I have just finished reading the war biography of Richard Von Rosen, who ended the war as a company commander of Heavy Tank Battalion 503 . He fought in Barbarossa, Kursk, Normandy and Hungary. He commanded both Tiger 1s and 2s, was awarded the Iron Cross 1st and 2nd Class and the German Cross in Gold. He had a series of " lucky wounds". (5) which got him out of major disasters just in time. It's worth a read and offers a valuable insight of the performance of Tigers from a guy who actually took them into combat.
Exactly. If people want to see how a Tiger should be used, they need to look at Third Kharkov and Kursk where the Tiger battalions were used as intended to batter holes through defense lines still largely reliant on 45mm ATG. Instead all the Internet warriors keep citing fairy tale tank vs tank battles in 1944 that the Tiger fought against imaginary allied tank units, when in reality the guys taking on the Shermans and T-34s were primarily Panzerjager and Stug units that were designed to take on masses of enemy armor. And sure, a Nashorn may have paper thin armor, but the best armor is a camouflaged ambush position in the first place.
And to prove your point, Nashorn units had lower loss rates due to enemy action than any other contemporary German tank or tank destroyers during the war.
I suspect that part of the Tiger hate is more of a response to the tiger worshiping that came before it. After having been hyped up to the skies, people started realizing that it really did not deserve all the hype, and then instead of going "well, it might not be the best thing ever, but it had its strengths" it suddenly turned into trash in their minds. Opposite to what happened with the French tanks. After having been known as "trash" for a long time, people realized that they had some strengths, and suddenly they were the best things ever (hint: they were not, but some of them had rather thick armour, so they were not easy to knock out if you were shooting at them from the front).
That's the thing, the pendulum swings, and the resulting correction isn't a correction but an overreaction leading to an almost as incorrect opposite conclusion. That's one thing that annoys me about TIK: He is right about the Wehrmacht being overhyped and the Red Army being inaccurately portrayed as mindless cannon fodder, but heck, he doesn't stop there, he goes all the way to the opposite extreme and claims that the Red Army won because of superior generalship. Derp.
@@anderskorsback4104 Yeah, that's sadly a big issue with a lot of TIK's videos, not just about the military part of it, but also about the different ideologies that were "competing" during WW2, where he seems to argue that because the Nazi party's political ideology does not fit neatly into Fascism, and has borrowed a fare bit from Socialism, it's a purely Socialist ideology. The Nazi ideology was a mishmash of ideas taken from all over the place. Really, no "side" had an ideology that fit neatly into any of the base definitions of the ideologies, even the Soviet union had traces of capitalism in it, although no-one in their right mind would say that the Soviet union was a capitalist country, but the German one was the most "diverse" in where it got its inspirations from. I stopped watching TIK's videos because of that. While he does make good points at times, the fact that he often thinks in extremes make it almost more likely that you'll learn something incorrect than that you'll learn something correct from his videos...
^ this, very much so. There's a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the Tiger tank, I think because it's easier to market media/product based on a big heavy tank than to talk about something more reliant on combined arms or effective planning. A Tiger, in people's minds, can just dominate the battlefield solo like it's in a video game.
The Tiger, when used as designed, was exceptional. The issue with the Tiger in '44 onwards was that it couldn't be used in its design capacity, as Germany was doing the magical thing of "losing". A lot. Have I about got it?
Additionally, some senior commanders apparently fell victim to the Germans' own propaganda, ordering Tiger formations into suicidal situations over the objections of the people actually operating the tanks, who usually knew better.
Something that we should bear in mind is that these weapons (all weapons) were not used in isolation. The wider context of infantry, artillery and air support [tactically]; operational planning and decisions; and sheer numbers, is sometimes overlooked in a direct 'Let's compare tank A to tank B' contest. In Russia - where the majority of Tigers were deployed - there was more wrong in the German plans, numbers, decisions, etc than one tank design - even a very good tank - could solve. Great video as usual. Thank you.
Unfortunately, people of the internet has a mindset that these equipment will always be used in isolation Ignoring that any military operations requires a close cooperation
That is certainly true, and the point is well-taken, but nevertheless, if you want to know whether a piece of equipment was good or not, you have to look at it compared to other equipment of at least roughly the same time period intended for the same or similar roles. It is certainly possible that one piece of equipment might end up comparing unfavorably on a one-for-one basis with another piece of equipment designed for a similar role, but might end up performing better because of better support from the other arms, or other factors (although I don't think that was the case with the Tiger I). The only other thing I would add about the Tiger I is this: it was intended to be a breakthrough tank, but it never achieved a breakthrough. It really only got one chance to try, at Kursk, but the Germans failed to break through there. After that, it was in the wrong role: a breakthrough tank for an army that was on the defensive everywhere.
@@fulcrum2951 - I don't think that it's ALL the people on the Internet; it's the gamers. You've mentioned "using in isolation," when the problem is that gamers see tank battles like a gunslinger; a one-on-one affair. The Chief did mention that a war, ideally, is like a big production, and the Tiger had an intended part to play - and it didn't get to do it. And, as he said, when used like a Sherman, it would fail.
@@fulcrum2951 there is the saying hope for the best plan for the worst. in this case design a tank that's excel in this one niche isolation case ( here breach). but can also work somewhat in other roles if need be, then that the army commander can´t understand what the purpose one tank fulfill is a complete different mater of incompetent.
This is the Internet, how dare you bring a balanced, informed and learned view of a polarising subject such as the Tiger 1... A joking aside, I've never understood the disjointed opinion on Tiger, aside from everything else, the Germans had a lack of many materials that we know hurt the reliability and effectivness of their heavy vehicles, another area that isn't the tanks fault. Military History Visualised made a great point about not becoming hindsight generals and I think this does apply to the Tiger to at least some extent.
The disjointed opinion stems from good old fashioned bias and heart I’m afraid. People in general are less interested in the truth of a thing than they are in a feeling they have about it.
The same discussion happens with aircraft in that people state that this or that aircraft is the best or this or that aircraft or helicopter was poor. As a former Canadian Air Force maintenance engineering officer who did a tour in HQ we constantly had to direct the field to do things with the aircraft that they were never designed for. I also witnessed the government purchasing a helicopter (in order to support the Canadian aviation industry) for the military and then telling us to take delivery and make use out of it. Well at some point the aircraft are being delivered whether the military likes it or not and we must put it into service and simply do the best we can. In that case the design engineers got blamed, the company got blamed and Headquarters got blamed and all of it so that that a politician or party could point to it during the election. There is so much that happens behind the scenes that nobody really knows about or cares about - people just love to hear their own voice complaining for the most part. Just turn on the news and you won't hear any news but instead people's opinions about what someone else said or did.
The Tiger is more suited for WW1 than WW2 The Central Powers would have easiky won WW1 with the use of the Tiger Tanks resulting in much fewer deaths and preventing the Armenian Genocide
I would say that Germans would have been better off concentrating on td or assualt fun like Stugs or medium tanks but a bit better than Panthers. Tigers were not suited to German situation.
I’m going to go with the eight(at the time of this posting) dislikes are six “the Tiger was the greatest tank ever and I’m not going to let such unimportant things such as reality and facts get in the way of my opinion” people and two “the Tiger was the worst tank ever and I’m not going to let such unimportant things such as reality and facts get in the way of my opinion” people.
The truth is that if a Tiger got to the front and was placed in a good defensive position, it was an extremely dangerous opponent with thick armour and a very powerful gun. But it had to actually get into combat and that was restricted by the cost of the thing in money and resources, the amount of time it took to build, and the difficulty of actually getting the weapon from factory to front line with the railways being constantly attacked by allied airpower and the tank simply not being reliable enough to drive all the way. What this meant was that not that many Tigers got into action, not many allied tankers actually met a Tiger and the Tiger really had a negligible effect on the war bar Villers bocage, for a very high cost in money and material.
I have the book "Tigers in the mud" and think that Carius will agree with you. He says that the Tiger was a "mobile pillbox" that was sent from the biggest emergency to the next new really big one emergency... and as you say, that was not the design concept.
By the time the Tiger was available in numbers, the German Army had one last great offensive in it, and the effort was wasted at Kursk. Even then, there simply wasn't enough infantry to replace the losses of that battle. That's all the Tiger could do, scoot around the front to deal with Soviet tank attacks, as the ability to mount a combined task force ("Panzerglocke") was just about gone.
I would equate this to the M1 Carbine. “The M1 Carbine sucks”...”It has no stopping power”, etc. it was designed as a lightweight , short/medium range personal defense weapon, not a battle rifle. When soldiers in WWII, and especially in Korea started using it as a rifle, (and in full auto with the M2), it was utterly useless. I’ve recently discovered your channel and I love it. Your research is noting amazing and you are clear, concise, and love the humor.
Randy Magnum in close range, like 75-150 yards absolutely not. At M1 battle range, (300 yards) on full auto, yeah, it’s pretty much useless. Again, when used the way it’s designed, it’s great. But try to use it like a regular rifle, and you won’t get the performance.
Randy Magnum the instance I was referring to, the Chosen Reservoir, had many soldiers using M1 carbines at 500-1,000 yards, and making wild claims of billets bouncing off jackets, and the carbine round being inadequate, when really it was poor use of the Carbine
@@ColdWarShot IIRC they never even tested the .30 Carbine for lethality over 50 yards. It was supposed to be a handy and useful replacement for the 1911, not an assault rifle replacement for the Garand after all.
This is really interesting information, because it does change how one looks at the tank. Calling it "heavy" doesn't really explain much except, perhaps, the weight. Knowing it was meant to be a breakthrough tank offers it some forgiveness for things like crew comfort and ease of maintenance, as mentioned. Expecting it to be or treating it as a constantly present frontline tank means holding it to standards the design wasn't meant to meet.
Interestingly enough, the few times the Tiger I actually was used in the "breakthrough" role, it wasn't all that successful. The fault probably was more with the concept of the role in the first place. The French had similar bad fortune with their Char B1 tank, the British with the Matilda II "Infantry" tank, and the Soviets with their numerous beasts like the KV-1, especially the KV-2, and even to some extent the JS tanks. By mid-war, anti-tank weaponry, whether on fixed field guns ("Pakfront"), tank destroyers, or even hand-held infantry weapons like the RPGs, Bazookas, the Piat, and the German panzerfaust and panzerschrek could take out the heavy tanks through their relatively thinner side and rear armor. Break-through operations could not be accomplished solely by tanks with thick hides and heavy guns' they had to be well-planned and executed combined arms operations, combining the strengths of armor, artillery, infantry, and close air support in manners that complemented each other.
@@selfdo Those handheld weapons werent great at the breakthrough role, however, theyre better in defensive positions. And I mean, the german invasion of france, and some of the early attacks on the soviets did prove the validity of a breakthrough strategy. The problems really started when the fronts slowed down and attritional warfare started, but that was exactly why the breakthrough concept was important. To avoid that scenario that NS-germany couldnt deal with. Tigers also were built in limited numbers; medium tanks like PZ4, Panther and the STG3 instead were mass produced in much larger quantities, since they would carry most of the battle.
@@termitreter6545 Except that the vehicle that would have been intended for that role, the Panzer IV with the 75 mm L/24 gun, didn't have to be used like that. The three panzer divisions associated with Hoepner's Panzer Corps under AG B met the French armor head-on in two successive tank battles which each were draws, with heavy losses on both sides, rather than against prepared defenses. The Belgians had counted on their Fort Eben Emael to hold out as a linchpin in their frontier defense, but it was taken out by glider infantry and sappers. The other seven German panzer divisions went right through the French frontier, with Luxembourg and eastern Belgium, that was slated for further extension of the Maginot Line. Due to the French belief that the Germans could not readily move armor through the Ardennes forest, they'd filled that sector with their "Series B" divisions which were second-class troops, mostly aged and poorly motivated reservists. The Germans used infantry and pioneers to break through the French lines, and thus opened up a wide hole by which they poured into France and swept across its north, reaching the Channel in five days. The following month, due to the French fortifying what strongpoints they could ("Quadrillage") on the lines of rivers Aisne and Somme, the Germans had little choice but to directly assault them, and it was there they took the bulk of their casualties in the Battle of France, as the French resistance was determined and stiff. The larger (at the time) Panzer III and IV tanks were not particularly effective; but post-battle analysis, rather than prioritize development of heavy tanks, was that they'd been employed in an unsuitable role. It wasn't until the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks were encountered the following year that the heavy tank development gained new priority, which resulted in both the Tiger and the Elephant, and a bit later the Panther.
@@selfdo Tbh im not quite sure what were even talking about. The whole breakthrough idea is basically just a kind of offensive push, there isnt anything special about that. Its about trying to avoid slowmoving, attritional warfare. And the "breakthrough tank" in case of the Tiger was a heavy tank supposed to help with that push. The Tiger wouldnt have been operated alone; its the opposite: The Tiger wouldve been part of a large combined arms operation. AFAIK the german army already relied quite heavily on combined arms. With planes for close air support, and eg the Panzergrenadiers as an early example of mechanized infantry. Its just that the other troops would carry on the fight while the Tigers would shortly after return for maintenance. To be honest, Im not sure if we can even say if the breakthrough Tiger was a good idea or not. It wasnt military mistakes that killed the third reich, but a fanatical leadership that managed to overextend and challenge half the world in war. Getting bogged down in attrition warfare is what the Tiger was supposed to help against, which is a good idea in theory. The german army/leadership just failed and ended up in that kind of war, and switching 1200 Tigers for 2000 or more more Panthers wouldnt have saved the day.
@@termitreter6545 Precisely. If there was any issue with going with a heavy tank, NATO wouldn´t have invested so heavily on the heaviest tanks in the world, second only to the Merkava. Protection of a crew is paramount. And Germany wouldn´t have fared any better had they built twice the number of tanks, but lighter ones. The Tiger was a success. It was the rest of the war machine that was lacking, mainly because Germany was essentially alone, fighting several other countries that had their industry intact.
It's great that Operation Think Tank is still a relevant resource for insights from all the big tank historians, but it's a shame that it's the only one of its kind. Why isn't there an Operation Think Tank 2?
Chief has said in the past that one of the biggest problems is scheduling all these old guys across the hemisphere to one spot, plus apparently there's some tank historians who felt they were personally snubbed by Chief for not being invited to the first one, so the pool of potential invitees is smaller than you might think
I did enjoy Steven Zaloga’s book about the best tank of WWII. It clarified the “best tank of early 1942” as being different to “best tank of early 1944”. Its was great to see how the term “best” was relevant to a particular campaign or timeframe.
I say the "best" tank is the one that best fits and accomplishes the objectives set forth for it by its military planners. IMO, that's the M4 Sherman, hands down.
This view, however, utterly sidesteps the issue that Tiger was still very poorly designed from the engineering standpoint - even for its intended role. In fact, its design is so ludicrously flawed that it is now used in tank design textbooks as an example of bad engineering choices. Soviet T-44 has better armor and similar gun - but only half the weight. That's how much improvement those whacky Germans missed.
@@IIBloodXLustII That is barely relevant - T-44 contains almost no ideas which were novel even back in 1940. Only proper application of proper engineering. First and foremost Tiger's designers failed to understand that internal volume is the most precious resource at the disposal of a tank designer, and they squandered it. Here's another example: M3 Stuart (bad design) vs M22 Locust (better design). Regardless of combat worth of either one, they have just one basic difference: some "genius" finally realized that you should put a transfer box between the engine and main shaft. Well, I believe this should have been obvious to any engineering college freshman.
@@Conserpov Youre just making bad comparisions and claims without argument or evidence. I dont even know why you'd use soviet tanks as an example of volume usage, when the T-34 had issues operating due to cramped interiors. Not to mention the T-44, which had even less space and saw hardly any use anywhere. I think your post is a great example for why most discussions about tanks are just terrible. Not knowing something is fine, but people pretending to be experts just degrades everything.
Having been a cavalry and armor officer for a long time, I compliment you on your excellent analysis of the Tiger, as well as your superb videos. Any vehicle that is used properly will perform reasonably well. Any vehicle has its limitations as you pointed out. One must understand those limitations and compensate for them, otherwise the vehicle will not accomplish its mission no matter how good the vehicle is. In theory, the M113 APC was not a good vehicle (aluminum armor, no firing ports, etc), but in many ways it is much better than the M2/M3 light tank (oops, sorry, I meant IFV) that replaced it. So too, the M2/M3 has its limitations and strengths. In particular, I liked your use of the M1 example. Thanks for this video.
Great sum up. Been advocating this for years, but people tend to look at the small picture :-) Also, the Tiger did roam almost freely for a year. That is a testimony of how well the tank was designed for its role.
@Max Schultz Hitler only settled on that economic strategy after Plan A, which was the entire Soviet state collapsing after the severe psychological blow of the terrible losses of June 1941, failed to happen. That was a failure of political foresight and the blame for that is primarily on Hitler. Secondary blame also has to go to German intelligence for vastly underestimating the number of divisions and amount of equipment the Soviets would be able to put in the field - but again, the lowball estimates were what Hitler wanted to hear, and telling Hitler anything other than what he wanted to hear was very bad for one's career, so a lot of the blame there has to go to him as well. On the bright side, for the German generals, Hitler usually only had them sacked for mistakes whether they were actually the generals' or Hitler's own, while under similar circumstances Stalin was more inclined to have the failing generals shot.
I got to meet you at D-Day Conneaut today! It was so cool to meet you and chat. I appreciate you taking the time to take a photo with me. It truly made my day!
The only 2 questions that need to be resolved in relation to Tigers: 1. How much more fuel did a tiger use compared to a PZ4? 2. How many PZ4s was a Tiger worth in terms of battlefield performance? (I do understand that this is a wonky question and it's not exactly easy to compare them) Germany's no.1 limiting factor was fuel (and later on: manpower). No point building a billion PZ4s if you can't fuel them and thus, if the Big Cats are the most fuel efficient armored killing machines then they make perfect sense in this context.
A discussion about the use of and maybe a display of the snorkel used on Tigers I and II would be a really cool show! Thanks for all of you time and effort put into these short videos.
Let me try to ruin this joke by turning it into an answer that'll have some sense... in comparison. Yes, but no. Same as Russian Empire was part of WWI winners, but irl came out with the worst deal out of any other country(yes, including osmans and austro-hungarians, who ceased to being called that):D Germany could have ended up A LOT worse and especially in Cold War.
It's like the humvve. It was designed for a certain purpose but when used out of the intended role it failed. The tiger was designed to be used in a large mixed group of tanks to support it and it sounds like it was supposed to be mainly a offensive tank. The humvve was never meant to be a APC but instead as a light transport/ recon vehicle.
By outside of its intended role I guess you mean transporting Muscleman Movie stars around Beverly Hills. It was actually quite good in that role. The modified and upgraded Hummer H2 stretched limo version was actually quite good in its intended role. It could deliver larger numbers of perfumed douche bags and auxiliary prostitutes to nightclubs than any other vehicle of its type.
You missed the part in the video where he mentions it was designed as a break through tank. Very much like the Soviet IS series. Popular conception is that it was a heavy MBT and it was never designed as so or employed as so.
"Oh, bugger, the opinion is on fire." That, sir, was an exceptional piece, thank you. In perusing the comments below, there are still visible pockets of "Yes, but... " and "True, however... " and the "Let me tell you what I think... " bunch has represented itself as well. Still, you gave us all a taste of what should be facts enough to sway any walk in line opinion, a laudable accomplishment. Now about those "oh bugger, the tank is on fire" mugs and t-shirts?
For a shirt/Mug I think we all would love your take on the "Drive Me Closer I want to hit them with my sword" with you riding atop the Karl-Gerät in all your majesty and glory sabre in hand.
The issue with this goes back to an analogy I like to present when on this topic. The question is what is the best vehicle for you to own for personal use. There is no one right answer. It is all about what you are going to use it for. Example if you run a HVAC business your answer might well be a Ford Transit van. If you are taking your two kids to school and going to run errands you could say a Honda CR-V is the right way to go. If you need a daily driver but also tow a small trailer with your ATVs on the weekend then a Toyota Tacoma makes sense. What if you are terrified of using turn signals and want people to expect you not to use them a BMW 335i would be a great choice. My point there is no one right answer it is all about application. If it suits your specific needs it's a good vehicle.
The t-shirt ''Oh, bugger the tank is on fire'' has already been done, I have it. The track tension would be funny, but I won't bore you with track tensionning system.
Good afternoon Mr. M, situational context always has an important place, along with anything else related too, but it often is ignored for what can be viewed by some as the larger argumentative point, or a wider general understanding, or the smaller knowledge/aspect they hold true. I agree with your summarisation about initial reasoning behind the Tiger design and its proposed/envisaged usage; of which it was rarely able to be used within only that particular niche. Like most military equipments, usuaully shoe-horned into other roles and positions that the needs must prevail upon it. P.S. How goes the nipper, well I hope, they must be close to walking soon rather than a sweeping crawl along the floor? ;P (or I am a year late and their in the stereotypical 'terrible twos'...)
From what I've read, the Tiger 1 was a reasonably reliable tank when properly maintained by their crews. Tank crews are expected to service their tank each day when used. It took a Tiger 1 crew 8 hours to do that which is quite a chore after becoming exhausted from fighting all day. In those cases the crew did the bare minimum so they could have more time to eat and sleep with hopes that the next few days were quiet so they could finish what was left off.
This is an important point. Tiger 1 cops criticism because its seen as high maintenance. However, not suprisingly, the crews knew it needed maintenance to keep it running, and not suprisingly did just that. However it was my understanding that they *did* do the maintenance at night, so that it ran the next day. I haven't heard about it taking 8 hours.
@@stevepirie8130 Inspecting the individual track pins was time consuming. They were removed for inspection, cleaning and regreasing by hand then reinserted to do the next one. That requirement was eliminated later by using dry track pins that didn't last as long.
@@billwilson3609 Do you have a reference that backs up that they spent 8 hours maintaining a Tiger every night? That seems unlikely, and I've not heard it before.
@@thefantasyreview8709 I read it in an article about the difficulty German tankers experienced maintaining the various tanks. Should be able to Google that to get the article that mentioned the 8 hours.
Germany would have lost anyway. Even when we admit that Tiger's intended use was unrealistic with the given strategic situation, it was a good response to Germany's shortage of qualified crews. It allowed veterans to be extraordinarily effective.
I might disagree with that. I maintain that Barbarossa '42, with supplies and troops diverted to Rommel, allowing him to clear the Allies out of the Med, could in fact have been successful at defeating the USSR in one year. It's still not enough to guarantee an Axis victory, but it would have made things MUCH harder for the Allies, even with the US in at that point
@John Cornell Rommel couldn't clear the Allies out of the Med because he was constantly short of troops and supplies, which were all going East. He proposed plans to take Malta, Gibraltar etc and even offered to lead the attacks personally. If there were no Eastern Front constantly demanding all the things, it would have been relatively simple to give him everything he asked for (he only had one corps in Africa, and not even a particularly strong one). He did remarkably well with very little, so I don't think it's a huge leap to think that if the African Front had been the primary combat theatre, he could have done it. Once the Allies (especially the British) lost the big Med bases, the RN would have had a much tougher time there. The Italian Fleet might even have been persuaded to leave port again with Gib/Malta/Alex in Axis hands
@@talltroll7092 yes but a clear focus on the Middle East and Malta would have been unstoppable by the British. But then again, even without Malta a larger force would have been hard to support in the Mediterranean so maybe you are right.
This subject reminds me of "AK vs AR" and ".45 ACP vs all other calibers" internet arguments. Seriously, this is a good well balanced take on the subject. Thank you.
STOP BURSTING BUBBLES.... HAHAHA I feel your attention to detail. Could be a fault by some. But as you and I know, Big problems, start as a little problem. Very much enjoyable video.
You need to sell Chieftain Action Figures. 12" and 5" models. The 12" model will have a pull string and say up to 200 Chieftain Things, such as "Oh, bugger," "Significant Emotional Event," and "Here is the oil reservoir, which for this model holds 6 gallons of 5w-30 oil..."
Good video, would like to hear your opinion on Centurion and then Chieftain in a similar kind of format, as an Ex REME Tank Mech who served in BAOR directly with Chieftain i cant help but feel that the initial reliability issues with the tanks engine are overstated which in turn overshadows what a great MBT this vehicle turned into.
The main take-away is that the Tiger was built as a “breakthrough tank” strictly for offensive maneuvers through enemy lines. Instead, it was used in a Defensive role as the Allies were on the offensive at both the Eastern and Western fronts.
And it proved better as a heavy, somewhat mobile tank destroyer than a "breakthrough" tank, as its armor and firepower suited it well to pick off enemy armor in suitable terrain, out of effective retaliatory range.
Reminds me of a scene from Mobile Suit Gundam 0083. Rookie Test Pilot in the lunchroom after finding out someone else gets to pilot a better machine "Day after day all I get to do is pilot that stupid Zaku!" Engineer walking by "That Zaku is a fine machine."
I'm convinced it was an espionage operation planted by a highly placed SOE or OSS operative to trick the Germans into wasting millions of man hours, kilotonnes of resources, and an ocean of oil designing, building, and deploying an almost useless piece of crap tank.
A lot of people seem to be bracing for the coming Wehraboo storm but The Chieftain actually has much more positive things to say about the Tiger than negative. Excellent video by the way!
fulcrum 29 yah, diss even one part and a Boo will scream at you, doesn’t matter if it’s a Wheraboo, Freeaboo, Teaaboo, Commieboo or anything. They will all get pissed
@@phil3114 Well sorry if you are offended by people calling out the flaws in the Tiger I and II tanks... Or pointing out that Sherman tanks were not glorified light tanks.
While I'm not going to argue with the point of the initial intent, the point of a breakthrough tank and the use of the breakthrough tank, I still have issues with the tank in principle. Where I think it's certainly a poster of good design and perhaps good practise, is that the Germans used what they had and had a focus on functionality. It worked and when it worked, it could do amazing things. I mean amazing things. While it had issues, how it was used and the skill of the crews using it can't be dismissed. Where I think it's not fully understood, appreciated, factors ignored is that the people who made the most of it also sabotaged it. When the tone of the war changed for the greater Wehrmacht, Heer especially, there didn't seem to be any change of thought, understanding. No measures seemed to be taken to either adapt the items they had or to change how they were using items. That's shot the Tiger, German heavy tank formations in the metaphorical foot. They might be able to change the local, tactical situation, they couldn't change the operational, strategic situation. They were in fact, a burden on the German force due to a number of reasons. Those being the lack of parts/the lack of support and the inflexibility to change doctrine. If I wanted to be really picky I'd also add the lack of any sort of formalised recovery. If I wanted to be really picky, I'd say that they were so arrogant they expected to be able to have as much time as they needed to recover the tanks, because they've always won on the offence. Compare to the US and how they used their TD's. They were used in roles which they originally weren't designed and had good effect for the greater theatre level sense.
To me, the Tiger I is still my favorite tank of WWII, but for different reasons. One of my important points to look at when deciding how effective a weapon system is is how much of an impact it had on the enemy's doctrines, mentality, and future tank designs. The Tiger I, though were in small numbers and had many faults, had so much of an impact on the Allies that millions of dollars were spent on creating tanks and tactics to destroy it. It's why I always respected the Germans in WWII because they made huge impacts in small numbers. Tiger I, Bismarck, Tirptiz, and Graf Spee are a few examples. Where the Germans failed at was keeping ahead of the game when the Allies did create counters against these weapons. That's due though to lack of resources, experienced manpower, and not enough time.
@@habe1717 If you mean that there weren't any post-war tanks based on the Tiger, than you're right. But there were plenty of post-war tanks based on tanks that were developed because of the perceived need to counter the Tiger. So you could say that the *idea* of the Tiger was more important than the Tiger itself.
jic1 Armor was constantly increasing for tanks of all classes and all sides throughout the war. The creation of a more heavily armed and armored tank like a Pershing, Centurion, or IS-2 was an eventuality. The Tiger itself was a reaction to perceived threats on the battlefield and was just another player in the game of back and forth up armoring and up gunning of tanks. Giving the Tiger all the credit for this when it too was a player is silly.
ya I would have to disagree to. In fact the amount of resources spent countering the Tiger were in fact quite small. the US for instance spent very little specifically countering the Tiger- the UP gunned Sherman had (proto-types) developed in 1942, and the Pershing tank was not put in to service because of the Tiger I but the Tiger II. Remember the US first fought Tigers in North Africa in 1943 and did not panic about them.
One important question seems to be how resources were allocated for the construction of more Panzer 3s, Panzer4s, and Tigers from 43 to 45. Throwing more material in the production of Tigers after the tactics it was designed for became unsustainable would have been a waste of metal and fuel, at that time.
Even then there’s the fact Germany lacked the fuel or the manpower to field large numbers of medium tanks (as America and the USSR did, but Germany wasn’t capable of doing even if they increased production). Yes, you can make two Panzer IVs for every Tiger I.....but two Panzer IVs would need more fuel and manpower than a single Tiger I, and fuel and manpower was something Nazi Germany was short on.
Another point concerning low numbers manufactured is that, arguably, it made sense to choose quality over quantity. Fuel was always a big problem for the Wehrmacht, so it might be a good idea to have fewer tanks with a higher kill ratio.
To add, one might well make the case it was worth its cost even when used in a fire-brigade role. In tank-on-tank combat, Tiger 1 and 2 together had a kill:loss ratio of something like 12:1. Performance like that should well be worth the cost in resources, high as it was. Those kill ratios were mainly racked up doing just that, acting as fire brigade to counter breakthroughs by massive Soviet tank formations. So I'm not sure they were a waste even in the way they were actually used. But here too, what The Chieftain says applies: They wouldn't have been efficient as general-purpose tanks, but they were never intended to be such either, nor was any attempt made to use them as such. Nobody ever even suggested dropping the Panther or the Panzer 4 in favour of going all-in on Tigers.
Simple and to the point. Misuse of a tool that the boss bought for a particular task. But now the company is going belly-up and he's ordering his employees to use tools not suited for the tasks at hand before the bankers and the sheriff deputies arrive and lock the gates.
Speaking about the Tiger (and other tanks) and snorkeling. Has snorkeling tanks across rivers ever actually been used in combat or has that always just been a “good idea” that soldiers never actually use?
I was thrilled that swimming our M3 CFVs was cancelled. On another note, I have seen vehicles stalled and flooded in streams that were a bit too deep. More than a few times. Proper Reconnaissance before water crossings! IIRC, the big Warsaw Pact snorkel water crossings were on prepared sites. Sadly I cannot cite a source though this is likely Suvorov.
@@AdamMann3D Still not completely sure what to take away from the Bug crossing. To me the Germans spent the time and effort developing Tauchpanzer for the invasion of Britain and were then left holding a solution looking for a problem. Come the planning for Barbarossa it seems to me that someone decided they were going to get their use out of the programme and added the Tauchpanzer to the Bug crossing planning. Now, point to remember here is that this was a planned assault with the advantage that prior to start time no one was shooting at the Germans. Hence they could casually fully inspect their side of the river, prepare it (or not - I don't have info either way on this matter) and carefully study exit points on the other side. As for the crossing itself on the big day the photos suggest that the crossing was not made under serious fire. Sure getting tanks across the river was clearly a Good Thing(tm) for the Germans, but I feel you also have to ask how much effort it would have been for German pioneers to organise a ferry under the same circumstances that could have transported any panzer across the river (as well as other vehicles) relative to the engineering required for the entire Tauchpanzer programme. As a side note I was reading a regimental history type books on one of the DD tank regiments in NW Europe. They were terrified they might be asked to present themselves on the left bank of the Rhine and be asked to swim across, not because it was an assault on a defended river bank, but because within days of getting off the beaches back in Normandy the crews had cut off or otherwise removed all the DD equipment.
@Carnivorus not at all.german tanks where awesome...just those figures seem ...inflated considering only about 3 or 4000 tiger 1's and 2'swhere ever made
@@grumpyoldman-21 estimates were 1300 1s and 750 2s last i checked, but the figures are far from inflated IMO. Consider the U.S. estimate to deal with a single panther was 5 shermans, and 4 would be unrecoverable. Now take the tiger, which by its nature would only have the best crews germany had available, and multiplying that by 2 seems quite rational. Not to mention the sheer number of tiger crews that are known to achieve triple digit kills. And there is a report/story from the western front of a single tiger holding up an entire division's push east, picking off 66 shermans before it was finally cornered (probably ran out of fuel lulz)
@@ronaldthompson4989 "Consider the U.S. estimate to deal with a single panther was 5 shermans, and 4 would be unrecoverable" I would adore a citation on this, TBH. IIRC, the US Military scored the Sherman higher on combat effectiveness than the Panther, given that the first tank to land a round generally won an engagement - and in the combat ranges of Europe this generally meant the Sherman could spot and lay the gun faster. This is sounding an awful lot like that "5 shermans for one panther/tiger/horsecart" meme, rather ignoring that a tank squad was the *minimum* number of tanks sent out for anything, be it a spotted tank or a group of infantry. " Not to mention the sheer number of tiger crews that are known to achieve triple digit kills." I'd like some sources on this beyond the somewhat questionably inflated kill counts provided by various "panzer aces". See also: Wittman and his 'horde of British tanks' aka light tanks and bren carriers stopped for tea.
I have just finished reading the war biography of Richard Freiherr Von Rosen, who ended the war as a company commander of the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion. Highly decorated, he commanded Tigers 1&2 and fought in Barbarossa, Kursk, Normandy and Hungary...and he appeared in a number of well known German propaganda films ! Wounded 5 times, his views on both Tigers are interesting...and he actually went to war in one so I would suggest that his views are more valuable than most. I would recommend the book...one interesting story is how his Tiger was caught on a rail flat bed in France, by Thunderbolts. The 0.5 cal mgs, set his tank on fire by puncturing the engine deck !
Wow - yes, I have read the same accounts -including the experiences of Dr Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann and Alfred Rubbel - all comrades in arms of 503 Heavy Tank Battalion - mainly on the Eastern Front - if the statistics of these accounts are indeed trustworthy then these Heavy Tank Battalions were spectacularly effective and the Russians suffered casualties that are eye watering - these Tiger crews were highly trained professionals handling a potent machine that in concert with other German units could wreak havoc wherever they were deployed - when reading their accounts you do get the feeling that these units were being used as firefighters wherever needed and to fill gaps in the frontline - but when used as intended such as Von Manstein at Kharkov then they were awesomely effective - very good reading.....
Eric Grace - But, but, "The victors write the history!". lol Reading a book written by the losers? My gosh, you're going to make all the children cry who think they know something about history! lol
@Carnivorus Actually I don't . A firefly gunner , Joe Ekins, took out 3 Tigers with 5 rounds from a 17 PDR. And if you've read the book you will be aware that Von Rosen mentions that his unit was concerned over the threat posed by fireflies. And the 17 PDR was in active service in N Africa in the " pheasant " configuration, well before the T34 85 appeared on the battlefield. I was asked the question " is there anything a 152mm gun could not destroy..? So in a whimsical moment, I picked out the largest battleship of WW2. And before you nitpick that one, there was an incident in operation Husky where an American Cruiser smashed a thrust by a unit of panzers, destroying a number of tanks, with its main guns.
I just packed up the truck from D day Ohio I was US GI, I never knew y'all were here I wpuld have loved to come by Just found put from a FJ guy over at the pizza hut here in conneaut Hope y'all had fun
It's like there is no other opinion by Chieftain than a controversial one. One could suspect, Chieftain will not have any opinion if it's not controversial.
During the period of German-Soviet cooperation, the Soviets sent a delegation to learn about German tanks. When told there was no tank heavier than the Panzer IV, the Soviets thought the Germans were holding back
The Germans actually had tank exercises during the Interwar Period in the Soviet Union and learned many things about tank warfare and doctrine there. Few people realize this, but the Soviet Union (and the Spanish Civil War) contributed heavily to the German tank designs and tactics. Afterall, it was the KV-1 and the T-34 that were basically the most well protected tanks when they came out. And the Germans once again learned from T-34's sloped armor design when building the Panther tank.
@@AndrewVasirov OMG - again T-34 myth. Was good because it flooded the battlegrounds. Poor quality, poor ergonomics, poor equipment. The effectivnes of it was like shooting a mosquito with a shootgun in a furnitured room.
@@wino0000006 OMG the other T-34 myth again. it wasn't perfect and god tier but it wasn't that bad. there were many factories (especially after 42) that mad good quality T-34s, hell when they started underwater welding the elds were superior to any other contempory tank, poor erginomics was not as bad as many say (although not good either) and many of the problems were improved. the equipment was actually pretty good. and its effectiveness was also pretty good, despite these flaws. better soviet designs existed where they got rid of these flaws (highlighting their existence) but the change over limiting production was considered more detrimental then the benefitts of the changes would make. the T-34 was far from the best tank when it comes to capabilities, and better tank designs that could be produced quicker existed in the soviet union. BUT it was far from useless nor was it terrable. it was good to very good in some areas, and bad to very bad in others, balanceing out to be an average to above average quality overall (very descent when you look at the later models and its cost)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 considering where it started and where it ended up it was a tank with a lot of potential. Initially it suffered from poor visibilty for both driver and commander, lack of crew training and a propensity to use it in penny packets. And lets not forget that about 30,000 out of 40,000 T34/76s were lost. But by the time the T34/85 came along the Soviets had an acceptable tank with a decent gun and good maneuverability. Sure, maybe not on the same level as the Panther but easier to maintain and cheaper to build.
wino0000006 Dude, the Germans literally built the Panthers and Tigers to counter KV-1s and T-34. It doesn't have to be effective if it could be mass produced and the military could afford losses. The Germans on the other hand, at the end of the war, had very unreliable tanks that literally became stationary guns because of transmission failures thanks to their weight. And the Germans couldn't afford to mass produce "experimental tanks." They should have stuck with StuGs and Pz IVs. After all, it was the StuG III who was the most produced armored tracked vehicle of the German army. The T-34 was rushed to the battlefield in Finland and at the beginning of the Soviet-German war but at the end of the war, the T-34s were better equipped and were of a higher quality armor wise. T-34 guns were good but the initial shells were of poor quality, but that changed later in the war. The 85 mm gun of the T-34-85 was nearly as capable as the German Tiger I 88 mm gun. And it was the Soviets who won the Soviet-German war. "Ah but it's because they had huge numbers" Well yeah, go figure, the Soviet Union had a larger population than Germany and more land to build factories. The Soviet Union's military lacked efficiency and experience after the Great Purge. And the officers were more likely to send their soldiers into suicidal attacks because they wanted to test different tactics. Well, you gotta learn somehow. On the other hand, the Germans wanted to redo the Blitzkrieg in France in late 1944, against a bigger, more prepared force. The Germans wanted to try out new things that consumed the few resources they had. They couldn't afford any of this. The T-34 was not perfect, but it was a tank that did its job on the battlefield and made the Germans use their limited resources to build new tanks. The Panther looks similar to T-34 and the Tiger looks a bit similar to KV-1 if you look at the frontal armor. Though they are larger and easier targets for bombers and anti-tank guns. I like T-44 more than T-34, I don't know much about its quality since it wasn't tested in combat. Though I think it doesn't fail as bad as the late-war German tanks. And it's also the father of the famous T-54 tanks that are still used today.
The way I always understood it was that the Pzkw III and IV rolled up with and supported the infantry. Find the hard spots. Luftwaffe and artillery begin softening them. Tigers rumble forward and smash, and then the Panthers ram through and rip up the rear areas and kill reinforcement thrusts. (yes I know I am ignoring SP arty... Marder, Stug, Nashorn etc. I'm just simplifying to focus on tank roles.) (and yes, I have studied the Pzkw V. I know it was a royal pain as far as reliability, but when it worked it damned well worked.) (my first tank model ever was a Stug III)
I am glad to hear someone focus on the fact that our understanding of Tiger is focused through the wrong lens. It also is interesting that German officers, when rebuilding their army in the 1950s, pretty much wrote the Tiger I off as a failure because it was too specialized for a role that ultimately proved a strategic dead-end. Tiger I was an assault tank sacrificing mobility for firepower and protection. Thus, it lost the very thing that they felt defined the tank's virtue in modern warfare: the ability to bring firepower quickly to where it was needed on the tactical and operational level. You didn't need tanks for siege; that is best done by artillery and infantry anyway. Thus, the Bundeswehr invested in the Leopard 1, deciding that a tank that could bring a big gun almost anywhere in Europe quickly was more important than armor protection. Tiger, thus, was a waste because the role it was too perfectly designed for what was a bad idea to start with.
Generic Person X Not entirely correct, the Leopard I design concept was based on the assumption that shaped charge war heads could not be stopped by steel armor. A tank with steel armor able to stop shaped charges, would easily exceed the weight of 70 tons and would be even heavier as the Tiger II or the Jagdtiger. That is why the Bundeswehr favored mobility and firepower over armor protection. That concept was changed again in the process of the development of the Leopard II, after the Yom Kippur War showed that even the best mobility is not enough against modern ATGMs.
@@markschoning5581 I just emphasize the Bundeswehr's critiques of the WW2 Panzerwaffe that established the Tiger I and Tiger II to be evolutionary dead-ends because it was considered that mobility, both in battle and between battlefields, was more important to successful operations. I didn't say that was the whole story, just an interesting part of it.
@@genericpersonx333 Which is a flawed track to take considering the only thing the Tiger 2 didn't have compared to the later MBTs was sufficient power.* And that only came with development of power plants - all the sudden you could merge all the different facets into one tank, since you had enough power to keep the thing mobile. The 503rd quite appreciate their Tigers, and did quite a bit of work with them on the Eastern front...West even. *To clarify, modern tanks are both as heavy and as big as the Tiger 2, and offer the same amount of protection versus threats as the T2 managed in WW2. All that to say the main difference comes down to mobility. If the King Tiger had an engine 2.5x as powerful it would have fit the MBT definition. But that only came about when sufficiently powerful engines were developed so as to make separation of roles obsolete.
Excellent argument, well researched and presented. Thank you very much. Although with different detail an almost identical argument can be made for British Battlecruisers.
Chieftain ‘s comments are like a pre-planned 4 deuce barrage, “on time, on target”. Things in the military, are often not black nor white but grey. If deployed in situations it was designed for Tiger I was a formidable opponent both strategically and tactically. Even when deployed in situations it wasn’t particularly engineered for it was deadly. The combat records of Bolter, Wittmann, Carius and Egger attest to that. I’ve been a Tiger fan my entire life, I also love Black Sabbath, but I don’t think they’d do a great job covering the Kingston Trio. I however, am far from an expert, my 32 years in the Army were in the Infantry. The APC M-113, light tank M551, MBT the M-60 and it’s variants. Finally, not that it’s worth much, but I think “tread heads” would love a T-shirt that said, “Sabot Up”.
@Admiral Crunch ....those HEP rounds were devastating against armor, cheaper than sabot, against heavy armor even if it didn’t kill, the rain of fragments devastated everything in the crew compartment, optics etc. BeeHive and Willy Pete I saw first hand the destruction and death they laid out, those rounds literally tore apart an entire NVA Battalion attacking Pleiku in 1970. Their axis of advance looked like God had painted the ground in black and red. I can still hear the sickening explosive crack of white phosphorus and see those pluming tendrils, like a flower of death. I still shudder thinking of it.
Very well stated and balanced summary. Ergo, it should be equally infuriating to both sides. :) I would add that the allies "helped" by doing their level best to exacerbate the Tiger's problems wherever possible. High fuel consumption? Target the oil infrastructure. Tied to rail transit? Bomb the tracks. There were plenty of Tigers and other AFVs throughout France, abandoned due to breakdown or ran out of gas -- not lost in combat, but taken out of the war all the same.
Enigma code breakers was the weakest link of Tiger on the eastern front. Second was fuel limitations. Third was employing a Heavy tank to a medium tank roll.
Cynical Observation Tell that to the Jagdtiger crews that would refuse to move out of over due to fear of being spotted and attacked by allied aircraft.
By the time the Tiger arrived, it was used for 'breakthroughs' except the boot was on the other foot. These heavy battalions were used like fire brigades to stop Soviet thrusts threatening to blow an entire sector open. Their arrival and presence also boosted morale as they were gaining a fearsome reputation on both sides. In this defensive role it's capabilities were well suited to stop or delay breakthroughs rather than create them as they never strayed too far from supply units in a defensive posture. Sure they took part in some offensive actions but they were usually limited to a tactical counterattack to retake a supply junction or favorable terrain feature. Same scenario-reversed role.
I thought one of the lessons of WWII was that the specialization of combat tanks looked nice on paper but didn't work well in actual combat. The French cavalry vs infantry tanks the British cruiser/infantry tank lines, the US tank destroyers, the german heavies etc never really got used for the purposes they were designed for and were instead used in a more general purpose role because ... hey .... you have to use what you've got. This is why what came out of the war was the doctrine and design of a "Main Battle Tank". A uniform design that could deal with a wide variety of situations and was specialized in none. So you can say if used "properly" Tiger was a good idea, well, you could say that about all the specialized combat tanks. If only used to assault infantry trenches the Char B was an excellent tank. Doesn't mean it was a good idea overall.
It's not as simple as that. The main battle tank wouldn't really appear until the mid 60s and in the intervening years some degree of armour specialisation remained commonplace. When the British started talking about universal tanks at the end of WWII, they were talking about combining the cruiser and infantry roles into a single class - basically what the Germans and Americans had been doing all along. It needs to be understand that British Cruiser and Infantry tanks were not directly analogous to medium and heavy tanks instead being essentially two parallel lines of medium tanks - usually the cruisers weighed as much as the equivalent infantry tank with Churchill being the obvious, but singular exception - specialised to either for infantry support or exploitation. Accordingly, when the British were talking about a universal tank, they were talking about unifying the Cruiser/infantry divide, not discarding weight classes (at least, not entirely - it's more complicated than that). Certainly, the British were not slow to develop a heavy tank in the 50s when they perceived a need for one. The Americans and Soviets were still perfectly happy with the concept of medium and heavy tanks after WWII, the only question was what actually constituted a medium tank in the post war environment. The M26 was reclassified as a medium and the Russians introduced the T-44 then T-54 which meant that the Medium tank was getting bigger, but both armies still saw a role (or a potential role in the case of the Americans) for the heavy tank. As such, heavy tanks persisted into the 50 and 60s. Essentially the Soviets still felt there was a requirement for a heavy breakthrough tank (T10) and the British and Americans still felt there was a requirement for specialised heavy tank killers to counter those breakthrough tanks (Conqueror, M103). Notably the Tiger I was designed as a breakthrough tank and the Tiger II was more optimised as a tank killer so both the doctrinal roles the German heavies had been designed for had not yet gone away, at least in the 1950s. As such, some degree of specialisation in armour design persisted for about twenty years after the end of the war as the early "universal" tanks like Centurion or M46/47/48 weren't truly universal. The idea was there, but neither the east nor west felt able to go all in on the Main Battle Tank concept in the early cold war and the first "proper" main battle tanks that really folded the medium and heavy roles into a single design were the Chieftain and T-64.
American tank destroyers had a better kill ratio against German tanks than their tank counterparts. The concept of TDs was a problem, but American tank tactics were a bigger problem.
How about a family favourite as a T-shirt
"Oh my god, the tank is on fire"
I second that!
Oh bugger the tank on fire 🔥
I have just finished reading the war biography of Richard Von Rosen, who ended the war as a company commander of Heavy Tank Battalion 503 . He fought in Barbarossa, Kursk, Normandy and Hungary. He commanded both Tiger 1s and 2s, was awarded the Iron Cross 1st and 2nd Class and the German Cross in Gold. He had a series of " lucky wounds". (5) which got him out of major disasters just in time. It's worth a read and offers a valuable insight of the performance of Tigers from a guy who actually took them into combat.
It has to be 'bugger' rather than 'God'. It'll probably offend less people and all.
I would buy a few!!
Exactly. If people want to see how a Tiger should be used, they need to look at Third Kharkov and Kursk where the Tiger battalions were used as intended to batter holes through defense lines still largely reliant on 45mm ATG.
Instead all the Internet warriors keep citing fairy tale tank vs tank battles in 1944 that the Tiger fought against imaginary allied tank units, when in reality the guys taking on the Shermans and T-34s were primarily Panzerjager and Stug units that were designed to take on masses of enemy armor. And sure, a Nashorn may have paper thin armor, but the best armor is a camouflaged ambush position in the first place.
And to prove your point, Nashorn units had lower loss rates due to enemy action than any other contemporary German tank or tank destroyers during the war.
Well, Kursk was one of the most idiotic operations ever conceived, so I am not sure if it is a good argument.
didn't one tiger suffer like 220 hits (OF ALL CALIBRES FROM 14.5MM UP) and have all its crew survive and was even able to still move?
Jean-Luc Martel tiger 231
@@IronWarhorsesFun yes, though it wasn't a war asset itself afterward, the exceptional crew protection was very good.
I suspect that part of the Tiger hate is more of a response to the tiger worshiping that came before it. After having been hyped up to the skies, people started realizing that it really did not deserve all the hype, and then instead of going "well, it might not be the best thing ever, but it had its strengths" it suddenly turned into trash in their minds. Opposite to what happened with the French tanks. After having been known as "trash" for a long time, people realized that they had some strengths, and suddenly they were the best things ever (hint: they were not, but some of them had rather thick armour, so they were not easy to knock out if you were shooting at them from the front).
Definitely this.
AFnord agree, opinion seems to swing from one extreme to the other. Truth is usually somewhere inbetween
That's the thing, the pendulum swings, and the resulting correction isn't a correction but an overreaction leading to an almost as incorrect opposite conclusion. That's one thing that annoys me about TIK: He is right about the Wehrmacht being overhyped and the Red Army being inaccurately portrayed as mindless cannon fodder, but heck, he doesn't stop there, he goes all the way to the opposite extreme and claims that the Red Army won because of superior generalship. Derp.
@@anderskorsback4104 Yeah, that's sadly a big issue with a lot of TIK's videos, not just about the military part of it, but also about the different ideologies that were "competing" during WW2, where he seems to argue that because the Nazi party's political ideology does not fit neatly into Fascism, and has borrowed a fare bit from Socialism, it's a purely Socialist ideology. The Nazi ideology was a mishmash of ideas taken from all over the place. Really, no "side" had an ideology that fit neatly into any of the base definitions of the ideologies, even the Soviet union had traces of capitalism in it, although no-one in their right mind would say that the Soviet union was a capitalist country, but the German one was the most "diverse" in where it got its inspirations from.
I stopped watching TIK's videos because of that. While he does make good points at times, the fact that he often thinks in extremes make it almost more likely that you'll learn something incorrect than that you'll learn something correct from his videos...
^ this, very much so. There's a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the Tiger tank, I think because it's easier to market media/product based on a big heavy tank than to talk about something more reliant on combined arms or effective planning. A Tiger, in people's minds, can just dominate the battlefield solo like it's in a video game.
I would absolutely buy a mug with "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire" on it.
As would i
One reading "oh bugger, the mug is on fire" would also be great.
Double down on Chieftan goodness and make the handle of the mug a tow hook.
Better, "Oh bugger, my tank is on fire"
stylised image of the chieftain struggling to get out of a stuart/t-34 hatch
The Tiger, when used as designed, was exceptional. The issue with the Tiger in '44 onwards was that it couldn't be used in its design capacity, as Germany was doing the magical thing of "losing". A lot.
Have I about got it?
Additionally, some senior commanders apparently fell victim to the Germans' own propaganda, ordering Tiger formations into suicidal situations over the objections of the people actually operating the tanks, who usually knew better.
@@nindger4270 Sounds.... about like the German High Command, really.
In short you pretty much have.
@@nindger4270 Forgot to mail the memo that it's all bs and operate as normal. The fud is for the public to keep working the factories.
In short, the right tank for the wrong war.
Something that we should bear in mind is that these weapons (all weapons) were not used in isolation. The wider context of infantry, artillery and air support [tactically]; operational planning and decisions; and sheer numbers, is sometimes overlooked in a direct 'Let's compare tank A to tank B' contest.
In Russia - where the majority of Tigers were deployed - there was more wrong in the German plans, numbers, decisions, etc than one tank design - even a very good tank - could solve.
Great video as usual. Thank you.
Unfortunately, people of the internet has a mindset that these equipment will always be used in isolation
Ignoring that any military operations requires a close cooperation
That is certainly true, and the point is well-taken, but nevertheless, if you want to know whether a piece of equipment was good or not, you have to look at it compared to other equipment of at least roughly the same time period intended for the same or similar roles. It is certainly possible that one piece of equipment might end up comparing unfavorably on a one-for-one basis with another piece of equipment designed for a similar role, but might end up performing better because of better support from the other arms, or other factors (although I don't think that was the case with the Tiger I).
The only other thing I would add about the Tiger I is this: it was intended to be a breakthrough tank, but it never achieved a breakthrough. It really only got one chance to try, at Kursk, but the Germans failed to break through there. After that, it was in the wrong role: a breakthrough tank for an army that was on the defensive everywhere.
@@fulcrum2951 - I don't think that it's ALL the people on the Internet; it's the gamers. You've mentioned "using in isolation," when the problem is that gamers see tank battles like a gunslinger; a one-on-one affair. The Chief did mention that a war, ideally, is like a big production, and the Tiger had an intended part to play - and it didn't get to do it. And, as he said, when used like a Sherman, it would fail.
@@fulcrum2951 there is the saying hope for the best plan for the worst.
in this case design a tank that's excel in this one niche isolation case ( here breach).
but can also work somewhat in other roles if need be, then that the army commander can´t understand what the purpose one tank fulfill is a complete different mater of incompetent.
Without air superiority the Germans had to devote more steel to each tank further hampering the number they could field.
This is the Internet, how dare you bring a balanced, informed and learned view of a polarising subject such as the Tiger 1...
A joking aside, I've never understood the disjointed opinion on Tiger, aside from everything else, the Germans had a lack of many materials that we know hurt the reliability and effectivness of their heavy vehicles, another area that isn't the tanks fault.
Military History Visualised made a great point about not becoming hindsight generals and I think this does apply to the Tiger to at least some extent.
It's interesting that the specifications for what became the Tiger were laid down in 1938. The world changed A LOT between then and 1944
The disjointed opinion stems from good old fashioned bias and heart I’m afraid. People in general are less interested in the truth of a thing than they are in a feeling they have about it.
The same discussion happens with aircraft in that people state that this or that aircraft is the best or this or that aircraft or helicopter was poor. As a former Canadian Air Force maintenance engineering officer who did a tour in HQ we constantly had to direct the field to do things with the aircraft that they were never designed for. I also witnessed the government purchasing a helicopter (in order to support the Canadian aviation industry) for the military and then telling us to take delivery and make use out of it. Well at some point the aircraft are being delivered whether the military likes it or not and we must put it into service and simply do the best we can. In that case the design engineers got blamed, the company got blamed and Headquarters got blamed and all of it so that that a politician or party could point to it during the election. There is so much that happens behind the scenes that nobody really knows about or cares about - people just love to hear their own voice complaining for the most part. Just turn on the news and you won't hear any news but instead people's opinions about what someone else said or did.
The Tiger is more suited for WW1 than WW2
The Central Powers would have easiky won WW1 with the use of the Tiger Tanks resulting in much fewer deaths and preventing the Armenian Genocide
I would say that Germans would have been better off concentrating on td or assualt fun like Stugs or medium tanks but a bit better than Panthers. Tigers were not suited to German situation.
Controversial Tiger opinion ooooo ima get my popcorn Chief.
The german fanboys are gonna eat him alive
I’m going to go with the eight(at the time of this posting) dislikes are six “the Tiger was the greatest tank ever and I’m not going to let such unimportant things such as reality and facts get in the way of my opinion” people and two “the Tiger was the worst tank ever and I’m not going to let such unimportant things such as reality and facts get in the way of my opinion” people.
The truth is that if a Tiger got to the front and was placed in a good defensive position, it was an extremely dangerous opponent with thick armour and a very powerful gun. But it had to actually get into combat and that was restricted by the cost of the thing in money and resources, the amount of time it took to build, and the difficulty of actually getting the weapon from factory to front line with the railways being constantly attacked by allied airpower and the tank simply not being reliable enough to drive all the way. What this meant was that not that many Tigers got into action, not many allied tankers actually met a Tiger and the Tiger really had a negligible effect on the war bar Villers bocage, for a very high cost in money and material.
Tigers are not very popular in the game. There is an epic rant about tigers in world tanks somewhere on TH-cam.
I suppose it's controversial to a twelve-year-old who learned WWII by watching movies and reading comic books. ;)
I have the book "Tigers in the mud" and think that Carius will agree with you.
He says that the Tiger was a "mobile pillbox" that was sent from the biggest emergency to the next new really big one emergency... and as you say, that was not the design concept.
By the time the Tiger was available in numbers, the German Army had one last great offensive in it, and the effort was wasted at Kursk. Even then, there simply wasn't enough infantry to replace the losses of that battle. That's all the Tiger could do, scoot around the front to deal with Soviet tank attacks, as the ability to mount a combined task force ("Panzerglocke") was just about gone.
I would equate this to the M1 Carbine. “The M1 Carbine sucks”...”It has no stopping power”, etc.
it was designed as a lightweight , short/medium range personal defense weapon, not a battle rifle. When soldiers in WWII, and especially in Korea started using it as a rifle, (and in full auto with the M2), it was utterly useless.
I’ve recently discovered your channel and I love it. Your research is noting amazing and you are clear, concise, and love the humor.
I don't think an m2 cabine would be useless by any stretch of the imagination. Especially in the face of human wave charges.
Randy Magnum in close range, like 75-150 yards absolutely not. At M1 battle range, (300 yards) on full auto, yeah, it’s pretty much useless. Again, when used the way it’s designed, it’s great. But try to use it like a regular rifle, and you won’t get the performance.
@@ColdWarShot battles rarely occur at extended range. And when they do, mortar fire, artillery, and close air support would be preferred.👍
Randy Magnum the instance I was referring to, the Chosen Reservoir, had many soldiers using M1 carbines at 500-1,000 yards, and making wild claims of billets bouncing off jackets, and the carbine round being inadequate, when really it was poor use of the Carbine
@@ColdWarShot IIRC they never even tested the .30 Carbine for lethality over 50 yards. It was supposed to be a handy and useful replacement for the 1911, not an assault rifle replacement for the Garand after all.
This is really interesting information, because it does change how one looks at the tank. Calling it "heavy" doesn't really explain much except, perhaps, the weight. Knowing it was meant to be a breakthrough tank offers it some forgiveness for things like crew comfort and ease of maintenance, as mentioned.
Expecting it to be or treating it as a constantly present frontline tank means holding it to standards the design wasn't meant to meet.
Interestingly enough, the few times the Tiger I actually was used in the "breakthrough" role, it wasn't all that successful. The fault probably was more with the concept of the role in the first place. The French had similar bad fortune with their Char B1 tank, the British with the Matilda II "Infantry" tank, and the Soviets with their numerous beasts like the KV-1, especially the KV-2, and even to some extent the JS tanks. By mid-war, anti-tank weaponry, whether on fixed field guns ("Pakfront"), tank destroyers, or even hand-held infantry weapons like the RPGs, Bazookas, the Piat, and the German panzerfaust and panzerschrek could take out the heavy tanks through their relatively thinner side and rear armor.
Break-through operations could not be accomplished solely by tanks with thick hides and heavy guns' they had to be well-planned and executed combined arms operations, combining the strengths of armor, artillery, infantry, and close air support in manners that complemented each other.
@@selfdo Those handheld weapons werent great at the breakthrough role, however, theyre better in defensive positions.
And I mean, the german invasion of france, and some of the early attacks on the soviets did prove the validity of a breakthrough strategy. The problems really started when the fronts slowed down and attritional warfare started, but that was exactly why the breakthrough concept was important. To avoid that scenario that NS-germany couldnt deal with.
Tigers also were built in limited numbers; medium tanks like PZ4, Panther and the STG3 instead were mass produced in much larger quantities, since they would carry most of the battle.
@@termitreter6545 Except that the vehicle that would have been intended for that role, the Panzer IV with the 75 mm L/24 gun, didn't have to be used like that. The three panzer divisions associated with Hoepner's Panzer Corps under AG B met the French armor head-on in two successive tank battles which each were draws, with heavy losses on both sides, rather than against prepared defenses. The Belgians had counted on their Fort Eben Emael to hold out as a linchpin in their frontier defense, but it was taken out by glider infantry and sappers. The other seven German panzer divisions went right through the French frontier, with Luxembourg and eastern Belgium, that was slated for further extension of the Maginot Line. Due to the French belief that the Germans could not readily move armor through the Ardennes forest, they'd filled that sector with their "Series B" divisions which were second-class troops, mostly aged and poorly motivated reservists. The Germans used infantry and pioneers to break through the French lines, and thus opened up a wide hole by which they poured into France and swept across its north, reaching the Channel in five days.
The following month, due to the French fortifying what strongpoints they could ("Quadrillage") on the lines of rivers Aisne and Somme, the Germans had little choice but to directly assault them, and it was there they took the bulk of their casualties in the Battle of France, as the French resistance was determined and stiff. The larger (at the time) Panzer III and IV tanks were not particularly effective; but post-battle analysis, rather than prioritize development of heavy tanks, was that they'd been employed in an unsuitable role. It wasn't until the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks were encountered the following year that the heavy tank development gained new priority, which resulted in both the Tiger and the Elephant, and a bit later the Panther.
@@selfdo Tbh im not quite sure what were even talking about.
The whole breakthrough idea is basically just a kind of offensive push, there isnt anything special about that. Its about trying to avoid slowmoving, attritional warfare.
And the "breakthrough tank" in case of the Tiger was a heavy tank supposed to help with that push.
The Tiger wouldnt have been operated alone; its the opposite: The Tiger wouldve been part of a large combined arms operation. AFAIK the german army already relied quite heavily on combined arms. With planes for close air support, and eg the Panzergrenadiers as an early example of mechanized infantry.
Its just that the other troops would carry on the fight while the Tigers would shortly after return for maintenance.
To be honest, Im not sure if we can even say if the breakthrough Tiger was a good idea or not. It wasnt military mistakes that killed the third reich, but a fanatical leadership that managed to overextend and challenge half the world in war.
Getting bogged down in attrition warfare is what the Tiger was supposed to help against, which is a good idea in theory. The german army/leadership just failed and ended up in that kind of war, and switching 1200 Tigers for 2000 or more more Panthers wouldnt have saved the day.
@@termitreter6545 Precisely. If there was any issue with going with a heavy tank, NATO wouldn´t have invested so heavily on the heaviest tanks in the world, second only to the Merkava. Protection of a crew is paramount. And Germany wouldn´t have fared any better had they built twice the number of tanks, but lighter ones. The Tiger was a success. It was the rest of the war machine that was lacking, mainly because Germany was essentially alone, fighting several other countries that had their industry intact.
It's great that Operation Think Tank is still a relevant resource for insights from all the big tank historians, but it's a shame that it's the only one of its kind. Why isn't there an Operation Think Tank 2?
Chief has said in the past that one of the biggest problems is scheduling all these old guys across the hemisphere to one spot, plus apparently there's some tank historians who felt they were personally snubbed by Chief for not being invited to the first one, so the pool of potential invitees is smaller than you might think
Brexit makes V2 rocket attacks seem rightful
@@tigercat418 Brexit has nothing to do with it....are you simple ?
@@Legiondude I wish people weren't so bitter! I would give my left kidney for another think tank, and I would love the chance to be there!
Think Tank 2: Diesel-Electric Boogaloo
Porsche Tiger tank image with caption:
Fahrvergnugen! (your mileage may vary)
Clever
I did enjoy Steven Zaloga’s book about the best tank of WWII. It clarified the “best tank of early 1942” as being different to “best tank of early 1944”. Its was great to see how the term “best” was relevant to a particular campaign or timeframe.
I say the "best" tank is the one that best fits and accomplishes the objectives set forth for it by its military planners. IMO, that's the M4 Sherman, hands down.
I can't believe that the Operation Think Tank videos don't have more views. I watched them all and loved it.
also the veterans from the audience bounding over the cold war vehicles like they were in their 20s again
I finished them and immediately hungered for more. That was good stuff. :)
@@fuzzydunlop7928 Agreed.
Nice to see a balanced, rational view on a controversial subject.
This view, however, utterly sidesteps the issue that Tiger was still very poorly designed from the engineering standpoint - even for its intended role.
In fact, its design is so ludicrously flawed that it is now used in tank design textbooks as an example of bad engineering choices.
Soviet T-44 has better armor and similar gun - but only half the weight. That's how much improvement those whacky Germans missed.
Nah
@@Conserpov To be fair, the T-44 is a tank designed much later.
@@IIBloodXLustII
That is barely relevant - T-44 contains almost no ideas which were novel even back in 1940. Only proper application of proper engineering.
First and foremost Tiger's designers failed to understand that internal volume is the most precious resource at the disposal of a tank designer, and they squandered it.
Here's another example: M3 Stuart (bad design) vs M22 Locust (better design). Regardless of combat worth of either one, they have just one basic difference: some "genius" finally realized that you should put a transfer box between the engine and main shaft. Well, I believe this should have been obvious to any engineering college freshman.
@@Conserpov Youre just making bad comparisions and claims without argument or evidence. I dont even know why you'd use soviet tanks as an example of volume usage, when the T-34 had issues operating due to cramped interiors. Not to mention the T-44, which had even less space and saw hardly any use anywhere.
I think your post is a great example for why most discussions about tanks are just terrible. Not knowing something is fine, but people pretending to be experts just degrades everything.
Having been a cavalry and armor officer for a long time, I compliment you on your excellent analysis of the Tiger, as well as your superb videos. Any vehicle that is used properly will perform reasonably well. Any vehicle has its limitations as you pointed out. One must understand those limitations and compensate for them, otherwise the vehicle will not accomplish its mission no matter how good the vehicle is.
In theory, the M113 APC was not a good vehicle (aluminum armor, no firing ports, etc), but in many ways it is much better than the M2/M3 light tank (oops, sorry, I meant IFV) that replaced it. So too, the M2/M3 has its limitations and strengths. In particular, I liked your use of the M1 example. Thanks for this video.
Great sum up. Been advocating this for years, but people tend to look at the small picture :-)
Also, the Tiger did roam almost freely for a year. That is a testimony of how well the tank was designed for its role.
Last time I was this late, High Command was blaming everything on Crazy Hitler.
@Max Schultz Hitler only settled on that economic strategy after Plan A, which was the entire Soviet state collapsing after the severe psychological blow of the terrible losses of June 1941, failed to happen. That was a failure of political foresight and the blame for that is primarily on Hitler. Secondary blame also has to go to German intelligence for vastly underestimating the number of divisions and amount of equipment the Soviets would be able to put in the field - but again, the lowball estimates were what Hitler wanted to hear, and telling Hitler anything other than what he wanted to hear was very bad for one's career, so a lot of the blame there has to go to him as well.
On the bright side, for the German generals, Hitler usually only had them sacked for mistakes whether they were actually the generals' or Hitler's own, while under similar circumstances Stalin was more inclined to have the failing generals shot.
L
Finally, a nuanced, well reasoned and researched opinion on the Tiger.
The amount of effort and research you do to form the opinions you have is why I love watching your videos.
I got to meet you at D-Day Conneaut today! It was so cool to meet you and chat. I appreciate you taking the time to take a photo with me. It truly made my day!
The only 2 questions that need to be resolved in relation to Tigers:
1. How much more fuel did a tiger use compared to a PZ4?
2. How many PZ4s was a Tiger worth in terms of battlefield performance? (I do understand that this is a wonky question and it's not exactly easy to compare them)
Germany's no.1 limiting factor was fuel (and later on: manpower). No point building a billion PZ4s if you can't fuel them and thus, if the Big Cats are the most fuel efficient armored killing machines then they make perfect sense in this context.
A discussion about the use of and maybe a display of the snorkel used on Tigers I and II would be a really cool show! Thanks for all of you time and effort put into these short videos.
"Oh bugger, the t-shirt is on fire." For hasty disrobing.
If she gets the reference, rush to the closest store and get a ring.
from where do I know your profile pic 🤔
You sir, deserve a medal.
@@christianhoffmann8607 It's quite literally my face. I don't recall where else I might have used it. 🤔
@Dennis Young Denim exposed to an oxygen rich atmosphere (flame cutting inside a vessel or tank for example) tends to burn too.
"Controversial opinion: The Germans lost WW2." [fleet of angry armchair warriors take to their keyboards.]
Yes they did.
In fact they did it was unconditional surrender.
Noooo they won!!! Because they killed more people !!!! /s
@@vincentv.berchem2085 So winning war is about killing people?
SCREEMING IN GERMAN GENERAL MEMOIRS!
Let me try to ruin this joke by turning it into an answer that'll have some sense... in comparison.
Yes, but no. Same as Russian Empire was part of WWI winners, but irl came out with the worst deal out of any other country(yes, including osmans and austro-hungarians, who ceased to being called that):D Germany could have ended up A LOT worse and especially in Cold War.
"Percussive maintenance" with a picture of a hammer. Lol
"Door glass regulator"
Good video. Very informative. Explains perfectly the intended role of Tiger I. I learned something today. Thank you.
It's like the humvve. It was designed for a certain purpose but when used out of the intended role it failed. The tiger was designed to be used in a large mixed group of tanks to support it and it sounds like it was supposed to be mainly a offensive tank. The humvve was never meant to be a APC but instead as a light transport/ recon vehicle.
By outside of its intended role I guess you mean transporting Muscleman Movie stars around Beverly Hills. It was actually quite good in that role. The modified and upgraded Hummer H2 stretched limo version was actually quite good in its intended role. It could deliver larger numbers of perfumed douche bags and auxiliary prostitutes to nightclubs than any other vehicle of its type.
@@jakedee4117 ok... i can't say i entirely agree, but I'm going to be laughing about that the rest of the day.
@@jakedee4117 easy to hose out the inside of a pink stretched Hummer after a Hollywood weekend...lots of useful design features.
@@jakedee4117 'auxiliary' prostitutes 🤣 when the primary wave was 'depleted'
You missed the part in the video where he mentions it was designed as a break through tank. Very much like the Soviet IS series. Popular conception is that it was a heavy MBT and it was never designed as so or employed as so.
I’ve watched Think Tank about 7 times. It should be released as a book for everyone interested in armour subject.
Thank You Nick!
A stress ball/plush75mm round merch item with that printed.
Why not all caliber, 88mm, 17 pounder, 6 pounder, 76mm, 57mm, 14,7 mm (russian anti tank round for the PTSD) ...
Make a collection out of it ;D.
152mm and 183mm shells would be a bitch to ship though.
I need a plush 105 or 120mm APFSDS shell. American preferably.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694
Aren't the 120mm APFSDS of the Abrams the same as the ones on the LEO 2?
@@Enthropical_Thunder Nah.
"Oh, bugger, the opinion is on fire." That, sir, was an exceptional piece, thank you. In perusing the comments below, there are still visible pockets of "Yes, but... " and "True, however... " and the "Let me tell you what I think... " bunch has represented itself as well. Still, you gave us all a taste of what should be facts enough to sway any walk in line opinion, a laudable accomplishment. Now about those "oh bugger, the tank is on fire" mugs and t-shirts?
Hey Chieftain, saw you at Conneaut today at the beach invasions and at the wargaming booth. Awesome job out there!
For a shirt/Mug I think we all would love your take on the "Drive Me Closer I want to hit them with my sword" with you riding atop the Karl-Gerät in all your majesty and glory sabre in hand.
The issue with this goes back to an analogy I like to present when on this topic. The question is what is the best vehicle for you to own for personal use. There is no one right answer. It is all about what you are going to use it for. Example if you run a HVAC business your answer might well be a Ford Transit van. If you are taking your two kids to school and going to run errands you could say a Honda CR-V is the right way to go. If you need a daily driver but also tow a small trailer with your ATVs on the weekend then a Toyota Tacoma makes sense. What if you are terrified of using turn signals and want people to expect you not to use them a BMW 335i would be a great choice.
My point there is no one right answer it is all about application. If it suits your specific needs it's a good vehicle.
Thanks for the information. Always good to hear from someone who not only operated/commanded a tank but understands battle doctrine.
Articulate and well evidenced as always!
Your delivery of speech is really good in this video. With the teleprompter I think you've nailed it down to a tee.
Tank on fire would be a good one, but think of the inside joke that would be Track Tension
I'll get my bar and a couple of lads
The t-shirt ''Oh, bugger the tank is on fire'' has already been done, I have it. The track tension would be funny, but I won't bore you with track tensionning system.
@@francksix245 How about a belt, one of the 1s with a knob that you turn to tighten/loosen
Well made video! Good arguments! From a learned experienced tanker. Thanks!
Underwear with "Perform track tensioning here" printed somewhere.
i was at that event you showed! that was a super fun day! thanks for uploading it Chieftain!! aaahhh memories
Good afternoon Mr. M, situational context always has an important place, along with anything else related too, but it often is ignored for what can be viewed by some as the larger argumentative point, or a wider general understanding, or the smaller knowledge/aspect they hold true.
I agree with your summarisation about initial reasoning behind the Tiger design and its proposed/envisaged usage; of which it was rarely able to be used within only that particular niche. Like most military equipments, usuaully shoe-horned into other roles and positions that the needs must prevail upon it.
P.S. How goes the nipper, well I hope, they must be close to walking soon rather than a sweeping crawl along the floor? ;P (or I am a year late and their in the stereotypical 'terrible twos'...)
Well said.....well said Nic!!!
Excellently put forth
Logical and thought out!!!!
From what I've read, the Tiger 1 was a reasonably reliable tank when properly maintained by their crews. Tank crews are expected to service their tank each day when used. It took a Tiger 1 crew 8 hours to do that which is quite a chore after becoming exhausted from fighting all day. In those cases the crew did the bare minimum so they could have more time to eat and sleep with hopes that the next few days were quiet so they could finish what was left off.
This is an important point. Tiger 1 cops criticism because its seen as high maintenance. However, not suprisingly, the crews knew it needed maintenance to keep it running, and not suprisingly did just that. However it was my understanding that they *did* do the maintenance at night, so that it ran the next day. I haven't heard about it taking 8 hours.
I can’t for the life of me think what would take eight hours to do.
@@stevepirie8130 Inspecting the individual track pins was time consuming. They were removed for inspection, cleaning and regreasing by hand then reinserted to do the next one. That requirement was eliminated later by using dry track pins that didn't last as long.
@@billwilson3609 Do you have a reference that backs up that they spent 8 hours maintaining a Tiger every night? That seems unlikely, and I've not heard it before.
@@thefantasyreview8709 I read it in an article about the difficulty German tankers experienced maintaining the various tanks. Should be able to Google that to get the article that mentioned the 8 hours.
Luv the nuances of view just goes to show life is more complex than the simple second answer we all want....
Germany would have lost anyway. Even when we admit that Tiger's intended use was unrealistic with the given strategic situation, it was a good response to Germany's shortage of qualified crews. It allowed veterans to be extraordinarily effective.
I might disagree with that. I maintain that Barbarossa '42, with supplies and troops diverted to Rommel, allowing him to clear the Allies out of the Med, could in fact have been successful at defeating the USSR in one year. It's still not enough to guarantee an Axis victory, but it would have made things MUCH harder for the Allies, even with the US in at that point
@John Cornell Rommel couldn't clear the Allies out of the Med because he was constantly short of troops and supplies, which were all going East. He proposed plans to take Malta, Gibraltar etc and even offered to lead the attacks personally. If there were no Eastern Front constantly demanding all the things, it would have been relatively simple to give him everything he asked for (he only had one corps in Africa, and not even a particularly strong one). He did remarkably well with very little, so I don't think it's a huge leap to think that if the African Front had been the primary combat theatre, he could have done it. Once the Allies (especially the British) lost the big Med bases, the RN would have had a much tougher time there. The Italian Fleet might even have been persuaded to leave port again with Gib/Malta/Alex in Axis hands
@@talltroll7092 yes but a clear focus on the Middle East and Malta would have been unstoppable by the British.
But then again, even without Malta a larger force would have been hard to support in the Mediterranean so maybe you are right.
This subject reminds me of "AK vs AR" and ".45 ACP vs all other calibers" internet arguments. Seriously, this is a good well balanced take on the subject. Thank you.
Uh. That opinion... it's not controversial at all? I would call it Well thought reasoning.
But isn't well thought reasoning the most controversial in this day and age?
@@michaelritzen8138 couldn't agree more
I literally made this same argument to somebody on a YT video a few days ago, even pulling in Wikipedia info, and he still was raving I was the idiot.
Not sure Internet is really for nuance. Thank you for all the well researched content and thoughtful commentary.
STOP BURSTING BUBBLES....
HAHAHA
I feel your attention to detail.
Could be a fault by some.
But as you and I know,
Big problems, start as a little problem.
Very much enjoyable video.
You need to sell Chieftain Action Figures. 12" and 5" models. The 12" model will have a pull string and say up to 200 Chieftain Things, such as "Oh, bugger," "Significant Emotional Event," and "Here is the oil reservoir, which for this model holds 6 gallons of 5w-30 oil..."
I have only 8 words that i want on my T-Shirts
Oh my god, the tank is on fire
The t-shirt ''Oh, bugger the tank is on fire'' has already been done, I have it.
Good video, would like to hear your opinion on Centurion and then Chieftain in a similar kind of format, as an Ex REME Tank Mech who served in BAOR directly with Chieftain i cant help but feel that the initial reliability issues with the tanks engine are overstated which in turn overshadows what a great MBT this vehicle turned into.
The main take-away is that the Tiger was built as a “breakthrough tank” strictly for offensive maneuvers through enemy lines. Instead, it was used in a Defensive role as the Allies were on the offensive at both the Eastern and Western fronts.
And it proved better as a heavy, somewhat mobile tank destroyer than a "breakthrough" tank, as its armor and firepower suited it well to pick off enemy armor in suitable terrain, out of effective retaliatory range.
A very thought out and clear class on the pros and cons of Tiger 1 and I agree with you totally......
I really liked your real world comparison to the modern Abrams tank and how the US can afford it's arguably biggest major drawback, fuel consumption.
I was thinking of the logistics required to protect the fuel supply. As Rommel found out, no fuel, no advance, no breakthrough.
Thank you for the video. Your talk has points that I have explained to tank enthusiasts for years.
Reminds me of a scene from Mobile Suit Gundam 0083. Rookie Test Pilot in the lunchroom after finding out someone else gets to pilot a better machine "Day after day all I get to do is pilot that stupid Zaku!" Engineer walking by "That Zaku is a fine machine."
Outstanding video and presentation.
I’d be really interested in a similar video about the Tiger II. Was it built for the same breakthrough purpose as Tiger I, or for something else?
I'm convinced it was an espionage operation planted by a highly placed SOE or OSS operative to trick the Germans into wasting millions of man hours, kilotonnes of resources, and an ocean of oil designing, building, and deploying an almost useless piece of crap tank.
Thank you for this Chieftain.
A lot of people seem to be bracing for the coming Wehraboo storm but The Chieftain actually has much more positive things to say about the Tiger than negative.
Excellent video by the way!
That is because all the Burgerboos expected another Tiger diss to feed their fragile egos
The boos are always fragile
fulcrum 29 yah, diss even one part and a Boo will scream at you, doesn’t matter if it’s a Wheraboo, Freeaboo, Teaaboo, Commieboo or anything. They will all get pissed
@@phil3114 Well sorry if you are offended by people calling out the flaws in the Tiger I and II tanks... Or pointing out that Sherman tanks were not glorified light tanks.
@@andyfriederichsen Found a Boo.
Very good points of view, thank you for sharing your opinion on this topic with us.
While I'm not going to argue with the point of the initial intent, the point of a breakthrough tank and the use of the breakthrough tank, I still have issues with the tank in principle.
Where I think it's certainly a poster of good design and perhaps good practise, is that the Germans used what they had and had a focus on functionality. It worked and when it worked, it could do amazing things. I mean amazing things. While it had issues, how it was used and the skill of the crews using it can't be dismissed.
Where I think it's not fully understood, appreciated, factors ignored is that the people who made the most of it also sabotaged it. When the tone of the war changed for the greater Wehrmacht, Heer especially, there didn't seem to be any change of thought, understanding. No measures seemed to be taken to either adapt the items they had or to change how they were using items. That's shot the Tiger, German heavy tank formations in the metaphorical foot. They might be able to change the local, tactical situation, they couldn't change the operational, strategic situation.
They were in fact, a burden on the German force due to a number of reasons. Those being the lack of parts/the lack of support and the inflexibility to change doctrine. If I wanted to be really picky I'd also add the lack of any sort of formalised recovery. If I wanted to be really picky, I'd say that they were so arrogant they expected to be able to have as much time as they needed to recover the tanks, because they've always won on the offence.
Compare to the US and how they used their TD's. They were used in roles which they originally weren't designed and had good effect for the greater theatre level sense.
Honestly Chieftain, you hit the nail 100% on the head!
To me, the Tiger I is still my favorite tank of WWII, but for different reasons. One of my important points to look at when deciding how effective a weapon system is is how much of an impact it had on the enemy's doctrines, mentality, and future tank designs. The Tiger I, though were in small numbers and had many faults, had so much of an impact on the Allies that millions of dollars were spent on creating tanks and tactics to destroy it. It's why I always respected the Germans in WWII because they made huge impacts in small numbers. Tiger I, Bismarck, Tirptiz, and Graf Spee are a few examples.
Where the Germans failed at was keeping ahead of the game when the Allies did create counters against these weapons. That's due though to lack of resources, experienced manpower, and not enough time.
The Tiger didn't have any impact on future tank designs.
@@habe1717 If you mean that there weren't any post-war tanks based on the Tiger, than you're right. But there were plenty of post-war tanks based on tanks that were developed because of the perceived need to counter the Tiger. So you could say that the *idea* of the Tiger was more important than the Tiger itself.
Let´s say: "The perceived threat of the Tiger was more important than the Tiger itself"
jic1 Armor was constantly increasing for tanks of all classes and all sides throughout the war. The creation of a more heavily armed and armored tank like a Pershing, Centurion, or IS-2 was an eventuality. The Tiger itself was a reaction to perceived threats on the battlefield and was just another player in the game of back and forth up armoring and up gunning of tanks. Giving the Tiger all the credit for this when it too was a player is silly.
ya I would have to disagree to. In fact the amount of resources spent countering the Tiger were in fact quite small. the US for instance spent very little specifically countering the Tiger- the UP gunned Sherman had (proto-types) developed in 1942, and the Pershing tank was not put in to service because of the Tiger I but the Tiger II. Remember the US first fought Tigers in North Africa in 1943 and did not panic about them.
That is Brilliant Perspective Mr Moran thank you
One important question seems to be how resources were allocated for the construction of more Panzer 3s, Panzer4s, and Tigers from 43 to 45.
Throwing more material in the production of Tigers after the tactics it was designed for became unsustainable would have been a waste of metal and fuel, at that time.
Even then there’s the fact Germany lacked the fuel or the manpower to field large numbers of medium tanks (as America and the USSR did, but Germany wasn’t capable of doing even if they increased production). Yes, you can make two Panzer IVs for every Tiger I.....but two Panzer IVs would need more fuel and manpower than a single Tiger I, and fuel and manpower was something Nazi Germany was short on.
I have always studied history through the lens of context. You have shown why this is so important. Thanks for the affirmation.
My idea for a tee shirt:
Side view of a Ferdinand.
Legend: "My other car is a Porsche."
World of Tanks logo
:-)
Another point concerning low numbers manufactured is that, arguably, it made sense to choose quality over quantity. Fuel was always a big problem for the Wehrmacht, so it might be a good idea to have fewer tanks with a higher kill ratio.
To add, one might well make the case it was worth its cost even when used in a fire-brigade role. In tank-on-tank combat, Tiger 1 and 2 together had a kill:loss ratio of something like 12:1. Performance like that should well be worth the cost in resources, high as it was. Those kill ratios were mainly racked up doing just that, acting as fire brigade to counter breakthroughs by massive Soviet tank formations. So I'm not sure they were a waste even in the way they were actually used. But here too, what The Chieftain says applies: They wouldn't have been efficient as general-purpose tanks, but they were never intended to be such either, nor was any attempt made to use them as such. Nobody ever even suggested dropping the Panther or the Panzer 4 in favour of going all-in on Tigers.
Simple and to the point. Misuse of a tool that the boss bought for a particular task. But now the company is going belly-up and he's ordering his employees to use tools not suited for the tasks at hand before the bankers and the sheriff deputies arrive and lock the gates.
"oh bugger my Porsche is on fire" With a tiger P.
Speaking about the Tiger (and other tanks) and snorkeling. Has snorkeling tanks across rivers ever actually been used in combat or has that always just been a “good idea” that soldiers never actually use?
Tauchpanzers snorkeled across the Bug River in the opening of Barbarossa.
I was thrilled that swimming our M3 CFVs was cancelled.
On another note, I have seen vehicles stalled and flooded in streams that were a bit too deep. More than a few times. Proper Reconnaissance before water crossings!
IIRC, the big Warsaw Pact snorkel water crossings were on prepared sites. Sadly I cannot cite a source though this is likely Suvorov.
@@AdamMann3D Still not completely sure what to take away from the Bug crossing. To me the Germans spent the time and effort developing Tauchpanzer for the invasion of Britain and were then left holding a solution looking for a problem.
Come the planning for Barbarossa it seems to me that someone decided they were going to get their use out of the programme and added the Tauchpanzer to the Bug crossing planning. Now, point to remember here is that this was a planned assault with the advantage that prior to start time no one was shooting at the Germans. Hence they could casually fully inspect their side of the river, prepare it (or not - I don't have info either way on this matter) and carefully study exit points on the other side.
As for the crossing itself on the big day the photos suggest that the crossing was not made under serious fire. Sure getting tanks across the river was clearly a Good Thing(tm) for the Germans, but I feel you also have to ask how much effort it would have been for German pioneers to organise a ferry under the same circumstances that could have transported any panzer across the river (as well as other vehicles) relative to the engineering required for the entire Tauchpanzer programme.
As a side note I was reading a regimental history type books on one of the DD tank regiments in NW Europe. They were terrified they might be asked to present themselves on the left bank of the Rhine and be asked to swim across, not because it was an assault on a defended river bank, but because within days of getting off the beaches back in Normandy the crews had cut off or otherwise removed all the DD equipment.
Way better than the panther by a long shot, the Tiger could travel more than 150km before the transmission blew up!
Definitely a selling point.
@Carnivorus seems a bit,,,um optimistic
@Carnivorus not at all.german tanks where awesome...just those figures seem ...inflated considering only about 3 or 4000 tiger 1's and 2'swhere ever made
@@grumpyoldman-21 estimates were 1300 1s and 750 2s last i checked, but the figures are far from inflated IMO. Consider the U.S. estimate to deal with a single panther was 5 shermans, and 4 would be unrecoverable. Now take the tiger, which by its nature would only have the best crews germany had available, and multiplying that by 2 seems quite rational. Not to mention the sheer number of tiger crews that are known to achieve triple digit kills. And there is a report/story from the western front of a single tiger holding up an entire division's push east, picking off 66 shermans before it was finally cornered (probably ran out of fuel lulz)
@@ronaldthompson4989 "Consider the U.S. estimate to deal with a single panther was 5 shermans, and 4 would be unrecoverable"
I would adore a citation on this, TBH. IIRC, the US Military scored the Sherman higher on combat effectiveness than the Panther, given that the first tank to land a round generally won an engagement - and in the combat ranges of Europe this generally meant the Sherman could spot and lay the gun faster.
This is sounding an awful lot like that "5 shermans for one panther/tiger/horsecart" meme, rather ignoring that a tank squad was the *minimum* number of tanks sent out for anything, be it a spotted tank or a group of infantry.
" Not to mention the sheer number of tiger crews that are known to achieve triple digit kills."
I'd like some sources on this beyond the somewhat questionably inflated kill counts provided by various "panzer aces". See also: Wittman and his 'horde of British tanks' aka light tanks and bren carriers stopped for tea.
Ronald Thompson or mech breakdown.
Highly insightful, thank you!
I have just finished reading the war biography of Richard Freiherr Von Rosen, who ended the war as a company commander of the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion. Highly decorated, he commanded Tigers 1&2 and fought in Barbarossa, Kursk, Normandy and Hungary...and he appeared in a number of well known German propaganda films ! Wounded 5 times, his views on both Tigers are interesting...and he actually went to war in one so I would suggest that his views are more valuable than most. I would recommend the book...one interesting story is how his Tiger was caught on a rail flat bed in France, by Thunderbolts. The 0.5 cal mgs, set his tank on fire by puncturing the engine deck !
Wow - yes, I have read the same accounts -including the experiences of Dr Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann and Alfred Rubbel - all comrades in arms of 503 Heavy Tank Battalion - mainly on the Eastern Front - if the statistics of these accounts are indeed trustworthy then these Heavy Tank Battalions were spectacularly effective and the Russians suffered casualties that are eye watering - these Tiger crews were highly trained professionals handling a potent machine that in concert with other German units could wreak havoc wherever they were deployed - when reading their accounts you do get the feeling that these units were being used as firefighters wherever needed and to fill gaps in the frontline - but when used as intended such as Von Manstein at Kharkov then they were awesomely effective - very good reading.....
@@roblouw3038 True...but you will recall the one engagement where his unit lost 3 Tiger 2s to ISUs 152 s..? Kitty Killers ...
Eric Grace - But, but, "The victors write the history!". lol Reading a book written by the losers? My gosh, you're going to make all the children cry who think they know something about history! lol
@Carnivorus Probably the IJN Yamamoto !
@Carnivorus Actually I don't . A firefly gunner , Joe Ekins, took out 3 Tigers with 5 rounds from a 17 PDR. And if you've read the book you will be aware that Von Rosen mentions that his unit was concerned over the threat posed by fireflies. And the 17 PDR was in active service in N Africa in the " pheasant " configuration, well before the T34 85 appeared on the battlefield.
I was asked the question " is there anything a 152mm gun could not destroy..? So in a whimsical moment, I picked out the largest battleship of WW2.
And before you nitpick that one, there was an incident in operation Husky where an American Cruiser smashed a thrust by a unit of panzers, destroying a number of tanks, with its main guns.
I just packed up the truck from D day Ohio
I was US GI, I never knew y'all were here
I wpuld have loved to come by
Just found put from a FJ guy over at the pizza hut here in conneaut
Hope y'all had fun
It's like there is no other opinion by Chieftain than a controversial one. One could suspect, Chieftain will not have any opinion if it's not controversial.
Spot on assessment Chieftain.
During the period of German-Soviet cooperation, the Soviets sent a delegation to learn about German tanks. When told there was no tank heavier than the Panzer IV, the Soviets thought the Germans were holding back
The Germans actually had tank exercises during the Interwar Period in the Soviet Union and learned many things about tank warfare and doctrine there. Few people realize this, but the Soviet Union (and the Spanish Civil War) contributed heavily to the German tank designs and tactics.
Afterall, it was the KV-1 and the T-34 that were basically the most well protected tanks when they came out. And the Germans once again learned from T-34's sloped armor design when building the Panther tank.
@@AndrewVasirov
OMG - again T-34 myth. Was good because it flooded the battlegrounds. Poor quality, poor ergonomics, poor equipment. The effectivnes of it was like shooting a mosquito with a shootgun in a furnitured room.
@@wino0000006 OMG the other T-34 myth again. it wasn't perfect and god tier but it wasn't that bad. there were many factories (especially after 42) that mad good quality T-34s, hell when they started underwater welding the elds were superior to any other contempory tank, poor erginomics was not as bad as many say (although not good either) and many of the problems were improved. the equipment was actually pretty good. and its effectiveness was also pretty good, despite these flaws.
better soviet designs existed where they got rid of these flaws (highlighting their existence) but the change over limiting production was considered more detrimental then the benefitts of the changes would make.
the T-34 was far from the best tank when it comes to capabilities, and better tank designs that could be produced quicker existed in the soviet union. BUT it was far from useless nor was it terrable. it was good to very good in some areas, and bad to very bad in others, balanceing out to be an average to above average quality overall (very descent when you look at the later models and its cost)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 considering where it started and where it ended up it was a tank with a lot of potential. Initially it suffered from poor visibilty for both driver and commander, lack of crew training and a propensity to use it in penny packets. And lets not forget that about 30,000 out of 40,000 T34/76s were lost. But by the time the T34/85 came along the Soviets had an acceptable tank with a decent gun and good maneuverability. Sure, maybe not on the same level as the Panther but easier to maintain and cheaper to build.
wino0000006
Dude, the Germans literally built the Panthers and Tigers to counter KV-1s and T-34. It doesn't have to be effective if it could be mass produced and the military could afford losses. The Germans on the other hand, at the end of the war, had very unreliable tanks that literally became stationary guns because of transmission failures thanks to their weight. And the Germans couldn't afford to mass produce "experimental tanks." They should have stuck with StuGs and Pz IVs. After all, it was the StuG III who was the most produced armored tracked vehicle of the German army.
The T-34 was rushed to the battlefield in Finland and at the beginning of the Soviet-German war but at the end of the war, the T-34s were better equipped and were of a higher quality armor wise. T-34 guns were good but the initial shells were of poor quality, but that changed later in the war. The 85 mm gun of the T-34-85 was nearly as capable as the German Tiger I 88 mm gun.
And it was the Soviets who won the Soviet-German war.
"Ah but it's because they had huge numbers"
Well yeah, go figure, the Soviet Union had a larger population than Germany and more land to build factories. The Soviet Union's military lacked efficiency and experience after the Great Purge. And the officers were more likely to send their soldiers into suicidal attacks because they wanted to test different tactics. Well, you gotta learn somehow. On the other hand, the Germans wanted to redo the Blitzkrieg in France in late 1944, against a bigger, more prepared force.
The Germans wanted to try out new things that consumed the few resources they had. They couldn't afford any of this.
The T-34 was not perfect, but it was a tank that did its job on the battlefield and made the Germans use their limited resources to build new tanks. The Panther looks similar to T-34 and the Tiger looks a bit similar to KV-1 if you look at the frontal armor. Though they are larger and easier targets for bombers and anti-tank guns.
I like T-44 more than T-34, I don't know much about its quality since it wasn't tested in combat. Though I think it doesn't fail as bad as the late-war German tanks. And it's also the father of the famous T-54 tanks that are still used today.
The way I always understood it was that the Pzkw III and IV rolled up with and supported the infantry. Find the hard spots. Luftwaffe and artillery begin softening them. Tigers rumble forward and smash, and then the Panthers ram through and rip up the rear areas and kill reinforcement thrusts. (yes I know I am ignoring SP arty... Marder, Stug, Nashorn etc. I'm just simplifying to focus on tank roles.) (and yes, I have studied the Pzkw V. I know it was a royal pain as far as reliability, but when it worked it damned well worked.) (my first tank model ever was a Stug III)
What about a first aid kit that has a text on the box that says "Emergency kit for treating significant emotional events"
Really good analysis. Thought-provoking. Thank you.
I am glad to hear someone focus on the fact that our understanding of Tiger is focused through the wrong lens. It also is interesting that German officers, when rebuilding their army in the 1950s, pretty much wrote the Tiger I off as a failure because it was too specialized for a role that ultimately proved a strategic dead-end. Tiger I was an assault tank sacrificing mobility for firepower and protection. Thus, it lost the very thing that they felt defined the tank's virtue in modern warfare: the ability to bring firepower quickly to where it was needed on the tactical and operational level. You didn't need tanks for siege; that is best done by artillery and infantry anyway. Thus, the Bundeswehr invested in the Leopard 1, deciding that a tank that could bring a big gun almost anywhere in Europe quickly was more important than armor protection. Tiger, thus, was a waste because the role it was too perfectly designed for what was a bad idea to start with.
Generic Person X
Not entirely correct, the Leopard I design concept was based on the assumption that shaped charge war heads could not be stopped by steel armor. A tank with steel armor able to stop shaped charges, would easily exceed the weight of 70 tons and would be even heavier as the Tiger II or the Jagdtiger. That is why the Bundeswehr favored mobility and firepower over armor protection. That concept was changed again in the process of the development of the Leopard II, after the Yom Kippur War showed that even the best mobility is not enough against modern ATGMs.
@@markschoning5581 I just emphasize the Bundeswehr's critiques of the WW2 Panzerwaffe that established the Tiger I and Tiger II to be evolutionary dead-ends because it was considered that mobility, both in battle and between battlefields, was more important to successful operations. I didn't say that was the whole story, just an interesting part of it.
@@genericpersonx333 Which is a flawed track to take considering the only thing the Tiger 2 didn't have compared to the later MBTs was sufficient power.* And that only came with development of power plants - all the sudden you could merge all the different facets into one tank, since you had enough power to keep the thing mobile.
The 503rd quite appreciate their Tigers, and did quite a bit of work with them on the Eastern front...West even.
*To clarify, modern tanks are both as heavy and as big as the Tiger 2, and offer the same amount of protection versus threats as the T2 managed in WW2. All that to say the main difference comes down to mobility. If the King Tiger had an engine 2.5x as powerful it would have fit the MBT definition. But that only came about when sufficiently powerful engines were developed so as to make separation of roles obsolete.
Excellent argument, well researched and presented. Thank you very much. Although with different detail an almost identical argument can be made for British Battlecruisers.
Chieftain ‘s comments are like a pre-planned 4 deuce barrage, “on time, on target”. Things in the military, are often not black nor white but grey. If deployed in situations it was designed for Tiger I was a formidable opponent both strategically and tactically. Even when deployed in situations it wasn’t particularly engineered for it was deadly. The combat records of Bolter, Wittmann, Carius and Egger attest to that. I’ve been a Tiger fan my entire life, I also love Black Sabbath, but I don’t think they’d do a great job covering the Kingston Trio. I however, am far from an expert, my 32 years in the Army were in the Infantry. The APC M-113, light tank M551, MBT the M-60 and it’s variants. Finally, not that it’s worth much, but I think “tread heads” would love a T-shirt that said, “Sabot Up”.
I'd like one that says "on the way".
@resolute123 ....I though of that, but then you’d have smoke kinda obstructing the tank on the Tee. Rangers Lead the Way!
@@josephvalvano829 I trained as 19E, M60, crossover to M1s in '83. I was mad, no more WP, HEP, or BEEHIVE.
@Admiral Crunch ....those HEP rounds were devastating against armor, cheaper than sabot, against heavy armor even if it didn’t kill, the rain of fragments devastated everything in the crew compartment, optics etc. BeeHive and Willy Pete I saw first hand the destruction and death they laid out, those rounds literally tore apart an entire NVA Battalion attacking Pleiku in 1970. Their axis of advance looked like God had painted the ground in black and red. I can still hear the sickening explosive crack of white phosphorus and see those pluming tendrils, like a flower of death. I still shudder thinking of it.
dear diary, 5/10/2021, still no "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Tiger" in the horizon....
Well, the tank god has spoken, any further argument is heresy.
Very well stated and balanced summary. Ergo, it should be equally infuriating to both sides. :) I would add that the allies "helped" by doing their level best to exacerbate the Tiger's problems wherever possible. High fuel consumption? Target the oil infrastructure. Tied to rail transit? Bomb the tracks. There were plenty of Tigers and other AFVs throughout France, abandoned due to breakdown or ran out of gas -- not lost in combat, but taken out of the war all the same.
There's only one weapon that's superior to the mighty Tiger: A Tiger tank with lots and lots of katanas duct taped to it.
Enigma code breakers was the weakest link of Tiger on the eastern front. Second was fuel limitations. Third was employing a Heavy tank to a medium tank roll.
Seems most reviewers miss the Psychological aspect of a weapon. Tiger had a disproportionate Psychological effect.
Cynical Observation Tell that to the Jagdtiger crews that would refuse to move out of over due to fear of being spotted and attacked by allied aircraft.
@@habe1717 A Jag-tiger is not a tiger 1. and air-power ALSO can have a psychological effect
According to TH-cam experts it did. In reality more mobile vehicles bypassed it and left it to be swiftly destroyed by artillery and aircraft.
By the time the Tiger arrived, it was used for 'breakthroughs' except the boot was on the other foot. These heavy battalions were used like fire brigades to stop Soviet thrusts threatening to blow an entire sector open. Their arrival and presence also boosted morale as they were gaining a fearsome reputation on both sides. In this defensive role it's capabilities were well suited to stop or delay breakthroughs rather than create them as they never strayed too far from supply units in a defensive posture. Sure they took part in some offensive actions but they were usually limited to a tactical counterattack to retake a supply junction or favorable terrain feature. Same scenario-reversed role.
We need "significant emotional up-votes" for "significant emotional event" stuff!!! ^_^
I couldn't agree more Nick, excellent video on the matter.
I thought one of the lessons of WWII was that the specialization of combat tanks looked nice on paper but didn't work well in actual combat. The French cavalry vs infantry tanks the British cruiser/infantry tank lines, the US tank destroyers, the german heavies etc never really got used for the purposes they were designed for and were instead used in a more general purpose role because ... hey .... you have to use what you've got. This is why what came out of the war was the doctrine and design of a "Main Battle Tank". A uniform design that could deal with a wide variety of situations and was specialized in none.
So you can say if used "properly" Tiger was a good idea, well, you could say that about all the specialized combat tanks. If only used to assault infantry trenches the Char B was an excellent tank. Doesn't mean it was a good idea overall.
It's not as simple as that. The main battle tank wouldn't really appear until the mid 60s and in the intervening years some degree of armour specialisation remained commonplace.
When the British started talking about universal tanks at the end of WWII, they were talking about combining the cruiser and infantry roles into a single class - basically what the Germans and Americans had been doing all along. It needs to be understand that British Cruiser and Infantry tanks were not directly analogous to medium and heavy tanks instead being essentially two parallel lines of medium tanks - usually the cruisers weighed as much as the equivalent infantry tank with Churchill being the obvious, but singular exception - specialised to either for infantry support or exploitation. Accordingly, when the British were talking about a universal tank, they were talking about unifying the Cruiser/infantry divide, not discarding weight classes (at least, not entirely - it's more complicated than that). Certainly, the British were not slow to develop a heavy tank in the 50s when they perceived a need for one.
The Americans and Soviets were still perfectly happy with the concept of medium and heavy tanks after WWII, the only question was what actually constituted a medium tank in the post war environment. The M26 was reclassified as a medium and the Russians introduced the T-44 then T-54 which meant that the Medium tank was getting bigger, but both armies still saw a role (or a potential role in the case of the Americans) for the heavy tank.
As such, heavy tanks persisted into the 50 and 60s. Essentially the Soviets still felt there was a requirement for a heavy breakthrough tank (T10) and the British and Americans still felt there was a requirement for specialised heavy tank killers to counter those breakthrough tanks (Conqueror, M103). Notably the Tiger I was designed as a breakthrough tank and the Tiger II was more optimised as a tank killer so both the doctrinal roles the German heavies had been designed for had not yet gone away, at least in the 1950s.
As such, some degree of specialisation in armour design persisted for about twenty years after the end of the war as the early "universal" tanks like Centurion or M46/47/48 weren't truly universal. The idea was there, but neither the east nor west felt able to go all in on the Main Battle Tank concept in the early cold war and the first "proper" main battle tanks that really folded the medium and heavy roles into a single design were the Chieftain and T-64.
American tank destroyers had a better kill ratio against German tanks than their tank counterparts. The concept of TDs was a problem, but American tank tactics were a bigger problem.
Perfectly good and logical assessment.