For real, how good was the Tiger I? Better than the Panther?

For real, how good was the Tiger I? Better than the Panther?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Better than panther, but neither are very good.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Dubs of truth

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are you moronic?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not dubs and not true. Checks out.

          Nice dubs guys

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not dubs and not true. Checks out.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nice trips le friend! May I have some karma on this website?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      fpwp

      Tiger I was the best tank of WW2 and had the best K:D ratio.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > he believes in tiger K:D ratios

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that would be the StuG actually

        https://i.imgur.com/qFe6puz.jpg

        > he believes in tiger K:D ratios

        Tigers may not have been the 25:1 that some sources claim, but they did boost off soviet T-34s for 3 years so its probably 12:1 or something like that

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Don't frick with Luftwaffe armored divisions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didnt know the luftwaffe had armor divisions

            >that would be the StuG actually

            Lrn2numbers Black person.
            The STUG has the greatest TOTAL amount of kills, but not the best K/D ratio.

            I swear to Doge, Tiger bashers are all drooling morons and Mutt fanboys.

            >Tiger bashers
            and I aint one of them, I just dont pick one tank and fanboy about it. I actually like the Panther and StuG more, but the Tiger was actually a good tank

            https://i.imgur.com/2wbOzTw.jpg

            >but they did boost off soviet T-34s for 3 years so its probably 12:1

            Also dabbed on helpless, small-dicked Shermans in North Africa and then France, so that helped boost K:D numbers.

            >small-dicked Shermans in North Africa and then France
            Tigers werent in enough numbers to do that really, not even a division worth was sent I think? and wasnt there only two heavy armor division in all of france that operated the Tiger? most tigers were off fighting the commies. Im pulling some numbers out of my ass but I know there werent many

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Oh yes. The main reason the Stug got popular enough for mass adoption across all branches was because of their excellent performance under the Luftwaffe.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >their excellent performance under the Luftwaffe
                friggin gool, I gotta look that up

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I actually like the Panther and StuG more, but the Tiger was actually a good tank

              Well then you're stupid.
              Panther was clearly defective and hastily developed.
              STUG was just a poor man's tank.

              Tiger I was a Vatnik/Mutt killing machine.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Well then you're stupid.
                >Panther was clearly defective and hastily developed.
                >STUG was just a poor man's tank.
                what a pointlessly antagonistic statement

                https://i.imgur.com/8CM3wQK.jpg

                >and wasnt there only two heavy armor division in all of france that operated the Tiger? most tigers were off fighting the commies. Im pulling some numbers out of my ass but I know there werent many

                Yeah, they mauled the Angl*s around Caen (took them 2 months to take Caen which was supposed to be a D-Day objective, lmao).

                >checkd
                >they mauled the Angl*s around Caen
                its funny how the GIs saw Tigers behind every bush, but the brits actually fought them

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >and wasnt there only two heavy armor division in all of france that operated the Tiger? most tigers were off fighting the commies. Im pulling some numbers out of my ass but I know there werent many

              Yeah, they mauled the Angl*s around Caen (took them 2 months to take Caen which was supposed to be a D-Day objective, lmao).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >that would be the StuG actually

          Lrn2numbers Black person.
          The STUG has the greatest TOTAL amount of kills, but not the best K/D ratio.

          I swear to Doge, Tiger bashers are all drooling morons and Mutt fanboys.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Wermacht/SS hands typed this post
            Luftwaffe Stugs for the win.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >but they did boost off soviet T-34s for 3 years so its probably 12:1

          Also dabbed on helpless, small-dicked Shermans in North Africa and then France, so that helped boost K:D numbers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They should have just mass produced Pz IVs
      Not pictured: a Pz IV

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >They should have just mass produced Pz IVs

        They did not have the... well every thing.
        Fuel, men and factory space.

        Knowing you can get 3-4 Pz IV's for every Tiger 1 does nothing if the factory can not man them and your local logistics will not even make the parts you need at scale.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Also how long will the 4 PzIV last in direct combat compared to one tiger and how much fuel and ammo and personel do you need to transport and use to support them properly.

          In all those question the Panther and Tiger become much more cost effective suddenly.

          Also how much crew and how many vehicles will you lose if you attack with 400 PzIV vs 100 Tigers or like 300 Panthers, I am not sure about the cost of Panthers vs normal Panzer Version but it was nearly the same

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A panther cost as much as a panzer 4 towards the end of the war so that being the case you might as well just build the panther because it was superior.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >cost
            is not a good way to calculate these things in war, when all the rules for a normal economy are suspended
            raw materials and man-hours of work are better measures then
            even so, it's really hard to get proper figures depending on what components exactly are included, but one relative measure I've seen a couple times is that a Tiger I took twice as many man-hours to build as a Panther, and a Panther took twice as many man-hours to build as a Panzer IV
            no doubt the Stug III was even cheaper

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Except the Panzer IV was a shit tank that could get killed by anything heavier than a .50 caliber on the battlefield.

        Whereas the Tiger I had the survivability to take hits and stay in the fight which made its presence decisive on both tactical and sometimes operational levels.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Also to add on what other anons said, Pz IV cost the same as Panther lmao.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Worse than the Panther, but both are very good.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a shitty tank, big as a house, dangerously overweight, with an atrocious armor scheme that just screams incompetence and constantly ridden with transmission issues and other electric mishaps. it couldn't steer too fast or the tracks would break, it couldn't shoot on the move or the turret would fly backwards and take the commander with him. the only good thing about it was the gun, which was still too powerful for its frame.
    the germans were very, very lucky throughout ww2 and i think hitler genuinely did some vodoo shit with his thule society cause somehow this orkish thing worked, and it took too long for the americans (the british are a lost cause) to figure out how tanks are supposed to work.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh look, ww2 fudd lore.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        seethe wehraboo, your precious aryan ubermenschen were too stupid to invent sloped armor, the fricking soviet drunks did it first. and when you finally applied it it was too late.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >wehraboo
          does this term even mean anything in a post Ukraine-Russian war world? Wehraboos have been proven right about everything, without lend-lease Russians are only capable of human waves. It's hilarious that the feat Russians base their entire identity around has now been proven to be due to Americans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Except for the little detail where Wehraboos also claim Americans and their equipment were shit compared to what Germany had in WW2.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            just because the russians are shit it doesn't mean the germans weren't a bunch of pervitin addled lunatics larping as supervillains while dying like flies

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >pervitin addled lunatics
              good job exposing yourself as a moron, the US handed out over 2x the amount of Benzedrine to soldiers as Germany produced for their entire population

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >seethe wehraboo
          Go back to 2016, commie.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the idea of sloped armor goes back to early medieval times if not earlier
          the concept of angled things being harder to penetrate is not something new, just look at shield use throughout history or at the way some castles are built

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          are you moronic? The french CA1 (1916) and S35 (1936) were the first tanks with sloped armor.

          And the advantages of slopped armor was already known in the antique. Roman soldiers used a sloped shield stance against bows in a range under 50m.
          Assyrian battering rams had sloped armor too.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You don't even have to hit them with the 8.8 cm Hanz. Ya' just gotta shoot it past them, and it's velocity will suck the eyes right out of their skulls.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > i think hitler genuinely did some vodoo shit with his thule society
      The National Socialists were not a big fan of the Thule Society. They squashed them when they cemented their power in germany as they saw them as a potential threat to the regime.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      don't forget the fact that firing the main gun could literally set the tank on fire on earlier models because their autistic "muh - tank needs to be able to cross 10 foot deep rivers" demand turned the tank into a driving fire hazard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's not that autistic, there weren't a lot of bridges that were suitable for the tank.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But all actual Tiger I crews interviewed loved the tank.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >surviving Tiger I crews

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Which there are alot of, majority of Tiger 1s were scuttled by their own crews.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And all Russian soldiers being interviewed say that the war is going well

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        how did the maintenance and logistics crews like the tank? You know, the long end of the tail?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they called them Death Traps ... oh wait. Wrong Tank

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >this orkish thing worked, and it took too long for the americans (the british are a lost cause) to figure out how tanks are supposed to work.
      You mean by flanking, right?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      threadly reminder that the US only faced the Tiger tank a grand total of 3 times in Norther Europe

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And they lost a Pershing in one of those 3 encounters,lol.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It blows my mind how insanely lucky that shot was. Also that entire encounter was a shit show.
          Pershing disabled, tiger reverses into a building and is abandoned

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No wonder there's so much myth tier bullshit information around the Tiger.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a shitty tank, big as a house, dangerously overweight, with an atrocious armor scheme that just screams incompetence and constantly ridden with transmission issues and other electric mishaps. it couldn't steer too fast or the tracks would break, it couldn't shoot on the move or the turret would fly backwards and take the commander with him. the only good thing about it was the gun, which was still too powerful for its frame.
      >impling that other tank designs from 1942 did not have similar severe problems

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    E N T E R

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tiger I a cute

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    eh, could've been worse

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Another reason why Porsches are dog shit.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wtf do wheraboos see in this disgusting sardine can is beyond me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      At least the Panther is a sexy looking tank. Utter shit but it’s sexy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Its so weird.
        Luftwaffe planes were actually fine but used ineptly
        Panzers were shit but somehow got used very well

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Panzers weren't shit, probably the best tank at the time until the sherman hit the scene which is pretty good considering that the panzers were a late 30's design. In the end it didn't matter what tank german fielded because no matter how great a tank you have, if your air force and factory's are getting bombed to shit and you have no real supply line, you will lose.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the panzers were a late 30's design
            Which panzers, exactly? It’s a generic term that roughly means tank in colloquial German.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              In the context of this thread it literally means the Panzer I-IV

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Pzkw MK I was meant for training and not for combat. The Mk II was a light tank and not authorized for combat late AD 1942. The Mk III was delisted in AD 1943 and used for support (MP, recon etc.) only. Many were converted to other uses.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All of them were pretty shit tbh, until they upgunned the IV.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                being able to beat everything else except the M3 Lee and the T-34 is not "shit"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Luftwaffe planes were actually fine but used ineptly
          >Panzers were shit but somehow got used very well
          This is exactly wrong.
          Luftwaffe planes were neurotic engineering nightmares that constantly sacrificed core stats like climb rate and acceleration to be made with more and more steel and aluminum as rare earth metals were more scarce than oil.
          Heer tanks get shit on for being misdated and misunderstood as the operational use of German tanks was never the same as the Allies and the German situation constantly shifted instead of the Western Allies' slow march towards certain victory.
          The Panzer III and its Stug variant are the only serious contenders in the pointless contest of 'best tank'.
          There is no German plane that compares technically to the Allies'. They had amazing pilots and nothing else going for them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What are you fricking talking about, the 109's climb rate was unmatched throughout almost the ENTIRE war by every plane.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Luftwaffe planes were neurotic engineering nightmares that constantly sacrificed core stats like climb rate and acceleration to be made with more and more steel and aluminum as rare earth metals were more scarce than oil.
            What kind of fudd-lore is this? The 109 was cheap as chips and it's main fault was being small to be cheap. The 190 was also not particularly expensive and had features like 'lets actually ask what the PILOTS need'. Namely controls a normal human can actually operate, and some of the most innovative oil cooler designs ever, making it the most heavily armored engine compartment of any WW2 fighter.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It isn't it hilarious how midwits keep ascribing issues that were unique to heavy German AFV's to ALL German vehicles?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Tiger I was a breakthrough tank that was pressed roles it really had no business being in, but did them adequately, but not efficiently. It was a good heavy tank for the era, but by no means was it perfect.
    Panther was a better general purpose platform, since it was designed for that in mind.
    Comparing the two without context, Panther is better. With context, the comparison is pointless. The two had different design criteria, situations in mind, and levels of technical knowledge that directly measuring the differences is a mindless exercise.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > uh actually it was a good tank!! It just got used the wrong way!
      holy cope

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >try to use a fork to drink soup broth
        >"ugh! this utensil suck! why does anyone even use forks?"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tiger I was a good tank. All the problems associated with it can easily be applied to other heavy vehicles of the era due to the obvious technological limitations of the time. It breaking down often and being maintenance intensive was more in line with the norm than an outlier.
        Compared to other things when they exit their designed role, they tend to fail or be inadequate. Tiger I was very inefficient, but it didn't do poorly.
        You could bomb a truck convoy with a B-24, and it would likely do the job, but it could be used for better things.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Youre right but for the wrong reason. And youre also being a homosexual about it.

        The doctrine of the specialist tank class was used by everyone in ww2. But theres a good reason it was slowly abolished not long after the war. The realities of high intensity conflict proved the theory incorrect.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tiger was not as bad as most people claim. But ugly as hell.
    Panther was way better

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The two aren't really comparable. One was intended to be a heavy breakthrough tank, and the other was intended as a general-purpose medium tank.

  11. 1 month ago
    T-I-G-E-R-S

    >Better than Panther
    That's a bar set extremely low, anon

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it had it's reliability problems but overall was a good tank for it's time

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People who hate the Tiger can't give a good reason why.

    It was an Amazing machine all things considered, yes It had its flaws, but It Is a machine made during the war and somehow rushed.

    I personally consider It something of a proto MBT, more than an heavy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Little too slow for an MBT. Panther is closer on that mark. Tiger was a remarkable machine, but Germany was ill-equipped to take advantage of its full potential as a breakthrough tank.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but Germany was ill-equipped to take advantage of its full potential as a breakthrough tank.

        What do you mean?
        They literally leveraged the single Tiger I tank companies into breakthrough weapons that would effect an entire front line.

        Tiger Is formed the tip of the spear that broke the Vatnik triple-defence lines on the southern side of the Kursk salient (but the operation had to be called off because of shit progress elsewhere and no progress in the north).

        Single Tiger Is were able to frick-up and stop entire British armies around Caen.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          N-n-no. You are a wehraboo and you lost the war.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I agree, I was mostly referring to the number of tanks Germany lost because they simply couldn't feed or repair them, which is ofc not limited to the Tiger.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I love the Tigre. But the Pantera has sloped armor which gives it more effective armor at the front.
    In terms of real world combat, I think the Pantera was better, but the the Tigre was good too.
    Out of combat, both had reliability issues

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Out of combat, both had reliability issues
      see

      Nope. Late war Panther was on the same maintenance level as the Panzer IV.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nope. Late war Panther was on the same maintenance level as the Panzer IV.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is this true? I thought the interleaved road wheels added substantial time to regular maintenance tasks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Only a real problem in mud/snow. Which was indeed a huge problem, but outside of those two terrains, wear on interleaved+overlapped wheels was lower than on regular ones, due to less pressure on each wheel.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >wear on interleaved+overlapped wheels was lower than on regular ones, due to less pressure on each wheel.
          NTA but he was talking about massive increases in time for the actual maintenance and you're saying reduced wear which might increase the length of time between those tasks. Both might be true.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Only a real problem in mud
          Mud was no issue for the Panther
          >I saw where some MkV tanks crossed a muddy field without sinking the tracks over five inches, where we in the M4 started across the same field the same day and bogged down.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    pretty good when it worked, crew comfort was good and big gun + big armor has it's perks
    but it didn't work alot of the time
    the panther just didn't work a lot of the time

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    At a tactical level great. At a logistic and industrial level a nightmare.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well you wouldn't want to 1v1 it with anything short of a Pershing but it was also a maintenance nightmare due to rushed development.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a maintenance nightmare due to rushed development.

      Oh look, it's another episode of /k/tard who doesn't read books confuses Fuddlore about Tiger I with Fuddlore about King Tiger.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think he's confusing it with the Panther. However, the Tiger I still had serious issues in that it wasn't optimized for mass production so not very many could be built, and there was no standardization among even individual tanks, making them very difficult to maintain. Not to mention the Tiger I factories could only either produce tanks or parts, but not both, so there was always a chronic shortage of spare parts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >and there was no standardization among even individual tanks

          You saying the parts weren't interchangeable because that's bullshit. They were all made in one plant, so there was no variation and older tanks were often retrofitted with newer features when they came back for repairs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They were all made in one plant,

            We need actual documentation on HOW they were made, as production methods were not all US-style. What parts were made by slave labor or impressed foreign workers (same thing)? How closely were tolerances held? Aberdeen should have investigated that so the info ought to be somewhere.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >What parts were made by slave labor or impressed foreign workers (same thing)?

              More Fuddlore.
              Tiger I production didn't use slave labour, that was Panther.
              Tiger I required skilled labour.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I know with The Sturmtiger's production there was individual levels of differences per unit made, but that is more a special case since it was weird to begin with.
            As for the Tiger proper, the Germans did at times apply upgrades during production in a bizarre fashion. Like halfway during production of the same model of vehicle, they'd change usually relatively minor things that wouldn't totally frick up the line.
            Compared to the US, who would keep churning out the same thing until substantive improvements were made, re-gear for the new batch and then ship out upgrade kits for retrofit.
            As for parts not being interchangeable, I can maybe see it times occurring at times during late war, due to the obvious stress on industrial ability. However, we're still talking about a country with a well-established industrial base and ability for mass production in general. If they couldn't handle part standardization, they wouldn't be able to mass produce things to begin with.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >As for the Tiger proper, the Germans did at times apply upgrades during production in a bizarre fashion. Like halfway during production of the same model of vehicle, they'd change usually relatively minor things that wouldn't totally frick up the line.

              I don't know what you're even arguing at this point. We've shown that you're full of shit and your points about "inconsistent" Tiger parts are pure made-up bullshit.

              If you want to see chaos and millions of incremental upgrades just look at the Sherman. Rarely any two vehicles were alike.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tiger is expensive, costs twice as much as a panther and 200% more than a PZ3 and 160% more than a pz4
    >Better than the Panther
    yes, better armor, better view ports, better gearbox, better final drive, better at fording

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tiger is expensive, costs twice as much as a panther and 200% more than a PZ3 and 160% more than a pz4
      And requires its own specific industrial base, spare parts, manuals and even train carriages to move it around. So the full cost is far larger than you might think.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >And requires its own specific industrial base, spare parts, manuals and even train carriages to move it around. So the full cost is far larger than you might think.

        None of that pseudo-intellectual word salad is true.

        >And requires its own specific industrial base
        It required no industrial base that wasn't used in other tanks.

        >spare parts
        Literally every machine requires spare parts.

        >train carriages
        Straight up false. They had narrow tracks to be carried on standard rail cars.'

        Fricking Fudds, I swear.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I thought the Panther had a better gun and frontal armor?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but it had terrible flank armour, and catastrophic engine and transmission issues and the ergonomics were terrible (look up Chieftain's inside the hatch video on a Panther).

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One thing Germany was and is king at is optics and cannons.
    When it hit the road it was a menace to the Soviets.
    A mobile hardpoint with thrice the effective range, higher precision, higher situational awareness and much more firepower than the early T34s.
    It was far away from being simple and elegant though. A complicated and heavy vehicle, that quickly fell victim to upgraded T34s that were built around their now stronger guns.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >One thing Germany was and is king at is optics and cannons.

      More Fuddlore. Never change /k/.

      The Panther had TERRIBLE optics. The Tiger I had decent optics, but nothing like a panoramic sight for the commander besides his cupola vision blocks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > The Panther had TERRIBLE optics
        kek - what makes you think that?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > besides his cupola vision blocks
        meanwhile T-34 and Sherman didn't even have a cupola until 1943/44

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        bullshit. german tanks had the best optics of the entire war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Once again morons misunderstand what other morons say on the internet. Its absolutely crazy. Panther optics, and in general, German optics were fantastic in quality. The issue with Panther was a lack of them. In the Ausf.D the loader had no periscope, and the gunner never had a periscope throughout the entire production run, only his telescopic sight. This was an issue commonly pointed out (in reality its overexaggerated because of the commanders excellent vision in the cupolas + the azimuth indicator he had) by western nations like the British, French, and Americans. The quality of the TZF 12 and 12a however were superb you moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So the Panther had shit optics that made it less effective in battle.
          Take your assburger pills.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Amazing how you can read a post and immediately come to the exact opposite conclusion of what it was saying.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    all of you can eat my 8.8cm wide dick

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Completely different roles, but in terms of being dumpster fires the Tiger I was less of one. Decent for its role as a breakthrough tank, main issues were constant tinkering with the design slowing down production, and the utter stupidity of it needing an extra set of tracks for rail transport (the best way of moving the things from place to place).

    Panther was a literal dumpster fire until very close to the end of the war, overweight, liked to catch fire due to leaks in the engine bay, anemic HE shell (over-optimized for killing enemy tanks), required a skilled driver to not destroy the transmission when Germany was disastrously short on skilled anybody, the list goes on. Basically all it had going for it was a great anti-armor gun, great frontal armor, and ease of production over the Panzer IV.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > anemic HE shell (over-optimized for killing enemy tanks)
      stopped reading there
      the Panthers HE shell was just slightly worse than the Panzer IVs one and miles better than what the 76mm / 17 pounder Shermans had to offer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >constant tinkering with the design slowing down production

      100% moronic bullshit made up by yourself on the spot and not supported by anything in the printed or historical records.

      Go back to talking about your granpa's Luger captured from Hitler or something you stupid Fudd.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yummy bugs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Many of Panther's issues were ironed out by the middle of the Ausf.A's production in early 44. The biggest issue of the final drives was fixed in September 44. If you werent a fricking moron and actually picked up a book you would know this. So stop spouting dumbassery that it was a dumpster fire until "very close to the end of the war". Also really? The HE was bad? If you can find me any German testimony of the HE being bad I'd be more than welcome to take it.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Worse design, better individual craftmanship.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What's it with German WW2 tank discussion that attracts crippling autism?
    Both had decent combat records, Tiger's main issue it was fricking fat, Panther's was some weird crew placement and was having a final drive made out of glass.
    So Tiger wins.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      deep down we (americans and all the other allied countries) know that the german tanks were really good + good crews. It would be interesting to see a Tiger or Panther in a situation without shortage on high-quality materials.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Driving through French town ~~*liberated*~~ by a liberal dose of carpet bombing
    >See this
    >Realize you're in a 75 mm cuck Sherman

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > turn 360° and liberate the city a second time

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59595322/#59595322

    You be the judge.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tiger is pretty neat.
    Obviously some elements of the design were pretty odd and a bit backwards by standards that would be established later in the war. But, for when the Tiger was designed, it's a very impressive vehicle.
    I think the Tiger really reveals how rapid development around tanks was during WW2.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Panzer readiness was horrendously affected by Allied bombing, all the way from factory to frontline

    at least 1 heavy tank battalion achieved 80% readiness rates when not being bombed and in a defensive position with easy access to spares and workshops

    A better way to analyse the Tiger is to ask the question, would it have been effective if the US Army had operated it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A better way to analyse the Tiger is to ask the question, would it have been effective if the US Army had operated it

      The US Army would never accept a design like the Tiger because it didn't fit their strategic needs and considerations. It was too big and heavy to ship by sea, its method of construction was not conducive to American style production lines, and difficulty of maintenance would be exacerbated by their own extended supply lines. Not to mention, the US Army was never all that enthusiastic about heavy tanks to begin with and only deployed Pershings late war just to get the BuOrd to shut up about them.

      Pretty much the only thing from the Tiger and the panzers that the US took was the torsion bar suspension when they finally decided to phase out bogies.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The US Army would never accept
        Not the question I asked

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Your question is disingenuous from the start. There's a whole host of reasons the US Army didn't want heavy tanks and the Tiger ticks off every one of them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Your question is disingenuous
            thats not disingenous, its a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question. IF they US military had adopted a near 1:1 copy of the Tiger utilizing their methods of manufacturing and QC, along with their level of armor crew training, how well would have the US Tiger perform. I asked a similar question years ago about the Panther

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >its a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question
              and it got a reasonable answer.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >reasonable
                reasonable in that it answers in a practical way, not in the hypothetical point put forward to be answered. Yes america correctly didnt build 50+ ton assault tanks like the krauts did, but for the engineering theoretical, would it not be interesting to explore?

                For example, what if the T-34 was made in an american factory in america with good QC? Even built to specs it would have to be much better in performance and reliability than the soviet made ones

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most T-34 models had the c/g seats, if any, mounted on the hull not the turret. This slowed their rate of fire and made their sights less accurate/reliable. A real disadvantage against a tank that had seats mounted on the turret.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >this pistol totally sucks! I shot it and barely hit the target!
            >maybe in the hands of a better shooter it would perform better. what if it was shot by Paul Harrell?
            >Paul Harrell would never use this pistol, he doesn't like the colour!
            moron.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              “What if the US used Tigers?” Is as dumb a question as “What if the Germans used T-34s.” Or “What if the Japanese used Shermans.” It blatantly ignores conditions, realities, and doctrines all of these armies followed. A US Army adopting Tigers is not the US Army anymore.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NOT THE FRICKING POINT

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nta, but it really sounds like you're fishing for a specific answer to your "question".

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                then you should know also that anon is trying desperately to avoid answering it, and why

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno why you homosexuals are shitflinging over a moronic question, but no, Tiger wouldn't have worked for the US army either
                >can't ship it on regular boats
                >can't use it on regular bridges
                >still requires maintenance every 3km

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also having to do maintenance on Tiger means you need to ship it back to a fricking factory rather than doing it in a frontline workshop, which means another trip back to the United States

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                fuddlore

                I dunno why you homosexuals are shitflinging over a moronic question, but no, Tiger wouldn't have worked for the US army either
                >can't ship it on regular boats
                >can't use it on regular bridges
                >still requires maintenance every 3km

                most of those conclusions are invalided if we subtract the issue of the constantly-harrassed and short-of-everything infrastructure of Wehrmacht logistics

                the Tiger worked fine if it had proper maintenance and parts, unfortunately it barely had any of that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >its method of construction was not conducive to American style production lines
        How it differs from the German one? Perhaps they could use the ones that they captured.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Tigers were built in a ''''factory'''' in the loosest sense of the term. They were basically built by hand workshop style. The factory did not have any of the traditional assembly lines you'd see in an American factory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is that true?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's good though.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was pretty good when it first entered the battlefield but it never got to be used in its intended role, was obsolete by 44

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You know that someone is a real idiot when he mentions the Panther's HE shell.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    From most front angles it was untouchable and had a frickoff big cannon that would wreck 99% of tanks it would find itself engaging but it fell off hard after 1943. The design flaws really made it a liability to field though as if you popped the transmission in Africa that shit was going allllll the way back to Germany. They were also mad expensive. The Panzer IV was really the best German tank but the Tiger takes all it's credit by being the big opposing one that is as much of a threat to itself as it's targets.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *