My uncles neighbor in Germany was a Tiger Driver in ww2. He said their tank was hit over 60 times in battle and never skipped a beat. They destroyed over 20 Shermans, now thats German engineering.
@GoPhils13 Wrong. Very few Tigers were used in the Ardennes Offensive. There were only two German heavy tank battalions present and of the 1,800 German AFVs only 100 were Tiger I and II.
You might want to read what the Germans say about the Soviet tanks, as they tried to duplicate them as well as incorporate them into their Panzer units. The Tiger was not a mobile tank. You can read a tank grunts comments but all the evidence in tactical use repeatedly show that it was not an efficient offensive weapon. Much that is written about Tigers in the English language will give it glowing reviews because US and UK tanks were light tanks, with limited armor, easy prey for Tigers.
What about all the false reports of Tiger sightings on both fronts? Allies ground forces were scared sh*tless of the Tigers. All the units with Tigers had huge kill-loss ratios. Some over 15:1. SS.pz.abt 102 for example, killed over 1200 armored vehicles in the span of 3 weeks by maintaining close to 30 tigers running, and received no more than 30 resupplies total during that time.
I'd like to see your sources of "all the books" you've read regarding Tiger engines too.
The Tiger has gained mythological status. Fact is a relatively small number were produced. Guderian was not initially impressed with either the Panther or Tiger and it showed at Kursk. Tigers' engines had a tendency to catch fire and were very immobile. Shermans could be repaired quickly, Tiger repair was time consuming. Armor not sloped so it absorbed rounds. A very dangerous tank, but the Panther was superior and more importantly and critically so was the T-34/85
@GoPhils13 Where do you get your information from? All the books I have read on Tigers written by those who fought in them and against them would dissagree with your comments. "Tigers' engines had a tendency to catch fire and were very immobile" not from what the crews say. "Tiger repair was time consuming" Once again not what the crews say.
Try reading some books written by the Germans them selves and I'll think you'll find they loved these tanks.
There are a lot of ppl commenting on this vid comparing the Tiger to a Sherman. An unfair comparison. The Sherman was good at what it was designed to do which is support the advance of the infantry. It was not designed as a rival to tanks like the Tiger or the Panther. The M26 Pershing would be a better comparison.
The best tank of the war was the Panther. Its a good thing Hitler didn't focus production on that tank or the war may have lasted a little longer.
Overall, the Sherman tank wasn't the best tank, but it in my opinion was the finest tank of the war. It could go places the tiger couldn't. It was faster. It also could be modified in many ways. The tiger wasn't able to be modified that much at all.
Tiger was many stronger than sherman, that all who knows history knows that too.That was one of the largest construction mistakes(shermans), because allies was needed tank which can parry to german tanks, and they wanted something better than tigers. They made sherman, witch isnt so bad, but its light tank and had no chance versus tiger, heavy tank. So by my opinion and many historians tiger was 1 of the best ww2 tanks...
No. The task of the sherman was not to engage the tiger but to support infantry which he did well. Of course Shermans had also to fight against Tigers if they encounterd them but it was not their main task. The Pershing was made to engage the Tiger and Panther and was very successfull in this role. And please, the Tiger was by no means the best tank of WWII. Try to define what best means. It was not a futuristic design. Just a big cannon on some think steel plates. The Panther was better!
@DavidVanPatten I believe there is only one encounter with a Pershing.. vs a Tiger I and little is known about that. (propaganda most likely). The Pershing arrived to late to really get blooded in combat, and had its own teething problems. I know one Pershing was knocked out by a SP Nashorn. That tank was of course primarily used in Korea vs the T-34 and most likely older JS tanks.
I don't know about the Pershing encountering the Tiger but I know about them encountering Panthers (the famous Cologne battle for example) . Of course the Pershing had its problems and arrived too late what I meant is that you cannot compare apples to oranges. The Tiger was a terrific machine of course but please put it into context with comparable machines!
@DavidVanPatten Oh yeah.. will that makes sense.. The Sherman was only really comparable to the Panzer Mk IV. Yeah.. that makes sense no worries mate.
it uses WW2 most feared cannon, the cannon on the Tiger was used to hit enemy planes, but Germans figured if they lowered the cannon, it could destroy tanks.
So they added armor all around it and it gives the Mighty Tiger.
In every man is a little bit of nationalism founded a bit of national/militaristic feelings.
(Little plastic tanks in the childhood)
But you have to learn that its much better to live in peace and harmony.
Maybe get an asian girlfriend or make a little tour to Australia. Visit Italy or France, go skiing in Austria and Norway. Try other cultures. Food, religion and much more. The world is a great place to be.
oh g... see that cannon... 76mm of pure death... shermans were like ducks for that cannon... the only tank who can face that tank without fear was the T-34... but the tiger showed to be the best tank from this era... good in the desert, good in the snow, good in the mud, good everywhere... this machine is a masterpiece of the engineering...
At 4:52 it shows the confidence that the tiger crews had in their armour, firing from an exposed position and exposing their weaker side armour and tracks to the enemy. In any other tank the commander would be looking to get into a hull down position to lessen his profile and exposure to enemy fire.
"best looking tank of WWII?" Anything that stood for murder, genocide, pillaging, death, destruction, evil, the deaths of over 50 million people, could not possibly be the, "best", of anything.
okay, if youre so concerned about the war, genocide, an all that..... why are you on a page with videos of WW2 tanks etc??? youre kinda shooting yousself in the foot mate.... and yes... htey way this tank could move, its smoothness over hard terrain etc... it was a master peice of technology and a beautiful machine... it was the people who drove them that killed people....but thats my opinion, were all enitiled to our own, no offence was meant to be caused
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the tiger's only fault was the 90 degree armour and it did have a too little engine. i guess the panther was the best standard tank in ww2 because it was the best compromise between speed, firepower, armour and flexibility
Timme - For its design type, the Tiger's armor was excellent. The consistent problems it had were poor reliability from the underpowered engine/overstressed drivetrain, (as you correctly noted), and also they were manufactured by slave labor who had a vested interest in the tank breaking down, as many of them did. On paper they were good, but in practice/reality, they frequently broke down.
steelinfrino - The Tiger was not, "uneatable in battle one on one". Many Tigers were blown up all the time. They weren't indestructible. Yes, the Tiger broke down frequently.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Echeque5 you are fuckin idiot!Typical stupid yank...american...american...ammerrican,you make me laugh!Go fuck your Sherman tanks if you want to nobody cares but don´t come up with a load of crap like "that the Tiger was´nt actually the best tank in WWII" and other shit like that!Every war historian and even a five year old kid knows that nothing could beat the Tiger I on the Battlefield in WWII !!!Fuck your Shermans and other crap,stupid brainless yank!!!
Ferschumi - They have medications now for anger control issues, like you demonstrate. There is hope, really. If nothing could beat the Tiger, how come they were blown up left and right? Hmmm....interesting how some people can't see something even though its right in front of their face.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Haaahaaahaaaa funny Mr.Comedian...NOT!!!The best thing that you could do is just shut the hell up you stupid imbecile,because no one cares about your bull-shit stories here!"Tigers were blown up left and right" LOL...do you even believe what you´re saying asshole???Ofcourse many Tigers were lost but not until they had destroyed much-much-much more Allied tanks!You´re probably among the most stupid people ever,like I said...typical yank!!!
HarveyHenkelmann - The American Sherman tank could fire its main gun while on the move and with decent accuracy. It was one of the advantages the Sherman had, not to mention good speed.
hmm the tiger was better than most tanks , yes, getting its ass was difficult because it was quite fast and agile for a tank of its huge weight.
The problem was clutch,gearbox, and power transmission to the tracks, they were too small for a heavy battle tank.
They failed rather often.
In the german very heavy tanks like the kingtiger and elephant the downtimes were even longer , those tanks were down like 50% of the time due to drive system failure
Mrpsychotehpro - You are 100% correct of course, but trying to convince the tank video playing kids of the facts, well good luck. They seem to think a tank's battle effectiveness, or not, is dependent on how it looks and sounds. Pretty sad. The supposed superior German engineering of their tanks,( when many of them broke down and often as you correctly noted), left much to be desired.
NOO NOO buddy - tigers were better - as germans were better - but there was 1 disadvantage for germans - they were very outnumbered and surrounde by Russia, USA, Britania and other allies.
N1DEON - Yes, the Tiger tank was better...at breaking down. Very, very unreliable piece of equipment, as it was made by slave labor. Not exactly a, "high quality workforce".
the tiger tank was a very powerful tank but it had to weak points: one hit in the ass then it was knocked out, and it couldnt drive and shoot at the same time, it had to stop, aim and then fire.
Deutsche Wertarbeit zählt. Nun rettet sie wohl auch GM.
Leider wird sie auch für diese Zwecke für den Angriff eingesetzt. Komisch zu wissen, dass es falsch ist und dennoch irgendwie stolz auf diese Arbeit zu sein.
see the germans cant even make an entertaining vidieo. but thats not why they lost the war . they lost becauase hitler and the axis powers were on the wrong side of history. and thank god for that. or we would all be eating sourkrout and speaking german.
germanysbest89 - The Tiger tank was a good tank, on paper, but in practice they frequently broke down because they were manufactured using slave labor. It was a mechanical piece of junk, which is one reason why the lost.
Also nach meiner meinung ist der Panther kein schlechter Panzer nur der Tiger kann sich heute was feuerkraft und Panzerung angeht wie BBC mal sagte mit jedem heutigen Panzer messen.
Ich habe mal ein Manöver bei den Amis beobachtet da haben die mit den Veteranen besetzten Panzer ein A1 ? gegen einen Tiger kämpfen lassen simuliert natürlich und was machen die Amis kratzen die Kurve als sie den Tiger gesehen haben trotz technischer überlegenheit und Panzerung
Ich denke, Alles in Allem waren der Panther G der rundum beste Panzer, Jagdpanther ( Jagdpanzer )richtungsweisend in Form / abgeschrägte Panzerung / Waffe und Funktion.
Sorry, I didnt know what I was thinking there, the abram would win, but the tiger WAS terror on treads, definitely a powerful beast though, you would have to agree with that.
And the Tigers did have a very important role, Shame that by the time they came in Hitler had bungled up things so much that they couldnt use em for that role, they were made and set upto be used to break throught the enemy lines, then the Panzer 4's nd other motorized units would follow from behind, Take lead and race forwward. they were the nneeded breakthrought tanks.
Panzer 4 was one of there best tanks, But in my view the Panther G was the best, And it would have been no use for Germany to consentrate on trying to build numbers vs numbers, They didnt have the resources or the production facilities, not to mention they didnt have that amount of fuel.
Germans did build great tanks. Its liek someone said, it was quality or over engineering that was at fault. For every 1 tiger, 10 shermans were produced. Noone can ever argue that the germans didnt have the best tanks in the world. I think the hellcat and tank destroyers are often overlooked, they had a big impact at end of war.
I think the americans choose the right decision to still use Sherman tank design despite obvious disadvantage w/ the German Tank. Because if they tried to mach it. Imagine transporting those heavy tank accross the Atlantic & producing big numbers in a hurry. At the same time they still dont have big harbors for quick transport of heavy equipment. Also they already have air supperiority. They are just being practical.
Germans prefered quality over quantity. the tiger, panther, and tiger II were good tanks and comfortable for the crew. and a comfortable crew means an efficiant crew.
i guess the "panther" was much more efficient .... because he was faster not so haevy and 7.5 cm gun ... with hughe firepower ... and not so expensive and u could build more in less time ...
david1yoyo is not intellagent. we are comparing to other tanks of that age not modern world plus the best tank right now is the leopard, so much better then the abrams, you know how much heat signal is blown outta that thing, if a country attacked us abrams with only heat seeking missles, the country would win(just aircrafter vs tank or watever)
Yes the tiger tank was probably the stongest tank in the war it was terror on treads not even the heavily armored U.S abram tank could withstand the ultimate firepower of the monstrous tiger although sadly since the allies won the germans could no longer have war machines without permissin of the U.S and the other allies such as Britain Russia Canada Australia and other countries that had fought in the alongside with allies.
r u kidding a abrhams would blow the hell out of a tiger!!!! a tiger has an 88mm gun an abrams 120mm and the abrams has atken on the t seires of russian tanks and has beaten them
Your talking about a 60yrs difference buddy. Tiger was famous during its time in the mid 1940's. Abram is a famous tank from early 2000 till now. There are several tanks that are top notch today: American Abram A1A2, British Challenger 2, Israeli Merkava, Russian T-90, German Leopard 2 A6 & South Korean XK2.
HAHA russian power your funny. top 3 tanks in WW2: King Tiger, Tiger, and Panther. dude the russians have traditionally been beat on in these wars then the winter kicks in and they turn everything around. the ruskies lost the most men, tanks, planes, material in ww2. The germans have traditonally had THE BEST tanks in the world. hell even when we first allowed them to make a tank after ww2 they cranked out one just as good as the M1 and now they have better.
True that the russians gained A LOT because the german equipment failures due to the cold (including the tanks).
But the situation when the germans invaded russia was similar of that when they invaded france. Compared to russia and france their tank forces where inferior. But their tactics was by far superior.
true germans got the advantage with the tiger and later panther. This answered by russia with the t34 85 and the IS tanks.
The T34/85s were not a match for either the PZ V or VI. All T34s had 45mm front hull armour & the 85 had 75mm turret armour less than both Pz V & VI. The 85mm gun wasn't as good as Pz V & VI either. The IS 1 & early IIs were also armed with the 85mm making them weaker. Th 122mm L43 gun & 120mm armoured IS II's gun was more of a multipurpose gun than AT but equaling with Pz V & VI - didn't need it by then. The IS III didn't see action but slightly inferior to the Tiger IIs gun/armour ratio.
Yeah that sound correct. Though i never said they where equal matches even if i understand it could be interpreted that way due to the first part of my post :)
The point i was trying to make was that the technology advantage wasnt always in the germans corner(although they hade some great weapons in all categorys) but the deciding factor that took them through the war was skill, training and devotion.
Shermans was only good in masses. The siluette was to high and the armor to weak. One Tiger was abel to beat out a company of Shermans when the commannder of the Tiger where good.
The sherman sucked the big one compared to the tiger. But they operated in large numbers, making them able to take their opponents out by hitting their weak spots. This causing alot of casualties for the allys. Think i heard a figure that 5-6 shermans was scrapped per every tiger or panther statistically. Casualties they contracted when charging the german tanks.
The Pershing's 90mm L51 gun was not as powerful as the Tiger's 1936 designed L56 88mm gun. As the Tiger 1 tank design was 3 years older, the proper comparision was to the King Tiger (Tiger II) which completely outclassed the Pershing.
The allie forces did not have any tank that could penetrate the front armor facia plate of any tiger 1 or konig 2.Check out "achtung panzer"website. Nuff said!
Check it agian buddy. None of the 770 King Tiger's front armour was penetrated however the Tiger 1's front plate could be penetrated by the (inaccurate) UK 77mm, US 90mm, Rus 100mm & Rus 122mm, at various ranges. Equally, the Tiger 1 could defeat tanks carrying these guns usually at farther ranges. The King Tiger was developed to replace the Tiger 1 as the Germans needed to maintain tank superiority because they didn't have the resources to out produce, or out supply, the USSR & US.
There is one ww2 tank that beat the tiger....The might king tiger! Also the sherman was better in one way......numbers. And don`t forget the M4 crocediles and M4 fireflies.
its simple and widely known that the Tiger was a good tank, but if you looks up the books the tigers reliability, lack of numbers, complex design and daily bombing of factories denied it the dominance it MAY have claimed. remove allied air power and the tiger would have been a hell of alot harder to remove, but it would have still happened due to a factor of numbers and its reliability.. so dont argue over one little thing, look at the whole picture before u claim to know history.
The tiger crew said that their 88mm didn't start penetrating its armor until have their farthest range of firing, so you fuck off you piece of fat stinky shit
Thats not true, The tiger was still a better tank, and the 88m gun was still more powerfull than the 122m of IS2. Not to mention all the other things making the Tiger more deadly, like better aiming optics, much more ammo (liek 100 rounds) The is2 could only carry around 20-30 shells, making it run out of amme real quick.
sieg hail?,i never had a better friend.,i called him a nigger,i lied to him,i wanted him to hate me,so i could have a reason to hate him,but he woulden't,he stood by me even when i woulden't.
Well.. The Tiger tank it's cannon was so powerfull that they couldn't even shoot as they were driving... The T-34 came with armor that was diagonally making it thicker but giving much less space... Each design had it's fauls... (sorry for my bad english... I'm Dutch and I'm only 14 :D...)
the tiger was an open country tank where its range of knocking out targets came into effect in build up areas it was totally useless and slow to manufacture hence the avantages of the allied armour which could be preduced far quicker(as stated about the T-34's)
The Tiger was first used in action in September 1942 near Leningrad. Under pressure from Hitler the tank was put into action months earlier than planned and many early models proved to be mechanically fragile. In its first action on 23 September 1942, many of the first Tigers broke down. Others were knocked out by dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns. One tank was captured largely intact, which gave the Soviets a chance to study the tank and prepare a response.
The only shermans that really had a chance were the firefly's with the 17pdr gun. they could penetrate the tigers side armor at about 500 yards. the pershings 90mm had no problem with the frontal armor. But the Tiger held its own really until air power took away its advantage, same in modern warfare, a tank is only good when it has friendly air cover and supporting infantry
Whole true in west was that allies would have had no chanche without their massive air forces. Few battles they had to fight without air support were in Hurtgen forest and Ardennes and allied (americans) almost totally collapsed.
but even in those battles where the allies had few tanks on the line (due to terrain and supply problems mainly) the germans had little in the way of armor. what armor they had was low on fuel and eventually the thrust fell apart due to logistics, IF they had the logistics the line may have collapsed until the weather cleared and allied air power came back into play. at least thats how i see it would have went.
the tiger was the best tank in WWII it had a kill ratio of 10 to 1 .the only problem with that was the allie tanks outnumbered them with much greater odds.the tank was years ahead of its time.
@HistoryChannelWW2 no, buddhist
Imachowderhead 2 months ago
My uncles neighbor in Germany was a Tiger Driver in ww2. He said their tank was hit over 60 times in battle and never skipped a beat. They destroyed over 20 Shermans, now thats German engineering.
Imachowderhead 5 months ago
Idk why, but pazner looks scary
Gameland10 6 months ago
if this was produced in massive numbers not (I think 1300) and more like 20,000 we would all be german now lol
RichardLvsHisBabys 6 months ago
The Ardennes Offensive is a prime example of their shortcomings. The offensive was hampered by repeated breakdowns by the Tigers.
GoPhils13 1 year ago
@GoPhils13 Wrong. Very few Tigers were used in the Ardennes Offensive. There were only two German heavy tank battalions present and of the 1,800 German AFVs only 100 were Tiger I and II.
jackzero99 1 year ago
@jackzero99
whether there were Tigers in Ardenne is questionable all together. Maybe some from the panzer regiments.
Majority were Panthers, some Kingtigers.
brassnautilus 11 months ago
You might want to read what the Germans say about the Soviet tanks, as they tried to duplicate them as well as incorporate them into their Panzer units. The Tiger was not a mobile tank. You can read a tank grunts comments but all the evidence in tactical use repeatedly show that it was not an efficient offensive weapon. Much that is written about Tigers in the English language will give it glowing reviews because US and UK tanks were light tanks, with limited armor, easy prey for Tigers.
GoPhils13 1 year ago
@GoPhils13 Over 96,500 soviet tanks and SPGs were destroyed during WWII. The Germans should be lucky they didn't duplicate those losses
jackzero99 1 year ago
@GoPhils13
What about all the false reports of Tiger sightings on both fronts? Allies ground forces were scared sh*tless of the Tigers. All the units with Tigers had huge kill-loss ratios. Some over 15:1. SS.pz.abt 102 for example, killed over 1200 armored vehicles in the span of 3 weeks by maintaining close to 30 tigers running, and received no more than 30 resupplies total during that time.
I'd like to see your sources of "all the books" you've read regarding Tiger engines too.
brassnautilus 11 months ago
great vid!
schnappsundlarger 1 year ago
Tiger tanks and Panther tanks are my favorite
Sentowon 1 year ago
which is the name of that song
gerardoj334 1 year ago
@gerardoj334 Panzer rollen in Afrika vor.
filip92belgrade 1 year ago
which is the name of that song
gerardoj334 1 year ago
The Tiger has gained mythological status. Fact is a relatively small number were produced. Guderian was not initially impressed with either the Panther or Tiger and it showed at Kursk. Tigers' engines had a tendency to catch fire and were very immobile. Shermans could be repaired quickly, Tiger repair was time consuming. Armor not sloped so it absorbed rounds. A very dangerous tank, but the Panther was superior and more importantly and critically so was the T-34/85
GoPhils13 1 year ago
@GoPhils13 Where do you get your information from? All the books I have read on Tigers written by those who fought in them and against them would dissagree with your comments. "Tigers' engines had a tendency to catch fire and were very immobile" not from what the crews say. "Tiger repair was time consuming" Once again not what the crews say.
Try reading some books written by the Germans them selves and I'll think you'll find they loved these tanks.
nzmonsterman 1 year ago
Alle Niggers mussen sterban...Oh, lasst die juden nicht vergessen...
schicktd 1 year ago
another proof of german technological superiority at that time !
skyforer 1 year ago
There are a lot of ppl commenting on this vid comparing the Tiger to a Sherman. An unfair comparison. The Sherman was good at what it was designed to do which is support the advance of the infantry. It was not designed as a rival to tanks like the Tiger or the Panther. The M26 Pershing would be a better comparison.
The best tank of the war was the Panther. Its a good thing Hitler didn't focus production on that tank or the war may have lasted a little longer.
biglou250 1 year ago
Most germans are faggots w/ Russian fathers.
4everfreedomfighter 1 year ago
what year they were produced and how many were made?
Rico8458 1 year ago
the only problem with the tiger was its engine everything else was good
MrUnrealone 1 year ago
i want to see this video about MAUS tank
bestamerica 1 year ago
hey up, the catapillar tracks was designed by the english..anyway, i think The Germans are brilliant people
mufferrs 1 year ago
tiger is the panzer 6!! panther is panzer 5!!
TheMvessel 1 year ago
this year is the year of the TIGER!! cheers for the metal 88 beast!!
ikmal017 2 years ago 3
Overall, the Sherman tank wasn't the best tank, but it in my opinion was the finest tank of the war. It could go places the tiger couldn't. It was faster. It also could be modified in many ways. The tiger wasn't able to be modified that much at all.
USSIowaBattleship61 2 years ago
oh, you are a fan of ronson? how does it go: "lights first time, every time"?
degenericni 2 years ago
Bro you suxs
It seems that you are a fat yank piece of shit.
That was at 3 km! and with and old kwk36 88 mm .
So fuck off
g36c1 2 years ago
Tell that to the yanks crew that were coocked by german firepower
g36c1 2 years ago 3
Tiger was many stronger than sherman, that all who knows history knows that too.That was one of the largest construction mistakes(shermans), because allies was needed tank which can parry to german tanks, and they wanted something better than tigers. They made sherman, witch isnt so bad, but its light tank and had no chance versus tiger, heavy tank. So by my opinion and many historians tiger was 1 of the best ww2 tanks...
stonoteniskisampion 2 years ago 3
@stonoteniskisampion Indeed. Even British said that 1 tiger was equal to 3 shermans.
Upinsmokemate 1 year ago
No. The task of the sherman was not to engage the tiger but to support infantry which he did well. Of course Shermans had also to fight against Tigers if they encounterd them but it was not their main task. The Pershing was made to engage the Tiger and Panther and was very successfull in this role. And please, the Tiger was by no means the best tank of WWII. Try to define what best means. It was not a futuristic design. Just a big cannon on some think steel plates. The Panther was better!
DavidVanPatten 1 year ago 2
@DavidVanPatten well, theres some truth in your comment, but tiger was very good, mabye the best ww2 tank...read, watch and you will see...
stonoteniskisampion 1 year ago
@DavidVanPatten I believe there is only one encounter with a Pershing.. vs a Tiger I and little is known about that. (propaganda most likely). The Pershing arrived to late to really get blooded in combat, and had its own teething problems. I know one Pershing was knocked out by a SP Nashorn. That tank was of course primarily used in Korea vs the T-34 and most likely older JS tanks.
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
@JuergenGDB
I don't know about the Pershing encountering the Tiger but I know about them encountering Panthers (the famous Cologne battle for example) . Of course the Pershing had its problems and arrived too late what I meant is that you cannot compare apples to oranges. The Tiger was a terrific machine of course but please put it into context with comparable machines!
DavidVanPatten 1 year ago
@DavidVanPatten The Pershing was a Heavy Tank.. The Tiger was a Heavy tank... how is that not comparable?
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
@JuergenGDB
I meant the Sherman mot the Pershing since everybody seems to compare the Tiger with the Sherman or T-34.
DavidVanPatten 1 year ago
@DavidVanPatten Oh yeah.. will that makes sense.. The Sherman was only really comparable to the Panzer Mk IV. Yeah.. that makes sense no worries mate.
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
Tiger is one mighty tank!
it uses WW2 most feared cannon, the cannon on the Tiger was used to hit enemy planes, but Germans figured if they lowered the cannon, it could destroy tanks.
So they added armor all around it and it gives the Mighty Tiger.
Deadly.
FousLaMerde 2 years ago
In every man is a little bit of nationalism founded a bit of national/militaristic feelings.
(Little plastic tanks in the childhood)
But you have to learn that its much better to live in peace and harmony.
Maybe get an asian girlfriend or make a little tour to Australia. Visit Italy or France, go skiing in Austria and Norway. Try other cultures. Food, religion and much more. The world is a great place to be.
94Bluefire94 2 years ago 16
All these comments: How great the tiger is.
Maybe it was one of the best machines for its time but you have to sit in such a battle on your own to know what fear and death are meaning.
War is hell and no glory will come over that.
94Bluefire94 2 years ago 2
Well, I'd rather be afraid in a tiger than dead in a sherman.
Streptokokki 2 years ago 10
I'd rather live in freedom and peace.
These modern tanks; Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, t90? We dont need them that much.
Just when a second conflict like the one in georgia starts and Russia gets angry. But before its to late launch the nukes and destroy mother earth.
No Thanks.
No im not a "hippie" but its my opinion.
94Bluefire94 2 years ago
actuallly, we do. just in case another race of life (alpha-draconians, greys, reptillians etc.) invade us, we may have a chance if we fight them.
TheCIScommander 2 years ago
oh g... see that cannon... 76mm of pure death... shermans were like ducks for that cannon... the only tank who can face that tank without fear was the T-34... but the tiger showed to be the best tank from this era... good in the desert, good in the snow, good in the mud, good everywhere... this machine is a masterpiece of the engineering...
Ryaguas 2 years ago
Wasn't it an 88mm? And 76mm on the Panther?
Neferazo 2 years ago
High Velocity 75mm for Panther, you were very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very close +9 points :D
USSIowaBattleship61 2 years ago
Hehe, thanks :D
Neferazo 2 years ago
At 4:52 it shows the confidence that the tiger crews had in their armour, firing from an exposed position and exposing their weaker side armour and tracks to the enemy. In any other tank the commander would be looking to get into a hull down position to lessen his profile and exposure to enemy fire.
paul6t4 2 years ago
do have to say compared to the shermans an all the tiger was the best looking tank of ww2, shes a beauty
Goose4god 2 years ago
"best looking tank of WWII?" Anything that stood for murder, genocide, pillaging, death, destruction, evil, the deaths of over 50 million people, could not possibly be the, "best", of anything.
Echeque5 2 years ago
okay, if youre so concerned about the war, genocide, an all that..... why are you on a page with videos of WW2 tanks etc??? youre kinda shooting yousself in the foot mate.... and yes... htey way this tank could move, its smoothness over hard terrain etc... it was a master peice of technology and a beautiful machine... it was the people who drove them that killed people....but thats my opinion, were all enitiled to our own, no offence was meant to be caused
Goose4god 2 years ago
Tiger 1 was the best panzer in ze ww2 :)
Tiger1AuasfE 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the tiger's only fault was the 90 degree armour and it did have a too little engine. i guess the panther was the best standard tank in ww2 because it was the best compromise between speed, firepower, armour and flexibility
Timme71m 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i disagree. the T-34 was prob the best tank
Kapiwolf123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well , ok
Timme71m 2 years ago
Timme - For its design type, the Tiger's armor was excellent. The consistent problems it had were poor reliability from the underpowered engine/overstressed drivetrain, (as you correctly noted), and also they were manufactured by slave labor who had a vested interest in the tank breaking down, as many of them did. On paper they were good, but in practice/reality, they frequently broke down.
Echeque5 2 years ago
Steelinfrino - Which is why so many of them were lost to mechanical breakdowns.
Echeque5 2 years ago
I agree with you 100%
N1DE0N 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HUGE RESPECT to your grandfather man!!!
Ferschumi 2 years ago
My late father was an RAF armourer who bombed up Typhoons with rockets that were used against these at Falaise.
thesungoesdown50 2 years ago
steelinfrino - The Tiger was not, "uneatable in battle one on one". Many Tigers were blown up all the time. They weren't indestructible. Yes, the Tiger broke down frequently.
Echeque5 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Echeque5 you are fuckin idiot!Typical stupid yank...american...american...ammerrican,you make me laugh!Go fuck your Sherman tanks if you want to nobody cares but don´t come up with a load of crap like "that the Tiger was´nt actually the best tank in WWII" and other shit like that!Every war historian and even a five year old kid knows that nothing could beat the Tiger I on the Battlefield in WWII !!!Fuck your Shermans and other crap,stupid brainless yank!!!
Ferschumi 2 years ago
Ferschumi - They have medications now for anger control issues, like you demonstrate. There is hope, really. If nothing could beat the Tiger, how come they were blown up left and right? Hmmm....interesting how some people can't see something even though its right in front of their face.
Echeque5 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haaahaaahaaaa funny Mr.Comedian...NOT!!!The best thing that you could do is just shut the hell up you stupid imbecile,because no one cares about your bull-shit stories here!"Tigers were blown up left and right" LOL...do you even believe what you´re saying asshole???Ofcourse many Tigers were lost but not until they had destroyed much-much-much more Allied tanks!You´re probably among the most stupid people ever,like I said...typical yank!!!
Ferschumi 2 years ago
Slow down, of course tiger tanks were better - but they had disadvantages too. They were slow and very breakable.
N1DE0N 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Tiger was eatable? weird....
Kapiwolf123 2 years ago
HarveyHenkelmann - The American Sherman tank could fire its main gun while on the move and with decent accuracy. It was one of the advantages the Sherman had, not to mention good speed.
Echeque5 2 years ago
True
N1DE0N 2 years ago
hmm the tiger was better than most tanks , yes, getting its ass was difficult because it was quite fast and agile for a tank of its huge weight.
The problem was clutch,gearbox, and power transmission to the tracks, they were too small for a heavy battle tank.
They failed rather often.
In the german very heavy tanks like the kingtiger and elephant the downtimes were even longer , those tanks were down like 50% of the time due to drive system failure
Mrpsychotehpyro 2 years ago 2
Mrpsychotehpro - You are 100% correct of course, but trying to convince the tank video playing kids of the facts, well good luck. They seem to think a tank's battle effectiveness, or not, is dependent on how it looks and sounds. Pretty sad. The supposed superior German engineering of their tanks,( when many of them broke down and often as you correctly noted), left much to be desired.
Echeque5 2 years ago
NOO NOO buddy - tigers were better - as germans were better - but there was 1 disadvantage for germans - they were very outnumbered and surrounde by Russia, USA, Britania and other allies.
N1DE0N 2 years ago 2
N1DEON - Yes, the Tiger tank was better...at breaking down. Very, very unreliable piece of equipment, as it was made by slave labor. Not exactly a, "high quality workforce".
Echeque5 2 years ago
This tank was a brilliant on that times. Tigers can take down 10 Russians T-34 or Americans Shermans And Still Stand
N1DE0N 2 years ago
the tiger tank was a very powerful tank but it had to weak points: one hit in the ass then it was knocked out, and it couldnt drive and shoot at the same time, it had to stop, aim and then fire.
jumalauta1993 2 years ago
No, it was heavily armoured throughout, although the front is thicker. No, it is not easy to shoot a tank in the ass.
Kamikazeesouled 2 years ago
i didnt say it was easy to shoot a tank in in the ass and the ass to a tiger tank wasnt heavily armoured
jumalauta1993 2 years ago
Deutsche Wertarbeit zählt. Nun rettet sie wohl auch GM.
Leider wird sie auch für diese Zwecke für den Angriff eingesetzt. Komisch zu wissen, dass es falsch ist und dennoch irgendwie stolz auf diese Arbeit zu sein.
9pforten 2 years ago
till the pershings ripped their butt's
area51R4 2 years ago
omg no way
RhastaFlex 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jefneurotoxin 2 years ago
see the germans cant even make an entertaining vidieo. but thats not why they lost the war . they lost becauase hitler and the axis powers were on the wrong side of history. and thank god for that. or we would all be eating sourkrout and speaking german.
ruger1430 2 years ago
Sauerkraut is great and German is an wonderful language. :Statement of my french and polish friends.
But, this war was not necessary.... so useless.
9pforten 2 years ago
Love that tiger:)
HAYUPAKARINGID 2 years ago
Tiger Tank is the most famous tank in history!1 Tiger can kill 10 shermans same time!
germanysbest89 3 years ago 2
germanysbest89 - The Tiger tank was a good tank, on paper, but in practice they frequently broke down because they were manufactured using slave labor. It was a mechanical piece of junk, which is one reason why the lost.
Echeque5 2 years ago
That muzzle brake at 3.23 looks suspiciously non Tiger - maybe panzer IV
Jagdtoq 3 years ago
Also nach meiner meinung ist der Panther kein schlechter Panzer nur der Tiger kann sich heute was feuerkraft und Panzerung angeht wie BBC mal sagte mit jedem heutigen Panzer messen.
Ich habe mal ein Manöver bei den Amis beobachtet da haben die mit den Veteranen besetzten Panzer ein A1 ? gegen einen Tiger kämpfen lassen simuliert natürlich und was machen die Amis kratzen die Kurve als sie den Tiger gesehen haben trotz technischer überlegenheit und Panzerung
flak105mm 3 years ago
Tiger eats raw shermans for breakfast
BlackLooka 3 years ago 7
BlackLooka - Before a Tiger, "eats", anything, it has to be repaired over and over again.
Echeque5 2 years ago
Schönes Video, der Tiger ist großartig !!!
Ich denke, Alles in Allem waren der Panther G der rundum beste Panzer, Jagdpanther ( Jagdpanzer )richtungsweisend in Form / abgeschrägte Panzerung / Waffe und Funktion.
fockewulfsuperass 3 years ago 3
I hate commies as much as nazis but your still correct about the T-34/85. Keep it up!
ImparatorEugenius 3 years ago
Sorry, I didnt know what I was thinking there, the abram would win, but the tiger WAS terror on treads, definitely a powerful beast though, you would have to agree with that.
trudeau123 3 years ago
the Leopard II is the new king (Tiger)...the M1/A1 eats shit!
9thprotocol 3 years ago
I like Panzer more.
hlwanmoe1981 3 years ago
This is a panzer.. The best 1
BlackLooka 3 years ago 4
The Tiger is a Panzer you tard monkey
USSIowaBattleship61 2 years ago
I mean other panzers..you lousy aggressive hardtard, everybody knows tiger is panzer. I was wrong typo idiot.
hlwanmoe1981 2 years ago 2
Very beautiful video, and super tank !
VideosDiverses 3 years ago
A really good tank, but i don't like the people it fought for
Mallemaster 3 years ago
my favorite tank!!!
HAYUPAKARINGID 3 years ago
THIS was a real tank. Nothing like these sissy Abrams we've got today.
tehDman 3 years ago 6
LOL. In a way, this is a distant Abrams-ancestor. (the Abrams really is more German than anything else - reserach MBT-70 if in doubt).
StaatsSicherheitBRD 3 years ago 2
The gun on the Abrams is German engineered, the same one the Germans use on their Leopard II tanks
lykourgous 3 years ago 2
I MISS YOU GOOD OLD GERMANY! :(
DivisionDirlewanger 3 years ago 5
i love this tank.
Tiger1AuasfE 3 years ago 3
kos okhtko wlad sharmotah!!!!!!!!
palestine4eever 3 years ago
Great video,I love the awesome music.
Wonkabar007 3 years ago 4
the movie is about the tank itself not propaganda..
tanasexu 3 years ago 3
Exellent video ! Please,what's title of music ?
Alexandre60100 3 years ago
It's PANZER ROLLEN IN AFRIKA VOR
Karl
952358 3 years ago
кал собачий ломался постоянно сочий ля пояно
Indexsonnora 3 years ago
VEry nice!!!!! I LOve Tiger tanks!
cibzi13 3 years ago 4
кал собачий ломался постоянно
adekolon 3 years ago
And the Tigers did have a very important role, Shame that by the time they came in Hitler had bungled up things so much that they couldnt use em for that role, they were made and set upto be used to break throught the enemy lines, then the Panzer 4's nd other motorized units would follow from behind, Take lead and race forwward. they were the nneeded breakthrought tanks.
69sexdemon69 3 years ago
Panzer 4 was one of there best tanks, But in my view the Panther G was the best, And it would have been no use for Germany to consentrate on trying to build numbers vs numbers, They didnt have the resources or the production facilities, not to mention they didnt have that amount of fuel.
69sexdemon69 3 years ago 3
the 1:45 mark has that awesome shot of the Tigers at Kursk used in the "Red Star" espisode of WORLD AT WAR. I could just watch that looped all day.
aylmer666 3 years ago
Germans did build great tanks. Its liek someone said, it was quality or over engineering that was at fault. For every 1 tiger, 10 shermans were produced. Noone can ever argue that the germans didnt have the best tanks in the world. I think the hellcat and tank destroyers are often overlooked, they had a big impact at end of war.
phishinguy2000 3 years ago
I think the americans choose the right decision to still use Sherman tank design despite obvious disadvantage w/ the German Tank. Because if they tried to mach it. Imagine transporting those heavy tank accross the Atlantic & producing big numbers in a hurry. At the same time they still dont have big harbors for quick transport of heavy equipment. Also they already have air supperiority. They are just being practical.
unearth1980 3 years ago 2
Germans prefered quality over quantity. the tiger, panther, and tiger II were good tanks and comfortable for the crew. and a comfortable crew means an efficiant crew.
duleknife 3 years ago 3
Im in love with this wonder creation.
Tiger1AuasfE 3 years ago 2
me too
Rowheart 3 years ago
i guess the "panther" was much more efficient .... because he was faster not so haevy and 7.5 cm gun ... with hughe firepower ... and not so expensive and u could build more in less time ...
Ockenfels 3 years ago
Ockenfels,
The Panther wasn't around in late 1942 and the first half of 1943. Even then,the Panther didn't iron out it's teething problems until early 1944.
The Tiger I was an INVALUABLE tank in 1943.
Mangani245 3 years ago
david1yoyo is not intellagent. we are comparing to other tanks of that age not modern world plus the best tank right now is the leopard, so much better then the abrams, you know how much heat signal is blown outta that thing, if a country attacked us abrams with only heat seeking missles, the country would win(just aircrafter vs tank or watever)
0manager0 3 years ago
Fucking good Video.
Marsmaxl 3 years ago
Yes the tiger tank was probably the stongest tank in the war it was terror on treads not even the heavily armored U.S abram tank could withstand the ultimate firepower of the monstrous tiger although sadly since the allies won the germans could no longer have war machines without permissin of the U.S and the other allies such as Britain Russia Canada Australia and other countries that had fought in the alongside with allies.
trudeau123 4 years ago
r u kidding a abrhams would blow the hell out of a tiger!!!! a tiger has an 88mm gun an abrams 120mm and the abrams has atken on the t seires of russian tanks and has beaten them
david1yoyo 3 years ago
So? The Israeli Merkava was the First tank to take out a T series Tank, T72 in the baqa'a Valley! (Syrians were using them.)
Took it out from 1 mile!
actonlion 3 years ago
Your talking about a 60yrs difference buddy. Tiger was famous during its time in the mid 1940's. Abram is a famous tank from early 2000 till now. There are several tanks that are top notch today: American Abram A1A2, British Challenger 2, Israeli Merkava, Russian T-90, German Leopard 2 A6 & South Korean XK2.
gravelandx88 3 years ago
HAHA russian power your funny. top 3 tanks in WW2: King Tiger, Tiger, and Panther. dude the russians have traditionally been beat on in these wars then the winter kicks in and they turn everything around. the ruskies lost the most men, tanks, planes, material in ww2. The germans have traditonally had THE BEST tanks in the world. hell even when we first allowed them to make a tank after ww2 they cranked out one just as good as the M1 and now they have better.
PanzerVIECommander 4 years ago
Your wrong..
True that the russians gained A LOT because the german equipment failures due to the cold (including the tanks).
But the situation when the germans invaded russia was similar of that when they invaded france. Compared to russia and france their tank forces where inferior. But their tactics was by far superior.
true germans got the advantage with the tiger and later panther. This answered by russia with the t34 85 and the IS tanks.
GimpMagic 4 years ago
The T34/85s were not a match for either the PZ V or VI. All T34s had 45mm front hull armour & the 85 had 75mm turret armour less than both Pz V & VI. The 85mm gun wasn't as good as Pz V & VI either. The IS 1 & early IIs were also armed with the 85mm making them weaker. Th 122mm L43 gun & 120mm armoured IS II's gun was more of a multipurpose gun than AT but equaling with Pz V & VI - didn't need it by then. The IS III didn't see action but slightly inferior to the Tiger IIs gun/armour ratio.
brumbar162 4 years ago 2
Yeah that sound correct. Though i never said they where equal matches even if i understand it could be interpreted that way due to the first part of my post :)
The point i was trying to make was that the technology advantage wasnt always in the germans corner(although they hade some great weapons in all categorys) but the deciding factor that took them through the war was skill, training and devotion.
GimpMagic 4 years ago
+ Seems like the reply function sucks the big one as well.
GimpMagic 4 years ago
GRMANIA!!!
rweessen07 4 years ago
Michael Wittmann 4 ever !!!!!!
ReiAyanami4ever 4 years ago
The tiger tank was the allies most feared enemy.
Redstar8254 4 years ago 2
Shermans was only good in masses. The siluette was to high and the armor to weak. One Tiger was abel to beat out a company of Shermans when the commannder of the Tiger where good.
VaelSGE 4 years ago 5
But The Pershing Was a better thank or im wrong
BelmontsBlood 4 years ago
Well, it would at least be a fair challange for the tiger, though, I believe that the tiger still proved to be a notch better in combat.
KimJongI 4 years ago
The sherman sucked the big one compared to the tiger. But they operated in large numbers, making them able to take their opponents out by hitting their weak spots. This causing alot of casualties for the allys. Think i heard a figure that 5-6 shermans was scrapped per every tiger or panther statistically. Casualties they contracted when charging the german tanks.
GimpMagic 4 years ago
The first Pershing tank ever lost was a kill by a Tiger (in the city of Aachen if i remember correctly).
matt47110815 4 years ago
The Pershing's 90mm L51 gun was not as powerful as the Tiger's 1936 designed L56 88mm gun. As the Tiger 1 tank design was 3 years older, the proper comparision was to the King Tiger (Tiger II) which completely outclassed the Pershing.
brumbar162 4 years ago
The allie forces did not have any tank that could penetrate the front armor facia plate of any tiger 1 or konig 2.Check out "achtung panzer"website. Nuff said!
slickwing 4 years ago
Check it agian buddy. None of the 770 King Tiger's front armour was penetrated however the Tiger 1's front plate could be penetrated by the (inaccurate) UK 77mm, US 90mm, Rus 100mm & Rus 122mm, at various ranges. Equally, the Tiger 1 could defeat tanks carrying these guns usually at farther ranges. The King Tiger was developed to replace the Tiger 1 as the Germans needed to maintain tank superiority because they didn't have the resources to out produce, or out supply, the USSR & US.
brumbar162 4 years ago
There is one ww2 tank that beat the tiger....The might king tiger! Also the sherman was better in one way......numbers. And don`t forget the M4 crocediles and M4 fireflies.
YaLolROFLs 4 years ago
its simple and widely known that the Tiger was a good tank, but if you looks up the books the tigers reliability, lack of numbers, complex design and daily bombing of factories denied it the dominance it MAY have claimed. remove allied air power and the tiger would have been a hell of alot harder to remove, but it would have still happened due to a factor of numbers and its reliability.. so dont argue over one little thing, look at the whole picture before u claim to know history.
ck002 4 years ago
""so dont argue over one little thing, look at the whole picture""
The whole picture? Ok, when all is said and done the Tiger had a 10 to 1 kill ratio. We can't get anymore of a 'whole picture' than that.
It was also of tremendous psychological value, both to the Germans and to their allied enemies.
cameronburge 4 years ago
this i sna outrage! u know nothing!
warveteren 4 years ago
tiger is the best
xzcronozx 4 years ago
IS tanks were garbage only had the numbers .. easy prey espec for 88mm , Koenigstiger & Panther were much better
valkoren 4 years ago
no IS2 vs tiger Is2 wins ask all world war 2 experts
warmoviesboy 4 years ago
fock off retarted. the tiger could destroy that piece of crap .
g36c1 4 years ago
The IS2 will own pwn and burn the tiger
The tiger crew said that their 88mm didn't start penetrating its armor until have their farthest range of firing, so you fuck off you piece of fat stinky shit
USSIowaBattleship61 2 years ago
Thats not true, The tiger was still a better tank, and the 88m gun was still more powerfull than the 122m of IS2. Not to mention all the other things making the Tiger more deadly, like better aiming optics, much more ammo (liek 100 rounds) The is2 could only carry around 20-30 shells, making it run out of amme real quick.
MissMan666 4 years ago 3
sieg hail?,i never had a better friend.,i called him a nigger,i lied to him,i wanted him to hate me,so i could have a reason to hate him,but he woulden't,he stood by me even when i woulden't.
blazerblast 4 years ago
sig hail!!!
:-)))
nazi schmatzi...
KARAKARTAL1000 4 years ago
Well.. The Tiger tank it's cannon was so powerfull that they couldn't even shoot as they were driving... The T-34 came with armor that was diagonally making it thicker but giving much less space... Each design had it's fauls... (sorry for my bad english... I'm Dutch and I'm only 14 :D...)
guyon2342 4 years ago
the tiger was an open country tank where its range of knocking out targets came into effect in build up areas it was totally useless and slow to manufacture hence the avantages of the allied armour which could be preduced far quicker(as stated about the T-34's)
smokedem 4 years ago
The Tiger was first used in action in September 1942 near Leningrad. Under pressure from Hitler the tank was put into action months earlier than planned and many early models proved to be mechanically fragile. In its first action on 23 September 1942, many of the first Tigers broke down. Others were knocked out by dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns. One tank was captured largely intact, which gave the Soviets a chance to study the tank and prepare a response.
timo1595 4 years ago
The only shermans that really had a chance were the firefly's with the 17pdr gun. they could penetrate the tigers side armor at about 500 yards. the pershings 90mm had no problem with the frontal armor. But the Tiger held its own really until air power took away its advantage, same in modern warfare, a tank is only good when it has friendly air cover and supporting infantry
ck002 4 years ago
OMFG haven't u played Company of heroes or what???
SgunfireS 4 years ago
COH is a game, it doesnt adhere to the reality of what the real things can actually do. real tanks dont have hit points lol
ck002 4 years ago
My fall didn't do some research first
SgunfireS 4 years ago
lol its cool, but when you read up on it you see how big a strugle it really was. it may tag ur intrest a bit :)
ck002 4 years ago
Whole true in west was that allies would have had no chanche without their massive air forces. Few battles they had to fight without air support were in Hurtgen forest and Ardennes and allied (americans) almost totally collapsed.
timo1595 4 years ago
but even in those battles where the allies had few tanks on the line (due to terrain and supply problems mainly) the germans had little in the way of armor. what armor they had was low on fuel and eventually the thrust fell apart due to logistics, IF they had the logistics the line may have collapsed until the weather cleared and allied air power came back into play. at least thats how i see it would have went.
ck002 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW WEAK..!!! ALL NUKES & WEAPONS OF HUMANS CANNOT EVEN DESTROY EARTH.. very very weak weapons..!!!
earth must be planted of super bomb also the universe must be destroyed...!!!
zudunow 4 years ago
cool
g36c1 4 years ago
88mmm power haus.. lets go drink beer now..ja??.. i like it best when the 88 pops tops off at 2500m.. danke und oust..
jeffsteadman 4 years ago
some fucken tank where can I buy 1, and take where I live apart
michaelwright999 4 years ago
ТИГРа мощная машина.
AVAOD 4 years ago
the tiger was the best tank in WWII it had a kill ratio of 10 to 1 .the only problem with that was the allie tanks outnumbered them with much greater odds.the tank was years ahead of its time.
username0u812ic 4 years ago