German tanks also had the issue that due to the regular use of less than voluntary labour to make, had occasional 'accidental' flaws in the mechanical gizmos.
There was the classic issue in the Czech factories of the "explosive" AA rounds not being filled with explosives. Using labour from territory newly admitted to the Reich has issues.
I've heard of an interesting story about a Panther tank that was being restored had issues with the engine. When it was inspected, it was discovered to have a cigarette butt shoved into the ignition system!
T-34: one other bad point is the almost complete lack of situational awareness of the crew. Most did not have a way to communicate with the infantry or anybody else. In addition, the crew was almost blind when buttoned down. Visibility in any WWII tank was not great, but the T-34 took it to a new level.
Quantity was the T-34's quality. It was just good enough to be effective some of the time, and always effective if multiplied enough times. Makes me wonder if it was given another few years to properly develop rather then being rushed into service if it would have been a superior tank even on its lonesome. We'll never find out.
@@andromidius I think it would have been. The T-34's problems IMHO were not design problems. Make the steel better, make the optics better, add a cupola and a radio and Bob's your uncle. Mostly manufacturing issues and failure to correct the seemingly easily correctable design flaws.
Indeed I have seen analysis that can be supported by some of the original design specs that posits perhaps the production t34s were woefully incomplete or victims of manufacturing defect. Even the steel was over heat treated which made the interior armor spall. Can't remember the exact figures but close to have of crew fatalities or so came from spauling
@@andromidiuswe kind of did. They kept making them with better quality parts after the end of the war and they were used in Korea where they succeeded against infrantry without AT weaponry but they struggled when doing anything but shooting fish in a barrel.
One big contribution to the fear allied tank had, was a tiger1 and a mark4 had basically the same profile. Every mark 4 became a tiger. The later versions of the mark4 had a pretty good 75mm gun so they were effective. One infantry captain wrote that it was impossible to tell if you were being shot at by a 75 or an 88, both are supersonic and all you hear is a nasty explosion.
Forgot to mention one of the other major problems of the T-34: The two-man turret. The original models had the commander do double duty of commanding the tank as well loading the main gun. What this means in the field is that the commander cannot correct fire or observe the area for targets or threats because he has to take his eyes off the periscope to load the gun.
The tank commander was the gunner, not the loader. It is correct to say it was a tactical weakness, although this flaw was shared by quite a few tanks early in the war. The soviets were of course well aware that this was a weakness in need of correction. Had the war not started in 1941, the T-34 would have quickly been replaced by the more modern T-34M, which had a three-man turret with a dedicated TC as well as torsion bar suspension. But once the war broke out, the Red Army needed every tank it could get, so the modernization had to wait.
You failed to mention that German tank were built like fine German cars...needing regular maintenance and specific procedures carried out that were nearly impossible to do I the feild. And the T-34 had many shortcomings. Like gaps in armor plate you vould stick your fingers thru.the treads were held together by pins instead of bolts.pins that could slip out and allow the tracks to come off.do their solution was to weld a striker plate on tge the pins would hit during travel and get pushes back in.leading to the particular clanky sound the tank was known to male during travel.
They were also over engineered. The ball bearings could last for 30 years, but many tanks did not last 30 days in the field. Conversely, the aluminum used in Japanese planes was soft and had an operational life of a few years, which is why there are no operational Zeros left today.
They weren't though. Fine cars don't break final drive gears. German tanks commonly did. Fine cars weren't underpowered. Most Germans tanks were, specially the Tigers and Panther. There's a reason the Germans lost the war.
@blackpowder4016 I said built...not comparable. They used the finer assemble and parts but the parts were weak for their purpose.as far as power is concerned.germany was having issues with acquiring newer more modern and powerful engines.even the luftwaffa was having to use pairs of engines bolted together to power their propeller aircraft.thos design had the issue primarily of overheating, being overly prone to damage during battle and catching fire due to their tendency to leak oil profusely if not properly maintained.by the later years of the war the industrial complex was hampered by hitlers betting on the wunderwaffe to turn the tide and diverting resources to it instead of improving the already weak industry for the lower war machines. The tanks were built like fine German autos were.but with inferior resources that still needed fine handling and care to maintain functionality. If Germany made tanks like Russia made tanks.... Well...we could be speaking German now.except Hitler still had no common sense.
@@phillip6083 WW2 Germany made the correct approach of developing and using more advanced weapons, called "Wunderwaffe" for propaganda, because the existing conventional weaponry, well, weren't working out for Germany late war. An example is there was no point building more reliable propeller bombers or fighters when Germany didn't have fuel or pilots to even fly them, so logically they developed V-1/2 missile that could deliver payload at similar range but without the need of pilots. Germany making tanks like Russian T-34 would only exacerbate the numerical disadvantages in the field as Germany could not provide sufficient fuel to field many of them at once, while at the frontline the tanks and crews would drop like files, making the panzer forces even shorter on tanks. That is why German army command and Hitler never choose to build tanks like Russia, because Germany was not Russia. And you don't have to worry about speaking German at all - Hitler actually made many better and practical choices that what most people and popular history gave credit for, and Germany still lost under the might of Allies' industries and economies.
@sthrich635 many good points indeed.and I was not specifically referring to as russia as in number...but in how russia builds things in general. Even though russian tanks(and many of their products) were slapped together they had the unique quality upon repair of good enough". Even though they were by most standards poorly made...they were easier to repair as all the parts were cheap and simple.if germany had followed that train of thought from the onset they(imho)would have been and done better in the long run.but when you have a device that needs it's own set of specific tools to fix instead of just a hammer and spool of wire....you are making a tool for battle way to complicated(for that time).Germany started off spending its marks and resources like they would not end, planning on resources from plunder of neighboring countries but that didn't work out quite as planned. There were a lot of short comings.
Soviet quality issues with their products may explain why their tank troops still valued american lend-lease Shermans, especially the 76mm version, even though they lacked the punch or the armor sloping of the T-34....when you basically live in your tank, good interior fittings and better working conditions become important too. Plus some may have found it preferable to actually hit a target with american optics of a weaker gun, than miss repeatedly with a more powerful soviet gun that has crappy sights....
Panther Side armor was both a compromise and acceptance of reality. Anti tank guns were becoming so powerful anything under 80 mils of sloped armor would make no difference anyway. By 45 the British came to the same conclusion with the Centurion, side armor should protect against artillery , rapid fire autocannons and small direct HE hits. Evenly distributing armor after 1942 means the tank is either overweight or easy to penetrate from all sides. Tiger 1 an KV1 were in that historical sweet spot when on average guns were not that powerful so their side armor gave them solid side protection.
@@sanderwissink5330 Panthers side armor was vulnerable to the PTRS 14.5 anti tank rifles...there were plates added to protect the armor just above the tracks. However, those plates were often lost so the 14.5 anti-tank rifle was still able to critically wound the crew of the Panther.
The Tiger, KV and Panzer III were all designed with roughly equal armor all around; it was a bit later in the war when everyone started to figure out that it was smarter to save weight by using relatively thin armor on the sides and rear.
@@JuiceBokx Uh huh. A quick Google finds even worse numbers. The following is a quote: "Jentz & Doyle list fuel consumption at 270 liters per 100 klicks on roads, at speed. It is 480 liters per 100 klicks on average terrain. So, it is actually much less than 2 mpg. But you have to realize that these monsters were 57,000 Kg combat weight(that's almost 63 tons), and used a 700 hp engine. Even so, theye were considered underpowered. No compare that with the average family vehicle. They weigh in at what, maybe a ton? Ton and a half? They travel on much better roads, too." Still sounds like my neighbour's Humvee wannabee on a bad day. (Tuesday?)
"...The total distance of about 250 kilometers covered during the operation was accomplished essentially without mechanical failure. The Tiger II proved itself extremely well, both in its armor and from a mechanical perspective. Vehicles which received up to twenty hits without becoming disabled were not uncommon ... " s.H.Pz.Abt 503 after-action report from operations in Hungary, November 1944
Kind of why heavy tanks were a dead end. Too many resouces, too slow, and just not worth it overall when you could make multiple medium tanks for the same cost and just slap a bigger gun on them if you needed to kill something bigger
@@TTTT-oc4eb oh look, found the Wehraboo. Hilarious you bring up a report from 1944 when the tank is NEW and not a report from AFTER the war. Hate to break you bubble, but your super tank was a piece of garbage that broke down after a couple dozen km.
@@TTTT-oc4eb He probably changed his mind later on, and was just lucky during the first deployment. Most Tiger IIs produced never even managed to reach combat as they broke down before they got to the fighting, and had to be abandoned or blown up by their crews. Those that did fight were truly terrifying but even those rarely managed to keep going for long before they broke down. Yes, there were exceptional units whose maintenance people worked miracles and kept them going for a reasonable period, but mostly the Tiger IIs had very short lives. If they didn't break down they were blown up by the RAF, the USAAF or the artillery, and very occasionally they were killed by Shermans that managed to get behind them. Most were lost to mechanical failure.
@@arthas640 The Tiger II wasn't slow though, it was just as fast as the IS-2, quicker than the Centurion, way faster than the Churchill tank and almost as fast as the Sherman. It had lots of problems, but it wasn't slow, when it worked.
The Tiger 1 greatest impact was - fear of the Tiger 1. “Tiger Fear” got to be a real issue for the allies, as any German armored vehicle was often identified as a “Tiger”. This psychological impact far outshone its performance in the field.
Likely due to a few notable examples that really did excel. For example Michael Wittmann was a tank ace that is credited with 135 tank kills. That kind of excellence likely inflated the reputation of the tiger tank. Germany had a few aces both on the air and the ground and their exploits were often credited with how "superior" their equipment was. Which was not always the case. I guess when you are fighting the entire world it is easier to get an Ace reputation because you have far more enemies to kill.
@@stoda01 true, but more than that,the Tigers 88 gun was a real killer. Very accurate, and great range. Its ability to score a kill, at ranges where the opponents gun was ineffective, was the basis of the “invincible Tiger” myth. But if you can cause your enemy to think twice before engaging, or even advancing, because of that myth, you’ve done your job.
@@TR4Ajim Yeah you are correct, the 88mm gun was deadly against ground and air targets. The Allies went to great length to take out those guns because they new just how lethal they were.
How do you know Tiger Terror was real? Because History Channel says so? Real soldiers report not being scared of them because most of the Tigers they saw were knocked out or abandoned. If your experience with something mostly consists of walking past its corpse, you're not going to be that intimidated by it. The Tiger's fear factor has been greatly exaggerated by Nazi fanboys over the years.
there is a German Tiger 1 crew diary which a crewman said when we drove out on the field and the T34s saw it was a Tiger , they ran away ,made me laugh
Am I stupid or weren't there only four tanks? Tiger, Panther, T-34 and Tiger II. Edit: The title used to read "FIVE 'Great' WWII Tanks...." before it was corrected.
(German tank enthusiast here) "Oh cool, Simon's made a video about terrible tanks"..."Yeah, we know the Tiger I was a logistical disaster... OK, the Panther's final drive... Geez, even the Tiger II?" *insert demonitizable Austrian armband enthusiast yelling* But seriously, the Jagdpanther is the most beautiful TD ever built, and the Panther G is the sexiest machine man has yet created.
Arguably, the best German "tank" was the Stug 3. Cheap, reliable, excellent weapon, best targeting sights, and a 3 to 1 kill ratio led Germans to reduce Tiger and Panther production in favor of more Stugs
All of these tanks did actually get a bit better late in the war (outside of the Tiger 2). The E8 Sherman was awesome, the T34/85 was certainly better than the T34/76. Lastly, the Panther G was pretty darn decent. Some say the best in the war. Two things the German cats did best: canons and sights.
Not really. German tank sights were notoriously difficult to acquire targets cause they were permanently zoomed in, the gunner often had to rely heavily on the commander's situational awareness in contrast to US and british tanks that had two scopes, one was a wide-field sight that offered the gunner situational awareness to acquire targets, the other scope being the gun's zoomed-in scope.
@@mochaholic3039 Were you read all this BS ? German sights had two zoom stages , mostly 2.5 x and 5.0 x .Field of view 28° and 14° , they could set a range and they could messure the distance . They were superior to all others , late war Soviet sights were not bad either .
@@5co756 Most likely he's getting it from Steven Zaloga's book, Armored Thunderbolt. Beyond the standard sight on the Sherman, gunners also had a standard periscope with no magnification that gave a much wider field of view. If you have ever looked for something under a microscope in science class, you probably know its faster and easier to locate what you want to look at at a lower zoom level before moving to the higher zoom for a detailed inspection. The same principal applies here. In addition, the Commander had no override of the turret, so couldn't help the gunner get on Target. Add in the Sherman's Stabilizer (assuming they used it) and the notably faster turret traverse, and you have a tank that is just much faster on the draw. Getting off not only the first shot, but also the first corrected shot. This falls in line with the United States Army's Ballistic Research Lab (BRL) study in 1946 which studied 30 engagements between Shermans and Panthers, which found that even when attacking into a prepared German position, the Shermans still got the first shot off against Panthers 50% of the time. (and basically always got off the first shot on defense)
@@BlitkriegsAndCoffee 2.5 zoom is not that much and tanks mostly don't fight at 50m , then a normal scope with no zoom would be nice to have . I would take US reports with a grain of salt , they destroyed more Tiger 1's than the Germans ever build . 😅 This is not a game , were you drive around and suddenly a tank appears at a corner . It doesn't matter if you are the first who shoots , you need to be the first who hit the tank . And the Germans had a high hit rate up to 1km with the first shot , his statement was that they were always max zoomed in . Wich is not true , the Sherman had some fancy stuff . Like some sort of a stabilizer , but most crew's never used that . Most people think they could shoot on the move , like it's in a specific game .
@@5co756 2.5x through a narrow viewport is incredibly limited in Field of View. Take a pair of Binoculars, go to somewhere unfamiliar, put them up to your face, close one eye, and see how good you are at getting around. I've even provided a study that likewise confirms the findings that Shermans tended to get the first shot off. There are only 4 confirmed reports of US Shermans engaging Tiger Is in Europe. A far cry from killing more Tigers than we're made. Multiple reports by both the Americans and Soviets post war revealed that first shot was the *only* thing that mattered in tank engagements. Weapon Caliber, Range, and Armor had no noticeable impact on the outcome of the battle. Whomever shot first overwhelming won the fight. A lot of this comes down to whomever shot first identified their target first, got into the optimal range, had time to line up their shot, and then shoot. Even if they missed, their 2nd shot was often shooting before the other side had identified where the first shells came from. Tank fights in WW2 we're overwhelmingly 1 sided ambushes. Average engagement distance in the European Theatre was 400-600m. A far cry from 1k shots. The Panther, designed for the Eastern Front, was ill-equipped for Western Europe. Stabilizer use changed heavily from division to division. Most of the Armored divisions, (2nd, 3rd, 4th) which saw the lion's share of Tank on Tank action in Europe, all used the Stabilizer. While it technically could fire on the move when going ~10kph, it was mostly used for 'short stop' scenarios where the tank needed to halt and quickly line up a shot. You are right, it isn't a game, which is why soft factors, like how fast you can get your gun accurately on target, matter.
Mostly, except the final drive. By the time most panthers Gs we’re being made, the were running out of good materials meaning corners had to be cut and the already unreliable final drives were starting to be made out of mild steal
@@TaeussKramme I mean relative to other tanks final drive it was mild steel. Germany strait up had no Alloys at the end. A 105mm could crack a panther like a tin can.
Panther was conceptually a great vehicle, it fell just short of being the first MBT, but the course of the war and the fascist way of governance prevented it from ever reaching its full potential. Rushed development, design oversights, ever poorer crew training and deteriorating production quality. But it had firepower and armor comparable to heavy tanks of its era, while retaining the mobility and price tag of a medium tank. Let’s imagine a variant with early war production quality, Jagdpanther final drives, the Schmalturm of the Ausf. F and a well trained crew.
Those ways of governance where interesting, where they not? For many who might wonder how it relates to tanks: For a government that has an insane fascination with Propaganda, and large war machines being wonderful tools for said Propaganda, they went together surprisingly poorly. Said government was far more interested in ensuring that the 'right sort of person' was seen driving these vehicles, over their application in an on-going war. Needless to say, this sort of thinking will cause all sorts of problems in said on-going world war. This led to poorly skilled tank commanders that just happened to be promoted up the chain due to looks, and often being put out of position so they can be seen riding said tank. Then credited with the kills of others, so they can be put in newspapers as 'aces.' Just imagine putting the heaviest, best, and most photogenic of tanks into the hands of these guys.
A consequence of rushing the deployment of the Panther was also that they lost a lot of them at Kursk. Which really highlights what an act of desperation the offensive was, but deploying them before they were ready meant wasting perfectly good hulls (not to mention the crew) that the Germans couldn't really afford to replace.
@@smalltime0 Eh, they made like 6000 of them. the more pressing issue with German lack of hulls is the fact that a war economy wasn't fully adopted until 1943, with the effect that their most productive year of the war is 1944 (as opposed to 1942 or 43 when you'd expect it to be). Obsessed with optics and propaganda, as well as believing that fanaticism trumps numbers, Hitler refused to enact true total war measures. Many civilian Germans barely felt the war until 1942 when Allied strategic bombing took off. As a consequence, the Soviet Union outproduced Germany by quite a lot in all categories but aircraft starting in 1942 despite the loss of most of their industrial workforce and territory.
Basically, a peacetime variant. As the video pointed out, cold-war versions of the T-34 ironed out many of the issues. The same would likely have happened if the Germans had the opportunity to continue developing the Panther postwar. But when they were allowed to have a military again, they were also given enough surplus American tanks that they could skip straight to the Leopard 1, which represented a very different doctrine due to the belief at the time that protecting against HEAT was impractical.
Panther's final drive was crap because Germany had run out of specialist metals needed for creating the best steel for high stress requirements. Like moving 40t of tank along. Or making tank armour 😂
Partially true. Both PzKpfw V and VI had various drive system issues, and final drive breaking was most common of them, but those were corrected - in about 60% cases - with driver retraining. Of course, rest of inherent flaws remained, but once user was properly instructed, the tanks were much more reliable. Shermans had similar issue - especially ones with radial engine - where heavy-footed GIs were carrying automatic gear box habits from their Chevy into the M4. With results being not surprising engine explosion...
The tiger 1 had one of the highest if not the highest service rate of all of ww2 for a heavy tank, like 74% I believe, as much as people say it was always out of action etc, thats just not the case. When your tank has a 11.52 k/d ratio they tend to last a little longer than all the shit the allies were throwing at it. It was infact much more reliable than people claim.
If you are citing operational readiness rates, 74% would be terrifically high. Higher than I believe. What exactly does that statistic mean please? Even T-34 units would struggle to reach a 70-80% operational readiness rates. And they were routinely much higher than Panther units. The other thing to keep in mind about Tigers is that their "battalions" frequently were lucky to put on e company into action. So how things are measured matters a lot.
Purely my opinion but based on what I read in Otto Carius's biography, the Tigers operational readiness and its reliability are two different things. For example, at one point during a 40 mile relocation two of the dozen or so Tigers broke down. Not great reliability. However, by morning both tanks had been recovered and repaired meaning he once again had a full company ready to go.
Great video breaking much of the myth that is lost in Top Trumps or World of Tanks. Actually using and operating an armoured vehicle is waaaaayyyy more nuanced than simply 'gun & armour'. Well done
The Tiger was a breakthrough tank. It was supposed to be used in areas where German forces struggled to break enemy lines. The Panther and PzrIV was used for the assault role in conjunction with the Stug's
"The Tiger was a breakthrough tank."...yet, it was only used twice in that role-Kursk and Bulge...and exceptionally failed in both operations...making the Tiger the worlds most expensive boat anchor.
@@mathewm7136 A bit of misconception, at Kursk the offensive was cancelled as the Soviet launched a counterattack at north, while at south the German Tigers were making some progress, as far as Germany beginning lack of artillery and air support allows. At Bulge the offensive literally begged the Americans to place their fuel on the road for Germans to capture since they didn't have enough for the offensive. Needlessly to say German panzers and vehicles ran out of fuel and offensive is cancelled. None of these were Tiger tank design faults, nor these battles showed they were the limitation on breaking through enemy lines, it was the overall troop and fuel shortage and lack of German air support and intel that doomed these operations.
The side armor of the Panther could be breached by the standard Sherman 75mm HE shell. Given how underpowered that gun was in tank vs tank combat, it just speaks to how badly designed the Panther was, especially given its weight
@@ill_bred_demon9059 I never defended the panther I just announced that the Sherman had only 15mm more armour on the front than the panther on the side
@anonym-wt2fo But the Panther was designed to be superior to the T34, and by extension, the Sherman. The Panther also weighed 11 tons more than the Sherman, so the fact that the side armor was so flimsy speaks to the bad design of the Panther
The Tiger had a user manual full of scantily clad women to keep he attention of its operators. The manual had a page saying that if you and a mate piggybacking you sunk into the ground after jumping on it, then it was not suitable ground for crossing the terrain
@@tedcopple101 Sounds like a very interesting read! Is there a company producing modern reprints, or do I have to hunt down an original? I've not got a huge interest in German Armour specifically, but anything relating to military history, especially from the 20th Century is within my field of interest!
tbh that says a lot about how much floatation the treads provide. A modern excavator is likely around 1/4 the P.S.I. of a human vs 1/2 with the Tiger. (I used to work for an excavation company, human is ~15-16psi, excavators can be around 4ish)
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701if anything the German tank crews would have been been the scared ones, if they were found by the allied tankers, then they knew that their air support was not far behind
Our Tiger II's aren't very reliable you say? Weight problems? Let's make them even heavier! And let's put a bigger gun on it! So big it can't have a turret! Genius! And thus the Jagdtiger was born.
@@melvinbennett444 Do you really want to start an argument about "What is a tank?" "A tank is a heavily armored, armed military vehicle that moves on tracks and is used for warfare." Armoured? Yes. Armed? Yes. Moves on tracks? Yes. Jagdtiger is a tank. Also, British and American tank destroyers had turrets.
@@melvinbennett444 Definition of tank, as given above, doesn't mention anything about a turret does it? Also, if I believe what you say does that mean that when an M36 has its folding turret top down, its a tank but when it's folded away it's now a tank destroyer? Also, definition of a turret; a low armoured tower, typically one that revolves, for a gun and gunners in a ship, aircraft, fort, or tank. No mention of a roof.
When I was a child in the 50’s, a man going door to door cutting kids hair loved to tell war stories. He had served in a Sherman tank. He told us that one time a group of 4 Shermans were moving down a road around a hill only to run right into a Tiger tank blocking their way. He said they tried to reverse out of there. His was the only tank to get away. The Tiger killed the other 3.
While I don't doubt that story, it was not typical. M4-equipped units had not just a war-winning record but also a battle-winning record, and despite the myths, allied tank crew losses were really very low.
@@executivedirector7467 Funny how Cooper didn't see it that way when he wrote about Sherman losses in "Death Traps" a title that sort of sums it all up.
@@TaeussKramme Yeah, about Cooper, he only EVER saw battle damaged tanks. Thats all he ever saw. He knew nothing about how most of those tanks were knocked out, or how many crew escaped, nor did he know how many tanks went into the engagement and how many survived. All he was were the knocked out tanks. So lets throw something at you to blow Cooper out of the water shall we? The US Armour Force lost a total of around 2500 men killed in action in all theatres during WWII. But I see figures of around 4,500 - 5000 US M4 Shermans destroyed during the war.... So I ask you a question, given that verified number of dead, how much of a death trap is a tank in which the majority of men who were in destroyed vehicles SURVIVED. If you assume 5000 destroyed vehicles, that's 25,000 crew, Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Hull Gunner/Radio Operator. They lost 2,500 killed. That is a 0.5% fatality rate ASSUMING all those dead tank crew were killed in their tanks when they were destroyed, which is not the case. Many of them would have been killed by mortar fire or snipers when their tank was not in action for example. So yes, this 'Deathtrap' of a tank had AT MOST, a 0.5% mortality rate for every tank destroyed by enemy fire. Cooper did not know what the fuck he was talking about outside repairing tanks.
@@alganhar1 Sounds compelling and it is hard to argue with your numbers EXCEPT that the tank did have the moniker "Ronson" attached to it for its ease of brewing-up, as the Brits are fond of saying. Cooper also mentions how many times he came across burnt-out tanks with the crew still inside. Others were most got out, etc. He was there to record and evaluate the causes of these tank losses, how they were probably destroyed and then to propose possible counters to reduce these losses. The last point was difficult short of making them all Jumbos with the associated lack in performance. Ironic, eh? To survive a Tiger you'd have to up-armour like one and then struggle through all the engine, transmission and drive train failures. And still have a tank with a mediocre gun and ammo. And so-so optics. And a profile that you can see coming from a long way out. I rather doubt that there were many (any?) German tankers that lived in dread of a Sherman. A thousand, on the other hand...
The Sherman may actually be under hyped. Like, statistically the gun is average, the engine is average, the armor is alright. But practically it was much better than those statistics imply because, well, it just worked. And if it stopped working, you could just get out and get a new one. On average, a killed T-34 lost 3 out of 4 crew. A Sherman lost 0.8 out of 5.
It still adds up to a few thousand killed. The americans lost nearly four and a half thousand m4s and the british just over two and a half thousand m4s in combat in europe...
@@robertpullen3726 losing less than 1 crew per knocked out tank is elite even by modern standards. Also when you are able to make nearly 50,000 units some stats just matter much less
On the british side they usually lost three of the crew when hit by a tiger or panther. the tank normally blew up in flames or in pieces.When you talk to tankers they say you were very lucky to get out and then you might have lost one of your limbs. Krupp steel was the best.
I am surprised to see no mention of the turret crew issues on the T-34/76. In fact, it might be been better to call out the T-34/76 as a separate tank from the T-34/85.
you missed one issue with the tiger- massive maintenence needed and training for the crews to do it. meaning training took longer and crews were harder to replace because they also needed the special training.
I remember reading in Otto Carius's biography how his unit repositioned just forty miles and two of his Tigers broke down on the road. However, by the start of the next day both tanks had been recovered and repaired. In fact, so long as the Germans could get to them they could almost always recover and repair broken down or knocked out Tigers. The Russians eventually picked up on that and kept shooting until the burst into flames.
Another problem with the T34 was that the crews were poorly trained, especially at the beginning of the German invasion. Also, Russian commanders had no real understanding of how to handle tanks.
I would actually say this was the biggest problem with the T-34. Doctrinally, the Soviets were just awful at using them in the first couple of years of the war (as were other forces such as the French). On top of poor training, the other soft factors excaberated these issues with lack of radios and poor visibility. Historians disagree to the extent it had impact, but IMO, the Great Purge must have had a serious impact on the ability on the quality of Soviet Command and their ability to innovate and adapt, otherwise how do you justify a nation that produced tens of thousands of tanks in peace time, even by the early 30s, being so awful at using them?
Channel is falling for popular revisionistic history it seems. Actual records show that the reliability of the KT was no worse than for example the common Pz.IV, which was considered a very reliable tank. Fact is the lack of oil, fuel, spare parts and properly trained drivers led to a drastic decrease in reliability and steep rise in non combat related losses among all German AFVs. Yet despite this the Tiger II units not only racked up the highest kill ratios, but also belonged among those AFVs with the highest monthly operational percentage from mid 44 to 45. That's hardly indicative of a "kinda bad tank", but rather of a utterly collapsing logistics train.
The British did a post war deep dive into what factors led to a successful armor engagement. And what they found was all of the ‘stats’ war thunder nerds like to throw around, firepower armor mobility etc mattered a lot less than you think. Universally the tank that shot first almost always had the advantage. Not to mention that the Germans were on the defensive for several years in a row and it’s well known that an attacking force almost always takes more casualties and material losses. That’s one way to explain the higher kill ratios in German armor units. Aside from the battle of the bulge German armor was used defensively and in an ambush role.
That british deep dive is nonsense. Countless veterans that shot a tiger first only to See the shell Do no damage . At atacking force takes more casualties when they are poorley prepared or equiped. Or based on poor strategy.
@@OctavianLiviu-ci4zx No, the British deep dive was NOT nonsense. It was properly scientifically based, and an honest attempt by the British to really nail down on what made for a successful armour on armour engagement. It was not nonsense because the British WANTED to learn the correct lessons from it. Thus the results were carefully collated in order to be as balanced and unbiased as possible. I will tell you what is nonsense, the continual and constant denial of hard data by people like you for the simple reason it does not fit in with your preferred perception. I will also tell you what ELSE is nonsense, your idiot opinion that an attacking force only takes higher casualties for the reasons you described. That is a statement that has less worth than shit, as at least shit has the advantage that one can turn it into a useful fertiliser, your statement has no such benefit. An attacking force going against a peer enemy, that is well dug in, will take higher combat casualties than the defender no matter how good their tactics, equipment or preparation so long as the defender makes no glaring errors. Your statement is based purely on wishful thinking and a complete and utter ignoring of the actual historical data. In short, NOTHING you said has any worth for anyone even remotely interested in seeking a balanced or correct viewpoint as it is purely based on fantasy....
Actual records do not in fact find the KT was as reliable as the Pz IV. No matter how you try to swing it the KT was powered by the same engine that powered the Tiger I, and the same transmission as the Tiger 1. Both were overstressed in the earlier, much LIGHTER tank, let alone the far heavier King Tiger. The accounts of even avid Nazi crews of the KT directly counter your claim it was as reliable as the Pz IV, as they themselves either wrote, or informed their captors, that most KT's their units lost were destroyed in place by the crews due to breakdowns, usually involving the transmission which was notorious for failing. Post war testing by the British, Americans and Soviets all backed this lack of reliability up. The Tiger II was, quite simply, too heavy for its running gear, transmission and engine.
@@alganhar1 You're wrong, I have the operational readiness charts, and the KT was more reliable than the Pz.IV in the period of summer 44 to spring 45. Most losses were also not due to break down, but lack of fuel, stranding a lot of the tanks and necessating their destruction by own crews to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. That said breakdowns were as mentioned common among all German panzers at that period due to lack of oil, as well as trained drivers, which meant parts simply didnt last as long. That's just how it was.
Stalin: I need this many T-34's completed by the end of the year. OR ELSE. Factories: **Put out sh-t tanks made even sh*ttier by cutting corners to not get sent to the gulags.**
or get put in a Penal Battalion ,[which means getting shot or badly injured [and sent onto the field to draw enemy fire ,in order to locate enemy positions
amazing as always, Simon. would you be interested in doing some more content of WW2 planes and early jets again mayhaps? the FWs, the spitfires, the hurricanes, mustangs, kobras, ILs, yaks etc.
He'll do them once he has seen more of LazerPig's videos. This is a mish-mash, and often completely taken word-for -word plagiarism of LazerPig's videos.
Also the layout of the roadwheels on Tigers and Panthers was also problematic, the overlapping design made maintenance hard, if one wheel broke you had to remove some other as well and Soviet terrain mud and stuff got between the roadwheels and it was nightmare
And the trouble with not having overlapping road wheels on the Tigger and Panther would have meant the axle loading would have been dramatically increased making it even more of a pain to get around. It may have been a pain in the backside for maintenance crews, but there was a good reason for it. I'm surprised they didnt mention the fact the engine was massively over stressed and would often stall during combat. It also needed to be turned over and ran for about an hour before use, lest they damage it. Impressive on paper, but due to its rushed development phase, a terrible tank.
What you mention when you mention the rather rough and bleak environment the loaders/gunners faced in the tanks, is the comforts we have today, come from and in response to, the difficulties faced in the preceding days. What we comment on as being rough, was wonderful, back then.
I've read where the early Panther models would often times experience engine fires when driving up slopes as the fuel system leaked badly and the fuel would run back onto the over-heated engine. Tommy Cooker take that. Meanwhile, the Chiefton put out a video that stated that T-34 drivers carried a hammer to get the tank into 3rd gear and as stated many had no radio and Soviet unit commanders would open a hatch and wave a flag to signal their unit's tanks.
the nazis were the first to have radios in every tank, the british followed by 1941/42 and the americans adopted that. The soviets did not have radios in all tanks until the T34/85 and IS released, and even then some lacked the radio as it was simply in short supply. The bigger issue with the T34 was its confort, vision and overall mobility. The crew was stuffed into a much to smal turret with the Comander needing to spot targets, aim at targets and shoot them, all while also commanding the tank in general and look out for signals from allied units. The vision was also bad due to the T34 never getting its planned high quality crystals for its optics but rather polished steelplates which easily fogged up, smeared or scrached. So the driver essentially had to drive with his hatch open even during combat or drive blind, just by orders of the commander. The gunsight was also of very low quality As for the mobility, you already mentioned the "struggle" to change gears. While the "Hammer anecdote" is certainly not the norm, it was still very hard to change gears and and if you missed the timing you would not only stall the tank but also risk blowing the transmission, all with very few staps in the transmission when compared to other designs, this changed in later models, but remained a problem till after the war. In the early parades of the T34 it was also joked, by its crews, that the one who manages to get the tank into its fourths gear could also just throw the thing at the enemy and be there faster. (indicating the amount of force needed in some T34s to change gears)
Early Panther models had not just a leaky fuel system, but also an airtight engine compartment, so fuel vapors would accumulate instead of venting out. The weapons procurement office really wanted tanks with the deep fording capability, something that was also included (but later removed) in the Tiger I.
You "read"? My dear fellow unless you have a university degree and have written a dozen books on the subject I'm afraid you're just not one of the elite commenters here.
It is estimated that those 1,300 Tiger I tanks killed ~10,300 enemy tanks. The Tiger I essentially invented the term Panzer or Tank Ace. It was designed to be a breakthrough tank--not a standard unit. It wasn't necessarily 'plagued' by issues. It was more often pressed into service beyond its recommended maintenance schedule.
Apart from the logistics the tiger was a very good tank. It hardly ever broke down due the mechanical issues. It was easy to service and the engine was perfectly powerful for the tiger 1. It was mainly due to crew training. Read the books by bruce oliver newsome who knows the tank inside out. It was a brilliant tank. Also by the middle of 44 the panthers problems were mainly all sorted out.. The chaps at the tank museum say driving the tiger is like driving a normal car. steering wheel. power steering. autobox..
Arguable, Tiger ausf E's often broke down and the engine was strained to propel the tank at anything like decent speeds, driving 131 around the almost flat course at Bovvy while keeping it below 25kph, is a little different that actual combat. The Panthers problems were still being addressed in 1945.
According to bruce newsome the engine was capable of producing enough power to easily propel the tiger 1 to a reasonable speed. He states in his books that on flat ground it was the same as a t34 or sherman. He also states that it mainly broke down due to driver error or poor oil. I have spoken to several ex tiger men over the years and they all said the crews loved the tank..The panthers gear box was the only thing that still gave trouble mainly but the crews loved it. And it did destroy several thousand tanks.The t34 broke down more times than any other tank.
@@robertpullen3726 It was slightly less than the early Medium M4 and significantly less than the T-34. Yes, Tiger crew liked the tank, it had good armour, but its maintenance was a nightmare. The panthers gearbox was not a serious problem, the problem was in the final gear drive which was unsuitable for the stress it was placed under and was underspec in its metallurgical content.
Sorry yes i meant to say the final drive with the gear box. My mates uncle was in 2nd SS das reich and he used to say that they loved the panther and did not have that much of an issue with them .He said it was more than a match for virtually anything the allies threw at them. But the tiger 1 was still the best.
Panther still had issues with fuel leaks and engine fires among other things. The french used the Panther after the war and their reports on it are not as positive as yours.
I can't believe how many daft things were said or serious points ignored. Yes, all the tanks mentioned had serious flaws, no disagreement there. Also, the Churchill tank had initially terrible flaws, but the handbook said so! Now that bit of honesty is worth a mention
In short, the poor quality and difficulty in fixing these tanks make them less great than people think. At least the Americans learned really quick on improving the M4 Sherman and the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" model was an extremely underrated tank, not only with surprisingly good armor protection and ammunition box protection but it fielded a nasty 76 mm gun on a fast traversing turret and the fact it was designed specifically to be easily repairable in the field, especially replacing the tracks and the whole drivetrain.
Yep. Its been pointed out by armored warfare historians such as the cheiftan that sherman was much easier to maintain and as such had a much better operational readiness rate that negated any one on one advantages that german armor may have had. Taking the transmission for example, the shermans transmission could be completely swapped out with little to no need for onsite fabrication or part fitting in a couple hours by a couple of mechanics, with the parts to do so readily available to the mechanics. The tiger in comparison would be an all day affair, if not longer, that would require major disassembly of the tank and hours upon hours of parts fabrication and fitment provided the mechanics at the unit level could even get their hands on the parts to do so.
@@TaeussKramme no, Sherman survivability rates of US crews lent the U.S. tank force to have a high amount of veteran tankers and with every engagement with German tanks their crews got greener and greener because of the lack of survivability when penetrated. The 3rd and 4th armored divisions were doing the tank equivalent of an RKO on larger forces of panthers and other German AFVs with 75mm Sherman’s. Weight of numbers would mean that 3.6 Sherman’s are taken out for every panther, when Sherman’s were taking out 3 times more panthers than the inverse. That’s an indication of skill and a better designed tank not mass production. The T34 had an abysmal tank on tank performance and thus had a low K:D ratio. The Sherman 75 for all intents in purpose was an effective anti tank weapon in the right hands, especially for the conditions in Western Europe that favored smaller and more nimble tanks
@@TaeussKramme The Sherman may have had numbers on its side, but its German counterparts had the advantage of being on the defensive and in conquered territory for most of the time post Normandy. They could retreat from prepared ambush to prepared ambush, a style of combat that heavily favored the highly magnified optics of the Panther, while laying mines and possibly destroying bridges in their wake. Shermans were tasked with taking territory from dug in enemy forces without the benefit of thermals for spotting ambushes. Look at how many of the stories of a Sherman getting taken out start with it being ambushed while in transit. The Axis forces didn't have to expose themselves to anything like the same risk until they reached territory they couldn't afford to cede to the Allies.
Sir, thank you so much for making these videos. I imagine you work you tail off to make these. I really appreciate you, and will show my son these videos when he's old enough.
@@TaeussKramme more technology and different ways of taking out a tank armor in the front and not in the back or sides matters less because of the anti tank weapons and drone we have to day which can kill it a whole assortment of ways today a anti tank gun can mostly fuck anything up regardless of where it hits so less side armor means less compared to more up close nature of ww2 tanks and hand held anti tank weapons like in ww2 you had to worry more about some dude with a little rocked shooting you from the side at like 60 meters away
@@gew43 Actually its as much a concern today, you needed infantry support in wwII and you still need infantry support today with tanks, if not you will lose them all. The thinking of frontal heavy armor is actually genius when limited with resources and weight, most engagements will occur with your frontal armor facing the enemy, if the enemy is suddenly at your side, you have been flanked and need to either turn quick, or retreat, adding additional armor to being flanked is useless, you are already in a losing battle. Today its even more dangerous with loitering munitions, suicide drones with 4k cameras that will zoom into the tankers metal fillings as he yells his last words.... I suggest you really investigate armored warfare and nation specific doctrines before making a fool of yourself
@@kzs831 what im saying is modern tech makes it easier to destroy tanks from all direction especially up when compared to ww2 where tanks and anti tank weapons which were more privative, and having worse armor meant more when most anti tank weapons were weaker compared to now
A little bit of misinformation on the Tiger I. The snorkel system was built because they knew it could not go over most bridges. The T34 also had issues going over bridges in Russia and so DID the Panzer IV as all of these were heavier than many of the old wooden bridges still in use in Russia could handle. On logistics, the Heavy Tank battalion had its OWN Supply Company and concerning Maintenance, it had its OWN Maintenance/workshop company and Recovery Platoon. The 18 ton halftracks were only used for a year, then were replaced by Panther ARVs. Also, during the time of the 18ton halftrack, there were only 2 Tiger I tanks per platoon, so there were not many Tigers period in the battalion. It was mostly Panzer III's and/or IV's and look at the havoc those early battalions made! It was only in 1944 that production was high enough for 4 Tigers per platoon. The Tiger I was a great tank, sorry, just came too late for its purpose which was for a break through tank. It was not intended for defensive action, but it held its own there. The mistake though was stopping production of the Tiger I right when record production was being reached to build the Tiger II that was a huge waste.
To me, the most fascinating thing about WWII tank design is how fast they became obsolete. Many a 1940 tank was hopelessly out of date by 1943 or so. Yet today we are using 20 year old tanks (30 if you're a Soviet in Ukraine).
One tank is missing: - rudimentary optics - shells that did not work - armor piercing capabilities are a joke (but similar to other countries in value, except they were tested on soft steel at 90° angle) - almost non-existent off-road capabilities (should not go to mud, snow ice,...) - potentially it could overturn in rough terrain - the gearbox is outside the armor or rather it is part of the armor - overloaded suspension - armor is a joke (enemy shells went frequently trough it without exploding) - ammunition storage was marked by white stars - was so loved by own troops that they prefer to jump out of it in case they meet enemy tanks the one and only M4 Sherman
If it was so bad in the mud how did Patton move a entire tank army over 100 miles in December during a snow storm. Tigers couldn't even over run Bastone in the same weather. They ran out of fuel. The turret was faster and gyroscopically stabilzed. Best Tiger commander used a hand held optical sight from a Stugg III. Stug III was really best armored vehicle the Germans had.
@@thomasslaiby474 Roads? And USA army knew the problem from Italy and thus developed track extenders in 1944 based on Russian modification of Sherman. With Easy 8 (1945) the proper tracks were introduced. So initaly M4 Sherman was not gyroscopically stabilzed in todays terms. And it was probably not good desing as it was not repeated until M60. As this was classified system only one division knew how to use it properly. So how fast should turret be: Tiger one turret has 1 rpm (rounds per minute, low rate) or 6 rpm (high rate). Average combat distance is 800 m this means it can follow tanks with speed up to 50 at low speed or 300 km/h at high speed. As tanks are not planes circling around Tiger tanks this is bullshit argument made by Americans who needed to come within 100 m to penetrate Tiger. At this distances they were safe with speeds above 40 km/s perpendicular to tank. But not in first 2500 m of approach to Tiger tank.
Tiger II was terrible - mostly due to it being developed far too late to make a difference, wasn't fully tested or refined, lacked the infrastructure to support it and simply wasn't the tank needed for the situation Germany was in. If they cranked out more Panzer IV's (or rather, SPG variants) they'd have had more success. Thank goodness for poor decisions.
nah should have stuck with the later panther models, especially those few build after the Jagdpanther was released (that one fixed the final drives...somehow) the Pz IV was absolutely useless by 1944 and the Panther was cheaper and faster to produce by that time as well, it also had a simpler spare parts list and was heavily standardised.
The Tiger II really took all the downsides of the predecessor and made them a lot worse. More than anything else, it is just too heavy for a contemporary transmission and engine to reasonably operate - and the Tiger I was already badly overweight at 57-60 tons. Panther is the way to go vs Pz IV though, it has a trivially greater cost for greatly improved combat capability. It's arguably the only German WW2 tank designed for what was really needed - ease of manufacture.
I'm going to disagree. Making more weaker tanks wasn't a viable option either. They would have needed more crew more training facilities, more logistical support, fuel trucks, spare parts, more trucks and half tracks to keep the infantry up with the tanks. It would have been a larger logistical nightmare than making fewer more powerful tanks. I'm curious what burns more fuel 3-4 panzer IV's or 1 tiger.
More Panzer IVs would have required more manpower and more fuel etc. Arguably, more Panthers would have given a better balance of protection for precious crews, firepower, and mobility.
If you watch the Chieftains detailed video on Tiger I, he makes it clear that the tank was designed as a breakthrough tank in offensive warfare. There would be ample time to get it where an operation was to take place so the poor range and reliance on trains for long-distance traveling wouldn’t be much of an issue. As a breakthrough tank it was to be heavily armored on all sides except for the rear. Assuming the Tiger I was used in its intended role as a breakthrough tank, once the breakthrough had been achieved the faster and longer-legged Panzer IIIs and IVs would exploit that breakthrough while the Tiger I could be comfortable pulled back for maintenance in order to be ready for the next engagement. That was the German doctrine for this tank. Regarding the Panther, Simon whines about the thin side armor… ummm.. that was an intentional trade-off to reduce weight. The part of the tank facing the enemy would be the front. The German tankers were aware of the thinner side armor. Also, that thinner side armor could be “double” by positioning the tank at a 45-degree angle towards the enemy (the Germans called it the “Mahlzeitstellung” and this was also recommended for Tiger I crews) thus “angling” the armor. Aside from early reliability issues, the Panther actually reached better operational reliability rates than the Panzer IV in 1944. The biggest weakness of the Panther remained its weak final drives but even here efforts were made to improve the reliability - and it worked extending their durability.
I don’t think Tiger I was a “terrible” tank, but it was waaayyy over-hyped. The negatives that Simon pointed out are absolutely correct. However, it needs to be pointed out that it was designed as a breakthrough tank, but almost never performed that role. The idea for its design was to spearhead an offensive and breakthrough enemy lines at which point, Tiger I would withdraw to the rear and medium tanks like Pz. IV would take over the attack. Fuel efficiency isn’t really important for a breakthrough tank that is supposed to stops fighting once the breakthrough has been achieved. The design choices that made Tiger I a good breakthrough tank meant that it struggled as a medium tank. Documentaries like to point out the “hard” traits of armor, firepower, and reliability, but they rarely mention the “soft” traits like crew comfort, communications, or how easy it is for the crew to see and target enemy tanks. Tiger I had good “soft” traits. I’d argue that the soft traits are as important, if not more important, than the hard traits. A crew that isn’t tired from a bumpy ride, has reliable radios, and better optics will perform better than a tank crew that doesn’t have them. This is critical because it gives Tiger crews a better chance at shooting first. In a tank battle, the tank that fires first, usually wins - regardless of the “hard” traits. I’m not suggesting that Tiger I was a great tank because it wasn’t. However, it wasn’t a terrible tank either. The truth is in the middle and requires nuance. The myth of the invincible Tiger is a result of very effective N-I propaganda. It caused fear among allied tankers, who then came home after the war, wrote and talked about their experiences, which made their way into textbooks which perpetuated the myth of Whermacht superiority on to later generations. The N-is where evil liars. Don’t believe them.
"it needs to be pointed out that it (Tiger) was designed as a breakthrough tank"...yet, it was only used twice in that role-Kursk and Bulge...and exceptionally failed in both operations...making the Tiger the worlds most expensive boat anchor
@@JohnGruber-di3cw You often lose a lot of tanks when you're sending them into battle alone with no support. Losing a ton of tanks alone isn't evidence of a tank design being bad.
Other fun facts about the early T34s. The T34/76 Model 1941 had a very large single turret hatch which opened forward meaning that if the commander wished to stick his head out to see what was going on he had to expose most of his body to peer around the thing making him extremely vulnerable to enemy snipers. As a result commanders were disinclined to do this making their tank extremely vulnerable to enemy tanks and anti-tank guns. They also has a very large drivers hatch and obviously this needed to be closed during combat. At that point the driver had to rely on his glass vision slit...and as you can imagine when the front of the tank was hit there was a good chance he'd receive a face full of glass. Also, during winter this glass would tend to frost over and so the driver was given a special oil to spread over the glass to prevent this. Or at least he would have been if supplies kept up with demand. Instead drivers were all too often obliged to open the hatch to see where they were going...
All 4 tanks just have very good guns, the problem with the T-34 they expect that it would go out kill one German tank with a group of t-34’s. Russia even had tanks that came out of the factory with the guns not working. So the Russians would use it to ram the German tanks. The German were great designs that overall failed. The best German tank kill was none of these tanks, it was the Stug III.
The Germans were in a really tough situation. There was simply no way they could compete with the numbers of M4's and T34's being produced by the US and USSR. They needed a technological solution that they could actually build in sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, these designs all fell short. By contrast, American Armored units were usually at or very nearly at full strength because of excellent American logistics and their ability to replace battle losses with fresh tanks, as well as the ease of repair of M4's if they should happen to break down.
True, though in the mean time the German armoured forces took a hellish toll on those same tanks. The Soviets lost so many T34s that they wouldn't truthfully admit their losses until decades after the war. And even then they probably lied. The Western Allies also lost significant numbers but you're right, they could easily replace the tanks, and with some work, the crews.
@@TaeussKramme On the Eastern Front maybe. Western armored forces took something like 2% KIA amongst their tankers. Their INFANTRY losses were much higher, but it's a giant, perpetuated myth that the Shermans were slaughtered like lambs. Hell, just take a look at a fairly typical US Armored Division. 2nd Armored Total battle casualties: 5,864[13] Killed in action: 981[13] Wounded in action: 4,557[13] Missing in action: 60[13] Prisoners of war: 266[13] Days of battle: 443[13] and that's all while inflicting a lot more pain on the Germans.
@@warsyn3838 Maybe so, but 2% of a large number can be significant. Consider the following quote that I pulled from a brief Google search on Sherman tank losses: "During the European Campaign, the 3rd Armoured Division lost 648 Sherman tanks in combat, and another 700 were knocked out but repaired and put back into service. This resulted in a loss rate of 580%" Not my numbers, by the way. Further, the search shows a total armoured loss of about 15,000 Allied armoured vehicles of which over 7000 were Shermans in American and British service. Ouch. Many are too dismissive of the actual casualty numbers which, in a tank, are a horrid way to die. Cooper's book "Death Traps" is an insightful evaluation of the Sherman looses in battle. Unfortunately his report is often dismissed by later "experts" who didn't have to pull horribly burned crewmen out of knocked out tanks and wonder why. Simple: the Shermans were never designed or envisioned for tank-on-tank warfare; the American military didn't see it as likely for some reason. The (then) best way of defeating a tank was another tank was a thought they -apparently- never had and this held-up the T26 deployment by YEARS when it would have been a game changer.
Panther could penetrate more armor at longer distances Than a Tiger I. the shell was smaller but the muzzle velocity was much greater. You can't really ding the Panther for its side armor. That was the same or better than most tanks. I really don't know where you got Hitler decided the armor distribution. The armor was front heavy because that is what faced the enemy more often than not. Never heard that it was done that way because Hitler said so. The overheat issues were due to rushed introduction and were later fixed. The final drive was, as you pointed out, a really awful flaw that was never corrected.
The Tiger's gun penetrated slightly more at very long ranges - the Panther's slightly more up to 2000 meters. There was also the overmatch factor; diameter of shell vs. armor thickness, -where the heavy Tiger shell was more effective. Yes, the final drive was a weakness, but not as bad as the French drivers made them. There were many instances of Panther units managing long road marches in the summer of 1944. And the final drive of the late war Panzer IV was actually worse.
Also funny because most modern main battle tanks are also very vulnerable from the sides (and even more so rear and top) but this is (hopefully) mitigated by doctrine/tactics. In the case of the Panther they were meant for long range battles on open fields where they couldn't realistically be flanked. IIRC the final drive wheel was improved but by then they were short on many essential materials.
@@kaltaron1284the Leo 2 and Abrams tanks actually have less side armour than a Panther and the T72 and T90 just got barely more. Ofcourse they all have modern add on armour or other systems in place, but the base armour is not that great
@@AlphaHorst The raw numbers don't tell the full story but comparing the sides to the fronts gives a clear indication. There are tanks like the Merkava that try to get better side protection but those are an exception to prove the rule.
It is commonly said that Hitler insisted on adding more armour - but I suspect it was more that he insisted on putting more armour up front rather than reducing armour on the sides. The impressive frontal slab of armour came at a significant weight penalty, which was a significant factor in the reliability issues.
The drive train problem on the Panther was exasperated by inexperienced young drivers. Experienced well trained Panther drivers, which were few in number, had fewer problems. Still an inexperienced tank driver on a Sherman didn't matter as driving one was like driving a car of that time and a huge percentage of GI's already knew how to drive a car.
@@ClovisPoint Was this an alternate world? "America had fully embraced the automobile by the dawn of the 1940s. As of 1941, about 88 percent of US households had a family car and that number was rising."
"Quantity has a quality of its own" Still the Panther G was the best Tank of WWZ and I'll die on that cross. Tigers K/D ratio was huge & the fear factor they induced helped even more.
Another thing missed between the two Tigers and what made the Tiger 1 in ways better than the Panzer 3 and 4 was it's comfort. Crews in a Tiger 1 enjoyed more room, more comfortable seating, and a smoother ride. The driver also had his controls simplified to a steering wheel and clutch over levers. It was generally a more crew friendly tank than previous and later German tanks.
I'm sure someone else noticed this, and, yes, I am too lazy to read every comment before posting this, but you the you previously characterized the Tiger as one of the finest tanks of World War II 3 years ago in your five best tanks episode. I love your work and find the videos edifying and entertaining, but dedicating an entire video to debunking a myth you helped propagate a few years back seems a bit cheeky.
after-action report from schwere Panzer-abteilung 503 from Hungary November 1944: "The total distance of about 250 kilometers covered during the operation was accomplished essentially without mechanical failure. The Tiger II proved itself extremely well, both in its armor and from a mechanical perspective."
@@Fortunes.Fool. lack of fuel a lot of the time. Poorly trained drivers damaging the transmission are another reason. Both not really the tanks fault i would argue
They came in late in the war and were built with the same substandard manufacturing as the other late-war tanks. By the time they arrived in the war fuel was a major problem. Many King Tigers were abandoned due to lack of fuel.
There is more to the final drive story of the Panther than meets the eye. I was watching a tank restoration and they were pulling one apart. It just so happens that some of the oil cooling holes were the perfect size to be blocked by a cigarette butt, There were several instances of "hey I found another one" after they found the first. The slave labour building them was doing everything they could to sabotage the vehicles.
T-34 how good does it have to be, when on average only lasted 2.5 weeks? 🤔 And Sherman tanks kick the t-34s butt in Korea? 🤣 At lest both tiger tanks had a great win lost record?
It always astounds me when people say that the T-34 was a great tank, or that the 76mm gun was fine... And then turn around and ridicule the 75mm gun on the Sherman in the next breath. I mean, first of all, the T-34 had two different 76mm guns, and the first of which were utterly terrible, being low velocity potato cannon called the L-11. The F-34 however was an alright gun, but it's penetration capabilities were pretty much identical to that of the 75mm used on the Sherman. The penetration capabilities of the 85mm were roughly equal to the 76mm M1 and the KwK40 7.5cm L/48 of the Panzer IV. Also bothering me in this video, is the...rather obvious bias to the Panzer IV. Don't get me wrong, the Panzer IV was a decent tank, and did a great job for what it was...but by the end stages of the war, it was a design that was showing its age, in both manufacturing, and performance. It was designed to weigh ~19 tons, and was never meant to be pushed up to 25 tons. The suspension was struggling to cope with all of the weight on the front of the tank, the transmission were getting fragile due to not being designed to cope with an additional 6 tons, and the engine was getting significantly under powered. In the manufacturing side, it cost just _slightly_ less than a goddamn Panther to build and took longer to build. The Panther meanwhile, for all of its faults, came with arguably _the best anti-tank gun of the war,_ paired with great optics, and an actual range finding system. The Panzer IV did get the KwK 40 L/48 cannon, which was a fantastic gun though, arguably one of the best tank guns in the entire war. Capable right from when it was made to the end of the war. But...by the time of the Normandy invasions, Germany was running out of men to even field. You need to protect them better. So having more tanks, doesn't help, if you don't have the men, or the fuel to operate them.
exactly, I always try to point this out to people who think they are making some point about Germany building MORE tanks, as if Germany had a bunch more trained men, logistical support, metal, oil, armament etc laying around. Their only solution was to try and out perform the opposition, I can't understand how people don't see this.
Most German tanks in France were knocked out by Allied planes like the P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang and the Hurricane. So yes they didn't have the manpower, fuel or aircover to even get them near Normandy after D-Day.
Holy crap! Exactly! I just watched a few episodes of Greatest Tank Battles this weekend. They described the Sherman as thin skinned with a weak gun, and then went on to describe the T-34 as a lethal blend of fire power and armor. I about peed myself laughing.
@@melvinbennett444 Nope. That's completely incorrect. Those planes killed a lot of trucks and horses that were carrying fuel, parts and ammo for the tanks, but rarely the tanks themselves. That claim has been proven to be hugely over inflated. Most German tanks were killed by the same thing Allied tanks were (with the exception of mines), those being, enemy infantry, AT guns (largest tank killer of the war) and other tanks.
@@warsyn3838 Certainly debatable. But it's hardly completely incorrect. For instance the greatest loss of tanks and such in France, was when the Germany 7th Army & the 5th Panzer Army were annihilated by Allied Air power in the Falaise pocket. The Allies in France used Air power as did the Soviets to destroy vast amounts of German tanks with ground attack aircraft, since by 1944 they had complete control of the skies. And that is not debatable. So keep watching those history channel shows, in 20-30 years you'll catch up to me !
My favourite bit of the Tiger II history is where they get the bright idea of sending some of them to the fighting towards the end of Market Garden. Here's a tank that can destroy other tanks at long range, and its being used to winkle out light infantry out of suburban houses in close quarters combat. A few got disabled IIRC. Meanwhile the STUGs of assault brigade 280 were doing as good of not a much better job because they were much better suited to that kind of fighting
This was a pretty good video. Panther side armor criticism is a reach though. It was intended as a medium tank, which means it needs speed, more side armor slows it down drastically, which is why only heavy tanks have high side armor thickness. It has the same (2mm more actually) side armor as the Sherman did. Another thing to mention for german tanks could be how terrible the metal quality often was, same with many of the lesser quality T-34s.
Metal quality was definitely an issue in the latter stages of the war, as well as a general deterioration of production quality. I consider the Panther to be the immediate precursor of the proper MBTs, as it got things right conceptually, but failed a bit when it came to the execution.
Yeah, Germany couldn't get their hands on a number of minerals for alloy making, due to interdiction. Their jet engines could only manage about 24 hours of flying time befoe needing a rebuild.
@@ahhhhhhhhhhh9o9o9othose are all issues in production not design. Btw the final drive issue, which caused almost every breakdown, was actually fixed for the heavier Jagdpanther so the reliability could have been solved. The stereotype of it breaking down oftebn and being unfixable is actually due to the french operating the Panther post war and not bothering to make any changes to the design or parts used, sticking to 1943 designs for parts and ignoring advances made in 44 and 45.
@@AlphaHorst the reliability issues were never truly fixed, mostly because Germany didn't make nearly enough spare parts, and that's why the production number was high. But when your panther (including the late ones) broke down you were just fucked
A good book to read about this is "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII". The title is misleading as it is mostly about facts and statistics, but it touches on topics like this, it is US centric, but you learn things like while infantry only made up 25% of US forces in the Second World War that they took 75% of the casualties during it. It also discusses the mechanical issues German heavy tanks faced and that maybe they would have been better off focusing their time and limited resources on their medium tanks and assault guns. I don't have a dog in this fight. The people who did were born a 100 years ago and most are passed.
The British tested the Tiger they captured in North Africa. The report is available in a publication 30 or so years ago. Contrary to myths propagated by "historians" and videos like this, they found the tank to be adequately powered and maneuverability to be excellent. The only flaw they documented was that the ventilation system was not adequate to clear the interior of smoke.
Well your missing a few things in this defense of the Tiger I you got. It was a horribly complex piece of machinery that while great in the hard-factors was terribly in the soft one’s. The man hours of a Tiger I was 300,000. A Sherman was 10,000 see the biggest issue. That also meant spare parts in an already inefficient and mismanaged industrial complex and poorly maintained logistical network would be nigh impossible to reach the frontline. Here where I get to the soft factors. Yes the Tiger I was a good tank in good hands. There the problem as the war went on your experienced crews were getting killed, training standards were lowered, and the reliability of your tank went drastically down. On top of the issues of the track design which was terrible for Russian Rasputisa and Winter which I don’t think the British would have been able to test in Chobam. Finally I have read the exact same report from Chobam. They did not mention logistical flaws attached to the vehicle or the German lack of proper armored recovery vehicles. That report is solely focused on a Tiger I that is in peak condition, in optimal conditions, and not in a combat scenario. Even more it focused on the design and solely that of the design which this video focuses of the logistics and overall strategic problems it had. You say myths propagated and cite a report that doesn’t disprove anything. That same report even mentioned the issue of the tracks which was clearly seen on the Eastern front. If you’re going to try to defend the Tiger I don’t use the report on Tiger 131 that easily accesible and disproves this.
@@SovietRifleDivision 300,000 man-hours for a Tiger I is false. It varied, (lack of materials, delay of armament and fittings, etc due to bombing, sabotage etc) from 30,000 to 120,000 man-hours, or 75,000 average, (55,000 from another site). For the Sherman, 10,000 is also false. It took an M4A3 an average of 48,000 man-hours. The 10,000 figure was actually 'stolen' from the T-34's. The Soviet tank took from 10,000 to 50,000 man-hours to build, or 30,000 average. Who gave you the impression of the "German lack of proper armored recovery vehicles"? The Germans actually had the best armour recovery vehicles, (Bergepanther and Bergetiger) and repair depots in WWII, see "Repairing the Panzers" by Lukas Friedli, 2 volumes.
ok. the harping on the Panthers side armour is ridiculous. First off, you already mentioned sloped armour, guess what the upper part of that 40mm was sloped making it effectively 50mm thick. As for the lower parts? Well the side skirts effectively made that part 60-70mm thick, even lower and you meet roadwheels which could easily push it up to 90mm of effective armour. The 50mm strip was very thin, while the midsection was slightly bigger and the roadwheel section again about as much as the top part. (below that came the thing we call "ground clearance" which traditionally consists of air)
That was still not enough to prevent penetration even from the shape charge of a bazooka. Also at range, shells will be traveling at an arc and those slopes were not particularly steep, so the shot from the side still had a habit of having a more perpendicular impact and penetrated anyway.
@@cynthiaherbst3909 yea, but which medium tank could resist those? The point made is that the side armour was apparently really bad for its class, while it was actually on par or better than for other vehicles of its class. The T34 85 had only slightly better side armour while the shermans had worse.
@@AlphaHorst I mean the t34 of ww2 production as established is a bit of a low bar. That armor wasn't uniquely thin but not sufficient as mentioned for the guns that would be on Shermans for example or better anti tank guns that paratroopers or light infantry would possess if they expected tanks.
Pretty much what I was thinking. Somewhere around 40mm on the sides was about typical for a medium tank at the time. Some from earlier in the war were a bit thinner, some a bit thicker, but to get much more than 50mm I'm pretty sure you were looking at a heavy tank or an infantry tank. Russians like to point at it because it is a tiny bit thinner than the T-34 and that was apparently enough that it meant that a model of antitank rifle they had they had could get through the side of a Panther but not a T-34 - until the side skirts were added. Meanwhile, the lighter Panzer IIIs and IVs were probably just as vulnerable (although they did have better vision, which was apparently a problem with the Panther, so were probably harder to sneak up on). Medium tanks of the period had to accept that their side armour was a vulnerability in order to have the mobility that made them medium tanks rather than heavy or infantry tanks. Ironically, it's the big slab up front that was the bigger problem - while good at stopping hits from the standard Allied tank guns until counters were deployed, it increased the weight of the tank beyond what it was designed for, leading to all the mechanical problems.
@@cynthiaherbst3909 the T34s side armour remained unchanged post war and the Panthers was on par with that in most areas of the side. Again. It is a medium tank which had armour like every other medium tank. So either the "sherman" was also overhyped because it had bad side armour and worse frontal armour and a worse gun and took around 85% of the manhours it took to produce a panther or the panthers side armour is just fine and normal for its class. Not to mention that getting to the side of a panther was next to impossible for the allies as it fought at a range where they could not even shoot back at it let alone penetrate it. At its combat range of 1000-2000m a Shermans 75 could not reliably penetarte even the side of a Panther
The Tiger may have had it's problems but it certainly scared the shit out out of Allied tank crews, as I've seen recounted in countless interviews with veterans, who said it had a barrel as long as a telegraph pole!!
I thought that the Tiger proved to be under armoured and under gunned, when used in Normandy. With even 1920's vintage British anti tank systems like the Rodnol being able to destroy a Tiger with even a near miss with an HE shell from way outside the range of the Tigers own gun.
That is because the allied troops were attacking. So all the logistic problems became less. On the eastern front , they were being over run by the soviets
@@meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2 WWHHAAAT? "under-armoured and under-gunned?" Laughable. No idea what a Rodnol is but I rather doubt its efficacy in destroying 56 ton tanks. Geez it must have been a siege howitzer to claim destroying a Tiger with a near-miss. Ad that by dropping it in an inconvenient hole that it created. Apparently you thought wrong.
@@TaeussKramme Broke up an attack outside Caen by 36 tanks of the 12th SS, at a range of over 17 miles. The tinfoil armour of the German tanks proving totally inadequate, when faced by salvos of 406mm shells weighing a ton. The Rodnol also was faster, longer range, and had armour up to 15" thick, so could shrug off any return fire. Also spoilt the whole day of the 1st and 21st Panzer regiments by engaging them during the Normandy campaign.
@4:00 and @17:32, using wikipedia data (yes please finish your eye roll): Tiger I has a gas limit of 540 litres, doing about 195 km and 110 km road to cross country respectively. So it is guzzling about 2.77 l/km on road and 4.91 l/km across country. Tiger II has a gas capacity of 860 litres. Doing about 190 km road and 120 km cross country. To achieve this whilst massing in with about another 13 metric tons (both Tigers’ powerplants are limited to 515 kW). Tiger II burns 4.53 l/km on the road and 7.17 l/km. So yes a bit of a difference and probably safe to say the Tiger II burns about 150% more fuel than Tiger I (whatever the exact consumption values are).
According to Jentz' PanzerTruppen, Vol2, the Tiger I's range (road/x-country) was 195km/110km with a fuel capacity of 540 L; the Tiger II's was 170km/120km using 860L of fuel. So, much worse fuel consumption (82% worse on road), but actually better x-country range than a Tiger I. Also, the Panther D was the really bad Panther; fewer issues in the later Ausf G and A models.
That should have said: "later A and G models" Followed, whimsically, by an "F". No idea why. As to the Panther Ausf "D", well, it was the first and was bound to have teething problems, rushed into production as it was. Still, a good start.
During the Battle of the Bulge, one US Army combat engineering battalion blew up all bridges in its sector. The advancing Tiger tanks were thus stuck, since they couldn't cross rivers. The German mobile bridging equipment couldn't handle the Tigers' weight...
US engineers did a great job in the Bulge. But no German unit was leading the advance with Tigers (I or II). Virtually all the leading units were riding Panthers and Panzer IVs. Even where the Germans could build an adequate bridge, the delay was significant so the engineers still accomplished great work. Kinda shows that Petain (a loathesome man) was right in 1936. The Ardennes really was impassible if defended.
@@executivedirector7467 In fact there were almost no Tiger is at the Ardennes: it was a Panther and King Tiger kind of event. The biggest flaw there was the near-absence of adequate fuel dumps.
Not quite. The power train, once the bugs were excised, proved a good performer. They did have some final drive issues but these too would have been resolved if the war had gone on into the Fall of '45 with the intro of the Panther F. A cat of a different stripe.
I'm actually starting to wonder if he's got some problem. Undiagnosed brain tumor? I honestly couldn't watch the video because of the presenting style.
Most German tanks were OVERengineered to the point that a MINOR fault quickly turned into a MAJOR repair - such as the transmissions that were rated for the Prototype, but were too weak for the ACTUAL tank, but were not improved. Tank engines were also prone to the same problem. The fact that these were designed in such a way as to make them VERY Difficult to repair in the field, very often meant that they were abandoned, rather than repaired.
Disappointing, lazy and clearly poorly researched episode; basically just lot of old parroted myths. Tanks are clearly not your strongest side. The Tiger 1 had a fuel tank of 548 liters and a max range of 195 km, a Sherman M4A3 a fuel tank of 630 liters and a max range of 160 km - which one was the gas guzzler again? Germany built 30,000 bombers and heavy fighters that cost as much or more than a Tiger. And almost as many U-boats as Tigers, each of which did cost 20 times as much as a Tiger. The cost of the relatively small Tiger programme was a drop in the ocean. You said yourself - it cost only twice as much as a Panzer IV, a much smaller and lighter tank that had reached its limit in 1943 - the only thing that kept it in the game was the combination of powerfull gun, high quality ammo and superb optics. Sigh, and the old myth of the Panther's "horrible" reliability; by 1944 it had an average readiness rate of 70-75%, about the same as the Panzer IV and Tiger - despite the Tiger and Panther being used more aggressively than the Panzer IV, thus suffering more combat damage. Many of the Tigers and Panthers sidelined were out of action due to combat damage, not only mechanical error. Its poor reliablity reputation stems from being made operational before it was ready, already in the summer of 1943, just a year after design work started! ALL tanks go through a phase where teething problems are common.
@@Arms872It was not a fantastic tank, and that wasn't only because of issues like the armour cracking due to the poor steel quality of the late war. Stuff like an overstressed engine and poor suspension design causing mud to get stuck in the wheels did not help it, though those issues were found in other tanks too such as the tiger 1. There are other factors too like the turret traverse being slow and hatches being difficult to open.
@@combatarms45 The engine wasn't overstressed; the Panther had a much better power to weight ratio than any Sherman variant. Even the Tiger 1 had a better power to weight ratio than almost all Sherman variants.
@@combatarms45The engine overstressing was fixed by reducing the output of the engine (leaving the option to get the full power while in combat like Planes had with their WEP), the Mud getting stuck in the tracks was also a common issue for all tanks on muddy fronts and the suspension outperformed on nearly every other terrain. The biggest issue was that it took too much ime to repair it due to the need to remove multiple roadwheels just to replace one. the rest of your comment is just plain misinformation. The hatches were not hard to open, in fact they were designed to be opened with one hand due to an inbuild assist. As for teh turret traverse, that was on par with tanks like the sherman and faster than the T34 and T34/85, the only model with a slower traverse was the D which had its powered traverse removed and relied on hand cranking.
For what it's worth, it's interesting to note that in the "Panzer General" series of computerized turn based strategy games, the Tiger I and II have the WORST maximum fuel and movement rates, making them unsavory choices when it comes to building your "perfect" army, especially if you like to win battles!
I am going to disagree with you on the Tiger I. It was an exceptional taken given to the best crews and did a lot of damage considering how few were fielded at one time.
Behemoth meant for a certain role is the T2. That tank used properly should not be able to be hit by other tanks. Kill others at 2klm or more with 1 shot.
Both Tigers were akin to the DeLorean. Looked badass, innovative tech & and all that, but had extraordinarily underpowered engine, major power train design flaws, and both were never rigorously field tested before being delivered right to the front lines. Good for us, blessèdly, not for the axis.
German tanks also had the issue that due to the regular use of less than voluntary labour to make, had occasional 'accidental' flaws in the mechanical gizmos.
"...less than voluntary..." I take it you have a black-belt in understatement? 😅
There was the classic issue in the Czech factories of the "explosive" AA rounds not being filled with explosives.
Using labour from territory newly admitted to the Reich has issues.
I've heard of an interesting story about a Panther tank that was being restored had issues with the engine. When it was inspected, it was discovered to have a cigarette butt shoved into the ignition system!
Not really true. 1 Most factories didn’t use forced labour 2 Quality Control detected saboteurs. The issue was more that unskilled labour was used.
@@paulcarey1708 unfortunately we have to be careful with our words on youtube least the dicatorbot deletes them without notice.
Tiger-"I was the worst! My commander was constantly on the radio to the repair depot." T-34-"What's a radio?"
T-34: one other bad point is the almost complete lack of situational awareness of the crew. Most did not have a way to communicate with the infantry or anybody else. In addition, the crew was almost blind when buttoned down. Visibility in any WWII tank was not great, but the T-34 took it to a new level.
Quantity was the T-34's quality. It was just good enough to be effective some of the time, and always effective if multiplied enough times.
Makes me wonder if it was given another few years to properly develop rather then being rushed into service if it would have been a superior tank even on its lonesome. We'll never find out.
@@andromidius I think it would have been. The T-34's problems IMHO were not design problems. Make the steel better, make the optics better, add a cupola and a radio and Bob's your uncle. Mostly manufacturing issues and failure to correct the seemingly easily correctable design flaws.
Indeed I have seen analysis that can be supported by some of the original design specs that posits perhaps the production t34s were woefully incomplete or victims of manufacturing defect. Even the steel was over heat treated which made the interior armor spall. Can't remember the exact figures but close to have of crew fatalities or so came from spauling
Also in tank battles whoever saw who first was usually the winner. A mediocre tank could beat a better tank of it got the first shot off
@@andromidiuswe kind of did. They kept making them with better quality parts after the end of the war and they were used in Korea where they succeeded against infrantry without AT weaponry but they struggled when doing anything but shooting fish in a barrel.
One big contribution to the fear allied tank had, was a tiger1 and a mark4 had basically the same profile. Every mark 4 became a tiger. The later versions of the mark4 had a pretty good 75mm gun so they were effective. One infantry captain wrote that it was impossible to tell if you were being shot at by a 75 or an 88, both are supersonic and all you hear is a nasty explosion.
Forgot to mention one of the other major problems of the T-34: The two-man turret. The original models had the commander do double duty of commanding the tank as well loading the main gun. What this means in the field is that the commander cannot correct fire or observe the area for targets or threats because he has to take his eyes off the periscope to load the gun.
So many people don't realize how important it is to have each crewman doing one role and ONLY one role.
You forgot Carbon Monoxide poisoning of the crew .
The tank commander was the gunner, not the loader. It is correct to say it was a tactical weakness, although this flaw was shared by quite a few tanks early in the war. The soviets were of course well aware that this was a weakness in need of correction.
Had the war not started in 1941, the T-34 would have quickly been replaced by the more modern T-34M, which had a three-man turret with a dedicated TC as well as torsion bar suspension. But once the war broke out, the Red Army needed every tank it could get, so the modernization had to wait.
You failed to mention that German tank were built like fine German cars...needing regular maintenance and specific procedures carried out that were nearly impossible to do I the feild.
And the T-34 had many shortcomings.
Like gaps in armor plate you vould stick your fingers thru.the treads were held together by pins instead of bolts.pins that could slip out and allow the tracks to come off.do their solution was to weld a striker plate on tge the pins would hit during travel and get pushes back in.leading to the particular clanky sound the tank was known to male during travel.
They were also over engineered. The ball bearings could last for 30 years, but many tanks did not last 30 days in the field. Conversely, the aluminum used in Japanese planes was soft and had an operational life of a few years, which is why there are no operational Zeros left today.
They weren't though. Fine cars don't break final drive gears. German tanks commonly did. Fine cars weren't underpowered. Most Germans tanks were, specially the Tigers and Panther. There's a reason the Germans lost the war.
@blackpowder4016 I said built...not comparable.
They used the finer assemble and parts but the parts were weak for their purpose.as far as power is concerned.germany was having issues with acquiring newer more modern and powerful engines.even the luftwaffa was having to use pairs of engines bolted together to power their propeller aircraft.thos design had the issue primarily of overheating, being overly prone to damage during battle and catching fire due to their tendency to leak oil profusely if not properly maintained.by the later years of the war the industrial complex was hampered by hitlers betting on the wunderwaffe to turn the tide and diverting resources to it instead of improving the already weak industry for the lower war machines.
The tanks were built like fine German autos were.but with inferior resources that still needed fine handling and care to maintain functionality. If Germany made tanks like Russia made tanks....
Well...we could be speaking German now.except Hitler still had no common sense.
@@phillip6083 WW2 Germany made the correct approach of developing and using more advanced weapons, called "Wunderwaffe" for propaganda, because the existing conventional weaponry, well, weren't working out for Germany late war. An example is there was no point building more reliable propeller bombers or fighters when Germany didn't have fuel or pilots to even fly them, so logically they developed V-1/2 missile that could deliver payload at similar range but without the need of pilots.
Germany making tanks like Russian T-34 would only exacerbate the numerical disadvantages in the field as Germany could not provide sufficient fuel to field many of them at once, while at the frontline the tanks and crews would drop like files, making the panzer forces even shorter on tanks. That is why German army command and Hitler never choose to build tanks like Russia, because Germany was not Russia.
And you don't have to worry about speaking German at all - Hitler actually made many better and practical choices that what most people and popular history gave credit for, and Germany still lost under the might of Allies' industries and economies.
@sthrich635 many good points indeed.and I was not specifically referring to as russia as in number...but in how russia builds things in general.
Even though russian tanks(and many of their products) were slapped together they had the unique quality upon repair of good enough".
Even though they were by most standards poorly made...they were easier to repair as all the parts were cheap and simple.if germany had followed that train of thought from the onset they(imho)would have been and done better in the long run.but when you have a device that needs it's own set of specific tools to fix instead of just a hammer and spool of wire....you are making a tool for battle way to complicated(for that time).Germany started off spending its marks and resources like they would not end, planning on resources from plunder of neighboring countries but that didn't work out quite as planned.
There were a lot of short comings.
Soviet quality issues with their products may explain why their tank troops still valued american lend-lease Shermans, especially the 76mm version, even though they lacked the punch or the armor sloping of the T-34....when you basically live in your tank, good interior fittings and better working conditions become important too. Plus some may have found it preferable to actually hit a target with american optics of a weaker gun, than miss repeatedly with a more powerful soviet gun that has crappy sights....
Yep. There was no perfect tank in WW2 but the Sherman is a solid contender for best tank of WW2
@@ill_bred_demon9059 Agree, no tank is perfect but Sherman came the closest
American optics are also trash
The Sherman had sloped armor. The Sherman 76 was better than anything the Soviets had
@flight2k5 on the front it was sloped, but on the sides it was vertical and thin. That became the preferred target of German crews
A decent tank is better than a tank that does not show up.
Pz IV?
A poor tank beats one that doesn't show up.
A tank more likely to break a few parts on road is better than a tank more likely to blown up with its crews in combat.
@@frednone Depends on if your enemy has good AT weapons. An early Japanese tank for example is a death trap against a .50 armed jeep.
You are talking about the T14 right? 😂
Panther Side armor was both a compromise and acceptance of reality.
Anti tank guns were becoming so powerful anything under 80 mils of sloped armor would make no difference anyway.
By 45 the British came to the same conclusion with the Centurion, side armor should protect against artillery , rapid fire autocannons and small direct HE hits.
Evenly distributing armor after 1942 means the tank is either overweight or easy to penetrate from all sides.
Tiger 1 an KV1 were in that historical sweet spot when on average guns were not that powerful so their side armor gave them solid side protection.
You are more knowlegeable about this subject than the TH-cam channel.
@@sanderwissink5330 Panthers side armor was vulnerable to the PTRS 14.5 anti tank rifles...there were plates added to protect the armor just above the tracks. However, those plates were often lost so the 14.5 anti-tank rifle was still able to critically wound the crew of the Panther.
The Tiger, KV and Panzer III were all designed with roughly equal armor all around; it was a bit later in the war when everyone started to figure out that it was smarter to save weight by using relatively thin armor on the sides and rear.
4:02 a fuel consumption of 9 L per km would mean 0.11 km pr liter or 0.26 miles per gallon. Wow.
It was worse than the modern M1 Abrams which gets 0.5mpg.
Sounds like my neighbour's Hummer. Kidding. Sort of.
90 liter per 100km
@@JuiceBokx Uh huh. A quick Google finds even worse numbers. The following is a quote:
"Jentz & Doyle list fuel consumption at 270 liters per 100 klicks on roads, at speed. It is 480 liters per 100 klicks on average terrain. So, it is actually much less than 2 mpg. But you have to realize that these monsters were 57,000 Kg combat weight(that's almost 63 tons), and used a 700 hp engine. Even so, theye were considered underpowered.
No compare that with the average family vehicle. They weigh in at what, maybe a ton? Ton and a half? They travel on much better roads, too."
Still sounds like my neighbour's Humvee wannabee on a bad day. (Tuesday?)
Tiger II is best described as a semi mobile pillbox. You just hope you got to where you wanted to park it before it broke down or ran out of gas.
"...The total distance of about 250 kilometers covered during the operation was accomplished essentially without mechanical failure. The Tiger II proved itself extremely well, both in its armor and from a mechanical perspective. Vehicles which received up to twenty hits without becoming disabled were not uncommon ... "
s.H.Pz.Abt 503 after-action report from operations in Hungary, November 1944
Kind of why heavy tanks were a dead end. Too many resouces, too slow, and just not worth it overall when you could make multiple medium tanks for the same cost and just slap a bigger gun on them if you needed to kill something bigger
@@TTTT-oc4eb oh look, found the Wehraboo.
Hilarious you bring up a report from 1944 when the tank is NEW and not a report from AFTER the war. Hate to break you bubble, but your super tank was a piece of garbage that broke down after a couple dozen km.
@@TTTT-oc4eb He probably changed his mind later on, and was just lucky during the first deployment. Most Tiger IIs produced never even managed to reach combat as they broke down before they got to the fighting, and had to be abandoned or blown up by their crews. Those that did fight were truly terrifying but even those rarely managed to keep going for long before they broke down. Yes, there were exceptional units whose maintenance people worked miracles and kept them going for a reasonable period, but mostly the Tiger IIs had very short lives. If they didn't break down they were blown up by the RAF, the USAAF or the artillery, and very occasionally they were killed by Shermans that managed to get behind them.
Most were lost to mechanical failure.
@@arthas640 The Tiger II wasn't slow though, it was just as fast as the IS-2, quicker than the Centurion, way faster than the Churchill tank and almost as fast as the Sherman. It had lots of problems, but it wasn't slow, when it worked.
The Tiger 1 greatest impact was - fear of the Tiger 1. “Tiger Fear” got to be a real issue for the allies, as any German armored vehicle was often identified as a “Tiger”. This psychological impact far outshone its performance in the field.
Likely due to a few notable examples that really did excel. For example Michael Wittmann was a tank ace that is credited with 135 tank kills. That kind of excellence likely inflated the reputation of the tiger tank. Germany had a few aces both on the air and the ground and their exploits were often credited with how "superior" their equipment was. Which was not always the case. I guess when you are fighting the entire world it is easier to get an Ace reputation because you have far more enemies to kill.
@@stoda01 true, but more than that,the Tigers 88 gun was a real killer. Very accurate, and great range. Its ability to score a kill, at ranges where the opponents gun was ineffective, was the basis of the “invincible Tiger” myth. But if you can cause your enemy to think twice before engaging, or even advancing, because of that myth, you’ve done your job.
@@TR4Ajim Yeah you are correct, the 88mm gun was deadly against ground and air targets. The Allies went to great length to take out those guns because they new just how lethal they were.
How do you know Tiger Terror was real? Because History Channel says so? Real soldiers report not being scared of them because most of the Tigers they saw were knocked out or abandoned. If your experience with something mostly consists of walking past its corpse, you're not going to be that intimidated by it. The Tiger's fear factor has been greatly exaggerated by Nazi fanboys over the years.
there is a German Tiger 1 crew diary which a crewman said when we drove out on the field and the T34s saw it was a Tiger , they ran away ,made me laugh
Am I stupid or weren't there only four tanks? Tiger, Panther, T-34 and Tiger II.
Edit: The title used to read "FIVE 'Great' WWII Tanks...." before it was corrected.
There was also the Sherman, but it was pretty terrible, too.
Yeah, I think he only covered four. He only mentioned the Sherman.
th-cam.com/video/u8ccGjar4Es/w-d-xo.htmlsi=bxNRqgSw2YUcJGvg
@@travisinthetrunkthe sherman won the war pookie
I mean arguably the T-34 and T-34/85 could be considered two tanks, considering the turret replacement, but yeah, I think the titles wrong.
(German tank enthusiast here) "Oh cool, Simon's made a video about terrible tanks"..."Yeah, we know the Tiger I was a logistical disaster... OK, the Panther's final drive... Geez, even the Tiger II?"
*insert demonitizable Austrian armband enthusiast yelling* But seriously, the Jagdpanther is the most beautiful TD ever built, and the Panther G is the sexiest machine man has yet created.
Actually I would agree that the Jagdpanther was the most beautiful TD ever built.... Its not its aesthetics i have an issue with :D
@@alganhar1for real, that's the best looking AFV of the war (although the IS3 was great, it's really a postwar tank).
Arguably, the best German "tank" was the Stug 3. Cheap, reliable, excellent weapon, best targeting sights, and a 3 to 1 kill ratio led Germans to reduce Tiger and Panther production in favor of more Stugs
I agree totally.. the Panther is the E type Jaguar of the tank world!
@@Statalyzer The IS 3 appeared in April, and WW2 ended in September, so formally it can be called a tank of war.
All of these tanks did actually get a bit better late in the war (outside of the Tiger 2). The E8 Sherman was awesome, the T34/85 was certainly better than the T34/76. Lastly, the Panther G was pretty darn decent. Some say the best in the war. Two things the German cats did best: canons and sights.
Not really. German tank sights were notoriously difficult to acquire targets cause they were permanently zoomed in, the gunner often had to rely heavily on the commander's situational awareness in contrast to US and british tanks that had two scopes, one was a wide-field sight that offered the gunner situational awareness to acquire targets, the other scope being the gun's zoomed-in scope.
@@mochaholic3039 Were you read all this BS ? German sights had two zoom stages , mostly 2.5 x and 5.0 x .Field of view 28° and 14° , they could set a range and they could messure the distance . They were superior to all others , late war Soviet sights were not bad either .
@@5co756 Most likely he's getting it from Steven Zaloga's book, Armored Thunderbolt.
Beyond the standard sight on the Sherman, gunners also had a standard periscope with no magnification that gave a much wider field of view. If you have ever looked for something under a microscope in science class, you probably know its faster and easier to locate what you want to look at at a lower zoom level before moving to the higher zoom for a detailed inspection. The same principal applies here.
In addition, the Commander had no override of the turret, so couldn't help the gunner get on Target. Add in the Sherman's Stabilizer (assuming they used it) and the notably faster turret traverse, and you have a tank that is just much faster on the draw. Getting off not only the first shot, but also the first corrected shot.
This falls in line with the United States Army's Ballistic Research Lab (BRL) study in 1946 which studied 30 engagements between Shermans and Panthers, which found that even when attacking into a prepared German position, the Shermans still got the first shot off against Panthers 50% of the time. (and basically always got off the first shot on defense)
@@BlitkriegsAndCoffee 2.5 zoom is not that much and tanks mostly don't fight at 50m , then a normal scope with no zoom would be nice to have . I would take US reports with a grain of salt , they destroyed more Tiger 1's than the Germans ever build . 😅
This is not a game , were you drive around and suddenly a tank appears at a corner . It doesn't matter if you are the first who shoots , you need to be the first who hit the tank . And the Germans had a high hit rate up to 1km with the first shot , his statement was that they were always max zoomed in . Wich is not true , the Sherman had some fancy stuff . Like some sort of a stabilizer , but most crew's never used that . Most people think they could shoot on the move , like it's in a specific game .
@@5co756 2.5x through a narrow viewport is incredibly limited in Field of View. Take a pair of Binoculars, go to somewhere unfamiliar, put them up to your face, close one eye, and see how good you are at getting around.
I've even provided a study that likewise confirms the findings that Shermans tended to get the first shot off.
There are only 4 confirmed reports of US Shermans engaging Tiger Is in Europe. A far cry from killing more Tigers than we're made.
Multiple reports by both the Americans and Soviets post war revealed that first shot was the *only* thing that mattered in tank engagements. Weapon Caliber, Range, and Armor had no noticeable impact on the outcome of the battle. Whomever shot first overwhelming won the fight.
A lot of this comes down to whomever shot first identified their target first, got into the optimal range, had time to line up their shot, and then shoot. Even if they missed, their 2nd shot was often shooting before the other side had identified where the first shells came from. Tank fights in WW2 we're overwhelmingly 1 sided ambushes.
Average engagement distance in the European Theatre was 400-600m. A far cry from 1k shots. The Panther, designed for the Eastern Front, was ill-equipped for Western Europe.
Stabilizer use changed heavily from division to division. Most of the Armored divisions, (2nd, 3rd, 4th) which saw the lion's share of Tank on Tank action in Europe, all used the Stabilizer. While it technically could fire on the move when going ~10kph, it was mostly used for 'short stop' scenarios where the tank needed to halt and quickly line up a shot.
You are right, it isn't a game, which is why soft factors, like how fast you can get your gun accurately on target, matter.
Don't forget to mention that the Panther's reliability issues were mostly resolved with the introduction of the G model.
Mostly, except the final drive. By the time most panthers Gs we’re being made, the were running out of good materials meaning corners had to be cut and the already unreliable final drives were starting to be made out of mild steal
@@apersondoingthings5689 Doubt that it was mild steel as that would instantly fail; they were challenged on harder alloys, that's for sure.
@@TaeussKramme I mean relative to other tanks final drive it was mild steel. Germany strait up had no Alloys at the end. A 105mm could crack a panther like a tin can.
Panther was conceptually a great vehicle, it fell just short of being the first MBT, but the course of the war and the fascist way of governance prevented it from ever reaching its full potential. Rushed development, design oversights, ever poorer crew training and deteriorating production quality. But it had firepower and armor comparable to heavy tanks of its era, while retaining the mobility and price tag of a medium tank.
Let’s imagine a variant with early war production quality, Jagdpanther final drives, the Schmalturm of the Ausf. F and a well trained crew.
Those ways of governance where interesting, where they not?
For many who might wonder how it relates to tanks:
For a government that has an insane fascination with Propaganda, and large war machines being wonderful tools for said Propaganda, they went together surprisingly poorly. Said government was far more interested in ensuring that the 'right sort of person' was seen driving these vehicles, over their application in an on-going war. Needless to say, this sort of thinking will cause all sorts of problems in said on-going world war.
This led to poorly skilled tank commanders that just happened to be promoted up the chain due to looks, and often being put out of position so they can be seen riding said tank. Then credited with the kills of others, so they can be put in newspapers as 'aces.' Just imagine putting the heaviest, best, and most photogenic of tanks into the hands of these guys.
@@lostbutfreesoul LOL, I must stop reading YT comments...
A consequence of rushing the deployment of the Panther was also that they lost a lot of them at Kursk.
Which really highlights what an act of desperation the offensive was, but deploying them before they were ready meant wasting perfectly good hulls (not to mention the crew) that the Germans couldn't really afford to replace.
@@smalltime0 Eh, they made like 6000 of them. the more pressing issue with German lack of hulls is the fact that a war economy wasn't fully adopted until 1943, with the effect that their most productive year of the war is 1944 (as opposed to 1942 or 43 when you'd expect it to be). Obsessed with optics and propaganda, as well as believing that fanaticism trumps numbers, Hitler refused to enact true total war measures. Many civilian Germans barely felt the war until 1942 when Allied strategic bombing took off. As a consequence, the Soviet Union outproduced Germany by quite a lot in all categories but aircraft starting in 1942 despite the loss of most of their industrial workforce and territory.
Basically, a peacetime variant. As the video pointed out, cold-war versions of the T-34 ironed out many of the issues. The same would likely have happened if the Germans had the opportunity to continue developing the Panther postwar.
But when they were allowed to have a military again, they were also given enough surplus American tanks that they could skip straight to the Leopard 1, which represented a very different doctrine due to the belief at the time that protecting against HEAT was impractical.
Panther's final drive was crap because Germany had run out of specialist metals needed for creating the best steel for high stress requirements.
Like moving 40t of tank along.
Or making tank armour 😂
Partially true. Both PzKpfw V and VI had various drive system issues, and final drive breaking was most common of them, but those were corrected - in about 60% cases - with driver retraining. Of course, rest of inherent flaws remained, but once user was properly instructed, the tanks were much more reliable. Shermans had similar issue - especially ones with radial engine - where heavy-footed GIs were carrying automatic gear box habits from their Chevy into the M4. With results being not surprising engine explosion...
The tiger 1 had one of the highest if not the highest service rate of all of ww2 for a heavy tank, like 74% I believe, as much as people say it was always out of action etc, thats just not the case. When your tank has a 11.52 k/d ratio they tend to last a little longer than all the shit the allies were throwing at it. It was infact much more reliable than people claim.
If you are citing operational readiness rates, 74% would be terrifically high. Higher than I believe. What exactly does that statistic mean please?
Even T-34 units would struggle to reach a 70-80% operational readiness rates. And they were routinely much higher than Panther units.
The other thing to keep in mind about Tigers is that their "battalions" frequently were lucky to put on e company into action. So how things are measured matters a lot.
Purely my opinion but based on what I read in Otto Carius's biography, the Tigers operational readiness and its reliability are two different things. For example, at one point during a 40 mile relocation two of the dozen or so Tigers broke down. Not great reliability. However, by morning both tanks had been recovered and repaired meaning he once again had a full company ready to go.
You know what we dont need? More "internet historians" telling us what waa "really" bad in WW2.
Great video breaking much of the myth that is lost in Top Trumps or World of Tanks. Actually using and operating an armoured vehicle is waaaaayyyy more nuanced than simply 'gun & armour'.
Well done
Factboi must be cleaning out the basement with all the marathon vids.
The Tiger was a breakthrough tank. It was supposed to be used in areas where German forces struggled to break enemy lines. The Panther and PzrIV was used for the assault role in conjunction with the Stug's
The Panzer IV and Panther were general purpose medium tanks, they had nothing to do with assault.
"The Tiger was a breakthrough tank."...yet, it was only used twice in that role-Kursk and Bulge...and exceptionally failed in both operations...making the Tiger the worlds most expensive boat anchor.
Wow, if only the Germans had you as their commander...
@@mathewm7136 A bit of misconception, at Kursk the offensive was cancelled as the Soviet launched a counterattack at north, while at south the German Tigers were making some progress, as far as Germany beginning lack of artillery and air support allows.
At Bulge the offensive literally begged the Americans to place their fuel on the road for Germans to capture since they didn't have enough for the offensive. Needlessly to say German panzers and vehicles ran out of fuel and offensive is cancelled.
None of these were Tiger tank design faults, nor these battles showed they were the limitation on breaking through enemy lines, it was the overall troop and fuel shortage and lack of German air support and intel that doomed these operations.
@@mathewm7136 Blaming the failure of those operations on the Tiger is retarded, it performed excellent in both events.
If you complain about the 40mm side armor of the panther then you could have put the Sherman in the fourth spot cause of the 55mm front armor
...with which it was only a lousy 2 km/h faster than the cumbersome Königsgtiger....(40km/h vs. 38km/h roadspeed)...:)
The side armor of the Panther could be breached by the standard Sherman 75mm HE shell. Given how underpowered that gun was in tank vs tank combat, it just speaks to how badly designed the Panther was, especially given its weight
@@ill_bred_demon9059 I never defended the panther I just announced that the Sherman had only 15mm more armour on the front than the panther on the side
@anonym-wt2fo But the Panther was designed to be superior to the T34, and by extension, the Sherman. The Panther also weighed 11 tons more than the Sherman, so the fact that the side armor was so flimsy speaks to the bad design of the Panther
The Tiger had a user manual full of scantily clad women to keep he attention of its operators. The manual had a page saying that if you and a mate piggybacking you sunk into the ground after jumping on it, then it was not suitable ground for crossing the terrain
The Tiger Fibel. I've got a copy, a good read.
@@tedcopple101 Sounds like a very interesting read! Is there a company producing modern reprints, or do I have to hunt down an original? I've not got a huge interest in German Armour specifically, but anything relating to military history, especially from the 20th Century is within my field of interest!
tbh that says a lot about how much floatation the treads provide. A modern excavator is likely around 1/4 the P.S.I. of a human vs 1/2 with the Tiger. (I used to work for an excavation company, human is ~15-16psi, excavators can be around 4ish)
The section on how to save ammo is as dark as you can possibly get.
The manual shows how to give the tank sloped armour simply by angling the tank at 10 degrees :-)
Tiger 1 was terrible..?
Pffft nonsense. The "mental Effect" it had on the Allies was enough to call it at least somewhat sucessfull
Mental effect isn’t gonna win you the war
@@flakcannonhans6170 But it's always a Nice advantage to have.
"An enemy in Fear is a Weaker enemy"
Cautious fear and paralyzing fear are 2 different things.
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701if anything the German tank crews would have been been the scared ones, if they were found by the allied tankers, then they knew that their air support was not far behind
@@ethanedwards422 Never heard of Tiger Fear in the Lines of Allies right?
Our Tiger II's aren't very reliable you say? Weight problems?
Let's make them even heavier! And let's put a bigger gun on it! So big it can't have a turret! Genius!
And thus the Jagdtiger was born.
All he sayd and All you write are just myths... read better books and search for better sources
Well the Jagdtiger wasn't a tank. it was a tank destroyer and none of those, Russian or German had turrets. duh.
@@melvinbennett444 Do you really want to start an argument about "What is a tank?" "A tank is a heavily armored, armed military vehicle that moves on tracks and is used for warfare." Armoured? Yes. Armed? Yes. Moves on tracks? Yes. Jagdtiger is a tank. Also, British and American tank destroyers had turrets.
@@katrinapaton5283 ok let's argue. A Jagdtiger wasn't a tank. The Hellcat & the Jackson didn't have roofs so therefore not really a complete turret
@@melvinbennett444 Definition of tank, as given above, doesn't mention anything about a turret does it? Also, if I believe what you say does that mean that when an M36 has its folding turret top down, its a tank but when it's folded away it's now a tank destroyer? Also, definition of a turret; a low armoured tower, typically one that revolves, for a gun and gunners in a ship, aircraft, fort, or tank. No mention of a roof.
When I was a child in the 50’s, a man going door to door cutting kids hair loved to tell war stories. He had served in a Sherman tank. He told us that one time a group of 4 Shermans were moving down a road around a hill only to run right into a Tiger tank blocking their way. He said they tried to reverse out of there. His was the only tank to get away. The Tiger killed the other 3.
Yes, you can always trust what a door to door barber says.
While I don't doubt that story, it was not typical. M4-equipped units had not just a war-winning record but also a battle-winning record, and despite the myths, allied tank crew losses were really very low.
@@executivedirector7467 Funny how Cooper didn't see it that way when he wrote about Sherman losses in "Death Traps" a title that sort of sums it all up.
@@TaeussKramme Yeah, about Cooper, he only EVER saw battle damaged tanks. Thats all he ever saw. He knew nothing about how most of those tanks were knocked out, or how many crew escaped, nor did he know how many tanks went into the engagement and how many survived. All he was were the knocked out tanks.
So lets throw something at you to blow Cooper out of the water shall we? The US Armour Force lost a total of around 2500 men killed in action in all theatres during WWII. But I see figures of around 4,500 - 5000 US M4 Shermans destroyed during the war....
So I ask you a question, given that verified number of dead, how much of a death trap is a tank in which the majority of men who were in destroyed vehicles SURVIVED. If you assume 5000 destroyed vehicles, that's 25,000 crew, Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Hull Gunner/Radio Operator. They lost 2,500 killed.
That is a 0.5% fatality rate ASSUMING all those dead tank crew were killed in their tanks when they were destroyed, which is not the case. Many of them would have been killed by mortar fire or snipers when their tank was not in action for example.
So yes, this 'Deathtrap' of a tank had AT MOST, a 0.5% mortality rate for every tank destroyed by enemy fire. Cooper did not know what the fuck he was talking about outside repairing tanks.
@@alganhar1 Sounds compelling and it is hard to argue with your numbers EXCEPT that the tank did have the moniker "Ronson" attached to it for its ease of brewing-up, as the Brits are fond of saying. Cooper also mentions how many times he came across burnt-out tanks with the crew still inside. Others were most got out, etc. He was there to record and evaluate the causes of these tank losses, how they were probably destroyed and then to propose possible counters to reduce these losses. The last point was difficult short of making them all Jumbos with the associated lack in performance. Ironic, eh? To survive a Tiger you'd have to up-armour like one and then struggle through all the engine, transmission and drive train failures. And still have a tank with a mediocre gun and ammo. And so-so optics. And a profile that you can see coming from a long way out. I rather doubt that there were many (any?) German tankers that lived in dread of a Sherman. A thousand, on the other hand...
The Sherman may actually be under hyped. Like, statistically the gun is average, the engine is average, the armor is alright. But practically it was much better than those statistics imply because, well, it just worked. And if it stopped working, you could just get out and get a new one. On average, a killed T-34 lost 3 out of 4 crew. A Sherman lost 0.8 out of 5.
The Sherman also had a 2:1 kill ratio on the T34 in the next war LOL.
It still adds up to a few thousand killed. The americans lost nearly four and a half thousand m4s and the british just over two and a half thousand m4s in combat in europe...
@@robertpullen3726 losing less than 1 crew per knocked out tank is elite even by modern standards. Also when you are able to make nearly 50,000 units some stats just matter much less
On the british side they usually lost three of the crew when hit by a tiger or panther. the tank normally blew up in flames or in pieces.When you talk to tankers they say you were very lucky to get out and then you might have lost one of your limbs.
Krupp steel was the best.
Sherman was the best tank of WWII
I am surprised to see no mention of the turret crew issues on the T-34/76. In fact, it might be been better to call out the T-34/76 as a separate tank from the T-34/85.
Yeah the 85 was far superior, it was way more than just a slightly bigger gun.
0:30 - Chapter 1 - The tiger I
6:20 - Chapter 2 - The panther
11:25 - Chapter 3 - The T34
15:55 - Chapter 4 - The tiger II
Wow not one Brit Tank on the list ? Imagine that .
@@hemihead001yeah that’s because British tanks are the most mediocre tanks of the war.
@@rebelfriend9006 lmao look at Italian tanks.
@@macaroo90 Italian tanks are just bad.
you missed one issue with the tiger- massive maintenence needed and training for the crews to do it. meaning training took longer and crews were harder to replace because they also needed the special training.
I remember reading in Otto Carius's biography how his unit repositioned just forty miles and two of his Tigers broke down on the road. However, by the start of the next day both tanks had been recovered and repaired. In fact, so long as the Germans could get to them they could almost always recover and repair broken down or knocked out Tigers. The Russians eventually picked up on that and kept shooting until the burst into flames.
Another problem with the T34 was that the crews were poorly trained, especially at the beginning of the German invasion. Also, Russian commanders had no real understanding of how to handle tanks.
I would actually say this was the biggest problem with the T-34. Doctrinally, the Soviets were just awful at using them in the first couple of years of the war (as were other forces such as the French). On top of poor training, the other soft factors excaberated these issues with lack of radios and poor visibility. Historians disagree to the extent it had impact, but IMO, the Great Purge must have had a serious impact on the ability on the quality of Soviet Command and their ability to innovate and adapt, otherwise how do you justify a nation that produced tens of thousands of tanks in peace time, even by the early 30s, being so awful at using them?
Channel is falling for popular revisionistic history it seems. Actual records show that the reliability of the KT was no worse than for example the common Pz.IV, which was considered a very reliable tank. Fact is the lack of oil, fuel, spare parts and properly trained drivers led to a drastic decrease in reliability and steep rise in non combat related losses among all German AFVs. Yet despite this the Tiger II units not only racked up the highest kill ratios, but also belonged among those AFVs with the highest monthly operational percentage from mid 44 to 45. That's hardly indicative of a "kinda bad tank", but rather of a utterly collapsing logistics train.
The British did a post war deep dive into what factors led to a successful armor engagement. And what they found was all of the ‘stats’ war thunder nerds like to throw around, firepower armor mobility etc mattered a lot less than you think.
Universally the tank that shot first almost always had the advantage.
Not to mention that the Germans were on the defensive for several years in a row and it’s well known that an attacking force almost always takes more casualties and material losses.
That’s one way to explain the higher kill ratios in German armor units. Aside from the battle of the bulge German armor was used defensively and in an ambush role.
That british deep dive is nonsense.
Countless veterans that shot a tiger first only to See the shell Do no damage .
At atacking force takes more casualties when they are poorley prepared or equiped.
Or based on poor strategy.
@@OctavianLiviu-ci4zx No, the British deep dive was NOT nonsense. It was properly scientifically based, and an honest attempt by the British to really nail down on what made for a successful armour on armour engagement.
It was not nonsense because the British WANTED to learn the correct lessons from it. Thus the results were carefully collated in order to be as balanced and unbiased as possible.
I will tell you what is nonsense, the continual and constant denial of hard data by people like you for the simple reason it does not fit in with your preferred perception.
I will also tell you what ELSE is nonsense, your idiot opinion that an attacking force only takes higher casualties for the reasons you described. That is a statement that has less worth than shit, as at least shit has the advantage that one can turn it into a useful fertiliser, your statement has no such benefit.
An attacking force going against a peer enemy, that is well dug in, will take higher combat casualties than the defender no matter how good their tactics, equipment or preparation so long as the defender makes no glaring errors. Your statement is based purely on wishful thinking and a complete and utter ignoring of the actual historical data.
In short, NOTHING you said has any worth for anyone even remotely interested in seeking a balanced or correct viewpoint as it is purely based on fantasy....
Actual records do not in fact find the KT was as reliable as the Pz IV. No matter how you try to swing it the KT was powered by the same engine that powered the Tiger I, and the same transmission as the Tiger 1. Both were overstressed in the earlier, much LIGHTER tank, let alone the far heavier King Tiger.
The accounts of even avid Nazi crews of the KT directly counter your claim it was as reliable as the Pz IV, as they themselves either wrote, or informed their captors, that most KT's their units lost were destroyed in place by the crews due to breakdowns, usually involving the transmission which was notorious for failing.
Post war testing by the British, Americans and Soviets all backed this lack of reliability up. The Tiger II was, quite simply, too heavy for its running gear, transmission and engine.
@@alganhar1 You're wrong, I have the operational readiness charts, and the KT was more reliable than the Pz.IV in the period of summer 44 to spring 45. Most losses were also not due to break down, but lack of fuel, stranding a lot of the tanks and necessating their destruction by own crews to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. That said breakdowns were as mentioned common among all German panzers at that period due to lack of oil, as well as trained drivers, which meant parts simply didnt last as long. That's just how it was.
Stalin: I need this many T-34's completed by the end of the year. OR ELSE.
Factories: **Put out sh-t tanks made even sh*ttier by cutting corners to not get sent to the gulags.**
made worse by the resource-rich areas being seized by the germans, and not being able to even make good metal.
or get put in a Penal Battalion ,[which means getting shot or badly injured [and sent onto the field to draw enemy fire ,in order to locate enemy positions
amazing as always, Simon. would you be interested in doing some more content of WW2 planes and early jets again mayhaps? the FWs, the spitfires, the hurricanes, mustangs, kobras, ILs, yaks etc.
He'll do them once he has seen more of LazerPig's videos. This is a mish-mash, and often completely taken word-for -word plagiarism of LazerPig's videos.
Also the layout of the roadwheels on Tigers and Panthers was also problematic, the overlapping design made maintenance hard, if one wheel broke you had to remove some other as well and Soviet terrain mud and stuff got between the roadwheels and it was nightmare
And the trouble with not having overlapping road wheels on the Tigger and Panther would have meant the axle loading would have been dramatically increased making it even more of a pain to get around. It may have been a pain in the backside for maintenance crews, but there was a good reason for it.
I'm surprised they didnt mention the fact the engine was massively over stressed and would often stall during combat. It also needed to be turned over and ran for about an hour before use, lest they damage it. Impressive on paper, but due to its rushed development phase, a terrible tank.
What you mention when you mention the rather rough and bleak environment the loaders/gunners faced in the tanks, is the comforts we have today, come from and in response to, the difficulties faced in the preceding days. What we comment on as being rough, was wonderful, back then.
I've read where the early Panther models would often times experience engine fires when driving up slopes as the fuel system leaked badly and the fuel would run back onto the over-heated engine. Tommy Cooker take that. Meanwhile, the Chiefton put out a video that stated that T-34 drivers carried a hammer to get the tank into 3rd gear and as stated many had no radio and Soviet unit commanders would open a hatch and wave a flag to signal their unit's tanks.
the nazis were the first to have radios in every tank, the british followed by 1941/42 and the americans adopted that. The soviets did not have radios in all tanks until the T34/85 and IS released, and even then some lacked the radio as it was simply in short supply.
The bigger issue with the T34 was its confort, vision and overall mobility.
The crew was stuffed into a much to smal turret with the Comander needing to spot targets, aim at targets and shoot them, all while also commanding the tank in general and look out for signals from allied units.
The vision was also bad due to the T34 never getting its planned high quality crystals for its optics but rather polished steelplates which easily fogged up, smeared or scrached. So the driver essentially had to drive with his hatch open even during combat or drive blind, just by orders of the commander. The gunsight was also of very low quality
As for the mobility, you already mentioned the "struggle" to change gears. While the "Hammer anecdote" is certainly not the norm, it was still very hard to change gears and and if you missed the timing you would not only stall the tank but also risk blowing the transmission, all with very few staps in the transmission when compared to other designs, this changed in later models, but remained a problem till after the war. In the early parades of the T34 it was also joked, by its crews, that the one who manages to get the tank into its fourths gear could also just throw the thing at the enemy and be there faster. (indicating the amount of force needed in some T34s to change gears)
Early Panther models had not just a leaky fuel system, but also an airtight engine compartment, so fuel vapors would accumulate instead of venting out. The weapons procurement office really wanted tanks with the deep fording capability, something that was also included (but later removed) in the Tiger I.
You "read"? My dear fellow unless you have a university degree and have written a dozen books on the subject I'm afraid you're just not one of the elite commenters here.
@@bpz8175 They weren't supposed to operate the tanks with the engines sealed-up on dry land.
It is estimated that those 1,300 Tiger I tanks killed ~10,300 enemy tanks. The Tiger I essentially invented the term Panzer or Tank Ace. It was designed to be a breakthrough tank--not a standard unit. It wasn't necessarily 'plagued' by issues. It was more often pressed into service beyond its recommended maintenance schedule.
Apart from the logistics the tiger was a very good tank. It hardly ever broke down due the mechanical issues. It was easy to service and the engine was perfectly powerful for the tiger 1. It was mainly due to crew training. Read the books by bruce oliver newsome who knows the tank inside out. It was a brilliant tank. Also by the middle of 44 the panthers problems were mainly all sorted out.. The chaps at the tank museum say driving the tiger is like driving a normal car. steering wheel. power steering. autobox..
Arguable, Tiger ausf E's often broke down and the engine was strained to propel the tank at anything like decent speeds, driving 131 around the almost flat course at Bovvy while keeping it below 25kph, is a little different that actual combat. The Panthers problems were still being addressed in 1945.
According to bruce newsome the engine was capable of producing enough power to easily propel the tiger 1 to a reasonable speed. He states in his books that on flat ground it was the same as a t34 or sherman. He also states that it mainly broke down due to driver error or poor oil.
I have spoken to several ex tiger men over the years and they all said the crews loved the tank..The panthers gear box was the only thing that still gave trouble mainly but the crews loved it. And it did destroy several thousand tanks.The t34 broke down more times than any other tank.
@@robertpullen3726 It was slightly less than the early Medium M4 and significantly less than the T-34. Yes, Tiger crew liked the tank, it had good armour, but its maintenance was a nightmare. The panthers gearbox was not a serious problem, the problem was in the final gear drive which was unsuitable for the stress it was placed under and was underspec in its metallurgical content.
Sorry yes i meant to say the final drive with the gear box. My mates uncle was in 2nd SS das reich and he used to say that they loved the panther and did not have that much of an issue with them .He said it was more than a match for virtually anything the allies threw at them. But the tiger 1 was still the best.
Panther still had issues with fuel leaks and engine fires among other things. The french used the Panther after the war and their reports on it are not as positive as yours.
I can't believe how many daft things were said or serious points ignored. Yes, all the tanks mentioned had serious flaws, no disagreement there. Also, the Churchill tank had initially terrible flaws, but the handbook said so! Now that bit of honesty is worth a mention
In short, the poor quality and difficulty in fixing these tanks make them less great than people think. At least the Americans learned really quick on improving the M4 Sherman and the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" model was an extremely underrated tank, not only with surprisingly good armor protection and ammunition box protection but it fielded a nasty 76 mm gun on a fast traversing turret and the fact it was designed specifically to be easily repairable in the field, especially replacing the tracks and the whole drivetrain.
The M4 Sherman overall was a pretty underrated tank. In Europe, Sherman’s achieved a 3.6:1 k/d against panthers.
Yep. Its been pointed out by armored warfare historians such as the cheiftan that sherman was much easier to maintain and as such had a much better operational readiness rate that negated any one on one advantages that german armor may have had. Taking the transmission for example, the shermans transmission could be completely swapped out with little to no need for onsite fabrication or part fitting in a couple hours by a couple of mechanics, with the parts to do so readily available to the mechanics. The tiger in comparison would be an all day affair, if not longer, that would require major disassembly of the tank and hours upon hours of parts fabrication and fitment provided the mechanics at the unit level could even get their hands on the parts to do so.
@@apersondoingthings5689 through weight of numbers. All things being equal the Shermans didn't come out so well.
@@TaeussKramme no, Sherman survivability rates of US crews lent the U.S. tank force to have a high amount of veteran tankers and with every engagement with German tanks their crews got greener and greener because of the lack of survivability when penetrated. The 3rd and 4th armored divisions were doing the tank equivalent of an RKO on larger forces of panthers and other German AFVs with 75mm Sherman’s. Weight of numbers would mean that 3.6 Sherman’s are taken out for every panther, when Sherman’s were taking out 3 times more panthers than the inverse. That’s an indication of skill and a better designed tank not mass production. The T34 had an abysmal tank on tank performance and thus had a low K:D ratio. The Sherman 75 for all intents in purpose was an effective anti tank weapon in the right hands, especially for the conditions in Western Europe that favored smaller and more nimble tanks
@@TaeussKramme The Sherman may have had numbers on its side, but its German counterparts had the advantage of being on the defensive and in conquered territory for most of the time post Normandy. They could retreat from prepared ambush to prepared ambush, a style of combat that heavily favored the highly magnified optics of the Panther, while laying mines and possibly destroying bridges in their wake. Shermans were tasked with taking territory from dug in enemy forces without the benefit of thermals for spotting ambushes. Look at how many of the stories of a Sherman getting taken out start with it being ambushed while in transit. The Axis forces didn't have to expose themselves to anything like the same risk until they reached territory they couldn't afford to cede to the Allies.
Sir, thank you so much for making these videos. I imagine you work you tail off to make these. I really appreciate you, and will show my son these videos when he's old enough.
Criticism of panthers armour layout is quite unwarranted, modern mbts also have all the armour on the front with sides relatively lightly armoured.
yes but modern combat is different and some things mattered more in ww2 then they do now
@@gew43 Such as?
@@TaeussKramme more technology and different ways of taking out a tank armor in the front and not in the back or sides matters less because of the anti tank weapons and drone we have to day which can kill it a whole assortment of ways today a anti tank gun can mostly fuck anything up regardless of where it hits so less side armor means less compared to more up close nature of ww2 tanks and hand held anti tank weapons like in ww2 you had to worry more about some dude with a little rocked shooting you from the side at like 60 meters away
@@gew43 Actually its as much a concern today, you needed infantry support in wwII and you still need infantry support today with tanks, if not you will lose them all. The thinking of frontal heavy armor is actually genius when limited with resources and weight, most engagements will occur with your frontal armor facing the enemy, if the enemy is suddenly at your side, you have been flanked and need to either turn quick, or retreat, adding additional armor to being flanked is useless, you are already in a losing battle. Today its even more dangerous with loitering munitions, suicide drones with 4k cameras that will zoom into the tankers metal fillings as he yells his last words.... I suggest you really investigate armored warfare and nation specific doctrines before making a fool of yourself
@@kzs831 what im saying is modern tech makes it easier to destroy tanks from all direction especially up when compared to ww2 where tanks and anti tank weapons which were more privative, and having worse armor meant more when most anti tank weapons were weaker compared to now
😂 I fucking love the intro…. I am here because I found out that Simon’s voice is perfect for drifting off to sleep to sooo sweet dreams every one
11:33 I love the pronunciation of fire power as "fah pah."
A little bit of misinformation on the Tiger I. The snorkel system was built because they knew it could not go over most bridges. The T34 also had issues going over bridges in Russia and so DID the Panzer IV as all of these were heavier than many of the old wooden bridges still in use in Russia could handle. On logistics, the Heavy Tank battalion had its OWN Supply Company and concerning Maintenance, it had its OWN Maintenance/workshop company and Recovery Platoon. The 18 ton halftracks were only used for a year, then were replaced by Panther ARVs. Also, during the time of the 18ton halftrack, there were only 2 Tiger I tanks per platoon, so there were not many Tigers period in the battalion. It was mostly Panzer III's and/or IV's and look at the havoc those early battalions made! It was only in 1944 that production was high enough for 4 Tigers per platoon. The Tiger I was a great tank, sorry, just came too late for its purpose which was for a break through tank. It was not intended for defensive action, but it held its own there. The mistake though was stopping production of the Tiger I right when record production was being reached to build the Tiger II that was a huge waste.
To me, the most fascinating thing about WWII tank design is how fast they became obsolete. Many a 1940 tank was hopelessly out of date by 1943 or so. Yet today we are using 20 year old tanks (30 if you're a Soviet in Ukraine).
its more 60 years for some models that both sides still use
Well unless you are the Sherman or T-34-85...especially the Sherman.
The T-64 is in service in Ukraine. Modernized and improved, but still a T-64.
Russia meanwhile is pulling out 60 year old T-62Ms and M46 artillery.
The M1 Abrahams tanks are 50+ years old too
thankfully we're not waring as much. if we did though...
One tank is missing:
- rudimentary optics
- shells that did not work
- armor piercing capabilities are a joke (but similar to other countries in value, except they were tested on soft steel at 90° angle)
- almost non-existent off-road capabilities (should not go to mud, snow ice,...)
- potentially it could overturn in rough terrain
- the gearbox is outside the armor or rather it is part of the armor
- overloaded suspension
- armor is a joke (enemy shells went frequently trough it without exploding)
- ammunition storage was marked by white stars
- was so loved by own troops that they prefer to jump out of it in case they meet enemy tanks
the one and only M4 Sherman
If it was so bad in the mud how did Patton move a entire tank army over 100 miles in December during a snow storm. Tigers couldn't even over run Bastone in the same weather. They ran out of fuel. The turret was faster and gyroscopically stabilzed. Best Tiger commander used a hand held optical sight from a Stugg III. Stug III was really best armored vehicle the Germans had.
@@thomasslaiby474 Roads?
And USA army knew the problem from Italy
and thus developed track extenders in 1944 based on Russian modification of Sherman. With Easy 8 (1945) the proper tracks were introduced.
So initaly M4 Sherman was not gyroscopically stabilzed in todays terms. And it was probably not good desing as it was not repeated until M60. As this was classified system only one division knew how to use it properly.
So how fast should turret be:
Tiger one turret has 1 rpm (rounds per minute, low rate) or 6 rpm (high rate). Average combat distance is 800 m this means it can follow tanks with speed up to 50 at low speed or 300 km/h at high speed. As tanks are not planes circling around Tiger tanks this is bullshit argument made by Americans who needed to come within 100 m to penetrate Tiger. At this distances they were safe with speeds above 40 km/s perpendicular to tank. But not in first 2500 m of approach to Tiger tank.
Tiger II was terrible - mostly due to it being developed far too late to make a difference, wasn't fully tested or refined, lacked the infrastructure to support it and simply wasn't the tank needed for the situation Germany was in. If they cranked out more Panzer IV's (or rather, SPG variants) they'd have had more success.
Thank goodness for poor decisions.
nah should have stuck with the later panther models, especially those few build after the Jagdpanther was released (that one fixed the final drives...somehow) the Pz IV was absolutely useless by 1944 and the Panther was cheaper and faster to produce by that time as well, it also had a simpler spare parts list and was heavily standardised.
The Tiger II really took all the downsides of the predecessor and made them a lot worse. More than anything else, it is just too heavy for a contemporary transmission and engine to reasonably operate - and the Tiger I was already badly overweight at 57-60 tons. Panther is the way to go vs Pz IV though, it has a trivially greater cost for greatly improved combat capability. It's arguably the only German WW2 tank designed for what was really needed - ease of manufacture.
What garbage
It was a good tank
Frightening
I'm going to disagree. Making more weaker tanks wasn't a viable option either. They would have needed more crew more training facilities, more logistical support, fuel trucks, spare parts, more trucks and half tracks to keep the infantry up with the tanks. It would have been a larger logistical nightmare than making fewer more powerful tanks. I'm curious what burns more fuel 3-4 panzer IV's or 1 tiger.
More Panzer IVs would have required more manpower and more fuel etc.
Arguably, more Panthers would have given a better balance of protection for precious crews, firepower, and mobility.
If you watch the Chieftains detailed video on Tiger I, he makes it clear that the tank was designed as a breakthrough tank in offensive warfare. There would be ample time to get it where an operation was to take place so the poor range and reliance on trains for long-distance traveling wouldn’t be much of an issue. As a breakthrough tank it was to be heavily armored on all sides except for the rear. Assuming the Tiger I was used in its intended role as a breakthrough tank, once the breakthrough had been achieved the faster and longer-legged Panzer IIIs and IVs would exploit that breakthrough while the Tiger I could be comfortable pulled back for maintenance in order to be ready for the next engagement. That was the German doctrine for this tank.
Regarding the Panther, Simon whines about the thin side armor… ummm.. that was an intentional trade-off to reduce weight. The part of the tank facing the enemy would be the front. The German tankers were aware of the thinner side armor. Also, that thinner side armor could be “double” by positioning the tank at a 45-degree angle towards the enemy (the Germans called it the “Mahlzeitstellung” and this was also recommended for Tiger I crews) thus “angling” the armor. Aside from early reliability issues, the Panther actually reached better operational reliability rates than the Panzer IV in 1944. The biggest weakness of the Panther remained its weak final drives but even here efforts were made to improve the reliability - and it worked extending their durability.
I don’t think Tiger I was a “terrible” tank, but it was waaayyy over-hyped. The negatives that Simon pointed out are absolutely correct. However, it needs to be pointed out that it was designed as a breakthrough tank, but almost never performed that role. The idea for its design was to spearhead an offensive and breakthrough enemy lines at which point, Tiger I would withdraw to the rear and medium tanks like Pz. IV would take over the attack. Fuel efficiency isn’t really important for a breakthrough tank that is supposed to stops fighting once the breakthrough has been achieved. The design choices that made Tiger I a good breakthrough tank meant that it struggled as a medium tank.
Documentaries like to point out the “hard” traits of armor, firepower, and reliability, but they rarely mention the “soft” traits like crew comfort, communications, or how easy it is for the crew to see and target enemy tanks. Tiger I had good “soft” traits. I’d argue that the soft traits are as important, if not more important, than the hard traits. A crew that isn’t tired from a bumpy ride, has reliable radios, and better optics will perform better than a tank crew that doesn’t have them. This is critical because it gives Tiger crews a better chance at shooting first. In a tank battle, the tank that fires first, usually wins - regardless of the “hard” traits.
I’m not suggesting that Tiger I was a great tank because it wasn’t. However, it wasn’t a terrible tank either. The truth is in the middle and requires nuance.
The myth of the invincible Tiger is a result of very effective N-I propaganda. It caused fear among allied tankers, who then came home after the war, wrote and talked about their experiences, which made their way into textbooks which perpetuated the myth of Whermacht superiority on to later generations. The N-is where evil liars. Don’t believe them.
Also too heavy and too wide!!
@@lyndoncmp5751 Source: BS NatSoc propaganda.
"it needs to be pointed out that it (Tiger) was designed as a breakthrough tank"...yet, it was only used twice in that role-Kursk and Bulge...and exceptionally failed in both operations...making the Tiger the worlds most expensive boat anchor
If the Russian T-34 tanks were so great then why did they lose 45,000 of them. They were over hyped also.
@@JohnGruber-di3cw You often lose a lot of tanks when you're sending them into battle alone with no support. Losing a ton of tanks alone isn't evidence of a tank design being bad.
Other fun facts about the early T34s. The T34/76 Model 1941 had a very large single turret hatch which opened forward meaning that if the commander wished to stick his head out to see what was going on he had to expose most of his body to peer around the thing making him extremely vulnerable to enemy snipers. As a result commanders were disinclined to do this making their tank extremely vulnerable to enemy tanks and anti-tank guns. They also has a very large drivers hatch and obviously this needed to be closed during combat. At that point the driver had to rely on his glass vision slit...and as you can imagine when the front of the tank was hit there was a good chance he'd receive a face full of glass. Also, during winter this glass would tend to frost over and so the driver was given a special oil to spread over the glass to prevent this. Or at least he would have been if supplies kept up with demand. Instead drivers were all too often obliged to open the hatch to see where they were going...
All 4 tanks just have very good guns, the problem with the T-34 they expect that it would go out kill one German tank with a group of t-34’s. Russia even had tanks that came out of the factory with the guns not working. So the Russians would use it to ram the German tanks. The German were great designs that overall failed. The best German tank kill was none of these tanks, it was the Stug III.
jagtpahter is good tank ,tiger2 and jagttiger
The Germans were in a really tough situation. There was simply no way they could compete with the numbers of M4's and T34's being produced by the US and USSR. They needed a technological solution that they could actually build in sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, these designs all fell short.
By contrast, American Armored units were usually at or very nearly at full strength because of excellent American logistics and their ability to replace battle losses with fresh tanks, as well as the ease of repair of M4's if they should happen to break down.
True, though in the mean time the German armoured forces took a hellish toll on those same tanks. The Soviets lost so many T34s that they wouldn't truthfully admit their losses until decades after the war. And even then they probably lied. The Western Allies also lost significant numbers but you're right, they could easily replace the tanks, and with some work, the crews.
@@TaeussKramme On the Eastern Front maybe. Western armored forces took something like 2% KIA amongst their tankers. Their INFANTRY losses were much higher, but it's a giant, perpetuated myth that the Shermans were slaughtered like lambs. Hell, just take a look at a fairly typical US Armored Division.
2nd Armored
Total battle casualties: 5,864[13]
Killed in action: 981[13]
Wounded in action: 4,557[13]
Missing in action: 60[13]
Prisoners of war: 266[13]
Days of battle: 443[13]
and that's all while inflicting a lot more pain on the Germans.
@@warsyn3838 Maybe so, but 2% of a large number can be significant. Consider the following quote that I pulled from a brief Google search on Sherman tank losses:
"During the European Campaign, the 3rd Armoured Division lost 648 Sherman tanks in combat, and another 700 were knocked out but repaired and put back into service. This resulted in a loss rate of 580%" Not my numbers, by the way. Further, the search shows a total armoured loss of about 15,000 Allied armoured vehicles of which over 7000 were Shermans in American and British service. Ouch. Many are too dismissive of the actual casualty numbers which, in a tank, are a horrid way to die. Cooper's book "Death Traps" is an insightful evaluation of the Sherman looses in battle. Unfortunately his report is often dismissed by later "experts" who didn't have to pull horribly burned crewmen out of knocked out tanks and wonder why. Simple: the Shermans were never designed or envisioned for tank-on-tank warfare; the American military didn't see it as likely for some reason. The (then) best way of defeating a tank was another tank was a thought they -apparently- never had and this held-up the T26 deployment by YEARS when it would have been a game changer.
Panther could penetrate more armor at longer distances Than a Tiger I. the shell was smaller but the muzzle velocity was much greater.
You can't really ding the Panther for its side armor. That was the same or better than most tanks. I really don't know where you got Hitler decided the armor distribution. The armor was front heavy because that is what faced the enemy more often than not. Never heard that it was done that way because Hitler said so. The overheat issues were due to rushed introduction and were later fixed. The final drive was, as you pointed out, a really awful flaw that was never corrected.
The Tiger's gun penetrated slightly more at very long ranges - the Panther's slightly more up to 2000 meters. There was also the overmatch factor; diameter of shell vs. armor thickness, -where the heavy Tiger shell was more effective.
Yes, the final drive was a weakness, but not as bad as the French drivers made them. There were many instances of Panther units managing long road marches in the summer of 1944. And the final drive of the late war Panzer IV was actually worse.
Also funny because most modern main battle tanks are also very vulnerable from the sides (and even more so rear and top) but this is (hopefully) mitigated by doctrine/tactics.
In the case of the Panther they were meant for long range battles on open fields where they couldn't realistically be flanked.
IIRC the final drive wheel was improved but by then they were short on many essential materials.
@@kaltaron1284the Leo 2 and Abrams tanks actually have less side armour than a Panther and the T72 and T90 just got barely more. Ofcourse they all have modern add on armour or other systems in place, but the base armour is not that great
@@AlphaHorst The raw numbers don't tell the full story but comparing the sides to the fronts gives a clear indication. There are tanks like the Merkava that try to get better side protection but those are an exception to prove the rule.
It is commonly said that Hitler insisted on adding more armour - but I suspect it was more that he insisted on putting more armour up front rather than reducing armour on the sides. The impressive frontal slab of armour came at a significant weight penalty, which was a significant factor in the reliability issues.
You're right. I do have good taste in videos, and I also know exactly what I am about to see.
Mostly the British ww2 tanks was far worse
Think you missed the point of the video. Also he mentions that British tank were generally considered terrible
you are fun to watch/listen to, probably my favorite military channel , good show!!
Dude you just opened up a can of worms 😂
...While TH-camrs get paid by views, they get "bonuses" on the amount of "comments".
@@mathewm7136 Grrrr! Hope that was worth a dime.
The drive train problem on the Panther was exasperated by inexperienced young drivers. Experienced well trained Panther drivers, which were few in number, had fewer problems. Still an inexperienced tank driver on a Sherman didn't matter as driving one was like driving a car of that time and a huge percentage of GI's already knew how to drive a car.
not all GI's knew how to drive a car in the 30s etc most people didnt even own a car
@@ClovisPoint Was this an alternate world? "America had fully embraced the automobile by the dawn of the 1940s. As of 1941, about 88 percent of US households had a family car and that number was rising."
It is interesting that the Germans, whose access to fuel was the most limited, were most inclined to produce huge tanks with terrible fuel mileage.
I guess Simon made an oopsie with the title? Unless there was some edition mistake and we were left without the fifth tank XD
More of that great editing
The T34 was so bad that it earned two spots, the 76 and the 85 versions🙂
"Quantity has a quality of its own" Still the Panther G was the best Tank of WWZ and I'll die on that cross. Tigers K/D ratio was huge & the fear factor they induced helped even more.
Another thing missed between the two Tigers and what made the Tiger 1 in ways better than the Panzer 3 and 4 was it's comfort.
Crews in a Tiger 1 enjoyed more room, more comfortable seating, and a smoother ride.
The driver also had his controls simplified to a steering wheel and clutch over levers.
It was generally a more crew friendly tank than previous and later German tanks.
Watching the Chieftain and knowing his size, the panzer III looks pretty roomy.
I'm sure someone else noticed this, and, yes, I am too lazy to read every comment before posting this, but you the you previously characterized the Tiger as one of the finest tanks of World War II 3 years ago in your five best tanks episode. I love your work and find the videos edifying and entertaining, but dedicating an entire video to debunking a myth you helped propagate a few years back seems a bit cheeky.
The King Tiger was an outstanding tank for the half mile it could go before breaking down.
after-action report from schwere Panzer-abteilung 503 from Hungary November 1944:
"The total distance of about 250 kilometers covered during the operation was accomplished essentially without mechanical failure. The Tiger II proved itself extremely well, both in its armor and from a mechanical perspective."
@@TTTT-oc4eb Great, by why are there so many photos of abandoned King Tigers? How come they didn’t reliably drive away instead of being captured?
@@Fortunes.Fool. lack of fuel a lot of the time. Poorly trained drivers damaging the transmission are another reason. Both not really the tanks fault i would argue
They came in late in the war and were built with the same substandard manufacturing as the other late-war tanks. By the time they arrived in the war fuel was a major problem. Many King Tigers were abandoned due to lack of fuel.
@@Fortunes.Fool. They often simply ran out of gas. Kind of a common issue with tanks.
There is more to the final drive story of the Panther than meets the eye. I was watching a tank restoration and they were pulling one apart. It just so happens that some of the oil cooling holes were the perfect size to be blocked by a cigarette butt, There were several instances of "hey I found another one" after they found the first. The slave labour building them was doing everything they could to sabotage the vehicles.
T-34 how good does it have to be, when on average only lasted 2.5 weeks? 🤔 And Sherman tanks kick the t-34s butt in Korea? 🤣 At lest both tiger tanks had a great win lost record?
G'day Simon & the SP Team,
Many Tanks for today's video great 😁
It always astounds me when people say that the T-34 was a great tank, or that the 76mm gun was fine...
And then turn around and ridicule the 75mm gun on the Sherman in the next breath.
I mean, first of all, the T-34 had two different 76mm guns, and the first of which were utterly terrible, being low velocity potato cannon called the L-11. The F-34 however was an alright gun, but it's penetration capabilities were pretty much identical to that of the 75mm used on the Sherman.
The penetration capabilities of the 85mm were roughly equal to the 76mm M1 and the KwK40 7.5cm L/48 of the Panzer IV.
Also bothering me in this video, is the...rather obvious bias to the Panzer IV.
Don't get me wrong, the Panzer IV was a decent tank, and did a great job for what it was...but by the end stages of the war, it was a design that was showing its age, in both manufacturing, and performance. It was designed to weigh ~19 tons, and was never meant to be pushed up to 25 tons. The suspension was struggling to cope with all of the weight on the front of the tank, the transmission were getting fragile due to not being designed to cope with an additional 6 tons, and the engine was getting significantly under powered.
In the manufacturing side, it cost just _slightly_ less than a goddamn Panther to build and took longer to build. The Panther meanwhile, for all of its faults, came with arguably _the best anti-tank gun of the war,_ paired with great optics, and an actual range finding system.
The Panzer IV did get the KwK 40 L/48 cannon, which was a fantastic gun though, arguably one of the best tank guns in the entire war. Capable right from when it was made to the end of the war.
But...by the time of the Normandy invasions, Germany was running out of men to even field. You need to protect them better. So having more tanks, doesn't help, if you don't have the men, or the fuel to operate them.
exactly, I always try to point this out to people who think they are making some point about Germany building MORE tanks, as if Germany had a bunch more trained men, logistical support, metal, oil, armament etc laying around. Their only solution was to try and out perform the opposition, I can't understand how people don't see this.
Most German tanks in France were knocked out by Allied planes like the P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang and the Hurricane.
So yes they didn't have the manpower, fuel or aircover to even get them near Normandy after D-Day.
Holy crap! Exactly! I just watched a few episodes of Greatest Tank Battles this weekend. They described the Sherman as thin skinned with a weak gun, and then went on to describe the T-34 as a lethal blend of fire power and armor. I about peed myself laughing.
@@melvinbennett444 Nope. That's completely incorrect. Those planes killed a lot of trucks and horses that were carrying fuel, parts and ammo for the tanks, but rarely the tanks themselves. That claim has been proven to be hugely over inflated. Most German tanks were killed by the same thing Allied tanks were (with the exception of mines), those being, enemy infantry, AT guns (largest tank killer of the war) and other tanks.
@@warsyn3838 Certainly debatable. But it's hardly completely incorrect. For instance the greatest loss of tanks and such in France, was when the Germany 7th Army & the 5th Panzer Army were annihilated by Allied Air power in the Falaise pocket. The Allies in France used Air power as did the Soviets to destroy vast amounts of German tanks with ground attack aircraft, since by 1944 they had complete control of the skies. And that is not debatable.
So keep watching those history channel shows, in 20-30 years you'll catch up to me !
My favourite bit of the Tiger II history is where they get the bright idea of sending some of them to the fighting towards the end of Market Garden. Here's a tank that can destroy other tanks at long range, and its being used to winkle out light infantry out of suburban houses in close quarters combat. A few got disabled IIRC.
Meanwhile the STUGs of assault brigade 280 were doing as good of not a much better job because they were much better suited to that kind of fighting
This was a pretty good video. Panther side armor criticism is a reach though. It was intended as a medium tank, which means it needs speed, more side armor slows it down drastically, which is why only heavy tanks have high side armor thickness. It has the same (2mm more actually) side armor as the Sherman did.
Another thing to mention for german tanks could be how terrible the metal quality often was, same with many of the lesser quality T-34s.
Metal quality was definitely an issue in the latter stages of the war, as well as a general deterioration of production quality. I consider the Panther to be the immediate precursor of the proper MBTs, as it got things right conceptually, but failed a bit when it came to the execution.
Broke down every day and it had no spare parts. It doesn't matter how much armour or how good the gun was
Yeah, Germany couldn't get their hands on a number of minerals for alloy making, due to interdiction. Their jet engines could only manage about 24 hours of flying time befoe needing a rebuild.
@@ahhhhhhhhhhh9o9o9othose are all issues in production not design. Btw the final drive issue, which caused almost every breakdown, was actually fixed for the heavier Jagdpanther so the reliability could have been solved. The stereotype of it breaking down oftebn and being unfixable is actually due to the french operating the Panther post war and not bothering to make any changes to the design or parts used, sticking to 1943 designs for parts and ignoring advances made in 44 and 45.
@@AlphaHorst the reliability issues were never truly fixed, mostly because Germany didn't make nearly enough spare parts, and that's why the production number was high. But when your panther (including the late ones) broke down you were just fucked
This was awesome. Need to get you do Collab for a second video from the Tank Museum
Surprise surprise, the list is mostly German Tanks.
Dude this is a golden age of realization, cherish it while it lasts, the weraboos will be back
German did ”invent” many sh*** tanks…. Good ideas, not so good application.
A good book to read about this is "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII". The title is misleading as it is mostly about facts and statistics, but it touches on topics like this, it is US centric, but you learn things like while infantry only made up 25% of US forces in the Second World War that they took 75% of the casualties during it. It also discusses the mechanical issues German heavy tanks faced and that maybe they would have been better off focusing their time and limited resources on their medium tanks and assault guns. I don't have a dog in this fight. The people who did were born a 100 years ago and most are passed.
My favorite is still the Tiger. It's beautiful.
I love that the T-34 and Tiger are also on Simon's "5 best tanks of WWII" video.
The British tested the Tiger they captured in North Africa. The report is available in a publication 30 or so years ago. Contrary to myths propagated by "historians" and videos like this, they found the tank to be adequately powered and maneuverability to be excellent. The only flaw they documented was that the ventilation system was not adequate to clear the interior of smoke.
Well your missing a few things in this defense of the Tiger I you got. It was a horribly complex piece of machinery that while great in the hard-factors was terribly in the soft one’s. The man hours of a Tiger I was 300,000. A Sherman was 10,000 see the biggest issue. That also meant spare parts in an already inefficient and mismanaged industrial complex and poorly maintained logistical network would be nigh impossible to reach the frontline. Here where I get to the soft factors. Yes the Tiger I was a good tank in good hands. There the problem as the war went on your experienced crews were getting killed, training standards were lowered, and the reliability of your tank went drastically down. On top of the issues of the track design which was terrible for Russian Rasputisa and Winter which I don’t think the British would have been able to test in Chobam. Finally I have read the exact same report from Chobam. They did not mention logistical flaws attached to the vehicle or the German lack of proper armored recovery vehicles. That report is solely focused on a Tiger I that is in peak condition, in optimal conditions, and not in a combat scenario. Even more it focused on the design and solely that of the design which this video focuses of the logistics and overall strategic problems it had. You say myths propagated and cite a report that doesn’t disprove anything. That same report even mentioned the issue of the tracks which was clearly seen on the Eastern front. If you’re going to try to defend the Tiger I don’t use the report on Tiger 131 that easily accesible and disproves this.
@@SovietRifleDivision Well, look at it this way. Somebody has to make a mistake first before everybody knows it is one.
And that ventilation system was re-positioned and upgraded in subsequent versions.
@@SovietRifleDivision 300,000 man-hours for a Tiger I is false. It varied, (lack of materials, delay of armament and fittings, etc due to bombing, sabotage etc) from 30,000 to 120,000 man-hours, or 75,000 average, (55,000 from another site). For the Sherman, 10,000 is also false. It took an M4A3 an average of 48,000 man-hours. The 10,000 figure was actually 'stolen' from the T-34's. The Soviet tank took from 10,000 to 50,000 man-hours to build, or 30,000 average.
Who gave you the impression of the "German lack of proper armored recovery vehicles"? The Germans actually had the best armour recovery vehicles, (Bergepanther and Bergetiger) and repair depots in WWII, see "Repairing the Panzers" by Lukas Friedli, 2 volumes.
He didn't say it was underpowered or lacked manoeuvrability that I can remember?
Staff: "Simon, we need more comments in our comments sections."
Simon: "Don't worry, I have the _perfect_ solution."
ok. the harping on the Panthers side armour is ridiculous.
First off, you already mentioned sloped armour, guess what the upper part of that 40mm was sloped making it effectively 50mm thick. As for the lower parts? Well the side skirts effectively made that part 60-70mm thick, even lower and you meet roadwheels which could easily push it up to 90mm of effective armour. The 50mm strip was very thin, while the midsection was slightly bigger and the roadwheel section again about as much as the top part. (below that came the thing we call "ground clearance" which traditionally consists of air)
That was still not enough to prevent penetration even from the shape charge of a bazooka. Also at range, shells will be traveling at an arc and those slopes were not particularly steep, so the shot from the side still had a habit of having a more perpendicular impact and penetrated anyway.
@@cynthiaherbst3909 yea, but which medium tank could resist those?
The point made is that the side armour was apparently really bad for its class, while it was actually on par or better than for other vehicles of its class. The T34 85 had only slightly better side armour while the shermans had worse.
@@AlphaHorst I mean the t34 of ww2 production as established is a bit of a low bar. That armor wasn't uniquely thin but not sufficient as mentioned for the guns that would be on Shermans for example or better anti tank guns that paratroopers or light infantry would possess if they expected tanks.
Pretty much what I was thinking. Somewhere around 40mm on the sides was about typical for a medium tank at the time. Some from earlier in the war were a bit thinner, some a bit thicker, but to get much more than 50mm I'm pretty sure you were looking at a heavy tank or an infantry tank. Russians like to point at it because it is a tiny bit thinner than the T-34 and that was apparently enough that it meant that a model of antitank rifle they had they had could get through the side of a Panther but not a T-34 - until the side skirts were added. Meanwhile, the lighter Panzer IIIs and IVs were probably just as vulnerable (although they did have better vision, which was apparently a problem with the Panther, so were probably harder to sneak up on).
Medium tanks of the period had to accept that their side armour was a vulnerability in order to have the mobility that made them medium tanks rather than heavy or infantry tanks.
Ironically, it's the big slab up front that was the bigger problem - while good at stopping hits from the standard Allied tank guns until counters were deployed, it increased the weight of the tank beyond what it was designed for, leading to all the mechanical problems.
@@cynthiaherbst3909 the T34s side armour remained unchanged post war and the Panthers was on par with that in most areas of the side.
Again. It is a medium tank which had armour like every other medium tank. So either the "sherman" was also overhyped because it had bad side armour and worse frontal armour and a worse gun and took around 85% of the manhours it took to produce a panther or the panthers side armour is just fine and normal for its class. Not to mention that getting to the side of a panther was next to impossible for the allies as it fought at a range where they could not even shoot back at it let alone penetrate it. At its combat range of 1000-2000m a Shermans 75 could not reliably penetarte even the side of a Panther
The Tiger may have had it's problems but it certainly scared the shit out out of Allied tank crews, as I've seen recounted in countless interviews with veterans, who said it had a barrel as long as a telegraph pole!!
I don’t care what he says about the Tiger 1’s shortcomings, once it made it to the battlefield, it was a badass tank feared by all Allied tankers.
Feared? Yes.
But with only 1500 built it is as hard to encounter any.
In July 1944 there were less than 20 Tigers in Normandy.
I thought that the Tiger proved to be under armoured and under gunned, when used in Normandy. With even 1920's vintage British anti tank systems like the Rodnol being able to destroy a Tiger with even a near miss with an HE shell from way outside the range of the Tigers own gun.
That is because the allied troops were attacking. So all the logistic problems became less. On the eastern front , they were being over run by the soviets
@@meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2 WWHHAAAT? "under-armoured and under-gunned?" Laughable. No idea what a Rodnol is but I rather doubt its efficacy in destroying 56 ton tanks. Geez it must have been a siege howitzer to claim destroying a Tiger with a near-miss. Ad that by dropping it in an inconvenient hole that it created. Apparently you thought wrong.
@@TaeussKramme Broke up an attack outside Caen by 36 tanks of the 12th SS, at a range of over 17 miles. The tinfoil armour of the German tanks proving totally inadequate, when faced by salvos of 406mm shells weighing a ton. The Rodnol also was faster, longer range, and had armour up to 15" thick, so could shrug off any return fire. Also spoilt the whole day of the 1st and 21st Panzer regiments by engaging them during the Normandy campaign.
@4:00 and @17:32, using wikipedia data (yes please finish your eye roll): Tiger I has a gas limit of 540 litres, doing about 195 km and 110 km road to cross country respectively. So it is guzzling about 2.77 l/km on road and 4.91 l/km across country.
Tiger II has a gas capacity of 860 litres. Doing about 190 km road and 120 km cross country. To achieve this whilst massing in with about another 13 metric tons (both Tigers’ powerplants are limited to 515 kW). Tiger II burns 4.53 l/km on the road and 7.17 l/km.
So yes a bit of a difference and probably safe to say the Tiger II burns about 150% more fuel than Tiger I (whatever the exact consumption values are).
These vehicles were great when they work, which wasn't most of the time. Also, we all know the Bob Semple is the greatest tank ever.
According to Jentz' PanzerTruppen, Vol2, the Tiger I's range (road/x-country) was 195km/110km with a fuel capacity of 540 L; the Tiger II's was 170km/120km using 860L of fuel. So, much worse fuel consumption (82% worse on road), but actually better x-country range than a Tiger I. Also, the Panther D was the really bad Panther; fewer issues in the later Ausf G and A models.
That should have said: "later A and G models" Followed, whimsically, by an "F". No idea why. As to the Panther Ausf "D", well, it was the first and was bound to have teething problems, rushed into production as it was. Still, a good start.
Was just going to go look at that and Chamberlain.
The Panther‘s cannon had better armor penetration than the Tiger I‘s.
No it didn't
@@lionel66cajppppp0 PzGr. 39
7,5cm KwK 42 138,124,111,99,89
8,8cm KwK 36 120,110,100,91,84
@@lionel66cajppppp0 PzGr. 40
7,5cm KwK 42 194,174,149,127,106
8,8cm KwK 36 170,155,138,122,110
@@lionel66cajppppp0 All against RHA at 30° at a range of 100,500,1000,1500,2000m
@@RichelieuUnlimited Ooooh so much detailed military knowledge. I'm weak at the knees.
During the Battle of the Bulge, one US Army combat engineering battalion blew up all bridges in its sector. The advancing Tiger tanks were thus stuck, since they couldn't cross rivers. The German mobile bridging equipment couldn't handle the Tigers' weight...
US engineers did a great job in the Bulge. But no German unit was leading the advance with Tigers (I or II). Virtually all the leading units were riding Panthers and Panzer IVs.
Even where the Germans could build an adequate bridge, the delay was significant so the engineers still accomplished great work.
Kinda shows that Petain (a loathesome man) was right in 1936. The Ardennes really was impassible if defended.
@@executivedirector7467 In fact there were almost no Tiger is at the Ardennes: it was a Panther and King Tiger kind of event. The biggest flaw there was the near-absence of adequate fuel dumps.
The Panther, lovely tank, so long as you didn't break the power train by giving it a hard stare.
Not quite. The power train, once the bugs were excised, proved a good performer. They did have some final drive issues but these too would have been resolved if the war had gone on into the Fall of '45 with the intro of the Panther F. A cat of a different stripe.
Simon gets "
'crazier' every week!
I'm actually starting to wonder if he's got some problem. Undiagnosed brain tumor? I honestly couldn't watch the video because of the presenting style.
All wot and warthunder players know how well armored the Tiger is😁
AKA: It's paper. 😂 I've never had an issue fighting a Tiger in wot.
@@NnH_Kairyu indeed. It doesnt help that most tiger enjoyers are new players😁
The tiger 1 might have problems but its what a tank is supposed to look like
And, more importantly: perform like a tank was supposed to.
Most German tanks were OVERengineered to the point that a MINOR fault quickly turned into a MAJOR repair - such as the transmissions that were rated for the Prototype, but were too weak for the ACTUAL tank, but were not improved. Tank engines were also prone to the same problem. The fact that these were designed in such a way as to make them VERY Difficult to repair in the field, very often meant that they were abandoned, rather than repaired.
7:10 the panthers cannon penetrated more than the Tigers, quite difficult to miss that bit of info honestly.
Sounds like BS
Disappointing, lazy and clearly poorly researched episode; basically just lot of old parroted myths. Tanks are clearly not your strongest side.
The Tiger 1 had a fuel tank of 548 liters and a max range of 195 km, a Sherman M4A3 a fuel tank of 630 liters and a max range of 160 km - which one was the gas guzzler again?
Germany built 30,000 bombers and heavy fighters that cost as much or more than a Tiger. And almost as many U-boats as Tigers, each of which did cost 20 times as much as a Tiger. The cost of the relatively small Tiger programme was a drop in the ocean. You said yourself - it cost only twice as much as a Panzer IV, a much smaller and lighter tank that had reached its limit in 1943 - the only thing that kept it in the game was the combination of powerfull gun, high quality ammo and superb optics.
Sigh, and the old myth of the Panther's "horrible" reliability; by 1944 it had an average readiness rate of 70-75%, about the same as the Panzer IV and Tiger - despite the Tiger and Panther being used more aggressively than the Panzer IV, thus suffering more combat damage. Many of the Tigers and Panthers sidelined were out of action due to combat damage, not only mechanical error. Its poor reliablity reputation stems from being made operational before it was ready, already in the summer of 1943, just a year after design work started! ALL tanks go through a phase where teething problems are common.
Beat me to it. It especially bugs me how so many incorrectly bash the Panther. Once the teething issues were sorted it was a fantastic tank.
@@Arms872It was not a fantastic tank, and that wasn't only because of issues like the armour cracking due to the poor steel quality of the late war.
Stuff like an overstressed engine and poor suspension design causing mud to get stuck in the wheels did not help it, though those issues were found in other tanks too such as the tiger 1.
There are other factors too like the turret traverse being slow and hatches being difficult to open.
@@combatarms45 The engine wasn't overstressed; the Panther had a much better power to weight ratio than any Sherman variant. Even the Tiger 1 had a better power to weight ratio than almost all Sherman variants.
@@combatarms45The engine overstressing was fixed by reducing the output of the engine (leaving the option to get the full power while in combat like Planes had with their WEP), the Mud getting stuck in the tracks was also a common issue for all tanks on muddy fronts and the suspension outperformed on nearly every other terrain. The biggest issue was that it took too much ime to repair it due to the need to remove multiple roadwheels just to replace one.
the rest of your comment is just plain misinformation.
The hatches were not hard to open, in fact they were designed to be opened with one hand due to an inbuild assist. As for teh turret traverse, that was on par with tanks like the sherman and faster than the T34 and T34/85, the only model with a slower traverse was the D which had its powered traverse removed and relied on hand cranking.
Another Nazi fanboy
For what it's worth, it's interesting to note that in the "Panzer General" series of computerized turn based strategy games, the Tiger I and II have the WORST maximum fuel and movement rates, making them unsavory choices when it comes to building your "perfect" army, especially if you like to win battles!
I am going to disagree with you on the Tiger I. It was an exceptional taken given to the best crews and did a lot of damage considering how few were fielded at one time.
If they were so amazing, why didn't they build more of it? Why not just use it as the only tank throughout the conquest of the world?
Behemoth meant for a certain role is the T2. That tank used properly should not be able to be hit by other tanks. Kill others at 2klm or more with 1 shot.
Both Tigers were akin to the DeLorean. Looked badass, innovative tech & and all that, but had extraordinarily underpowered engine, major power train design flaws, and both were never rigorously field tested before being delivered right to the front lines. Good for us, blessèdly, not for the axis.