Why do people shittalk her so much? :(

Why do people shittalk her so much? 🙁

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unironic contrarianism, it's a dead end design, but a fine tank.
    Now Tiger II on the other hand deserves the hate.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Otto was jealous of the sexy design of IS-2

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People who have no idea about tanks either really hate ut or really like it, those who know what they're talking about have a positive but not gushing positive opinion about it.

      Can't have been that bad when 2 tiger I tanks killed 17 IS2s and 5 T34s in Malinava on the 22nd july of 1944 under his command.

      Unironic contrarianism, it's a dead end design, but a fine tank.
      Now Tiger II on the other hand deserves the hate.

      I've actually come to like the Tiger II more as I learned more about it, they made a lot of good decisions there. Plenty of which I disagree with as well, but stuff like changes in the wheel arrangement were neat. I think most people believe they used the same interleaved design as the Tiger I.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        thats pretty much the case for every tank of WW2
        >dis was da best
        >dis was da worst
        >in reality both are just ok
        generally the worst thing about designs that were actually built was misuse, soviet light tanks for instance were pretty decent, but used in the wrong manner, something with thin armor and poor firepower shouldnt be used as an assault tank, but you make do with what you got
        people call the Tiger II a giant piece of shit but they did some very good work despite reliability issues killing most of them

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >reliability issues killing most of them
          Keep in mind that the factories were constantly bombed by this point and procuring parts from various vendors may have been difficult so shortcuts had to be made.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A just okay tank is better than having no tank. Direct tank-on-tank skirmishes weren't rare, but not common enough that countering enemy tanks was the primary expected job of any tank or tank hunter built. Tanks can hold positions, take out positions, and generally be a menace to infantry units not equipped to handle them, so long as they can get to where they should be, and American tanks tended to be the best at that thanks to superior logistics. Maybe the drive trains and transmissions on German tanks were kind of shitty, and they were a pain in the ass to make certain repairs on, but when they did get to where they were going they always did a pretty good job of bringing the hurt to the allies.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >, soviet light tanks for instance were pretty decent,
          Nah,they bitched and moaned about the Chaffee,because they never came close to making something as good.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Saw it get hyped by movies as the ultimate tank, learned about abou tanks learned that it wasn't the ultimate tank, and so go full retard pretending it was a worthless box of steel.
    Then they usually ramble about how Germans should've built more Panzer IVs and StuGs instead

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Then they usually ramble about how Germans should've built more Panzer IVs and StuGs instead
      At least that seems to be dying off now that a couple of e-celebs have explained why quality over quantity wasn't not just the better but basically the only choice they had.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People grew up with all the history channel documentaries proclaiming it to be an invincible killing machine, but then went on to learn from YouTube “historians” the revisionist point of view that it was mechanically unreliable and actually useless. As is often the case with revisionists, they try to overcorrect for the perceived biases of the traditional view point by stating the latter has no merit whatsoever, which isn’t usually the case. As mentioned by other anons in the thread, it was introduced too late for its role as a heavy breakthrough tank. Under the right conditions though it did somewhat live up to its hype as a killing machine, with good armour (even to some degree against late war allied tanks like the M4A3 and T-34-85), an excellent gun, and even decent speed for a heavy. It suffered the same logistical flaws as other Heavy tanks and this was a particularly bad handicap for an empire with dubious supplies of oil. The mechanical was certainly a flaw, but not uncommon and wasn’t their least reliable Panzer. Many heavy and medium designs from both sides had poor reliability, the supposedly rugged t-34 was actually a bit of a shit-heap depending on which factory built it. The build more Panzer iv’s argument overlooks how often their components broke in the late war due to the extra weight of Schurzen and the Pak 38 gun needed to keep it competitive.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >As is often the case with revisionists, they try to overcorrect for the perceived biases of the traditional view point by stating the latter has no merit whatsoever, which isn’t usually the case
        Well said.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How people talk about the tank has also changed throughout the years. In the decades following the war, it was seen as an invincible beast. Then came the revisionists, and pointed out some mechanical flaws, and suddenly it was the worst tank ever built that broke down every 5 minutes.
    People seem to struggle to find a balance. Despite its flaws, the tank was very successful and had an absolutely absurd amount of kills, compared to how few were produced.
    The tank's effectiveness is more about whether or not the resources used in their production could have been put to better use elsewhere.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The weird part is how people keep ascribing mechanical faults that were present in some German tanks, like the Panther and Konigstiger, to EVERY German tank. The Tiger didn't have any notable transmission issues, yet fucking everyone keeps assuming it did.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The tiger is one of the most reliable german tanks of the war unironically, had the highest ready rates along with the panzer 4, nearly identical. You could even argue the tiger was more reliable as it saw the heaviest fighting of the war.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should've done that instead of wasting resources on shit like the Panther, Tiger II or Jagdtiger. StuG, Pz IV and Tiger I is all you need.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      literally just stop the sherman and take your time to aim so you at least have the chance to hit the middle of the front flat plate, you have numerical advantage, no excuse for this fucking scene.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's an American war movie, just be glad there isn't any rock music playing and the German crew aren't speaking English in a posh British accent.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the German crew aren't speaking English in a posh British accent
          that would actually be more realistic, if the crew was posh; do you know how many junkers went through Oxford? it's just like how today, if you go round the right circles in Shanghai, you'd swear you're in BBC-land, as they hire tutors to teach them how to speak Skynews RP

          everybody wants to be bong, except the bongs

          literally just stop the sherman and take your time to aim so you at least have the chance to hit the middle of the front flat plate, you have numerical advantage, no excuse for this fucking scene.

          the thing about Fury is that the director was an autist who did do his homework; the tactics are more or less realistic, but for cinematographic purposes he had to massively shorten the distances involved. (Of course, for dramatic purposes the AT guns in the bocage battle had to shoot like retards as well, but eh...)

          anyway, point is the movie gets more guff than it fairly should receive
          >and the German girl is ssssmoking

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Furys biggest problem is that is has to be 'le grim dramatic war film' so has loads of stupid shit in it. All it had to do was portray combined arms and tank attacks well and it would have been amazing. Instead you get tanks just driving across a small field while AT guns miss it, a rehash of Saving Private Ryan with the green recruit joining a veteran unit and learning war is hell, the retarded POW execution scene, the random break to play piano, sex and girl die half way though, and the ridiculous final stand scene.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, you're speaking from a tactical autist point of view, not a dramatic one.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the director really did his homework he'd know that 76mm on the Easy Eight can penetrate a Tiger from the front out to 1 km.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >for cinematographic purposes he had to massively shorten the distances involved

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don't care + didn't ask

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                *didn't know

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's okay, I forgive you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don't care + didn't ask

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You must be fun at parties.
                You are invited to parties, right anon?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That Firefly could've penetrated the front hull of that Tiger I easily. Fuck hollywood logic.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well to nitpick, it's not a Firefly. It's a M4A2(76) HVSS. Different guns developed by different countries.
        That being said the 76mm M1 could probably get through that just as the 17 pounder would.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well to nitpick, it's not a Firefly. It's a M4A2(76) HVSS. Different guns developed by different countries.
        That being said the 76mm M1 could probably get through that just as the 17 pounder would.

        If we go by real war accounts most shots that "should" penetrate do not for some reason. There are plenty of medium tanks that survived many shots they had no right to.
        War Thunder guns are way too deadly because they assume it all works out, for some reason or another it usually didn't. That's why you have accounts (and pictures) of sherman/panzer4/t34 armor surviving high caliber impacts at an angle it should have been penetrating by thrice over.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why is the tiger going forward? Shouldn't it be trying to go backwards?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Worst "military" movie in existence

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Worst thing is seeing people compare USSR and German production numbers completely ignoring resource limitations, fuel limits and the USSR getting shit like german radios.
    Overall I feel like red army boos are more annoying than wehrboos due to a smug belief they are going against the grain, but that might just be me

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Commieboos are a lot worse because they refuse to accept that american tax dollars saved them.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Revisionism

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what defeated the tiger was a severe lack of combat veterans
    in the final days of the war they put green men in these tanks who couldn't take advantage of all the features

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People are venting on the previous gen of military experts because boomers got high on self-fellating autobiographies of Nazis looking to whitewash themselves in foreign service during the Cold War and for the last 50 years we've had non-stop flood of boomerisms reinforced by endless boomeresque documentaries where they all agreed with each other how high they were.
    >Shermans were death traps and failures, 6 million tommies got cooked, never forget how good the T-34 was
    After wet ammo storage and a second turret hatch was installed (early into their deployment, mind you), crew survivability went up to 3.5 per 5 crew. T-34 had 0.5.
    >butifel Spitfire went up and won the BoB
    Hurricanes dealt 64% of german losses during BoB.
    >one man mowed down 2000 people at Omaha
    Vast majority of losses at Omaha came from mortar fire.
    >The list goes on
    Unfortunately for the Tiger boomers also loved the big cats, which were great under perfect conditions and expensive shitbuckets under any other, something they tended to memoryhole as they sweated profusely and produced endless walls of text trying to figure out how could great legends such as Guderian and Rommel (who never did anything wrong!) fail.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not to mention IIRC after Kursk its primary role as a breakthrough tank became largely irrelevant and it was pressed into defensive roles it hadn't really been intended for and might have been done more efficiently by conventional AT guns and StuGs, making it seem like a waste when it would've otherwise been good.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually it did surprisingly well in the defensive role according to Dr. Roman Toeppel who, ironically, mainly focused his studies on Kursk for like 20 years.
        Tiger reliability was better than most people who care enough to read up on it a bit assume, worse than mediums, but less so than you'd think according to the actual readiness numbers. The real issue was that if it DID break down in the wrong moment during a retreat it was more likely to be left behind since towing it was a lot harder and certain repairs on it (particularly in regards to the movement apparatus) took longer.
        With the power of time travel and hindsight moving directly to a light armored version of the panther pre-war buthaving it prepared to accept up-armoring easily and quickly probably would have been better. If anybody still would have wanted a heavier vehicle despite having a mature panther in mass production I guess Tiger I could have been skipped for a less monstrous version of the Tiger II that's even closer to the panther.
        Also something something StuGs with the PAW 600 or even yet 1000 for a 6 times cheaper but better gun with simple technology nobody thought of before rockets made it obsolete.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, I dont doubt it was probably adequate or even competent at defense. My main point was the modern contrarianisms of "They should have made more Panzer IVs/StuGs" or "The resources would have been better used elsewhere" mainly work because of hindsight arguing about the cost effectiveness of using something other than the Tiger on the defense. Whereas IIRC Case Blue had previously shown to the High Command the necessity of a breakthrough tank to minimize losses on the offensive and maintain momentum even against fortified lines.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Contrarianism paired with History being learned by Youtube Cancer and Video Games instead reading a book. Its not "good" but also not "shit". It was probably ok but in today society you opinion must be on the extreme. Good example, Ferdinand/Elefant. Had his bad moments at Kursk but did ok in Italy. Not to mention the fact that is was build on 70 leftover chassis.

    But retards today just watch Meme History YT which is diarrhea

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Propaganda project that ate funds from the workhorse tanks such as IVs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It paid for itself at the very least.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    built for blond bravarian chads

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because it was primarily a psychological weapon. People think too much about tanks as armor or defensive weapons, and not as force projection. The tiger had good armor but not impervious armor. What made the difference was the 88mm gun -- hits from lower calibre rounds might knock an allied tank out but the crew generally survived, whereas an 88 was more likely to blow the thing up and kill everyone inside. Crew survivability is what counts in tank warfare, so this perception of a super-tank that could kill you and your buddies with one shot, and its similarity to the panzer IV, is where the actual value of the tiger came in as a weapon of perception. It had an effect of making allied tankers more cautious, more likely to run rather than fight if they 'saw' a Tiger, and slow advances or counterattacks made against tigers. Since this can't easily be put into numerical or engineering standards, it's easy for weapons autists to endlessly argue about how good the tank was or wasn't because they don't understand the context of the war or the role in played in the overall picture. Just focusing on things like armor thickness or sloping or pure tank on tank battles completely misses the point of actual tank warfare.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Overcorrection for years of "TIGER STRONK, SHERMAN POOP".
    They were both good tanks, both had issues.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the cannon was weak, its shot bounced off on wood logs.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do people shittalk her so much? 🙁
    Because youtube historian X,Y,Z said so

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Warthunderfags

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Them and WoTfags have been a blight for discussion of WWII vehicles.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mostly a pendulum swing from weeraboos proclaiming it the be the best tank of ww2 and a sign of german technical superiority for years on end.

Your email address will not be published.