How effective was the Tiger really?

2018 ж. 17 Жел.
1 373 762 Рет қаралды

There are quite many debates about the Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung E & B - the Tiger & Königstiger - tanks, so in this video we look at how effective or ineffective these panzers were in combat. This means we look at doctrine, kill to loss ratios, mission accomplishment and various other issues.
»» GET OUR BOOK: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 German/English - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» SOURCES «
Wilbeck, Christopher W.: Sledgehammers. Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II. The Aberjona Press: Bedford, PA, USA, 2004.
Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, 2016.
Zaloga, Steven: Armored Champion. The top Tanks of World War II. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, US, 2015.
Jentz, Thomas L.: Germanys Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & Tiger II: Combat Tactics
Jentz, Thomas L.: Tiger I & II. Kampf und Taktik. Podzun-Pallas: Wölfersheim-Bergstadt, 2000
Spielberger, Walter J.; Doyle, Hilary L.: Tigers I and II and Their Variants (Spielberger German Armor and Military Vehicle)
Spielberger, Walter J.; Doyle, Hilary L.: Panzer VI Tiger und seine Abarten. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, 2010.
Carruthers, Bob: Tiger I in Combat. Pen & Sword Military: London, 2013.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#tiger #panzer #ww2

Пікірлер
  • If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal: paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv

    @MilitaryHistoryVisualized@MilitaryHistoryVisualized5 жыл бұрын
    • Could you do a video on the Liger Tank?

      @ReconPro@ReconPro5 жыл бұрын
    • I don't agree with the assessment that the Tigers where effective because the allies devoted a disproportionate amount of resources to them. The allies where afraid of them and there for devoted extra resources to them but that does not in and of itself mean they were effective just that the allies knew they had heavy armor and big guns that would take overwhelming firepower to destroy or should be defeated strategically instead of tactically. Isolating a heavy tank battalion and threating its supply lines to force a withdrawal or cut them off is far more effective than losing a disproportionate number of your tanks in a head on fight.

      @rippervtol9516@rippervtol95165 жыл бұрын
    • @military history u should play hearts of iron 4 u would love it

      @safari7373@safari73735 жыл бұрын
    • aah the mighty jingles salt mines create highest grade salt

      @germaniumge7768@germaniumge77685 жыл бұрын
    • umm - just one point - its fair enough to incorporate "non combat losses". However that needs to also be included for the opposing force to make sense.

      @MrRugbylane@MrRugbylane5 жыл бұрын
  • "So lately my content was a bit tank-heavy, so I thought I'll end the year with some heavy tanks." I love you so much, man :D

    @Stierlitz@Stierlitz5 жыл бұрын
    • but that would mean no more videos till next year :(

      @MrGreghome@MrGreghome5 жыл бұрын
    • Let the man have some rest, for fuck's sake! He's been digging night shifts at the Jingles Salt Mines lately...

      @Stierlitz@Stierlitz5 жыл бұрын
    • @@Stierlitz or he could be hiding Russian POWs that he had captured since summer to be released before the Christmas truce.

      @MrGreghome@MrGreghome5 жыл бұрын
    • Clearly the solution to too many tanks is more tanks.

      @TonboIV@TonboIV5 жыл бұрын
    • No. The solution to too many tanky is tanks to many. Thanks to many. See ya :D

      @Stierlitz@Stierlitz5 жыл бұрын
  • The 501st had the second lowest losses? That's good, they watched out for those wrist rockets.

    @klobiforpresident2254@klobiforpresident22545 жыл бұрын
    • AT-STs! AT-STs!

      @skepticalbadger@skepticalbadger5 жыл бұрын
    • *We've got droids!*

      @Statusinator@Statusinator5 жыл бұрын
    • Klobi for President DROIDEKAS!

      @hillbilly5609@hillbilly56095 жыл бұрын
    • Watch out its a super!

      @Amadeus8484@Amadeus84845 жыл бұрын
    • Just like the simulation

      @edwardstorey2278@edwardstorey22785 жыл бұрын
  • Academic citations, critical approach to data, authentic sources. You surpass 99% of all pop-history content. If only more people took your approach...

    @bennyboii8886@bennyboii88865 жыл бұрын
    • He is german ofcourse he take it above and beyond

      @ReptilianAnusWizzard@ReptilianAnusWizzard4 жыл бұрын
    • ​@No One's Innocent same thing

      @xeraphyx7903@xeraphyx79032 жыл бұрын
    • @No One's Innocent *oh no* !

      @BatCostumeGuy@BatCostumeGuy2 жыл бұрын
    • @@xeraphyx7903 lol, correct but incorrect

      @zervox136@zervox1362 жыл бұрын
    • and don't forget the touch of humor.

      @edwardhett4381@edwardhett43812 жыл бұрын
  • Love when a German who speaks English actually sounds German 😂👌🏻

    @mikerheuma2232@mikerheuma22324 жыл бұрын
    • I wish he has a transcript so I can study after watching his videos.

      @steinerding3978@steinerding39783 жыл бұрын
    • Ah....but they can't help it..if you get a German drunk enough, he reverts to Ze classic 'Allo 'Allo'. I understand this British Classic of Humour is actually much loved in Germany, which pleased me Greatly

      @rmcguire7033@rmcguire70333 жыл бұрын
    • I think he's an Austrian... technically not exactly the same.

      @Physiker17@Physiker173 жыл бұрын
    • @@Physiker17 Yeah, but Hitler was Austrian too. I dunno why I even mentioned that.

      @moistmike4150@moistmike41503 жыл бұрын
    • @No One's Innocent Uhm no, it's not "whom"; it's who.

      @moistmike4150@moistmike41503 жыл бұрын
  • Artillery General wanted more artillery. Who saw that coming...

    @mostevil1082@mostevil10825 жыл бұрын
    • Ed Hartley He was right.

      @markanderson3870@markanderson38705 жыл бұрын
    • @@markanderson3870 then you would have no ammo for all those guns.

      @Theanimeisforme@Theanimeisforme5 жыл бұрын
    • You're right to point out that its not a simple 1 Tiger=21 artillery pieces. You also have to factor in how many man hours and industrial capacity i takes to build one Tiger, though. It was a lot. But I still agree with overall idea that making Pz iv's or artillery or Stug's or many other things would have been a more effective use of resources than using those resources for Tigers.

      @markanderson3870@markanderson38705 жыл бұрын
    • Good point, but there would just be more resources put into making shells vs. using so much effort to build the one Tiger. It would be interesting to break down the statistics and evaluate them. I still think the Tiger would be the loser.

      @markanderson3870@markanderson38705 жыл бұрын
    • @Boondock Saint _How do you move all those artillery pieces? More horses?_ Funny enough, Rommel was ok with that idea. He also was in the camp of "lets cancel all the weird tanks and build PaKs in huge numbers"

      @VRichardsn@VRichardsn5 жыл бұрын
  • "Using Tİgers as mine-clearing vehicles" What in da name of Guderian.....

    @maverikmiller6746@maverikmiller67465 жыл бұрын
    • No mechanical mine clearing devices - mine plow like the Soviets; Flail like the British; Roller USA used. Closest they came were remote control demo vehicles dropping explosives in the field whose blast cleared the mines - but they couldn't with all of the artillery dropping tell which area they cleared.

      @ODST6262@ODST62624 жыл бұрын
    • @@ODST6262 i thought they just detonate the mine with their thread lol

      @GlitchedBlox@GlitchedBlox3 жыл бұрын
    • @@GlitchedBlox Tread? They did but the anti-tank mines damaged the tracks and suspension and soon they had an immobile Tiger.

      @ODST6262@ODST62623 жыл бұрын
    • The Panzer 6 were too tough for the mines we were using, they could just set them off and keep going.

      @davehood2667@davehood26673 жыл бұрын
    • @@davehood2667 Not really. After several mines or a large mine the Tigers would break down. It was an inefficient way to clear mines especially compared to the British flail device and the Soviet mine roller.

      @ODST6262@ODST62623 жыл бұрын
  • The pointy end of the spear suffers the most damage. Combat loses of typewriters was pretty low.

    @Walter-wo5sz@Walter-wo5sz4 жыл бұрын
    • Lol

      @cloraformsgood5340@cloraformsgood53403 жыл бұрын
  • "War is a team effort" Tell that to my team in any fps!

    @simohayho8622@simohayho86224 жыл бұрын
    • Go play some Squad 😋

      @Nyahnator@Nyahnator4 жыл бұрын
    • Simo Häyhö “we’re supposed to be a unit” “suck my unit”

      @deriznohappehquite@deriznohappehquite4 жыл бұрын
    • Play Some Post Scriptum! That is WW2 tactical sim!

      @JijiG1000@JijiG10002 жыл бұрын
    • Battlefield 5 infantry are fucking retarded, they rarely help their tanks, I am a pro commandant, but non help me out with repairs and protecting me against infantry

      @certified_cact@certified_cact2 жыл бұрын
    • @@certified_cact that's why I usually role with light tanks

      @DakotaofRaptors@DakotaofRaptors2 жыл бұрын
  • In my youth i spent some time conducting interviews with world war 2 veterans for a military history society mainly British and Germans one interview with a British tank veteran (churchill gunner) told me all i needed to know about the effectiveness of the Tiger. He said as they advanced from Caen they were approaching a village twelve churchills and other assorted armoured\unarmoured vehicles in strung out column the first four tanks went in less then a minute with no one even knowing where the fire had come from over the course of the next half hour all churchills including his were knocked out and as he bailed out of his tank all he could see was burning tanks and vehicles. As he looked at a ridge to the side of the village three Tigers advanced from the woods then retreated with no damage and no losses the next day the British abandoned that avenue of advance moving the advance 12 miles away. Even at the age of 73 the look on his face as he talked about the attack was full of fear and he said if there were rumours of Tigers and later Tiger 2's his unit would wait for infantry or artillery to clear before advancing. Were they effective yes if in no other way then their psychological impact on both enemies and their own forces getting a boost from knowing they were near. It took sometime and a considerable amount of document digging but i found the after action report of the attack he described compiled by a colonel whose final recommendation was not to use British armour in area's with verified heavy tank battalions as the British at that time (September 1944) had no effective armoured counter to them. I also tried to interview a soldier who was at villers bocage but wasn't able to complete the interview as he became very emotional describing the desperation in trying to fight off the Tiger and failing. Whatever the material cost or effectiveness they left a lasting impression on any troops that faced fully operational and experienced crewed Tigers more then any other tank.

    @andrewaustin6369@andrewaustin63695 жыл бұрын
    • Good post. Much of war is about psychology. If a weapon system is perceived as being superior, it affects how the soldiers fight on both sides. This is most of the justification for giving soldiers automatic rifles - they don't hit any more often but they boost morale and keep the enemy's heads down.

      @jrd33@jrd335 жыл бұрын
    • It couldnt have helped that they were also on the defence and mostly attacked from ambush.

      @ineednochannelyoutube5384@ineednochannelyoutube53845 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah, but it's important to consider the tradeoff. At about the same time on the other side of Normandy at Carentan the only german German armor which could be mustered to counter attack the American advance was a few assault guns. They were easily defeated by the 2nd Armored Div. which had a plentiful supply of medium tanks. The Americans forces broke out from Carentan and eventually ended up forcing the German defenders around Caen into a disorderly retreat through falaise to avoid encirclement. The German heavies were effective, but they couldn't be everywhere. The allies doctrine of mass medium tank formations meant that they more or less could have armor everywhere.

      @Sphere723@Sphere7235 жыл бұрын
    • Damn maybe he fought against mtfing michael witmann that would be legendary. Your entire story is absolutely thrilling.

      @Odibio.Skins.@Odibio.Skins.5 жыл бұрын
    • Birdy Flying This is a myth. Tigers and panthers were rare while American and British tanks were capable of destroying everything the Germans had with proper tactics. The Sherman in particular had great escape hatches and were well rounded tanks, there was a handful of 76mm Sherman’s that well represented the threat of German heavy tanks. The British were outdone early in Africa, and the doctrine of having cruiser tanks and infantry tanks was outdated, but the tanks worked.

      @pokemongo-py6yq@pokemongo-py6yq5 жыл бұрын
  • Germany: *builds heaviest tanks in the 1940s world* Also Germany: "Wtf why cant we cross any bridges???"

    @TheKsalad@TheKsalad5 жыл бұрын
    • Also Germany: "WTF, why mein tank transmission die???" Also Germany: "WTF, where mein oil for tank and plane go???" Also Germany: "WTF, why mein [Insert Maus-Tiger-etc.] lost to infantry overrunning us???"

      @kairndreamer2885@kairndreamer28855 жыл бұрын
    • @@kairndreamer2885 Unsinnn,..these points were well aware and there were tactics to counter that.

      @Forodir@Forodir5 жыл бұрын
    • @@Forodir they weren't going to get far with synthetic oil that is for sure. Failure to capture and hold the oil reserves of Russia.

      @khalee95@khalee955 жыл бұрын
    • @@khalee95 Yes thats a Fact, but that has nothing to do with the design of the heavy Tanks, also smaller and lighter tanks would be without Fuel in the end. Design is alway some compromise and the doctrin was to lean heavy (pun intended) to Firepower and Armor, so the high consumption was well aware but the decision was that it was worth it. And the other points are just rubbish.

      @Forodir@Forodir5 жыл бұрын
    • @@Forodir Remind me again which ones were actually effective, because moving soldiers and tanks by train is a good way to lose equipment and compromise the organizational integrity of your battalions, and shifting focus away from Grozny in favour of Moscow and Leningrad cost Germany's chance to get and hold Soviet oil, and by the end of the war German tanks were being used on the defensive where they could be more easily overrun given the tanks' poor oil allocation.

      @kairndreamer2885@kairndreamer28855 жыл бұрын
  • "Okay we need a plan to fight the Tiger tanks" "Okay, simple. We don't!" "What" "They're out of fuel, just go around them and let the artillery deal with them" "But that will destroy the French town" "Better that than our entire tank force"

    @JulesR963@JulesR9634 жыл бұрын
    • "The town's gonna be bombed by the ameritards anyway so no worries there"

      @jacqirius5533@jacqirius55334 жыл бұрын
    • @@jacqirius5533 the "ameritards" air power played a huge role in smashing the German army in the West... and having powerful tanks without much fuel isn't that useful.

      @timothydavidcurp@timothydavidcurp3 жыл бұрын
    • Bad ass profile picture dude

      @agentjohnson3973@agentjohnson39733 жыл бұрын
    • @@timothydavidcurp Thanks to the freedoms boys the bombed cities just means easier modernization

      @ZaHandle@ZaHandle2 жыл бұрын
    • @@jacqirius5533 gfy Semper Fi, wuss

      @tsherman393@tsherman3932 жыл бұрын
  • Tank effectiveness is often thought of as how it performed one on one with lighter tanks such as the Sherman. -A nightmare scenario for almost any western front tank (save for the Firefly and Chaffee). Problem is, factors such as allied control of the Air, lack of fuel and difficulty of repair also figure into the Tiger's effectiveness. As one German ex-tanker told me (in 1982), "Its hard to boast of your tank's superiorty when youve been sitting by your [captured] broken tank for hours watching many thousands of American and British troops, tanks and planes rushing past you"

    @MrDlt123@MrDlt1232 жыл бұрын
    • Thank you. Wehraboos get all horny about the big cats, but the fact is they were huge wastes of resources. A tank that cannot even reach the battlefield without needing its transmission replaced multiple times, and constant support because it cannot cross any bridge without assistance, is a worthless tank. Arguably more important than tactical effectiveness is logistics in warfare. Germany couldn't even support the Tiger or Panther while waging a defensive war for most of their lives, imagine trying to actually go on the offensive with these paperweights. The enemy would be counter-attacking while you were stuck on the side of a road with the engine block removed.

      @CrashB111@CrashB1112 жыл бұрын
    • @@CrashB111How were they wasted resources? The Germans didn't have the men or the fuel to build quantity- their ONLY option was a small number of more durable and deadly tanks, which is exactly what Tigers were. Tigers were 3x the cost of other tanks, but had a kill ratio of 10-1, which makes their effectiveness 3.3x that of an allied tank. What is the advantage of manufacturing 5 panzer IV instead of a Tiger when a. You can't man 4 more tanks, b. Your factories can't produce 4 more tanks c. You don't have fuel to run 4 more tanks and d. You don't have enough trains to transport 4 more tanks.

      @jonathanford7055@jonathanford70552 жыл бұрын
    • @@jonathanford7055 Maybe the Panzer IV actually reaches the front line without breaking down and being abandoned in a ditch as the Allies advance on you? You can't completely discount all of the losses the cats had to non-combat issues. They designed a tank they performed terribly in mud and freezing weather, while fighting a war in Eastern Europe.

      @CrashB111@CrashB1112 жыл бұрын
    • @CrashB111 wehraboos may be annoying but those complaining of wehraboos are much worse. Kotaku reading redditors the lot of them.

      @jamesmandahl444@jamesmandahl444 Жыл бұрын
    • This is the problem. Everyone talks about WWII tanks through armor vs armor combat when that was never the purpose for most tanks to begin with. Allied tanks were designed for quick maneuverability to cover for infantry. The air superiority made any German on the field a sitting duck without someone to help, especially Tigers that were constantly prone to breaking down. The fact Wehraboos keep talking about the Tiger's superiority vs. Shermans and Crusaders shows that they do not understand the extreme differences between German and Allied tank differences. They killed a lot, yes. But are they really groundbreaking when your infantry are dead and the sky is littered with Superfortresses dropping bombs on you?

      @joshwolf6932@joshwolf6932 Жыл бұрын
  • Jingle’s salt is highest quality salt. Solid choice.

    @oliverpercy2987@oliverpercy29875 жыл бұрын
    • I haven't watched the video, but..that Jingles?

      @Raz0rking@Raz0rking5 жыл бұрын
    • Tog! Nom nom nom

      @bitterdbyu5291@bitterdbyu52915 жыл бұрын
    • He's a youtuber, look him up then join us in the Salt Mines

      @Finallyfree423@Finallyfree4235 жыл бұрын
    • Have to wonder what he would say about 21 artillery pieces per Tiger. Granted, they're not SPGs, but I think we'd all be sent to the salt mines for proposing that.

      @deidryt9944@deidryt99445 жыл бұрын
    • are u sure he can complete to SirFoch salt ? xD

      @safersisic9562@safersisic95625 жыл бұрын
  • A most thorough and contextual overview of the Tiger tanks effectiveness. Meanwhile the half hour "documentaries" continue to spew bullshit to the masses with alarming success. If there is any salt with me, it is that your see stuff has never killed the phoney docs.

    @cannonfodder4376@cannonfodder43765 жыл бұрын
    • EDIT: THIS IS SARCASTIC Sherman tanks, the US Army's pathetic attempt at creating an armored vehicle, was known to its crews by only one name: the Ronson, because it lit up the first time, every time. Belton Cooper, who spent the war observing Shermans that had been damaged, remembered that Shermans were very often damaged. It took 5 Shermans to defeat a German tank, which is why US tank platoons had 5 tanks in them and German tank platoons only needed 1 Tiger. The Tiger's gun was way bigger than the Shermans, and therefore more useful in all situations. In conclusion, the Americans won war due to sheer fighting prowess and patriotism despite the best efforts of their engineers to sabotage them by producing inferior weapons. Next up on the History Channel: Did aliens design the ME-262? Find out after 15 minutes of commercials.

      @brianyoung3324@brianyoung33245 жыл бұрын
    • Brian Young - "the Americans won war" (sic). Mmmmm, I think there were other countries fighting too ?

      @andrewgrant2910@andrewgrant29105 жыл бұрын
    • @@brianyoung3324 you're wrong about the Sherman. It was one of the most successful tank designs in the war. It was cheap, reliable, and it was upgraded significantly by the end of the war. Can probably build seven or eight Sherman's for the cost of each tiger. then remember that only a percentage of your tanks actually show up at the battlefield cuz the rest of them are broken down or can't cross that bridge. At the end of the day was the Sherman that beat the tiger.

      @85Funkadelic@85Funkadelic5 жыл бұрын
    • @Operator_As_Fck I guess everyone missed the sarcasm in Brian Young's comment.

      @Scott-qq9jd@Scott-qq9jd5 жыл бұрын
    • @@85Funkadelic r/whoosh

      @gafeleon9032@gafeleon90325 жыл бұрын
  • Tiger used: *Neutral Steer!* _It hurts itself in it's confusion!_

    @ARockyRock@ARockyRock5 жыл бұрын
    • Lmao

      @nucleartestrabbit@nucleartestrabbit3 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah it hurts itself and other 10,000 allied tanks in confusion

      @donaldhysa4836@donaldhysa48363 жыл бұрын
  • Have you ever heard the legend of King Tiger the Heavy?

    @doch.8039@doch.80395 жыл бұрын
    • kzhead.info/sun/m8Vxc6uvcKChh5E/bejne.html

      @doch.8039@doch.80395 жыл бұрын
    • ??? Not from an allied tanker

      @doch.8039@doch.80395 жыл бұрын
    • Darth Tigrus the Corpulent

      @GopaiCheems@GopaiCheems2 жыл бұрын
    • He could save his crew from getting shot, but not himself from breaking down ironic

      @randomredshirt5274@randomredshirt5274 Жыл бұрын
  • The only tank my grandfather mentioned by name were the tigers. He would not have confused it with other panzers. In one engagement he focused all of his guns,12-16, and effort of his unit, 1000+ men, on one visible muzzle brake of a supposed Tiger. The psychological impact is difficult to measure.

    @logoseven3365@logoseven33655 жыл бұрын
    • So you are telling me 12 to 16 guns and 1000 men were send for one Tiger ? Get out !

      @Vlad_-_-_@Vlad_-_-_5 жыл бұрын
    • Smintina Vlad They were set up on the southern side of The Bulge. No infantry screen, except for ALL of there support personal, no designated antitank units. Someone spotted something floating in the fog in the valley. It was a muzzle brake. He didn’t know how many tanks or how many men were with the muzzle brake, but he did know what was usually behind one. As I recall it wasn’t the only time they direct fired their weapons.

      @logoseven3365@logoseven33655 жыл бұрын
    • Smintina Vlad When Grandpa recounted this story, and he did on several occasions, he was very serious. The phrase I remember was,” If it had gotten into our area we had nothing to stop it. It would have killed all of us.” That was the only time he ever said that. I genuinely believe the Americans had convinced themselves of the invulnerability of the machines. I just saw this video this morning. Thanks for the exchange! kzhead.info/sun/ZdRmmd6oe3SQqWw/bejne.html

      @logoseven3365@logoseven33655 жыл бұрын
    • @@logoseven3365 well if the tiger was alone or very few all you need to do is sneak up on one get on it pop open the hatch and gun down the crew hell even steal it or just drop a grenade down there that usually takes it out esally.

      @TheManofthecross@TheManofthecross5 жыл бұрын
    • Many troops called every single German tank they saw (or thought they saw) a Tiger. You can mainly thank both the German and Allied propaganda machines for that. Me, I have to laugh every time I see US troops being depicted fighting against Tiger Is in movies (especially in Normandy). US troops barely encountered them in actuality.

      @jarink1@jarink15 жыл бұрын
  • 11:59 A R T I L L E R Y O N L Y

    @Richi_Boi@Richi_Boi5 жыл бұрын
    • and anti tank guns...those pak babies did the MOST t34 killings on the eastern front... in any wargame I play, pak and arti do the wonders to bleed any invader on my home turf...and rightfully so...

      @oddballsok@oddballsok5 жыл бұрын
    • Steiner's worst enemy

      @deltoroperdedor3166@deltoroperdedor31665 жыл бұрын
    • The sky cancer.

      @ExarPalantas@ExarPalantas5 жыл бұрын
    • I give you three internets sir

      @Ben.....@Ben.....5 жыл бұрын
    • ODDBALL SOK which war games do you play that simulate both pak and arty?

      @Rokaize@Rokaize5 жыл бұрын
  • Thank you so much...Ive learned WAY more from this channel than just about any other WW2 YT channel in years. Its completely factual and in-depth, sites documented sources, and has very little uninformed conjecture or opinion...something that's sadly lacking on many channels.

    @luskvideoproductions869@luskvideoproductions8692 жыл бұрын
  • A Scary piece of excellent German Engineering. While being English, I cannot help admiring such a formidable weapon. Respect.

    @blizzardmichael@blizzardmichael4 жыл бұрын
    • Germans aren't nazis anymore so its fine, if Hitler were as smart as his engineers he wouldn't have gone to war

      @wellshit9489@wellshit94893 жыл бұрын
    • But Luie we could've been HUGE if they only made 25,000 instead of

      @arthurdirindinjr1792@arthurdirindinjr1792Ай бұрын
  • I once watched a great documentary which interviewed former tiger tank crews who fought in the Battle of Kursk, and obviously beyond - and they interviewed every member of the crew from the commander to the driver. Perhaps surprising was the former tank commanders somewhat scathing assessment of the tiger's Power to weight ratio - or Horsepower per tonne. He called the tiger a 'limp crow' on the battlefield due to the fact that it was seriously underpowered. He explained that the minimum requirement for a tank with good mobility was 14 horsepower per tonne. He recalled the tiger could only muster just over 10 hp/t and that this was a serious handicap especially on the Eastern front given the comparably much better power to weight ratio of the Soviet tanks. He said that only academics would record optimum high speeds of a Tiger I, King Tiger and other variants but, in reality, during training, crews were cautioned not to exceed a given speed or rpm.

    @kiowhatta1@kiowhatta15 жыл бұрын
    • The Tiger was a heavy Tank: that means It's job is to do big damage and have a good survivabillity - for moving fast there are the medium and light Tanks

      @bluefox9436@bluefox94365 жыл бұрын
    • I don't see why 10 hp/ton is bad. A loot of tanks had even lower hp/t ration and even 14hp/t would not make a loot of difference alone. The lowest known to me is 5hp/t for the us t95.

      @venator5@venator55 жыл бұрын
    • a slower tank isnt necessarily bad; a steadier pace results in better accuracy when firing on the move.

      @johsenior1535@johsenior15354 жыл бұрын
    • You would measure a tank or Torque not HP... HP helps top speed not acceleration which would be more useful in the field...

      @insomniacbritgaming1632@insomniacbritgaming16324 жыл бұрын
    • Later versions of the Tiger 1 had the power/weight ratio of 13hp/tonne

      @TheNatenigga@TheNatenigga3 жыл бұрын
  • Recently found your channel while in search of real-life tank tactics to apply to my video games when I play them & I can't get enough of your content. Armor has always been fascinating to me & the Tiger series of tanks has always been the archetypical "Tank". When someone says tank I think of a Tiger. Your videos have truly helped me understand more about tanks, tactics & warfare in general. The fact that you have a German accent when speaking about Tigers is so cool for me. Feels like Model or Rommel talking to me about it; I don't mean any offense when making that comment as I know you're not a Nazi etc. Thank you so much for making these videos & all the best to you.

    @johnnypopulus5521@johnnypopulus55215 жыл бұрын
    • thank you! Glad you like them!

      @MilitaryHistoryVisualized@MilitaryHistoryVisualized5 жыл бұрын
    • Rommel was neither a nazi He tried not to be involved in any of the dark dealings of the 3rd reich I think he was the most talented general of ww2, liked by hes man always in the middle of the fight, was respected by hes enemy and he respected them too Hes failing was hes pride, he wrote a book about military tactics, and one of hes enemy found out this. After getting the book and reading it he knew always rommels next step Not sure if its true or just a legend

      @monostorizsolt2472@monostorizsolt24722 жыл бұрын
  • The artilery general has a very strong point actually :D At first, one thinks a Tiger is a terrible force to reckon with, surely something else would not match it... but putting myself in position of a tank commander, I dont think I would be excited to face the alternative of 20 tank killing cannons hidden all over the place :D

    @psychepeteschannel5500@psychepeteschannel55002 жыл бұрын
  • Thanks for an informative video.One thing I have read with regards to potentially just spamming the front with Pz.IV in the latter years of the War is that apparently, even though the Pz.IV were relatively cheap in terms of _steel_ they did have excessive use of other materials that Germany could not source during the conflict - rubber for the suspension being a key component mentioned in the reading I did. Panzers III and IV, with their small roadwheels, demanded relatively decent rubber for the suspension, whereas the larger roadwheels of the Tiger and Panther could get along with home-grown substitutions without simply tearing the rubber off.It may be that the Tiger, expensive though it was, could at least be built, something that might not necessarily have actually been the case with the Pz.IV and III.

    @AdamSmith-kq6ys@AdamSmith-kq6ys5 жыл бұрын
  • 400k subs and still growing, up the 500k mate! ´´as always, sources are linked in the description´´... I wish more channels would do this. Been here since 20k, still love your work man! Keep it up.

    @watdeneuk@watdeneuk5 жыл бұрын
    • What the fuck

      @michaelrider@michaelrider5 жыл бұрын
  • “Preferably from jingles salt mine” lol I very much appreciate that reference

    @AH8768@AH87685 жыл бұрын
    • This also made my day

      @JamesRicho@JamesRicho3 жыл бұрын
  • The reason why you'd track the location of the Heavy Tank battalions was not due to their effectiveness. It was because they were specialized units controlled by higher headquarters. Thus, their deployment would give a clue about the higher headquarter's intent on fighting the next battle. The same would be true of certain heavy artillery or engineer units.

    @jarink1@jarink15 жыл бұрын
    • Possibly but like he said, they avoided them, like the plague

      @mitchellcouchman6589@mitchellcouchman6589Ай бұрын
  • The first recording of the artillery only meme?

    @dylanmilne6683@dylanmilne66835 жыл бұрын
    • 21 artillery pieces for each tiger? *Laughs in iSorrowProductions*

      @klobiforpresident2254@klobiforpresident22545 жыл бұрын
    • Imagine if Germany had transitioned away from "Invade the planet" stance sooner and held out for a decade

      @boldCactuslad@boldCactuslad5 жыл бұрын
    • @@boldCactuslad They would not.

      @klobiforpresident2254@klobiforpresident22545 жыл бұрын
    • Every man an artillery gun or an anti-tank piece!

      @deltoroperdedor3166@deltoroperdedor31665 жыл бұрын
    • @@deltoroperdedor3166 Now imagine that, but in China.

      @klobiforpresident2254@klobiforpresident22545 жыл бұрын
  • 9:37 21 artillery pieces out of one Tiger worth of steel. What about the towing vehicles for those artillery? Manufacturing, manning, fueling, maintaining, supplying them? How would that effect the equation?

    @marrs1013@marrs10135 жыл бұрын
    • That's what I was going to say. Towed equipment often had to be left back on the Wehrmachts retreat.

      @arnekrug939@arnekrug9395 жыл бұрын
    • How about horses? Would have been a solid choice even in WW2 ;D.

      @mandernachluca3774@mandernachluca37745 жыл бұрын
    • @@mandernachluca3774 In ww2 Germany used more horses than vehicles to pull thingies :)

      @toonderoeck6341@toonderoeck63415 жыл бұрын
    • I kind of formulated the opinion that Germany indeed needed these force multiplying weapons because they didn't have the man power, fuel and mass production manufacturing capacity. What is the advantage of manufacturing 5 panzer IV instead of a Tiger when a. You can't man 4 more tanks, b. Your factories can't produce 4 more tanks c. You don't have fuel to run 4 more tanks and d. You don't have enough trains to transport 4 more tanks. I also don't buy the idea that a Tiger was much more difficult to maintain than say a panzer IV. Both had similar type of overall construction, and once you past a certain point, tank components are very difficult to maneuver during maintenance. I'd say that it is more important the mechanical design of the vehicle, later war design tanks just where waaaay too rushed into service.

      @Biker_Gremling@Biker_Gremling5 жыл бұрын
    • @@toonderoeck6341 You got it ;D.

      @mandernachluca3774@mandernachluca37745 жыл бұрын
  • My friend, keep the videos coming! Your research is beautiful and your delivery is great. And this can be a steady diet for those of us who study warfare. Keep up the good work, brother! 🤘

    @drkushajagadeesh6347@drkushajagadeesh63475 жыл бұрын
  • German engineers when making the tiger: “Hey fisher any ideas for our next tank” Fisher: *BOX*

    @sammybaca4547@sammybaca45472 жыл бұрын
  • *HE PRONOUNCED 'BIBLIOGRAPHY' RIGHT!!!*

    @user-xq5og9lt8p@user-xq5og9lt8p5 жыл бұрын
    • *correctly

      @siler7@siler73 жыл бұрын
    • @@siler7Both works lol

      @matthewjones39@matthewjones3926 күн бұрын
    • @@matthewjones39 That would be "both work", if it were true.

      @siler7@siler725 күн бұрын
    • @@siler7 -🤓

      @matthewjones39@matthewjones3925 күн бұрын
  • Effective or not, they're badass af

    @idk-wt4lh@idk-wt4lh5 жыл бұрын
    • As long as you suspend the facts. Oh who am i kidding, this is the internet, fuck the facts...

      @dakkahead517@dakkahead5175 жыл бұрын
    • @@dakkahead517 we have lots of reports of groups of Allied tanks actively avoiding areas where Tigers were reported. They had a huge psychological impact in addition to their decent KDR - that part is often ignored. Love to see all these commentators actually hop in a Sherman and go against a Tiger. There's a reason Allied tankers (a few of which I've heard tell their stories in person) never wanted to fight a tiger.

      @T4nkcommander@T4nkcommander5 жыл бұрын
    • That's either a testament to the Tiger's superiority, or to common sense.

      @twirlipofthemists3201@twirlipofthemists32015 жыл бұрын
    • Watch the oversized tin can of death and destruction!

      @arnekrug939@arnekrug9395 жыл бұрын
    • @Carnivorus Tigers kick ass on paper and in video games, but wars aren't won in tank duels. Shermans were better tanks for fighting wars. 80% of warfare is showing up lol.

      @twirlipofthemists3201@twirlipofthemists32015 жыл бұрын
  • A superb analysis young man, absolutely brilliant

    @jgvgjv2980@jgvgjv29803 жыл бұрын
  • Perhaps the most underappreciated aspect of the PzKpFw. V and VI was the naming. The names facilitate the perception of the tanks as fearsome, sentient beasts by both the germans and their enemies. Having something like that on your side, or on the other side, is absolutely going to affect your confidence and willingness to fight aggressively.

    @onogrirwin@onogrirwin2 жыл бұрын
  • iSaludos desde Mexico! Just wanted to say how I appreciate your videos on both of your channels (VW enthusiast-got my own 68 beetle)

    @PAPO9609@PAPO96095 жыл бұрын
  • Great analysis, and some very good perspectives on the Tiger tanks, often overlooked. Great stuff! :)

    @TheRealMathewcane@TheRealMathewcane5 жыл бұрын
  • Wouldnt the well trained and seasoned crew be the highest priority asset in this case? So not loosing experienced crewmen by providing them with maximum firepower and protection, especially combined with fuel shortage and eventual inevitable numericap inferiority and fighting defensively would go over pure cash spent and metal used argument often used?

    @jaroslavkravcak7938@jaroslavkravcak79384 жыл бұрын
    • The well trained and experienced crews also had to maintain and repair their Tiger 1. They were expected to service the tank after each day in battle or when on the march. That took eight hours so many did the minimum requirements so they had time to eat and get some rest. That usually led to faster wear and failure of parts that took up more of their time to replace. For some reason the German Army wouldn't provide the Tiger battalions with more mechanics to assist the crews so they could get everything done in much less time and reduce failure rates.

      @billwilson3609@billwilson36092 жыл бұрын
    • @@billwilson3609 Yeah, Otto Carius has said along with a whole host of Heavy Tank Battalion composition. The battalions were only allowed One chief mechanic that has been personally taught the complexities of the Tiger that was sent solely from the very company that created the Tiger. Henschel, so from that they only had one mechanic who could do minor to moderate repairs on tigers in the field. Any more damage, they would have to be sent back to the factory.

      @kevinvelado9907@kevinvelado99072 жыл бұрын
    • @@kevinvelado9907 That's crazy thinking. The US Army had a armor recovery unit and forward repair stations for each tank company on the front line. Their mechanics assisted and observed the tank crews as they did their daily maintenance to make sure they were doing that right. One repair station would be 1/4 to 1/3 mile behind the front line where tanks with running or gun problems could motor back to during battles for quick repairs. If the problem was more complex then it was sent to the second station about a mile away where they had more parts and equipment to perform tasks that took longer. One thing that got me was the difference between the German and American main gun tank sights. The German sights were of higher quality but had to be sent back to the factory for any sort of repair. The American sights were primitive in comparison yet could be serviced or rebuilt by a mechanic in 15 minutes. That wasn't a big deal for the Germans as long as they had replacement sights on hand and became a problem after bombing tore up the factory and the sights that were sent in for repairs. Their tank gunners then had to learn to adjust their aim thru wonky sights and try to retrieve the good sights out of knocked out and destroyed tanks that were left behind after battles.

      @billwilson3609@billwilson36092 жыл бұрын
    • @@billwilson3609 Yeah I know the scope of U.S. Support for anything is massive compared to the German support and logistical system. Of course the Germans had, I believe, a company size of mechanical support for each heavy tank Battalion.

      @kevinvelado9907@kevinvelado99072 жыл бұрын
  • After hearing over 40 years of debates about this subject, I would choose to be in a Tiger 1 for these reasons, excellent gun and optics, really thick armor. I would just make sure I had plenty of ammo and also know where the gasoline trucks were. The Pershing would be my second choice although it was late to the party. The German Mark 4 with the long 75 m/m gun is also to be considered. It's much shorter in height than the Sherman with a good gun. In regards to the Tiger 1, it could hit and destroy many allied tanks at a range of almost two miles, that's a LONG ways away. The scene in Fury where 3 Shermans took on a Tiger was the most stupid war scene I've ever seen in my life, all the Tiger crew had to do was traverse the turret. BANG,BANG, AND BANG.

    @michaelibey6700@michaelibey67004 жыл бұрын
    • Yeah, it totally deserves it's hype. Sadly or well, technically thankfully germany couldn't produce enough of these.

      @arcani695@arcani6952 жыл бұрын
    • The crew in fury should have done the following: 1.Reload the damm gun and shoot 2. Throw gas grenades and go back home with the 4 kills without taking any odds

      @arcani695@arcani6952 жыл бұрын
    • The 76mm gun on fury could have killed that tiger from the front. They were less heavily armoured than the British Churchill.

      @SlappyTheElf@SlappyTheElf Жыл бұрын
    • @@SlappyTheElf no thats not true, the fury was less heavy armored than a german leopard 2 tanks so in conclusion a tiger cant be penetrated from a fury, you logic genius. unbelivable..

      @wolflarsen1900@wolflarsen190011 ай бұрын
    • ​@@wolflarsen1900 Dude the 76 could penetrate a tiger from the front easily. I wouldnt like to do it for you but you can check literatury anywhere

      @janys6502@janys65029 ай бұрын
  • You watch videos made by the Mighty Jingles? Well, he is a great man. This video shows why the Tiger I will always be my favorite tank of all time; it is a psychological weapon that scares the living soul out of people. Good video man.

    @gordonyeoh8255@gordonyeoh82555 жыл бұрын
  • The next time I find myself in charge of a Schwerepanzerbatallion I'll be kicking myself for not having bookmarked this video.

    @mikedelhoo@mikedelhoo5 жыл бұрын
  • I feel that this is a very factual an honest evaluation of the tigers I & II.

    @stevenhoover9156@stevenhoover91565 жыл бұрын
  • Fantastic review!! I enjoyed this thoroughly. As much as I love the Tiger, and King Tiger tanks, the information that you lay on the table is far more factual than most of the videos you can find on KZhead. Well done!!

    @MarkSchouls@MarkSchouls5 жыл бұрын
  • Excellent, multi-factor analysis. I get so annoyed by all of these 1-dimensional "which weapon was better head-to-head?" questions. As you mentioned, the larger operational context of the weapon matters as much as the individual comparison. Each nation involved in the war was highly motivated to find the most effective solutions for their unique combat needs and resource constraints, so second-guessing their decisions usually seems a bit silly to me. In the final analysis, there was no version of reality where the Axis powers could've won, but it is interesting to say "what if"?

    @gergenheimer@gergenheimer4 жыл бұрын
  • I think that an important consideration in the choice to make Tiger tanks may have been Germany's shortage of men. The Tiger tank in that regard has the important virtue of creating the greatest effect with the fewest men. So, the cost of creating and operating the tank had to be balanced against the cost of the men that would have been needed, and the higher attrition rate, with other methods.

    @noncounterproductive4596@noncounterproductive45965 жыл бұрын
    • exactly what I've said.....when the allies had inferior tanks but they had mass production, almost limitless material and manpower, the ONLY reason they were triumphant was that alone. Now (arguably) there have been videos on how shermans took on tigers....5 shermans and crew were needed to take out 1 tiger. Those numbers work ONLY if you have the supply.....and it did suck if you were a sherman crew. I think the issue with the allies is that they had TOO much "disposable" resources....men and machinery. If they were faced with the same issues as Germany, they would have produced better tanks. The whole "was it effective" reminds me of the way battles were fought originally when muskets were introduced: stand in front of each other and fire until there was no enemy left to kill.......that method of waging war is only effective if you have more soldiers to lose. The thought of preserving the life of said soldier wasn't considered.

      @muskokamike127@muskokamike1272 жыл бұрын
    • But "men" has to include all the support crews and manufacturing resources.

      @grizwoldphantasia5005@grizwoldphantasia50052 жыл бұрын
  • Brief but very high quality analysis and overview. Thank you for posting!

    @peterlee4682@peterlee46823 жыл бұрын
  • If you have watched “WWII Greatest Events In Color” Knowing you as I do, I’m sure you have. Unlike you, I do not have any expertise in Tank War-far nor do I desire too ( I’ll leave that up to yourself and other Tank enthusiasts ) the problem with Tigers as they mention in the Documentary. Are they simply didn’t have the replacement parts and or the Mechanics to fix 🔧 Tigers as they wore out & or broke down by either just normal wear & tear from driving them, and or damaged from Combat action... Your teaching methods are GREAT & have a sense of humor, on a dark subject, which I personally appreciate! Thank you

    @kenduffy5397@kenduffy53973 жыл бұрын
    • The problem with that criticism of the Tiger is that you can sub tiger for just about anything in the German army, the German logistics were trying to maintain tens and tens of variants of vehicles from their motorcycles to captured vehicles to variant vehicles to domestic vehicles

      @looinrims@looinrims3 жыл бұрын
  • “1 German tiger tank was worth 5 Sherman tanks yet the Americans always had 6”

    @chriseversole3529@chriseversole35294 жыл бұрын
    • That was a Rommel quote... and it was 10 Shermans but there is always 11

      @insomniacbritgaming1632@insomniacbritgaming16324 жыл бұрын
    • Tiny Table Wargames could of been was just paraphrasing it’s a pretty sweet quote

      @chriseversole3529@chriseversole35294 жыл бұрын
    • @@chriseversole3529 Yeah if Hitler listened to Rommel, the Normandy landings would've been a failure

      @insomniacbritgaming1632@insomniacbritgaming16324 жыл бұрын
    • Tiny Table Wargames I’m pretty sure he tried to improve the defense but didn’t have the time but he did strengthen it a bit compared to what was before

      @chriseversole3529@chriseversole35294 жыл бұрын
    • @@chriseversole3529 Think you need to look into it... Had Rommel convinced Hitler his plans were better, the troops would never have even landed on the beaches...

      @insomniacbritgaming1632@insomniacbritgaming16324 жыл бұрын
  • Very good job as usual. I wonder how the "effectiveness of the Tiger", when compared with combat loss ratios, accounts for Tigers destroyed by non tank to tank engagements. Specifically how to factor in the large number of tanks destroyed by aircraft and artillery during combat. The other thing to consider is the morale effect the Tiger had on both German and allied forces. My Father served in the 94th Infantry Division during WW 2 and always said that "every German tank looked like a Tiger when You were scared to death".

    @garyvigorito3289@garyvigorito32893 жыл бұрын
  • you rock! It is so cool to hear a German talk about German WWII vintage tanks!! BTW, I am thinking about switching careers, and have been looking in the want for openings fur ein Schwere Panzer Abteilung commander....

    @hockeyfan136@hockeyfan1365 жыл бұрын
  • Thank you for such well researched insight. It’s fascinating.

    @FeralVG@FeralVG3 жыл бұрын
  • Excellent video. I first started playing World of Tanks a long time ago because I wanted to play the Tiger. Wonderful piece of machinery (however complicated) and a tough nut to crack. Thank you!

    @JoeMun@JoeMun5 жыл бұрын
    • Same here

      @shashanksekuri7231@shashanksekuri72315 жыл бұрын
    • to say it's comlicated often means it's ahead and didn't made it early bc of lack of imagination. Sure easier makes sometimes a difference, but how many technical aspects of various german ww2 craftsmen pearls are implimented or developed further up until our time... history is a bitch, after 70 years so many things are a misconception, but at that time maybe the right decision. One tank capable of destroying EVERY vehicle that were in service to that point, or 5 (panzer 4's ) that will have a problem with kv1 or t 34 that travelled in groups of hundrets? I'm pretty sure, the use overwhelmes the costs...

      @d.f.9140@d.f.91405 жыл бұрын
  • Oh God I have been watching your videos for an year and only now I understand that the U-Boat over 'liminal message' makes it say SUBliminal messages!!!

    @franciscoprinz9876@franciscoprinz98765 жыл бұрын
    • My subconscious picked up on that but it didn't bother telling me

      @vinnynj78@vinnynj784 жыл бұрын
  • I absolutely appreciate the level of precision that you put into your videos. It’s very German and I don’t mean that in a negative way. 👍

    @adamscease4126@adamscease41263 жыл бұрын
  • If you take all of those kill claims (8100 - Without the 103rd), and divide it by 2 (which is maybe an exaggeration, but just to make sure of overclaims and any other issue), you will get 4050 kills against 703 combat losses, which is still an impressive combat K/D ratio of 5.76. By the way, great video, one of the best of the channel!

    @eliasmiguelfreire8965@eliasmiguelfreire89652 ай бұрын
  • This doesn't seem to take into account that hundreds of Tigers never even reached operational units. Their deliveries were paralysed by the breakdown of German communications towards the end of the war. There were also numbers of Tigers never built due to disruption by Allied bombing.

    @markaxworthy2281@markaxworthy22813 жыл бұрын
    • this is also because the Tigers were very expensive to make and maintain

      @jacksteel1539@jacksteel15392 жыл бұрын
  • I am in command of 503 Schwere Panzerabteilung and don‘t know what to do. Thanks for giving me some advice

    @monkas1833@monkas18333 жыл бұрын
  • I dont know what your credentials are, but you present a very concise set of facts in a short time and make it interesting. Keep up the amazing work! Ausgezeischnet.

    @libertycowboy2495@libertycowboy24955 жыл бұрын
  • You produce the best military economics and technology / doctrine documentaries; beat hands down Discovery's ones. Thanks a million.

    @paulc8754@paulc87545 жыл бұрын
  • I mean, it's a heavy tank in large parts fighting medium tanks. While also fighting a defensive war, Of course it's gonna do well. if you start putting Panzer IV's en masse against entrenched pershings you'll see similar kill counts.

    @Gary_The_Metro@Gary_The_Metro2 жыл бұрын
    • Or even tigor 1s and panthers against entenched is-2s

      @warbrain1053@warbrain10532 жыл бұрын
    • But it also did well in OFFENSIVE operations such as the counter attack at Kharkov, Kursk, Zhitomir-Berdichev, the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket relief attack, the Gran Bridgehead etc.

      @lyndoncmp5751@lyndoncmp57512 жыл бұрын
    • @@lyndoncmp5751 doing well tactically does not mean doing well strategically. You can have the same tank entire war and win with strategy. This is where the tigors fail. I do not say that on a battlefield they aren't Monsters. They are. Buuuuut, they must first get there, have enough fuel, ammo and not break down while fighting. And after they fight they need to go somewhere else without breaking because there is not enough of those

      @warbrain1053@warbrain10532 жыл бұрын
    • WarBrainDarkpheonix, The Tiger could not change the strategic outcome of the war. Germany was already losing the war before the Tigers were even properly deployed. There were zero Tigers at Stalingrad and El Alamein, so Tigers didn't lose those battles. The Tiger had zero chance of strategically altering the war. That's not the fault of the tank though. Tigers did well considering their small numbers and that the strategic situation was completely against them. Saying they were failures is like saying the Huey helicopter and F4 Phantom jet were failures because they didn't win the Vietnam War. By the way, it was rare for Tigers to brake down in combat. Otto Carius said this never happened to him and his company, and that it was only really on long road marches when they were over exerted that mechanical issues occurred. Tigers overall operational % in 1944 and 45 wasn't much different to the Panzer IV. The 30 King Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 501 that were pulled out of the Ardennes fighting in mid January 1945 were then sent to Hungary actually got there and were instrumental in the retaking of the Gran Bridgehead. Cheers.

      @lyndoncmp5751@lyndoncmp57512 жыл бұрын
    • @@lyndoncmp5751 they were failures, You might want to re-word that considering they just lost Afghanistan too . The US just can’t win wars in general , they even lost WW2 considering the thing they aided is what’s destroying them with their “mandates”. “No amendment in the constitution is absolute” . “If you don’t vote for me you ain’t black.”

      @scorchclasstitan6727@scorchclasstitan67272 жыл бұрын
  • Ahahhaaha I love the joke in beginning XD

    @RamenHenryDESU@RamenHenryDESU5 жыл бұрын
  • This is a very good channel up there with Mark Felton and the history guy in my opinion 👍🏻 keep up the interesting work and thank you.

    @dickdastardly5534@dickdastardly55342 жыл бұрын
  • Brilliant channel. Thank you for your diligence...

    @jonathonjubb6626@jonathonjubb66264 жыл бұрын
  • lol the Jingles salt mines, nice one. On the issue of reliability, do we have any info on the ratio of combat losses to total losses of the Tiger in comparison with other German tanks, or tanks from other nations?

    @rare_kumiko@rare_kumiko5 жыл бұрын
    • hey YOU! Dont ask for stats of other tanks of WW2! thats illegal, we dont want to destroy the "Hans, transmission broke." meme,are we? pls stop asking about other tanks and just know tiger bad and worst tank for german situation in WW2!

      @pepcozz8519@pepcozz85195 жыл бұрын
    • I've readiness rates which are comparable. Panther had a bit less, PzIV slightly more but otherwise it depended largely on intensity of employment. Both, tiger and panther started terribly but continued and ended comparable to any other tank. No trace of terrible un-reliability. www.reddit.com/r/RebuttalTime/comments/9ppmm5/a_closer_look_at_readiness_rates_and_their_value/? But then, the lack of fuel and spare parts spared no vehicle, regardless of size or complexity.

      @etwas013@etwas0135 жыл бұрын
    • Total losses to combat losses some non combat losses will be due to lack of fuel, some breakdown ,some abandonment that is a whole different black hole you go down For instance Tiger 131 lost because it was abandoned.

      @muzzmac160@muzzmac1605 жыл бұрын
    • @@pepcozz8519 Based Nobu-poster

      @Winthropede@Winthropede4 жыл бұрын
  • The note at 7:43 about the Heavy Tank battalions being the only units bellow Divisional size being posted on the Allied Intelligence maps should not be interpreted as an indication of incredible respect or fear of these formations. This should be interpreted as what it was, a distinctive unit possessed of unique equipment which by identifying and following one can gain Intelligence insight into enemy postures, movements, and intentions. By following the Tigers the Allied Intelligence people could potentially identify not just the Heavy Tank battalions themselves but their higher units as one did not go anywhere significant without the other.

    @piperp9535@piperp95355 жыл бұрын
    • @Piper P Can't believe how far I had to scroll through the comments before finding one other person who actually understood this point.

      @jarink1@jarink15 жыл бұрын
    • @@jarink1 yup, they Are called Intel maps for a reason

      @piperp9535@piperp95355 жыл бұрын
    • @Carnivorus There are some historians that say that the best thing about the Tiger was that it's armor and gun allowed the crew to live through a mistake or two which let them learn not to make such mistakes again. The Heavy Battalions weren't sent inexperienced men to begin with, they were soldiers who had already performed well in combat. But now they were able to really hone their skills as crews and as units. If you were an American tanker who is coming into the war with far less experience, do you think it's only the name "Tiger" that scares you? Or is it also the knowledge that the men in those Tigers have a lot more combat experience than you do? The two together is what they should be fearing, a tank with a killer gun crewed by experienced tankers. But that is not what I was talking about. I was an Intel Analyst in the Army, the point I was making is that the Heavy Tank Battalions were tracked because they were signature equipment for where the German Corps were placing great importance because those Tigers weren't just used in any old place, they were a focus point of effort either defensively or offensively.

      @piperp9535@piperp95353 жыл бұрын
  • I was looking into the interleaved wheels and there is documentation that says the german had a simple mud solution ( either it was spokes, or a scrapper) and it resolved this issue.

    @DasShaten@DasShaten2 жыл бұрын
    • Well, you can't just spoke the tigers roadwheels. However, there are pictures of tanks having a roadwheel removed

      @harmdallmeyer6449@harmdallmeyer6449 Жыл бұрын
  • Fantastic content mate. Love your perspective on the German side, especially given you can read all of the historical reports!

    @dfredericks86@dfredericks864 жыл бұрын
  • "how effective was the tiger tank really ?" French : *"A LOT"* British : "it was good" Italians : "MY PIZZA IS BETTER" Soviets : "behold my t-34 and my wall of men" Americans : "MY M4 SHERMANS MAKE THE LOUDEST SOUND , AND THAT SOUND IS THE SOUND OF *F R E E D O M* (and 50 tons of pure democracy)" German : "it is actualy not a tiger but a the Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung E"

    @makiskanyt9269@makiskanyt92694 жыл бұрын
    • Soviet : Tiger? Meet your hunter (ISU 152)

      @Nat11us@Nat11us4 жыл бұрын
    • @Carnivorus So what? The germans needed a 60 ton tank to destroy a KV-1 or a T-34 effectively at range. If the Russian tanks weren't so good in the early stages of the war, a Tiger or Panther would not be needed. Since they were effective, they impemented the cats, the Russians brought up the 152 and 122mm cannons, so ther germans had to bring up the Tiger 2. It would be a never ending circle.

      @elpatrico2562@elpatrico25623 жыл бұрын
    • @Carnivorus It was good, no doubt, I'm just saying that they made the Tiger because of the fear or Soviet tanks. Sure, a long 75mm cannon could penetrate them, but they soviets could also penetrate the Panzers, so they needed someting that soviet cannons can't penetrate but it can penetrate soviet tanks even more effectively.

      @elpatrico2562@elpatrico25623 жыл бұрын
    • @Carnivorus So what's the problem with bringing up big guns against big cats?

      @elpatrico2562@elpatrico25623 жыл бұрын
    • @Carnivorus The 88 was an Anti-Airctaft cannon.

      @elpatrico2562@elpatrico25623 жыл бұрын
  • To conclude the effectivness of Tiger tanks one needs to consider the general supply situation, crew training and the battlefield conditions. Three negative examples for this would be the 1./SS101 which lost all(?) it's King Tigers after refitting in late August/early September '44 in because it served as rear guard in the German retreat from France, when one machine was out of fuel or needed repairs it automatically was lost since there was no one left to help them. SS501 in the Ardennes lost somewhat around ~50% of its King Tigers in a few days because they had to fight in tank unsuitable terrain and got cut off behind enemy lines. And last but not least there is the story of a rookie Jagdtiger commander from the 512 who got himself and his whole crew killed in the Ruhr pocket. He drove his JT over an ridge, spotted Shermans and started to panic despite his 25cm/15cm front armor and ordered his driver to turn around instead of simply backing up. The Jagtiger was spotted and got destroyed, when a shell flew through the open rear door after it was turned around.

    @burkinafaso64@burkinafaso645 жыл бұрын
    • I think the topic is the effectiveness of the tanks, not the effectiveness of their usage by the Wehrmacht

      @aslanbayramuqlany6189@aslanbayramuqlany61895 жыл бұрын
    • I would just love to read your source about the Jagdtiger crew.

      @3gunslingers@3gunslingers5 жыл бұрын
    • If my mind doesnt trick me it was in Carius' 'Tigers in the mud'. After he was severly wounded as Tiger commander in the east he ended up as Company Commander in heavy tank hunter batallion 512 in the Ruhr pocket.

      @burkinafaso64@burkinafaso645 жыл бұрын
    • @@burkinafaso64 thanks

      @3gunslingers@3gunslingers5 жыл бұрын
    • @@3gunslingers I can provide you the passage tommorow If you'd like to

      @burkinafaso64@burkinafaso645 жыл бұрын
  • Amazing. Great video. Well-researched. Well done.

    @cletusrufus2637@cletusrufus26375 жыл бұрын
  • A very good friend of mine was a Tiger Tank driver..survived the war and became a very successful entrepreneur here in the U.S. so i would say the Tiger is extremely effective and safe !!.

    @TopSecretVid@TopSecretVid5 жыл бұрын
  • No number-analysis would correctly measure the morale effect of seemingly unstoppable steel behemoths

    @adampodlewski5140@adampodlewski51405 жыл бұрын
    • This is no place for silly things like these mate.The first Tigers in north Africa were taken out by 6 pounder guns, do you think they were afraid ? They did not even knew what a Tiger is.Even in Western Europe, the US only encountered them a few times.Spoiler alert they won every time.On the Eastern Front, the soviets started having direct counters like SU85, SU152, later on IS2's and T34 85's, Su100.The Tiger had every reason to fear those.So no, that is mostly a myth, the Tiger fobia, most Allied tanks where taken out by AT guns, Stugs.Tiger kill counts were inflated for propaganda poster boys like Witmann and so on.

      @Vlad_-_-_@Vlad_-_-_5 жыл бұрын
    • @@Vlad_-_-_ And - in propaganda aspect - it worked marvelously.

      @adampodlewski5140@adampodlewski51405 жыл бұрын
    • @@adampodlewski5140 Of course, to the point that even to this day, with a massive amount of information available, people still believe the german army superiority myths.

      @Vlad_-_-_@Vlad_-_-_5 жыл бұрын
    • @@Vlad_-_-_ it is aboslutely untrue that tigers didnt have a psychological effect. Especially later in the war in france against british and americans.

      @Odibio.Skins.@Odibio.Skins.5 жыл бұрын
    • @@Vlad_-_-_ i dont know if i believe that especially because 1 tiger tanks always had highly skilled personel that knew not to shoot on the move 2 why would the tiger drive in range of american 75 when they can kill them from a way longer range and they were aware of that 3 how do the tiger only get like 1 or 2 shots of before being penned by a 75mm what is pretty rare from the front while the shermans seem to get 6 shells of in the same time. But i guess in this specific report the tiger crew failed to do their job.

      @Odibio.Skins.@Odibio.Skins.5 жыл бұрын
  • I propose a new show called "Who Killed This Tank?" where a group of experts travel to a war zone to investigate the cause of death of each tank, and then find and track the killer, to give them a very prestigious and expensive medal. They soon find out their mission, noble as it might be, is not as straight forward as they assumed.

    @amitabhakusari2304@amitabhakusari23045 жыл бұрын
    • British did this pretty extensively, especially in Normandy. USA somewhat. Showed how the USAAF TAC and RAF weren't really killing the number of tanks claimed.

      @ODST6262@ODST62624 жыл бұрын
  • Another factor to non-combat losses to be considered is 'crew experience'. Often quoted in the Ardennes offensive, for example an inexperienced driver on Tiger could certainly grind those gears

    @leighrussell6083@leighrussell60833 жыл бұрын
  • I love the visual arts and graphics so much !!!

    @1yoan3@1yoan34 жыл бұрын
  • That was brilliant. I shall now relay my new found knowledge to my nonplussed family at the dinner table.

    @einefreunde@einefreunde5 жыл бұрын
  • I know you have talked about the issue with tipping points in the past but I sort of find it hard when trying to look at good or bad decisions on the strategic level when, especially by 1943-34 nothing matters because Germany could not complete its strategic/grand-strategic objectives. Without a meaningful objective I find it hard to make statements of effective or in-effective. The only one I can think of is stalling for time...to...what?

    @marcus7564@marcus75645 жыл бұрын
    • Germans still believed that wAllies were more afraid of the Soviets than of them. They also failed to understand that UK had more narrow objectives of dismantling Germany in order to eliminate a contender for world empire. Curiously, European bickering was brushed aside by USSR and USA altogether.

      @etwas013@etwas0135 жыл бұрын
    • @@etwas013 I have heard this tho I would be interested in knowing how much of a 'strategy' this was vs. desperation. How much did the German leadership sit down and think about it, then implement operations and economic planning to achieve this goal? That could be a Military History Visualized (or not visualised) video I would be interested in seeing.

      @marcus7564@marcus75645 жыл бұрын
    • @@marcus7564 Send him some support and he might do it for you.

      @etwas013@etwas0135 жыл бұрын
    • @@marcus7564 You are spot one here. This was done by one and that was Hitler. This was one of the methods he used to be sure to be in charge. He was the only one there had the complete overview. Sadly he decieded to let all documents about this to be destroyed. However more and more documents is showing up from the old russian secrets documents they found in Berlin. And that clearly understretch that Hitler actual took a lot of good decisions but General Halder there were fired by Hitler because of Halders very big wrong decisions was in hands of the western allied and Halder was alllowed to paint a picture of an insane Hitler instead of the russians actual being very clever i how to stop Hitler. You can find a video named something like "blame Halder". that prove this. History is alwas written by the winner and not the looser...

      @henrikhilskov@henrikhilskov5 жыл бұрын
    • Glad to see someone making this point, because it's far too often overlooked. Once Germany found itself at war with both the United States and the USSR, any question of victory was fundamentally unattainable. The most likely long-term goal at this point is to make invading you far too costly, so that your enemies will give up, establish a border around you, and go home. Victory was out of the question, but survival might have been possible. Unfortunately for Germany, the USSR was in an incredibly precarious position economically and saw looting the resources of Germany as a way to improve their economic situation and further expand their borders, while Britain and the US were determined that the USSR should in no way be allowed to do this. So any question of holding out becomes moot.

      @VoroxPete@VoroxPete5 жыл бұрын
  • You are certainly one of the better analysts and teachers in this field. Kudos! One question when debating the heavy cost for the Tigers, the overengineering and logistics and other issues frequently critised: Given that Germany had a limited amount of people, wouldn't the cost of quality equipment for their well trained troops be a better investment than letting men be expended in inferior vehicles like the T-34 or the Sherman?

    @knutkristiansen398@knutkristiansen3985 жыл бұрын
  • You are like a one man BBC production. Well done!

    @r3ttgaming177@r3ttgaming1775 жыл бұрын
  • The Tiger had its flaws. But it was one of the best tanks for the roles it was designed for and that was to function as a line breaker and also could fill defensive roles during its down time. The problem was that German commanders wanted to use the tiger as a MBT and tried including it in almost any battle. That significantly reduced the tanks down time and the tiger just wasn't set up to do that. They should have just left that to the Panzer 4s. Also the Germans didn't have the logistics to support the Tiger in a MBT capacity. Limited parts and fuel supply is another reason why the tiger was better suited to be a line breaker because the idea is to use those types of tools only in your important battles. When the battle is over you send them to the rear to do your repairs and move them along the line saving fuel and taking it easy and preventing break downs. This would also make it logistically more viable cause you don't spam line breakers they are niche tools. But I think people were impressed with the initial results and went ham. The Tiger gets a bad rep cause it wasn't used properly. There is a tool for every job.

    @ch4osaeternum74@ch4osaeternum744 жыл бұрын
    • Exactly. The 503rd's initial evaluation summarizes this perfectly: "Evaluation: There must be strict orders that, under no circumstances and at all levels of command, Tiger units must never be committed at less than company strength and that Panzer VIs and Panzer IIIs are not to be committed separately. The Tigers must be used as the battering ram as the attack advances and remain as a bulwark at the Schwerpunkt of the defense. Soldiers, in general, are of the opinion that the Tiger can do anything and everything. They do not understand that a newly developed weapon system has deficiencies and weaknesses that first need to be remedied as a result of increased experience and further development. Because of that, the danger exists that Tiger units may be assigned tasks that normal tank companies can perform without difficulty. As a result of continual movement and the resultant increased demands placed on running gear and power plants and lack of time allowed for technical service, damage occurs that results in Tiger units having mechanical problems when they are used. The maintenance facility must be able to work as long as possible at a single location, preferably a railroad station. When locations are changed, they have a particular need to know the final destination. The Tiger unit must, for the present, be kept as the unit commander’s last reserve, waiting in readiness behind a key sector so that it can force a decision when all other means fail."

      @T4nkcommander@T4nkcommander3 жыл бұрын
  • 5:17 - Interesting. Would be nice to see such numbers for the M4 sherman and the t-34

    @the7observer@the7observer5 жыл бұрын
  • As an older person who had zillions of first hand conversations with WW2 combatants fighting the Germans in 44-45 I will say that they unanimously were in awe of the Tiger and terrified of its presence.

    @carlfreeman6687@carlfreeman66872 жыл бұрын
  • You should do the Konigstiger/tiger II, since that tank actually incorporated modern tank design and was honestly more of a beast than the tiger ever was.

    @bigbo1764@bigbo17642 жыл бұрын
    • Arguably less impressive

      @danb4900@danb49003 ай бұрын
  • Germany did not have the industrial capacity to produce the Tigers effectively (or other tanks for that matter) but I think ultimately the Tiger I was the right choice when it came to evening out the odds. If you can't match them in quantity, figure out something else.

    @techpriest8965@techpriest89655 жыл бұрын
    • Techpriest I mean you might as well create something awesome with the limited resources you have.

      @hmshood9212@hmshood92125 жыл бұрын
    • what about the allied bombing of german industry?

      @abbcc5996@abbcc59964 жыл бұрын
  • I still love this tank in Company of Heroes 2. Especially as the Oberkammando West

    @justinfrazier9555@justinfrazier95554 жыл бұрын
  • Your channel is the best on the military theme!!!!!

    @Kommando_Laake@Kommando_Laake5 жыл бұрын
  • Two of my favorite models I built as a kid were 1/72nd Scale Panther and Tiger tanks. (I had better eyesight then!) The interleaved wheels were the biggest challenge: they looked great compared to those on my Stuart, Lee and Sherman, but what a pain.

    @douglasstrother6584@douglasstrother65843 жыл бұрын
  • Thank you very much, as a cat person, i still value the Tigers for what they were, luxury weapons :D :D merry cristhmas and happy new year

    @Mitaka.Kotsuka@Mitaka.Kotsuka5 жыл бұрын
    • Hard to debate since you not really explain what you mean about "luzury weapons" since the brakedown rate was so huge. Please notice the point in tanks lost NOT due to battle... A german tank officer said "for every hour of battle the Tiger I needed 10 hours of maintenance." The tracks had to be changed for every 2,500 km and the engine was to be changed for every 5,000 km and the hole tank needed a major overhaul at the factory after 10,000 km. On the eastern front on a single day there were never ever more than 77 Tiger I's battle ready on the same day. Count 3,000 km of front and that give you the point of one of the reasons for Germany lost the war. Actual most german soldier during the war never ever say a german tank. Most russian tanks was destroyed by infantery themselfes..

      @henrikhilskov@henrikhilskov5 жыл бұрын
    • @@henrikhilskov Sorry, i wasnt really looking for debate, the coment its my own personal a very subjetive opinion based on what i like, sorry for not bring up a topic over to do an actual intelectual debate, the Tigers actually make for its own legend despiting every bad-point or aspect and thats why i respect... 77 Tigers in battle (in whole world) and calling something like"Tigerphobia" is pretty much greatness for me, thats all =) merry Christmas however =)

      @Mitaka.Kotsuka@Mitaka.Kotsuka5 жыл бұрын
    • @@henrikhilskov If you read the unit histories the reason for this was that the Tigers were used as fire brigades, constantly driving from one battle to another, and thus never getting the maintenance they needed until they had a critical breakdown.

      @T4nkcommander@T4nkcommander3 жыл бұрын
    • @@T4nkcommander Sorry you are not right here. The numbers I have from the Tiger manual. It was factory set parameters. Some had asked Why did the german accepted this? First you had to understand that producing a heavy tank was high tech for all and the Tiger was sent to the front to soon as a stop gap solution. But the tactical use as a breakthrough tank was the reason for accepting at a "tank" since Breakthrough was not going to happens everyday so the germans though that there were a lot of time for maintenance. But yes sometimes during the war even the Tiger I's was used as firebrigade. I really don't know when the situation was so desperate that the stoppede the maintenace. But according "Tiger in the mud" there were at least 5 days of battle where the unit had no major maintenance.

      @henrikhilskov@henrikhilskov3 жыл бұрын
  • The fear that every tank was a Tiger says a lot! It's reputation far exceeded it's numbers

    @pilotgirl5953@pilotgirl59534 жыл бұрын
  • I watched a video once of an interview with a German soldier who was a tank soldier. He stated that the German tanks were better than all other tanks in the war except they were broken down much of the time and would not start often when it was cold. Many times his tank could not enter a battle because of failure.

    @russellkeeling9712@russellkeeling97122 жыл бұрын
  • Always enjoy your vids. Even the ones i may disagree with. Keep up the great work.

    @scottcampbell2836@scottcampbell28364 жыл бұрын
  • 21 artillery and anti tank guns seems to be more useful than one tiger tank, but you can't make a breakthrough with only artillery guns. One has to wonder how many trucks, half tracks and artillery pieces the tigers had also destroyed. If you take all that into account, at least the tigers paid off materially.

    @Jinseual@Jinseual5 жыл бұрын
    • Artillery only!!!!

      @scipioafricanus6417@scipioafricanus64175 жыл бұрын
    • Another way to look at it is how many German artillery and tanks they destroyed by simple allocation of resources to Tigers rather than other weapon systems . Ultimately the Tigers were a failure because the Nazis lost the war.

      @muzzmac160@muzzmac1605 жыл бұрын
    • @@muzzmac160 that argument is flawed, loosing a war doesn't say anything about your effectiveness.

      @Landcervelatwurst@Landcervelatwurst5 жыл бұрын
    • ​@@muzzmac160 I.e., the whole USA army can be considered a failure hence they did not win a single war they started.

      @Krejza82@Krejza825 жыл бұрын
    • @@Krejza82 the whole German military is a failure too since they lost 2 world wars that they also started. Atleast the US army won that.

      @whenyoupulloutyourdickands4023@whenyoupulloutyourdickands40235 жыл бұрын
  • I get the argument that the Tigers were very expensive, but at the same time, I'm wondering whether producing more tanks would have solved the problem, as they presumably would have required more fuel. That would support a quality over quantity argument. Is the fuel argument the idea behind the more Howitzers and anti-tank guns in 1943 argument? But at any rate, I'm glad they didn't go for the optimal solution.

    @diedertspijkerboer@diedertspijkerboer3 жыл бұрын
    • Not only mote fuel but more men to crew them, more ammo needed and more support and supply personnel and vehicles too. Great post.

      @lyndoncmp5751@lyndoncmp57513 жыл бұрын
    • Honestly, I'm pretty sure its a combination of the early sherman 3s and 4s in the Africa campaign that really made Germany lose. If they had the fuel to move their armor and more efficient tank designs (look up actual historical accounts of tank repair and tank construction. The later German tanks were terribly over-engineered. They lost more of their later designed tanks to having to abandon slightly damaged or self-immobilized armor than to enemy fire), they could have kept up enough in tank production and tank repair to keep fighting. Honestly though, the best tank to come out of the end of ww2 was the centurion. A heavy tank with the mobility if a medium tank, the gun mobility of an infantryman with an mmg and solid reliability, good enough with upgrade packages to defend Israel to this day from 3 heavily outnumbered tank assaults. Pity every tank that England made before that was purely for infantry support, barely capable of taking on a pz4, even if you needed an 88 to kill a churchill. (88mm equipped tanks were rare on the Western front)

      @squashiejoshie200000@squashiejoshie2000003 жыл бұрын
    • Your question is not without interest. Now, the exact cost in German Reichsmarks for a Tiger is debatable - and a big part of the problem is that it is hard to estimate the value of the Reichsmark itself. But it is consensus among several ww2 authors that you would get around 3 Pz-IV aus H for each Tiger1- arguably the best P-IV with the most sophisticated equipment. Add to this that P-IV aus H had way longer operational radius, way less fuel consumption, pretty much all early mechanical troubles fixed, the 75mm L48 was more than adequate to knock out any allied tank on at least 1km and beyond(apart from the very latest heavy Russian tank models in ww2 like IS-1 and IS2, american Pershings etc). If we leave the artillery General's ideas be alongside other far-stretched thoughts, I think it is fair to say that the fact that you have produced 3/4 of what you need of excellent armor to put a full German panzer Division in the field for each Tiger company, is worth considering.

      @erikhalvorseth3950@erikhalvorseth39503 жыл бұрын
    • @@squashiejoshie200000 There were only 300 Shermans deployed in Africa. They came too late

      @donaldhysa4836@donaldhysa48363 жыл бұрын
    • @@donaldhysa4836 Not for the 2nd battle of El Alamein. There were enough Shermans in Africa to make a difference, also I made an error by referring to the M3 as a Sherman. There is no such thing as an M3 Sherman or a Sherman 3. I meant the M3 Lee tank, which was still better at killing Panzer 4s than a churchill.

      @squashiejoshie200000@squashiejoshie2000003 жыл бұрын
  • Another thing to consider is that a non cost effective but an overly combat effective unit can be a combat multiplier. Not only as a fear factor for the enemy, but also forcing the enemy to over dedicate or under dedicate resources to counteract a target can allow for the friendly forces to take advantage of the situation. This brings up a few additional questions to analyze: #1 Could the germans win with just Panzer 4's without innovating? #2 Was the long term plan to essentially use the tiger and king tiger as a combat capable prototype they intended to turn to mass production later if they had the time? #3 Would the situation of having a Panzer only force end up being a known capability/quantity that the allies could more easily counter strategically even if in greater number and cost effectiveness? #4 How many battles were not engaged because the allies knew they had no way or limited ways to deal with a Tiger? If battle was prevented just from the mere presence of tigers, then it wouldn't even be included in the statistics. We know in retrospect it may have been a potentially wrong move to start using tigers, but what were the thought processes of the Germans back then when it came to the subject? I suspect it may have been along the lines of innovation for the sake of innovation given the fact they tried to make the Maus tank rather than trying to fix the issues they were already having with cost, production, parts, and supply.

    @GregAtlas@GregAtlas5 жыл бұрын
  • Muy interesante comparativa. Es interesante comparar la efectividad de los tigres, desde diferentes ángulos de análisis. Me gustaría analizarlo por separado, el tiger y el king. Porque creo que son dos tanques muy distintos, y sería interesante considerar estos mismos hechos para cada unos de ellos. Felicitaciones por el video. Saludos desde argentina 🇦🇷 👍🏻

    @tincho1979@tincho19795 жыл бұрын
  • It was a great tank - IF you could get it to the battlefield and IF you had enough of them in one place and IF it didn't break down when you got it there and IF you had fuel to keep it going. The capabilities of the tank were extraordinary. But so were its limitations in terms of the Germans' abilities to get enough of them onto the battlefield and keep them operational. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

    @chuckschillingvideos@chuckschillingvideos3 жыл бұрын
    • That is a good way to descrive it

      @masterolof138@masterolof1383 жыл бұрын
    • this is pretty much the only comment this comment section needs. Thank you.

      @bezahltersystemtroll5055@bezahltersystemtroll50552 жыл бұрын
  • M5A1 shoots tiger in the turret "TrAnSMiSsIoN bReAkS

    @julesb6816@julesb68165 жыл бұрын
    • That's not really fare to compare the two

      @francoisv1548@francoisv15485 жыл бұрын
    • @@francoisv1548 The transmission brakes anyway

      @gafeleon9032@gafeleon90325 жыл бұрын
    • *radio operator sprains wrist* *engine sets on fire*

      @markky3050@markky30505 жыл бұрын
    • @@gafeleon9032 i thought the transmission changed gear. The brakes, brake.

      @markky3050@markky30505 жыл бұрын
    • Well if the transmission brakes the tank will stop moving for some time.

      @julesb6816@julesb68165 жыл бұрын
  • IMO their biggest flaw was flat rather than sloped armor. Yes, that armor was thick and could easily shrug off a Sherman round, but if it had been sloped it could have been made thinner, allowing the whole tank to be cheaper, lighter, faster, etc.

    @wamyx8Nz@wamyx8Nz3 жыл бұрын
  • A question rarely brought up but discussed in an online article is the question of manpower, Germany was running low, so of number of men in the field committed to a battle, was the Tiger/King Tiger the most effective use of those men? The conclusion they drew was that the Tiger/King Tiger was the best force multiplier for the crew and support staff (around 20 people per tank). If you can crew 20 T-34s/Cromwells/Shermans they are better, if all you have is the creww for one or two tanks the Tiger/King Tiger is the weapon you use.

    @nk_3332@nk_33325 жыл бұрын
KZhead