzer 2 weeks ago 5
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@The155mmHowitzer
She was talking about the Old Romans seeing a ANIMAL Elephant, not the tank destroyer......
AnteCashovina 1 week ago
@The155mmHowitzer I think they meant a real elefant, not tank destroyers
WoWfAnLoL50 1 week ago
3:32 I agree that the Tiger had a lot of problems, but there is no way I would call it "totally useless." It caused a shitload of death and destruction.
Theakker3B 2 weeks ago 20
@Theakker3B In essence, the cost was so high for germany to produce these tanks. That it effected the wareffort in a negative way, in that regard. The tank was a disaster, although a technological marvel. If Germany enacted quantity over quality, general mobilisation in 1939 and started the total war doctrine at the same time as its enemies, no doubt they would have won ww2.
tyskbulle 1 week ago
@tyskbulle Tiger, with all it's flaws, had a 6 tank kills/tiger lost ratio. Only an idiot would call that a disaster, and that's you.
Oh, and quantity would have never worked, because you see, when it's quantity vs quantity, the side with the most quantity wins by default, and I doubt the over-bombed german factories could match up to the awesome industrial power of Russia or US.
Tiger was a very good choice, but it didn't have the Luftwaffe support, which lead to it's destruction
shadowdancerRFW 1 week ago
@shadowdancerRFW Most historians agrees whit me, but I can understand the value of the Tiger, still. It was a awsome tank, if Germany had the total war production under Spear at the start of the war I could agree whit its usage. But the Panther tank, whitch was better then the tiger whit its speed, is a perfect example of german engineering that was cheap and superior. That was a tank that needed praise, just like the T-34.
tyskbulle 6 days ago
@tyskbulle
""But the Panther tank, whitch was better then the tiger whit its speed, is a perfect example of german engineering that was cheap and superior""
Did you know that the Panther tank wasn't declared combat ripe until February 1944 by Guderian? The Panther throughout the second half of 1943 was seen as a disappointment and it took a long time to iron out it's teething problems. The Tiger had already been in combat for a year and half and proving it's worth by then.
LaughingGravy31 5 days ago
@shadowdancerRFW Just to nippick your argument, the german factorys was hardly tuched during the Tigers production, and it had air superiority during most of its service.
tyskbulle 6 days ago
@tyskbulle
Not long after the Panther was declared 'fully combat capable' by Guderian in Feb 1944 the Tiger I ceased being produced.
You may argue that the King Tiger was probably not needed seeing as the Panther was fully functional by then but the Tiger I was a valuable and very worthy tanks to have on the battlefield in 1943 and the first half of 1944.
The Panther's loss rate from Kursk to early 1944 was very high and often the Tigers were the tanks to pull German ass out of the fire.
LaughingGravy31 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tyskbulle
""In essence, the cost was so high for germany to produce these tanks.""
Mate it was only about 2 and a half times the cost of a Panzer IV.
3 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger wouldn't have made a difference and in fact the overall costs would have been more because 3 x Panzer IVs would need more support and logistics vehicles. You'd need more trucks to carry and supply the 3 x ammunition load for example...plus all the extra personnel numbers.
It's not as if 10,000 Tigers got built
LaughingGravy31 6 days ago
@tyskbulle
"" The tank was a disaster""
No, it knocked out circa 10,000 allied tanks, often slowed down and even halted enemy advances and was a great moral booster for the German soldiers and a great source of dread/trepidation for the allied tankers.
You should hear what British tankers thought about having to encounter Tigers in Normandy. Tiger phobia was a real fear and part of the reason why the allied advance through Normandy was so slow.
Not a 'disaster' at all but value for money.
LaughingGravy31 6 days ago
@LaughingGravy31 Actually it had a better ratio then 6:1. But the cost for the tank was catastrophic, and the maintenance it needed was also to mutch. The construction was even more expensive then normaly, sense Germany didnt have a centralised production until 1943. Even whit a kill ratio of 8/9:1 the cost would be doubtfull. The allies proved in France that the M4 Shermans shear numbers could just by pass most of the german armor. And the fear factor didnt stop engagements.
tyskbulle 6 days ago
@tyskbulle
"" But the cost for the tank was catastrophic,""
I repeat. It only cost two and a half times as much as a Panzer IV.
Maintenance was not too much. The Tiger's overall operational ratio percentage average was not much different to the Panzer IV, crew survivability was higher and the Tigers took up fewer supply and logistic problem than extra numbers of Panzer IVs would have.
I didn't say it's kill ratio was 6:1. It was over 10:1. Over 1,000 Tigers were not kod but self destroyed.
LaughingGravy31 5 days ago
@tyskbulle
The argument goes that if they didn't make the Tiger then they could have built 3 Panzer IVs instead.
Superficially that 'sounds' like a good bet...until you start getting into the logistics. 3 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger would mean 15 crew members instead of 5. It would mean 260 rounds of ammo instead of 92 and a much larger number of trucks and other support vehicles needed to keep those extra Panzer IVs going.
It'd cost more money and resources to have extra Panzer IVs.
LaughingGravy31 5 days ago
@tyskbulle
""The allies proved in France that the M4 Shermans shear numbers could just by pass most of the german armor.""
The Battle of Villers Bocage put the allied drive on Caen back almost another month.
""And the fear factor didnt stop engagements.""
The fear factor actually made allied advances slower and much more cautious.
The Tiger tanks slowed down and prolonged the allied advance in WW2. That is not opinion but a fact. It did so on the eastern front as well.
LaughingGravy31 5 days ago
@tyskbulle
For a disaster the Tiger did force both the western allies and the russians to rethink about their own guns and tank design.
The tiger directly forced both of them to look for new weapons and tactics to combat the both the Tiger and the german heavy tank formations.
It was the Tiger that forced the russians to restart working on a new heavy tank, it was the Tiger that forced them to discard the 85mm gun and install the 122mm.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@Dreachon
Good points Dreachon.
If the Tiger was such a disaster then why the the Soviets become desperate enough to come up with the SU-152, the SU-85, T-34/85 and finally the IS-2 and why did the British come up with the Firefly and Centurion and the Americans the Sherman 76mm, M36 and finally the Pershing.
The Tiger scared ALL three major allied powers into trying to counter it with bigger or better AFVs.
LaughingGravy31 3 days ago
@LaughingGravy31
For the british you can actually ask why they were so franticly trying to cram that 17 pounder on almost any chassis they had in order to get it mobile, look at the archer, M10C, A30 challenger, A30 avenger, A34 comet, frantic attempts to get it in a churchill.
Dreachon 3 days ago
@Dreachon
Yep.
Encounters with the Tigers in Tunisia were the reason why the British were desperate to put the 17 pounder gun on a tank.
LaughingGravy31 2 days ago
What this video tells me is that there are a fair few misguided people who think that somebody like a generalised military history professor such as Mary Habeck knows more about the specifics of the Tiger tank and it's usage than dedicated specialists such as Jentz, Schneider, Munch and actual Tiger combat veterans such as Carius, Rubbel, von Rosen etc etc.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31
True, although they have more in general knowledge than you and me, however they do certainly not at the specific and in this you can actually see them making very dumb mistakes.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
@Dreachon
I wouldn't disagree with that.
But, as you rightly say, we are talking about 'specifics' here and not a wide sweeping 'generalised' WW2 discussion.
I bet none of these 'experts' in this clip would have a clue about who, say, Willy Jähde or Alfred Rubbel were.
That twit at the end who said the Tiger was a disaster clearly has no clue what he is talking about.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31
He's one of the desginer for the F-15 I believe but his specialty is aircraft, not armoured vehicles.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
@Dreachon
Hahaha a plane designer talking about the Tiger tank? This gets even worse.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@Dreachon
By the way in the Sherman vs King Tiger story it was the German veteran's account that was proved right. The pictures of the two tanks show the King Tiger's gun pointing forwards at 11 o'clock and not pointing to the rear facing the Sherman...as the British tanker claimed.
Also the German tanker said friendly fire from a German PAK penetrated his King Tiger and that's why the crew abandoned it. The British tanker claimed he later returned in a Firefly and destroyed it.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 : well the WW2 veterans only know how to kill with it . They never knew the strategic or long term implications of wat making of such a monster tank wud do to germany's war effort...
HHedge30 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HHedge30
Of course the veterans know about the strategic implications. They knew about the logistics, the transport, how much fuel etc.
The fact is that the Tiger tank DID knock out a hell of a lot of enemy AFVs and DID slow down and even halt allied attacks/offensives.
Germany would never have won the war if they built 6,000 Panzer IVs instead of 1800 Tigers. It wouldn't have made a bit of difference and would have taken up MORE resources and personnel.
That's the flip side.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HHedge30
""implications of wat making of such a monster tank wud do to germany's war effort...""
It would take up less resources than extra Panzer IVs.
It WOULDN'T have been a case of just making extra Panzer IVs instead of Tigers. You'd have to also build extra trucks, half tracks, kubels etc etc to support those extra Panzer IVs and have more fuel, more ammo and more importantly more personnel
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
how big are the guns in a modern tank
donnyab 2 weeks ago
@donnyab
Modern tanks have a gun with a calibre of 120mm or 125mm.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
You can say a lot about Hitler and his visions, but he was well ahead of his time.
And still Germany is a country to be reconned with.
And to be honest I wouldn¨´t mind him in this time.
This tank shows what he wanted, and there was no questions about it.
Heey but I like the video.
Ben160366 3 weeks ago
At 2:10 fake Tiger tanks made out of a real wheel drive 50's soviet tank in a probably B series movie.... Well made boys but is better to use all the ORIGINAL large footage of REAL Tigers
tonidmc 3 weeks ago
@tonidmc they look like real tigers, after the war, the soviets captured a lot of tigers, so i wonder if they were used for propaganda films.
bombarderoazul 3 weeks ago
@bombarderoazul They look good but look at the tracks, and the rear wheel, its obviously a rear wheel drive tank and the road wheels are not overlapped. Look also the turret up panel inclination. These are well made replicas that today are very popular in reenactors groups. The t-54-t-62 with its flat road wheels work well to look good as a tiger. This ones are very similar to those on saving private ryan, but that ones were on t-34 chassis
tonidmc 3 weeks ago
@tonidmc yup u r rite. this was frm a russian movie on the battle of kursk. This video is in colour and is on youtube......
HHedge30 2 weeks ago
@HHedge30 At least they tried to make good replicas for the movie, thats far better than the m-47's on the movie the battle of the bulge....
tonidmc 2 weeks ago
@tonidmc The turret also kind of looks weird
Theakker3B 2 weeks ago
@Theakker3B Yes, that up panel inclination has nothing to do with the real one...
tonidmc 2 weeks ago
So much hate here i love it!
someawesomeguy69 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
Your quote to me:
" ....you dont know what youre on about"
That was an insult, since I CLEARLY know far more than you do.
Stop wasting my time with your idiotic History Channel worshipping.
You simply have no conception that more Panzer IVs = more crews, more ammo, more fuel, more support trucks and logistics and more support personnel and personnel logistics etc.
I'm not wasting any more time on an ignoramus who has no conception about Panzer IV battalions haha.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
I was very amused today to find out that the design effect for the tiger had more to do with the germans inability to destroy the british matilda tanks than it did the soviet t34
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhilosopherGaming
""I was very amused today to find out that the design effect for the tiger had more to do with the germans inability to destroy the british matilda tanks than it did the soviet t34""
It was the Panther that was built as an answer to the T-34. The Tiger I's origins go back to the 1930s and the idea of a heavy tank with the 88mm gun was setted on in spring 1941 before the Germans had even invaded the Soviet Union.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
I say Tiger deserves nr1 ...he DOMINATED M4Sherman and T-34.
R3load3dW1n 3 weeks ago
@R3load3dW1n yeah in a fight it was awesome but the list also takes into account the circumstances surrounding the time of its inception and production and in a war the nature of the second world war it was a uselss idea in the grand scheme of things
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Best tank of World war 2? If production numbers and expense play a roll (cost-effective): T-34 from USSR! If production numbers and expense have no meaning (only performance of tank itself): Tiger or Panther from Germany! Anyway best tanks of WW2 are T-34 and Tiger or Panther! Sherman tank was only light toy against german heavy monster tanks!
Menties1 3 weeks ago
TIGER NUMBER ONE !!!!! and TIGER 2 aka KING TIGER is ofcourse the KING of the Battefield !!
DanChoiThon 1 month ago
Yes the Tiger was a fantastic technical achievment but it was a war loser while the 21/2 ton truck, the Sherman tank and the C-47 aircraft were war winners because together they meant that armored units had fuel and ammo when they needed it. Real war is not about tactics and tactical victories but logistic's.keeping divisions, corps, army,army group and combat theathers operational and effective.
scottduncan44 1 month ago
@scottduncan44
Finally someone whos spot on ! UR absolutelly 100% right .Logistics was the Achiles Heel of the Wehrmacht ... is where the allies were absolutelly the masters ... coupled with the industrial capacity to provide large quantities of materials to keep the army fighting is what won the war .
Cheers !
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
"One on one" the Tiger was of course far superior to the T34 or M4 Sherman. Unfortunately for the Germans war doesn't work that way. War works by a solid mix of quality and quantity. In the REAL WORLD the Tiger was more of a propaganda ploy than an effective fighting machine. For a reality check go to Berlin on May 8th 1945 and talk to some tank commanders. (Hint; You had better be able to speak Russian.)
randy95023 1 month ago
@randy95023 Oh wow, so Russian tanks were effective fighting machines? Let's see, 44,900 T-34's totally destroyed on the Eastern front, and 96,500 Russian tanks of all types totally destroyed from 1941-45, along with 15 million dead Russian soldiers. You know what one Russian tanker named IVAN said to another in Berlin? Hint "F***K ME BORIS, I CAN'T F*****N BELIEVE WE SURVIVED, I THOUGHT FOR SURE WE WOULD BECOME CANNON FODDER JUST LIKE ALL OUR OTHER COMRADES, A TOAST TO MOTHER RUSSIA" LOL!!!!:D
hailherrosner 1 month ago
@hailherrosner You know what one Panzer commander said to the other in May 1945? Not a whisper, because he wasn't alive to respond...
Of course a Tiger was far superior to any single T34 or M4 Sherman but Soviets and Americans could build 10 to 12 Tanks for each German Tiger. If the Tiger could outfight the T34 at 8 to 1 advantage?? You can do the math...
Tiger was a large, expensive toy that sped the allies victory rather than hindered it. Tiger was built for Nazi propaganda purposes.
randy95023 1 month ago
@randy95023
You`re severelly mistaken mate. Tiger was not a TOY ... you have to understand how the german tank doctrine operates to understand why the Tiger was prolly the most important tank in the german arsenal .
A Panzer division was basiclly a small operational , fully independant army ... with its own elements of tanks ofc , motorised infantry , motorised artilery , AA , scouts etc ... operateing as a single unit. Basiclly first combined arms operational units.
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@randy95023
The whole Blitzkrieg doctrine was based on concentrateing armour on a narrow point of the front to force a breakthrough , with ofc the everpresent suport of the Luftwaffe ... breakthrough that was then exploited by the lighter tanks and infantry to widen and then strenghten the gap while the armour, suported ofc by the other elements of the panzer division pushed more and more inland to confuse , cutoff and destroy the enemy .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@randy95023
The Tiger was purposlly designed to be a breakthrough tank. To Spearhead the armoured advance , be so heavilly armoured that it could take enormous punishment from the defending AT Gun position , and most importantlly to be able to defeat the enemy armour counterattack which inevitablly followed the enemy lines beeing brokenthru. So basiclly the Tigers main job was to FIGHT OTHER TANKS. It did its job flawleslly , despite the obvious disatvantages it had .
Cheers !
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 - I understand Tank warfare, and Blitzkrieg warfare quite well and I will concede that you are correct. Your logic is also correct. The Germans used your logic and lost the war because things like the Tiger Tank ate up resources that could have been better used in the more economical Panzers. Germans tried it their way and won many battles and lost the war...
randy95023 1 month ago
@randy95023
"things like the Tiger Tank ate up resources that could have been better used in the more economical Panzers."
This is a myth. The flip side is this:
The Germans could have built more Panzer IVs etc....but they would have needed more resources than 1 Tiger.
3 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger I would need 15 crew members instead of 5 crew members, 261 rounds of ammo instead of 92 rounds, more fuel trucks, more supply & maintenance tucks, more railway wagons top get the to the front.
LaughingGravy31 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
ArxInvicta 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LaughingGravy31 And dont forget the fact, that you need to build more and more Panzer IV, because they get destroyed at the front. But if you build a Tiger, you build that thing forever, especially the B-Version (King Tiger).
There is no CONFIRMED story of an destroyed King Tiger by allied troops. The Crew surrendered because of problems with the engine or the ressources. (Fuel, Ammo).
So you are definitly right, the tiger wasn't a fail or a tank for the german propaganda.
ArxInvicta 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 actually how is that a myth? the thing required orders of magnitude more fuel, metals and maintanance and manufacturing time than any other tank in the german war machine
The idea that making more panzer 4's is a bit odd
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
""actually how is that a myth?""
I already explained how it's a myth that zero Tigers would have been better for resources. It would have been MORE of a problem to build, crew, supply and maintain 3 Panzer IVs.
The argument goes that 3 Panzer IVs could have been built for every Tiger but that argument doesn't take into account that you'd need 3 times the crew, 3 times the ammo, 3 times the support and logistics etc.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 I suspect you dont know what youre on about. 3 panzer 4's for every tiger is pretty accurate, true you'd need more crew but that wasnt the problem in the long run, germanys problems were a shortage of materials and fuel which the tiger absorbed in huge quanties to build and run. I mean this thing had a front armour plate 100mm thick compared to the 80mm of the pz 4 and needed about 3 time the amount of fuel per mile as the panzer 4 and you think thats cheaper?
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
I know what I am talking about.
It is a FACT that if you build 4 Panzer IVs instead of 1 Tiger then you'd need 20 crew members instead of 5, you'd need nearly 350 rounds of ammo instead of 90, you'd need more fuel trucks, more supply vehicles, more railway transport wagons etc etc. These 4 Panzer IVs would all take up MORE RESOURCES than 1 Tiger.
This is a FACT. Work it out and do the maths. 3 or 4 x Panzer IV vs 1 Tiger would not work out cheaper/easier in the long run.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 bullshit do you know what youre on about if you think that the tiger would be better than 3 panzer 4's, do you what kinda war ww2 was? It was a war of production, those who can produce more win as the allies did, oh it'll save on crew so lets just forget the 30 extra tons of steel needed to build a tiger, the extra fuel it needs and forget that the allies were building thousands of shermans a month
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
What are you babbling on about now?
You haven't listened to a thing I have written. You keep going on about the extra 30 tons of steel but you are simply not talking into account that more Panzer IVs in the long run would have needed more crews, more ammo and more importantly more SUPPORT AND LOGISTICS vehicles and personnel to support those extra Panzer IVs.
A large part of a panzer forces is the supply and logistics sections. It's not simply a question of TANK numbers.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
And you are missing the very salient point here. Even if Germany did build 3 times as many Panzer IVs and zero Tigers they STILL wouldn't have approached anywhere near the total Soviet, USA and British Commonwealth tank numbers.
Germany could NEVER have competed with the allies production wise even if they just built Panzer IVs.
At least the Tiger I gave the Germans superiority in QUALITY. With just Panzer IVs the Germans wouldn't have had quantity OR quality superiority.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 and yes there were the logistics of maintaining 3 tanks rather than 1 but 1 tiger alone was more hassle to keep going, they were prone to break downs so needed constant maintanence, they consumed tons more fuel per mile so logistics were an even bigger nightmare and in that kinda war 1 tiger next to 3 panzers is far less flexible
As for forgetting the ammo count of a panzer 4 big deal dude, one fact doesnt negate everything else so dont be a nob eh?
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
The Tiger I did not 'break down' as much as the myth tells us and the Panzer IV was not a super tanks that never broke down or never had mechanical problems.
Did you know that overall on average the Tiger I had an operational status ratio of 70% in the east, which was HIGHER than the Panzer IV on 68%. In the west the Tiger had a 65% average operation status compared to the Panzer IV 71%.
Not much difference overall.
The Tiger I was NEVER as unreliable as the myth says.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
"" dont be a nob eh?""
YOU are the one being a nob. How much extra steel, fuel, crews etc would all those additional support vehicles need in order to supply and keep those more Panzer IVs going.
Please don't listen to these idiots on a History Channel video. None of them have any idea how many logistics and supply vehicles would be needed to make those extra Panzer IVs function.
ANYBODY who says 3 x Panzer IVs wouldn't take up more resources than 1 x Tiger is an idiot.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 and just as a quick responce to dont listen to people on the history channel the dudes youre talking about are authorities on the subject of tank warfare, not history channel employee's and most of commenting here read books and do our own research and form our own CORRECT opinions we arent stupid just because you seem to disagree, why are you so insulting and I think you might be getting to obsessed with this .. ive seen in other vids youre also insulting, why?
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
Expect that many of these experts go on on old myths and lies.
Mr. Atwater for exmaple still talks about Ferdinands at kursk beeing knocked out by soviet tank hunting infantry and that later a MG with a curved barrel was given to the, both of which are false.
Mrs. Nusbacher now, is also well known for making things sounds better then they were, like his comment on a T-34 ramming a Tiger tank.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon and who are you to say they didnt do any of those things? ... im sorry but my own research more often than not tends to go with the authorities on the subject, and the people who say its not true have only words and no proof ... so I'm not trying to be smart or anything but its hard to beleive everything my fellow youtubers tell me
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
Actually they are the ones without proof, I take my info from the combathistory of the units, in the case of the ferdinand this would be the 653 and 654, all the things mr Atwater said about them is just plain wrong, it quite the contraty according to the combat histories.
The same goes for the T-34 ramming a Tiger, how many reports of these will you find, almost zero, there are barely any records on them.
And in the few we have it ended bad for the T-34.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon fair enough, okey dokey I shall do a little research on the 653 and 654 units dude, always up for a good read (and i must confess this is the only documentary or source that mentions the T34 ramming stuff as if it were common)
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
And there lies kind of the problem, it wasn't.
As for the books, the ones your looking for are the "combat history of schwere panzerjager abteilung" and then either 653 or the 654.
Note that for the 653 there is a softback availalble from stackpole and is very cheap, the hardbacks for both the 653 and 654 are long OOP and will cost alot if you can find one.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming The T-34 ramming to disable a 56 ton Tiger tank WAS A HABITUAL LYING of the WW2 Soviets ONLY TO FOOL THOSE BOORISH SIMPLE BRAINS AS U MORON STUFF!!! just read carefully my recent argument & USE YOUR ABSENTED SCIENTIFIC MIND & ILLY LOGICAL COMMON SENSE.(NOT YOUR HABITUAL "Simon Says So" forever widely-opening big yelling mouth) to think over!...Were the stiff-steering T-34 able to do so, the mother of swines could climb up to the tree top sky high!...... :-D
9394JP731 3 weeks ago
@9394JP731 I'm sorry to stoop to your level but is there a genetic problem with the majority of youtube users that makes them incapable of putting an opinion across in a polite manner? Or are you just a fuck wit?
As it happens I never went mental promoting the idea of T34 ramming tigers, I just asked how Dreachon knew otherwise and he answered very politely and pointed me to his source. Unlike you and laughinggravy31 who frankly need to get a grip on yourselves
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon
You are quite right. There is NOT A SINGLE documented example of a T-34 actually ramming a Tiger. The Soviets have never even showed 1 picture of such an incident and not one German report has ever mentioned it.
It was a myth made up by Soviet propaganda around the time of the battle of Prokhorovka. The same time their other myth says they knocked out 70 Tigers there when the truth is only ONE Tiger was a total loss at Prokhorovka.
A British Sherman did ram a Tiger II in Normandy.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31
Yes and it is very well recorded.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon
""Yes and it is very well recorded.""
Yes, we have actual pictures of the British Sherman that rammed the King Tiger in Normandy. We know the date, the location, the Tiger unit, the Tiger turret number and we even have statements from both the Tiger and Sherman crew members.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@Dreachon
What is interesting though is that the Tiger and Sherman crew members do have different accounts of the situation. The Sherman tanker said the King Tiger was swinging his gun around to hit him and that he captured the Tiger's crew while the King Tiger tanker says he didn't even see the Sherman and didn't swing his gun around and nor was he captured.
Both agree that the Sherman tank rammed the King Tiger on the left rear side and both crews abandoned their tanks when it caught fire.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 it was by common sense, if the 30 ton T-34 were to disable a 56 ton Tiger by rams, the momentum @ impact was more than powerful enough to throw the crew of lighter tank deadly onto their hard, angular protruded features (eg. gun breech & control rods) inside the T-34, caused fractures of skulls & bones, internal breeding of organs, as there were no safely belts & decent seat backings for turret crew. How the crew kept their bodies to overcome the shocks @ impact
9394JP731 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 He who BELIEVED IN the NON-SENSE FARTING of ram to disable a 56 ton Tiger tank.ONLY REVEALED himself was nothing but only a boorish simple brain with serious mentally disorders. & FAILED HAVING SCIENTIFIC MIND & LOGICAL COMMON SENSES, DOOMED TO BE FOOLED by lies to full-fill their own wishful shallow day dreams. Since the fanboys shared the same illrational original sins with the blundering T-34 crews, NO WONDER tens of thousands were shot like pointless ducks
9394JP731 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 Not only the ram to disable a Tiger5 tank revealed a habitual lies of the WW2 Soviets, but also their official claims of destructions of 41 Tigers & Elephants with losing only 8 JS-2 tanks in Korsun Ukraine was reported UNRELIABLE as stated in "Russian WW2 Tanks, Stalin's Armored Mights"!...Not to mention their other claims of tank aces scored more than 65 panzers or female sniper killed 300 Germans, a LA-7 shot down a Me-262 jet plane, a T-34/85 owed 3 Tiger 2
9394JP731 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
"" and who are you to say they didnt do any of those things? ... im sorry but my own research more often than not tends to go with the authorities on the subject,""
Which are people like Jentz, Munch, Schneider etc and not these idiots on the History Channel.
I'd rather go with people who have studied the Bundesarchives in depth and seen the actual combat reports, combat orders, production orders etc etc and interviewed real life veterans and studied their war diaries.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
As Dreachon said, these History Channel 'experts' are nothing of the sort. None of them have specific expertise. None of them are specialised in specific and detailed aspects of German armour of WW2.
I could ask them about particular panzer divisions or Tiger battalions and none of them would have a damn clue.
None of them know how many support vehicles it took to get a Panzer IV or Tiger unit functioning.
I'd rather listen to people like Jentz, Schneider, Munch etc.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 (cont) if germany had the resources to build and maintain the number of tigers needed to be on par with the number of allied tanks then fair enough it would have been a war winner but german industry was just never in a position to do so, where as if you consider 3 panzer 4 for every tiger, there were just over 1500 tigers, thats around 4500 panzer 4's which would have served germany much better in the war of numbers it was fighting
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
I disagree that 5000 Panzer IVs would have served better than the 1800 Tigers. The Tigers proved their worth time and again and often stabilised the front line and even halted enemy advances.
Especially on the eastern front in the wide open terrain there, very often 2 Tigers could do a better job than 10 Panzer IVs, which were more vulnerable and couldn't hit as hard and neither were they vastly more reliable or manuverable.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
To support a Panzer IV battalion you'd need circa 30 x heavy trucks like a Bussing Nag plus another 20 or so medium trucks like Opel Blitz plus a couple dozen various half track types and then all the jeeps (kubelwagens etc) and motorbikes...and then all the CREW PERSONNEL to manage them.
It's not just a question of simply extra Panzer IVs. It's all the OTHER stuff on top that you would need to make those extra Panzer IVs function.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 dude I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, this is gonna go on forever otherwise and we're both getting pretty irrate and theres no need for it, you think the tiger would have been better I think they should have put more emphasis on panzer 4 production, lets leave it there
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
Have you also taken into account that the panzer IV design was at the end of it's lifecycle by 1944, it's rivals were beeing upgraded and the panzer IV could no longer be.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon and yes I have taken into account the panzer 4's age but it had some life left in it and had proven itself to be effective in tank combat even at that point, in my opinion its advantages over the tiger out weighted the disadvantages. Mind you possibly it would have been even better if they hadnt over engineered the panther
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
Have you even considered what role the Tiger and the Panzer 4 had to fulfil according to german tank warfare doctrine ? You`ll see why the Tiger tank was probablly the most important tank in the german arsenal ... and no other tank could do the job that the Tiger fulfilled .
Cosmin1511 3 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 the tiger was a break through tank and essentially there to maintain superiority over other tanks on the battlefield, I know it did this very well, infact it was almost unmatched but thats not the point I'm getting at, I'm saying in a war of production and when germany was desperate for resources needed to build such tanks that the tiger was far from the ideal choice next to the panzer 4
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
Sorry to say but in 1944 it was at the end of it's life, the T-34/85, M4 armed with 76mm and the comet were all above it's class.
The panzer IV couldn't fight these opponents like it fought their earlier variants.
Have to agree that a more easier Panther would have been their best work.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhilosopherGaming
"germanys problems were a shortage of materials and fuel which the tiger absorbed in huge quanties to build and run."
Only twice as much as the Panzer IV.
Support vehicles for the extra number of Panzer IVs would take up more fuel in the long run.
A Panzer IV battalion had over 100 additional motorised support vehicles needed to keep the battalion going, ranging from bikes to kubelwagens to small trucks to big trucks to half tracks and maultiers etc.
That's MORE fuel.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 as for the argument about ammunition youre thinking in the wrong terms, youre talking as if the panzer 4 was build with that amount of ammo as a feature, it stored that amount of ammo because thats what it could fit, the tiger only had 90 odd rounds because thats all they could fit inside! Have you ever seen an 88mm round next to a 75mm? The 88mm in HUGE in comparison, its amazing that they found room for 90 in the first place
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
And a panzer IV could carry only 87 rounds.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon thanks for filling in that gap, have to confess id kinda forgotten ...
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@LaughingGravy31 I'm sorry but I just cant work out how youve come to this conclusion, I think you need to get a couple of good books detailing the various costs of both these tanks to build and the opinions of tactitions and stratergists before you just jump to this sort of idea
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
LOL, I've got PLENTY of books and I am well informed. It's not just about the 'cheapness' of the Tiger vs the Panzer IV. That's a naive and simplistic way to look at it. It's all the OTHER additional logistic and strategic additions besides just the tank cost. It's the crew numbers, ammo numbers, supply, maintenance, railway transportation. Then you have to account for the additional personal needed to support one panzer battalion.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
PhilosopherGaming 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
I don't think you are aware of what went into making up a panzer battalion, be it Tiger or Panzer IV.
On top of the tank and tank personnel sections there was the command section, the medical section, the maintenance section, the ammunition section, the field kitchen section, the workshop section, the communications section, the signals section, the recovery section then the administration section.
A battalion isn't just made up of tanks. It's all the SUPPORT echelons too.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@PhilosopherGaming
Cont..
One Tiger tank battalion would take up far less tank crews, far less ammo, far less fuel, far less medical, administrative, signal, maintenance, recovery and transportation crews and resources than 3 or 4 times the number of Panzer IVs.
By the way the Tiger I roughly only consumed about twice the amount of fuel as a Panzer IV. It didn't consume 3 or 4 times the amount.
Its a naive myth that no Tigers vs 3 or 4 more Panzer IVs would have been better for resources.
LaughingGravy31 3 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 Allies were fighting a War of Attrition and Eisenhower and Zhukov knew very well how to fight the war their way. Germans lost because they used the very logic you describe and were given the "death of 1,000 cuts" and bled white, particularly on the steppe of Western USSR. I won't argue with you because we are BOTH correct. But please don't try to tell me the Germans won World War Two...
randy95023 1 month ago
@randy95023
No mate...you dont understand . Im NOT pro nazi , nor pro German policy ... this is not about who won or lost...couse we all know who that was . Polithics has nothing to do with it now . War was over almost 80 years ago .
This is about the apreciateing the machine itself ... and the technology behind this tank . Also to understand why and how they did this technical achievment back then .... thats all .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@randy95023
In Feb 1944 Schwere Panzer Regiment Bake and especially his Tigers punched a hole right through Soviet lines in the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket and got close enough to the trapped German soldiers that thousands of them were able to reach the safety of the German relief column.
LaughingGravy31 4 weeks ago
@randy95023
In early 1944 the Tigers of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 prevented the front line around Narva (near Leningrad) from totally collapsing and actually halted the Soviet Red army for a considerable time. The Tigers slowed the Soviets down for MONTHS.
LaughingGravy31 4 weeks ago
@randy95023
In June 1944 a handful of Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 halted the advance of the British 7th Armoured Division through the town of Villers Bocage. The British were trying to outflank Caen via the south west. The Tigers stopped them and prevented the British from flanking Caen, which could have sped up the battle of Normandy by a month or so.
The Tigers physically slowed down and even halted the allied advance in Normandy for a considerable time.
LaughingGravy31 4 weeks ago
@randy95023 The point I was trying to make mate, was that the Russians did not value human life and they had horrible tactics, they would use swarming tactics with their t-34's all bunched up together with no radio communications and really bad sighting optics in the 2 man turret on the earlier t-34's and as a result would get slaughtered in the thousands literally because German tankers used radios and had excellent long distance optics and excellent tactics, first shot usually always wins.
hailherrosner 1 month ago
@randy95023
""Tiger was a large, expensive toy that sped the allies victory rather than hindered it""
Mate you've got that wrong.
In MANY situations the Tigers slowed down and even halted the advancing enemy for long periods.
"" Tiger was built for Nazi propaganda purposes.""
No it wasn't. It was built to destroy enemy tanks and it actually knocked out circa 10,000 enemy tanks and other AFVs.
Ask the chaps at Villers Bocage if the Tiger was a Nazi propaganda toy.
LaughingGravy31 4 weeks ago
Tiger was too expensive, too complex, took too many man hours to produce and took too many highly trained maintenance personnel to maintain it in the field. All this at a time when Germany, and German industry was being bled white by the allies. Tiger WAS a superb tank without a doubt, but was actually just an overpriced, over engineered TARGET! If we lost 5 Sherman’s it was really no big deal (except for the poor crewmen's families). A Tiger destroyed in the field was a catastrophic loss...
randy95023 1 month ago
@randy95023
Its not that simple mate. The role of the Tiger was unique in the german arsenal ...and no other tank could perform that role . Thats why the Tiger , despite beeing overpriced, and a nightmare to produce and mantain...achieved a force multiplying effect out of all proportions to their actual numbers and saved the german army numerous defeats .
In a war of attrition , the larger nation with the most resources will win ... its only natural .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@Cosmin1511 when in strategic games you see tiger tank approaching you, you better to have strategy to destroy it, if you don"t have it better turn off your game and go think how to destroy it
GolfMk1974 1 month ago
@GolfMk1974
This is a tank thread mate . If you`re searching strategic games forums ... ur way off .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
Comment removed
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
build something that i knew he saw in WWII.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
the best piece of evidence i have to confirm this is that it has the early production style commanders coupola...strange for a tiger still in service in late 1944. its a bit of a bummer knowing their are already pictures of this tank out there, but still really cool to have actual photos. i am actually building a 1/35 scale model of a tiger 1...if i had known more about this tank (or at least that there were more picture of it) i probabaly would have built it. would have been kind of neat to
wildchild77x 1 month ago
Now THAT is a tank
TalonMercenary 1 month ago
it. either way my curiosity is really jumping now.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
taken from that you are referring to? also, i thought Abteilung 506 was a unit on the eastern front? i seem to remember in "tigers in the Mud" By Otto Carius that his unit was also the 506th but in Russia. it is very possible that there was more than one unit with the designation "506" but just trying to clarify. if i recall he was not with this unit (he was wounded and recovering) during the end of 1944, so they could have been moved to the area and the book made no (to my memory) reference to
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Carius served with the 502 schwere abteiluing until he got sent to to command the 512 schwere panzerjager abteilung equipped with the jagdtiger as far as I know.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
The 506 was formed in July 1943 and fought mostlly on the E front , mainlly at Dniepr , Korovograd and at Krivoi-Rog . In 1944 it was withdrawn to Germany and reequiped with the Tiger 2 and brought up to full strenght with 45 brand new Tiger 2s . In late September 1944 it was brought near Oosterbeck...so naturally it took part in the defense against Market Garden . The 506 was the only Heer heavy Tiger battalion that took part in the Ardennes offensive .
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
Comment removed
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
Comment removed
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
Comment removed
Cosmin1511 1 month ago
@LaughingGravy31 i cant see the gun mantlet, the picture is taken from the left rear of the tank (about 7 o'clock in relation of the hull) and the gun is aimed, guessing from the tool box position , between 1 and 2 o'clock. i cant see any of the cannon barrel, but it must be either aiming downwards or has been removed because i cant see any of it over the hull or turret top. i will try to find the picures of the tiger you mentioned and see if anything looks the same. what angle is the picture
wildchild77x 1 month ago
on them either. did the germans attempt to bring tiger 1 units in during the battle of the bulge? thats the only time i would think these could have been taken, or sometime in the few months after...from my estimates there appears to be about 6 to 8 inches of snow on the ground.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
You know what? I think I may be jumped the gun somewhat and been mistaken.
There was 1 unit with Tiger I tanks in the Battle of The Bulge. This was Schwere Panzer Kompanie Hummel (with around ten Tiger Is) . This Tiger I unit was attached to Tiger Battalion 506 (with King Tigers) at the time. It mostly saw combat east of Bastogne.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Continued.
There is a well known pic of a snow covered Tiger I from this unit (turret number 411) which has been self sabotaged by it's own crew at Oberwampach, ten km east of Bastogne.
This area just crept into the sector that 3rd Army was advancing across in January 1945. In some of the pics two troopers from 90th Infantry Division are standing in front of it. That unit was in 3rd Army at the time.
Does the Tiger I in your pic have a blown forward gun mantlet?
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
By the way, thanks for explaining a bit more about what you meant in your other posts. No worries. I get it now. Apologies for misunderstanding.
I'm VERY interested in pics of the whitewashed Tiger I by grandfather. This would be very rare in NW Europe 44/45.
As I said the only unit possible must be Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel, east of Bastogne which was attached to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 but very few photos exist. You may well have something very rare and interesting.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
that at short ranges the 75mm gun could penetrate the side armor of the tiger. He did get to see a few tiger while overseas and had pictures (i have them now, he passed a few years back). the tigers in the pictures are whitewashed and according to the snow build-up around it suggest that it hadnt moved in quite some time, in fact the tank itself looked like it hadnt been serviced by a crew in ages, the weatherproofing bag wasnt even on the muzzle brake... dont know where it was taken, no date
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@BackBone404 i didnt think you were being a smartass, and your facts are correct. i know a few times the americans did engage tiger 1s, but like you said, we didnt engage many. when i said "from D-Day to VE Day" i meant that his date actually being attatched to Pattons 3rd army was June 6th 1944(what are the odds eh?), he arrived in england June 5th and reported for duty june 6th. He and his unit never engaged any tigers, but intel from other american units and british units circulated
wildchild77x 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
You are right....i hate when alot of ppl tell about that the Tiger was a disaster or was usless...i know it absorbed alot of resources but those were not wasted...those resources went to build a tank that could take down all other tanks...doesnt matter of what you were going to throw at him he was capable to take it down...i was too suppresed about what he sayed....dissaster? hell no!
BlackBone404 1 month ago
How the hell you call tiger tank a dissaster? when a single tiger tank could take down 4 or more sherman's alown
BlackBone404 1 month ago
@BlackBone404
""How the hell you call tiger tank a dissaster?""
I know. Ridiculous isn't it?
The Tiger units knocked out circa 10,000 allied tanks and time and again slowed down and even halted enemy advances.
Post war armchair revisionists get on my nerves.
Ask the troops who served in them if they were failures and the answer you'll get is "no".
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Germans RETREATED from KURSK to head NORTH and DEFEND OREL O-R-E-L-
from OPERATION KUTUSOV. ONLY Leibstandarte went to Italy in Summer 1943, AND they left the Tanks at KURSK. Get your facts right you creeps.
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
@Dreachon thats true. either the E-50 or Panther II, which from what i've seen of it resembles th E-50 pretty closely other than the layout of the frontal armor. the Panther II lookedmore like a regular panther than the plate on the E-50. Maybe they should have built the Landkreuzer P.1000 Ratte and parked in on the normant coast to go toe-to-toe with the Battleships and Destroyers during D-Day...would have been interesting lol.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@Dreachon that is entirely possible, it has been a long time since i've read the book. either way, that is a pretty dramatic example of how badly we were outgunned by german tanks. i still think that if the germans would have spent their resources (by resources i mainly mean metals) building mopre panthers instead of tigers, king tigers, etc. the wars outcome would have been a bit different.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
It would have been better with larger numbers of Panthers and Jagdpanthers but these should have evovled as fast as possible into the E-50 series which is what Germany really needed as these were far easier to produce and maintain.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
The Tiger was in combat and performing well WAY before the Panther made it's debut. You can argue that the Germans didn't need to build the King Tiger because by then the Panther was up and running but the Tiger was doing it;s stuff long before the Panther first saw combat and indeed, the Panther was seen as a disappointment through most of 1943. It was only Feb '44 that Guderian declared the Panther "fully combat capable". The Tiger I was the best German tank throughout 1943.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildchild77x
Continued..
The Tiger I tank was discontinued on the production line in summer 1944 so in reality not long after the Panther started justifying it's design and production worth the Tiger I actually was no longer produced.
But make no mistake, the Tiger I was invaluable through 1943 and the first half of 1944 and generally performed better than the Panthers when they teamed up together in operations because the Panthers still had teething problems while the Tigers did not.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago 5
of the war, he fired through a two story house with that gun at 1500 meters (i think it was 1500, may have been just 1000, but still, pretty impressive) and destroyed a sherman. if the germans had put that in a tank thatactually had a turret that would have been an incredibly devastating weapon.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
I am aware of that shot but i believe the distance was between 500 and 800m, not entirely sure but it did indeed fire straight through the building and the unfortunate sherman on the other side.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon its just a good thing thegermans didnt get some of their "paper panzers" into production. The Maus would have been totally useless except for a fixed position (drive from the factory, park at a strategic point, defend until enemy aircraft find it) but the E-100 and E-90 would have been pretty tough targets even for P-47s or medium bombers. Putting that Pak 44 128mm gun on a king tiger frame would have been devastating. when Otto Carius was commanding a Jagdtiger outfit near the end
wildchild77x 1 month ago
to argue, just sayin what i know. according to some sources i've seen, the Panthers long barreled 75mm gun was actually pretty close to the power of the tiger's 88. it didnt really measure up to the king tigers 88 though.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Correct at short ranges the 7.5cm L70 of the Panther could penetrate more armour than the 8.8cm L56 of the Tiger though it did get better at longer ranger due to the extra mass of the shell.
The 8.8cm L71 of the Tiger II spotted noth a longer barrel and a heavier shell than the 7.5cm L70 so it's no surprise it did alot more damage.
Dreachon 1 month ago
army from D-Day to VE day, and according to him the panther was alot more damgerous than the tiger. he explained that with the tiger, the only advantage they really had was the gun, because at close range the shermans 75mm gun could penetrate the side/rear armor of the tiger, and the sherman had a pretty big mobility advantage over the tiger. however, with the Panther its mobility was pretty even (if not better than) the Sherman, and the panther had the firepower and armor advantage. not trying
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Hmmm Patton's 3rd Army didn't serve from D-Day and Patton's 3rd Army didn't encounter the Tiger I at any time in Europe.
Only 3 units had Tiger Is in Normandy and they were all in the British/Canadian sectors. Patton's 3rd Army was nowhere near the Tiger units during Operation Cobra.
Patton's 3rd Army then raced to the Lorraine. No Tiger Is were ever there. The only Tiger Is were in Holland (British sector) and then later in the sector of the US First Army not Third Army.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Very few Tiger Is were encountered by the Americans in Europe in 1944/45. The British/Canadians faced all of them in France (battle of Normandy). After Normandy the Tiger I was a rare tank to encounter as production had ended. There were only 2 units with Tiger Is in NW Europe post Normandy from autumn 1944 and these were Schwere Panzer Kompanie Hummel and Panzerabteilung (Fkl)316.
Neither of these units ever faced Patton's 3rd Army. Your grandfather can't have faced Tiger Is.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
By the way I'm trying not to come across as a smart arse so apologies if I am. I'm only giving facts.
Patton's 3rd Army didn't really face all that much German armour in 1944/45 compared to the British and other American armies further to the north. Even when Patton raced to Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge there was comparatively few German armoured units in his way (just a couple of brigades) becuase most of the German armour pushed on westwards towards the river Meuse.
LaughingGravy31 1 month ago
@DonMeaker after the initial production tiger's teething problems were solved, it actually proved to be a pretty reliable tank.....keeping the fuel tanks full was the main problem after that. @akulaknight Don is right, bazookas used shaped charges (they were modified mortar rounds i believe) and a few well-placed rounds could get a mobility kill on a tiger. but most of the time, if it was just tigers on shermans or tank destroyers, the tigers won. my great grandfather served in Pattons third
wildchild77x 1 month ago
The Tiger Tank was the best Tank in ww 2 but Ehen you know from the Maus . Yeahh that was a Tank And thus Tank was producer to Late but when he Werke Producer quiklier then he change tha warfare an a Little Bit the war
MrBrounie222 1 month ago
US tactics used shaped charges from in close, or antitank guns from the side. The Germans spend as much on a Tiger as the US spent producing a navy destroyer. The Tigers were routinely abandoned, after tracks were broken, or they were hit with a White Phosphorous round. 4 US TDs took out 30 Panthers and Tigers north of Bastogne.
DonMeaker 1 month ago
@DonMeaker Shape charges? In what? The bazooka didnt use them, the panzerfaust and panzerschreck used them. If you are refering to the special ammo that the Sherman could use, that was extremely rare, and hardly ever used in combat. The US was about mass formations and overwhelming numbers with inferior tanks. The german idea on tank design was crew survival and firepower. There were more than 4 TD's used at Bastogne, and the tanks killed were Panthers and Panzer IV.
akulaknight 1 month ago
@akulaknight Yes, bazooka did use shape charges. US tank idea was to use reliability and mobility to move TDs in front of german attacks. Germany never took its objectives against US. US tank attacks hit German weakness. germans ended war with 5th largest army in Germany. 4TDs were (with platoon of infantry) north of bastogne, and killed 30 PzV and PzVI.
DonMeaker 1 month ago