King Tiger

Tiger II is the common name of a German heavy tank of the Second World War. The official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B and the tank also had the ordnance inventory designation SdKfz 182. It is also known under the informal name Königstiger (German: Bengal Tiger), often incorrectly translated as King Tiger and by the British as Royal Tiger.

The Tiger II combined the heavy armor of the Tiger I with the sloped armor of the Panther. The design followed the same concept as the Tiger I, but was intended to be even more formidable. The Tiger II chassis supplied the basis for the Jagdtiger turretless tank destroyer. The Tiger II weighed 68.5 (early turret) to 69.8 (production turret) tonnes, was protected by 150 to 180 mm of frontal armor, and was armed with the 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 gun.

The very heavy armor and powerful long-range gun gave the Tiger II the advantage against virtually all opposing tanks. This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and U.S. forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it. In a defensive position it was difficult to destroy, but offensively it performed with less success.

The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks. Defensively, the M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• King
• Tiger
• Tanks
• Panzerkampfwagen
• documentary

[Timx4]

German steel!

[EMIR72CC]

@akulaknight love u'r comment dude i say fuck russians when they claim they have the best tanks and shit ...

[warlordson123]

Russians tank can't even beat the King tiger,Only the British Fire Fly tank can pwn it...

[67tim1888]

the allies tanks are not worth mentioning in the same breath as the german ww2 tanks

[Dreachon]

@GeorgiaBoy1961

Nice arrogance.

I couldn't give a damn about an old fool to dumb to understand the truth, if you foolishly believe that ground attack aircraft were that great against tanks, then I pitty you.

[GeorgiaBoy1961]

@Dreachon: I have been studying the history of WWII for over forty years; I've forgotten more about it than you'll ever know. I don't give a damn what you think. That clear enough for you?

[Dreachon]

@Dreachon

In the Falaise gap examiners found 385 tanks and armoured vehicles. Of these 13 were confirmed as destroyed by aircraft. 11 by rocket and two by bombs. 

[Dreachon]

@Dreachon

During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 252 tanks, respectively.

It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.

[Dreachon]

@Dreachon

To give some examples.

During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles)

In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed)

[Dreachon]

@GeorgiaBoy1961

Well your sources are either outdated, based on myths or lying.

Close support airpower has been proven to be vastly overrated, US and British researchers went into Normandy follwoing the battle of Normandy and investigated every german vehicle they came across and their findibngs are quite clear,

[Dreachon]

@GeorgiaBoy1961

The only thing proven is that you believe in lies and old myths, Rudel claims have been proven for at least 10 years now to have been vastly inflated by the propaganda, instances like his claim of a battleship do not match, his claim of 12 tansk in 1 engagament do not add up.

[Dreachon]

@GeorgiaBoy1961

There is a world of difference between the threats to an armoured vehicle and the infantry in the open, once the infatry became entrenches as well the threat to them was also low.

Beeing under attack by ground atatck airrcaft was more of a psychological threat than a real threat.