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
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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>their excellent performance under the Luftwaffe
friggin gool, I gotta look that up
>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.
3 months 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
>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).
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.
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
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.
>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
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.
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.
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.
>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
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
>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
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
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.
>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.
> 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.
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
>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?
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
>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
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.
In the context of this thread it literally means the Panzer I-IV
3 months 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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
All of them were pretty shit tbh, until they upgunned the IV.
3 months ago
Anonymous
being able to beat everything else except the M3 Lee and the T-34 is not "shit"
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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
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.
>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.
>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.
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
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.
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
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
>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.
>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.'
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).
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
>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
>its a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question
and it got a reasonable answer.
3 months 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
3 months 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.
>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.
“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.
3 months ago
Anonymous
NOT THE FRICKING POINT
3 months ago
Anonymous
nta, but it really sounds like you're fishing for a specific answer to your "question".
3 months ago
Anonymous
then you should know also that anon is trying desperately to avoid answering it, and why
3 months 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
3 months 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
3 months 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
>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.
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.
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.
Better than panther, but neither are very good.
Dubs of truth
Are you moronic?
Nice dubs guys
Not dubs and not true. Checks out.
Nice trips le friend! May I have some karma on this website?
fpwp
Tiger I was the best tank of WW2 and had the best K:D ratio.
> he believes in tiger K:D ratios
that would be the StuG actually
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
Don't frick with Luftwaffe armored divisions.
I didnt know the luftwaffe had armor divisions
>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
>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
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.
>their excellent performance under the Luftwaffe
friggin gool, I gotta look that up
>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.
>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
>checkd
>they mauled the Angl*s around Caen
its funny how the GIs saw Tigers behind every bush, but the brits actually fought them
>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).
>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.
>Wermacht/SS hands typed this post
Luftwaffe Stugs for the win.
>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.
They should have just mass produced Pz IVs
Not pictured: a Pz IV
>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.
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
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.
>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
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.
Also to add on what other anons said, Pz IV cost the same as Panther lmao.
Worse than the Panther, but both are very good.
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.
Oh look, ww2 fudd lore.
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.
>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
Except for the little detail where Wehraboos also claim Americans and their equipment were shit compared to what Germany had in WW2.
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
>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
>seethe wehraboo
Go back to 2016, commie.
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
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.
>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.
> 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.
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
That's not that autistic, there weren't a lot of bridges that were suitable for the tank.
But all actual Tiger I crews interviewed loved the tank.
>surviving Tiger I crews
Which there are alot of, majority of Tiger 1s were scuttled by their own crews.
And all Russian soldiers being interviewed say that the war is going well
how did the maintenance and logistics crews like the tank? You know, the long end of the tail?
they called them Death Traps ... oh wait. Wrong Tank
>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?
threadly reminder that the US only faced the Tiger tank a grand total of 3 times in Norther Europe
And they lost a Pershing in one of those 3 encounters,lol.
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
No wonder there's so much myth tier bullshit information around the Tiger.
>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
E N T E R
Tiger I a cute
eh, could've been worse
Another reason why Porsches are dog shit.
Wtf do wheraboos see in this disgusting sardine can is beyond me.
At least the Panther is a sexy looking tank. Utter shit but it’s sexy.
Its so weird.
Luftwaffe planes were actually fine but used ineptly
Panzers were shit but somehow got used very well
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.
>the panzers were a late 30's design
Which panzers, exactly? It’s a generic term that roughly means tank in colloquial German.
In the context of this thread it literally means the Panzer I-IV
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.
All of them were pretty shit tbh, until they upgunned the IV.
being able to beat everything else except the M3 Lee and the T-34 is not "shit"
>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.
What are you fricking talking about, the 109's climb rate was unmatched throughout almost the ENTIRE war by every plane.
>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.
It isn't it hilarious how midwits keep ascribing issues that were unique to heavy German AFV's to ALL German vehicles?
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.
> uh actually it was a good tank!! It just got used the wrong way!
holy cope
>try to use a fork to drink soup broth
>"ugh! this utensil suck! why does anyone even use forks?"
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.
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.
Tiger was not as bad as most people claim. But ugly as hell.
Panther was way better
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.
>Better than Panther
That's a bar set extremely low, anon
it had it's reliability problems but overall was a good tank for it's time
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.
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.
>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.
N-n-no. You are a wehraboo and you lost the war.
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.
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
>Out of combat, both had reliability issues
see
Nope. Late war Panther was on the same maintenance level as the Panzer IV.
Is this true? I thought the interleaved road wheels added substantial time to regular maintenance tasks.
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.
>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.
>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.
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
At a tactical level great. At a logistic and industrial level a nightmare.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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
>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.
>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.
I thought the Panther had a better gun and frontal armor?
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).
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.
>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.
> The Panther had TERRIBLE optics
kek - what makes you think that?
> besides his cupola vision blocks
meanwhile T-34 and Sherman didn't even have a cupola until 1943/44
bullshit. german tanks had the best optics of the entire war.
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.
So the Panther had shit optics that made it less effective in battle.
Take your assburger pills.
Amazing how you can read a post and immediately come to the exact opposite conclusion of what it was saying.
all of you can eat my 8.8cm wide dick
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.
> 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
>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.
yummy bugs
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.
Worse design, better individual craftmanship.
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.
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.
>Driving through French town ~~*liberated*~~ by a liberal dose of carpet bombing
>See this
>Realize you're in a 75 mm cuck Sherman
> turn 360° and liberate the city a second time
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59595322/#59595322
You be the judge.
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.
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
>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.
>The US Army would never accept
Not the question I asked
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.
>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
>its a perfectly reasonable hypothetical question
and it got a reasonable answer.
>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
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.
>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.
“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.
NOT THE FRICKING POINT
nta, but it really sounds like you're fishing for a specific answer to your "question".
then you should know also that anon is trying desperately to avoid answering it, and why
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
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
fuddlore
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
>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.
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.
Is that true?
That's good though.
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
You know that someone is a real idiot when he mentions the Panther's HE shell.
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.