Here is my uneducated comment for the day.Whatever anyone says bad or good. Ww2 german tanks still have the most menacing look and are great to model with.
The Tiger 1 is my favourite out of the series. That fact that it's all right angles on the bow makes it even look more menacing. For Allied Tank commanders seeing rounds bounce off that flat bow would of been terrifying! 👍🐯😎🇦🇺 Thanks David for the chat and information. I just got the Ferdinand in WOT-B.
If you look closely at the Tiger I you'll see that it's not all right angles The front plate were the driver's vision block and the bow machinegun are, despite popular belief, it not actually set a vertical, it's actually sloped, not massively, but it is definitely sloped. Then the front glacis and the nose are all sloped as well. The main difference between the sloping of the armor on the front of a Tiger compared to say aT-34 or Sherman was that its not one continuous piece of sloped armor but something like 4 pieces; 2 for the nose, one for the glacis, then another at the front.
@@steve1315 I haven't been there yet. It's a bloody long drive from where I am. I plan on flying over for a holiday soon. I have been to Cairns when I was young but didn't know it was there. This was a long time ago before the internet.
Id loved to seen the tiger 2 with the same quality steel as the tiger 1 series were made from by the time the tiger 2 came along the steel composition was drastically lesser quality but it still held up great but wasn't as hard as the tiger one
If the game War Thunder is to be believed, it has similar penetration to the long 75mm on the Panther, which is more than the Tuger 1 88 but less than the Tiger 2 88
to add to one misconception on tigers and its relatives: yes, the cost of one of this beast is about 3 to 4 times that of a Stug3, But no, it is not that Germany would be able to build about 4.5K more Stug when not building 1.3k Tigers. In addition it is not for sure the more Stug would have been able to deliver the same impact on battlefield as a Stug is quite limited in tactical use. I advise to have a look on German Panzer Museum videos on Tigers too, for more insight to the development and production of the Tigers. This will give a background to better understand some of the decisions made that lead to some of the best ever known fighting machines in the world. One more remark on the famous 8.8/L71. the gun was designed not because Krupp didn't "like" a Rheinemetall gun. the main reason is - as stated by Porsche too - you can't easily fit a gun for field use with close to no limitations to space needed too operate into a tank with very confined space. recoil needs to be shorter and buffer other dimensions. So Krupp build the gun to the specs of the Rheinmetall Flak but with dimensions fitting into a tank - even ammunition dimensional on case are touched to be fit for use in confined spaces inside a tank.
What are the OPERATIONAL limitations, especially volume and peculiarity of logistics and ability to reliably make the movements and reassignments in the face of a FLUID defense?! This is the Deep Financials, like Deep Time in geological subjects. Stug3 and other turreted medium tanks were able to move, use the logistics of existing units, and redeploy without huge maintenance stand downs before and after. These tanks were BADLY THOUGHT OUT 'breaching' tanks finally available only in a time when that kind of tank had little utility in the evolving battlefield, as opposed to the lesser tanks. The only place these huge tanks may have been useful was in a battle like Kursk, AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THERE! Oh, and taking Porsche's self-serving blather as 'truth' is a very dangerous logical leap. These were dinosaurs when they finally reached the front, and a far more OPERATIONALLY USEFUL vehicle could have been developed in the same time. They were not best every fighting vehicles they were, as you note the best ever KNOWN, as in propaganda effects, stand alone fighting vehicle on SOME battlefields. They are fetish items, not war-winning, as was CLEARLY shown by the Russians flying their flag over Berlin.
@@rbaxter286 Actually the Tigers were very effective in the main and justified their production. Low crew turnover due to the high survivability and the Tiger units knocked out circa 10,000 enemy tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers for less than 1,000 Tigers knocked out. A better than a 10:1 knock out ratio. The Tiger's propaganda value and the confidence it instilled, both in the tankers and the ground troops, was worth it alone. Building 4 times more Stugs is pointless if you don't have the extra crews and all the other supporting personnel and their vehicles and resources to go with it. 1x Tiger = 5 crewmen and 92 rounds of ammo. 4 x Stug = 16 crewmen and 216 rounds of ammo.
@@rbaxter286 Germany built between 55000 and 60000 Tanks and SPGs during the war, of which just 1500 were Tigers. The Brits built more or less the same amount of Tanks and SPGs and soviets a bit over 100.000. 1500 Tiger are just 2,5% of germanies entire Tank production. All Tigers were built at Henschel, Germanys most important locomotive plant. The factory used most of its space for the production of locomotivs, which were far more important for the war effort than any heavy tank. A much smaller area was used for tank production. If this small factory area would have beed dedicated to produce Stugs or Panzer IV the output would not had been significanlty higher, simply by lacking space and tooling. The Tiger was a special system only ordered in limited numbers and organized in its own independent battalions. It was never planed to be part of the regular units and hence did not interfear with their logistics. Its burden on the german war effort is greatly outweighted by their effectivness. Tank develpoment was a primitiv buisness and consumed much less resoucres and money than other branches like aircraft or submarines. Tank research and production was in the lower single digets percentage wise compared to the overall military expenditures. Aicrafts, submarines, radar ....all that high tech stuff consumed much more resoucres than tanks....stuff the soviets had to deal with to much lesser degree, simply because they did not fight a high tech high altitude airwar or a submarine war in the atlantic. The Bomber which delivered the A-bomb was much more expensive during development (3 Billion), than the entire Manhatten Project (1.9 Billion). A B 17 Bomber costs 4 times as much, compared to a Tiger tank. Germany built 1500 Tigers the US built 12.500 B 17s. Kursk showed that germany did not had the losgistics and resources to support the tanks it already had. The heavy tank battalions had a happy time at Kursk and usally reached their objective, while their independet logistics could keep them fighting. The regular tank arm was running out of fuel, ammo and replacements or in some cases they ran out of supporting infantry. With the oil resources and the man power shortage germany had to deal with, they could only maintain a fleed of around 6000 tanks at the same time, of which 3500 were fighting at Kursk of which just 211 were Tigers. Russia despite having around 25000 tanks in their arsenal, never operated more than 10.000 at any given moment in frontline service. Even in late 1944 Germany had 6500 Tanks and Spgs in their arsenal, which showed that they could keep up with the increasing losses. Asking for more Tanks was just not possible. Germany produced 3800 Panthers and 2800 Panzer IV in 1944 (6600 Medium tanks). The US built 12500 Shermans across all variants in 1944 and the soviets 4000 T34/76 and 10.000 T34/85 (14000 medium tanks). Both, the soviets and the US had much more natural resources and a bigger man power pool. Germany was already overperforming, asking for more is just plain stupid. Germany including austria had only one third of the US population and was roughly the size of texas and already had to guard most of Europe with its manpower. Tigers did not accelerate the downfall of the third reich. Their positive or a negative influence is grealty overhyped by the media, which began with german propaganda in the 1940s.
@@rbaxter286 The German army leadership understood tank warfare in WW2 wasn't just about how many tank/tank destroyer hull they could produced, it was about combined arms. One good example about this is Battle of Arracourt, some might hear from many Panther-bashing argument. But let's take a new perspective: In the battle, German Panther tanks suffered huge losses while the US tanks, mostly Sherman, only had minor losses. The US tank forces weren't anything special, they know what they are doing but they weren't 101st Airborne or "elite" either, so the focus was on the German panzer forces, namely a sole Panzer Brigade: Noted it wasn't the typical Panzer Division, where it had reduced supporting elements. The Brigade had one less PzGren regiment (50% less infantry), a complete absence of artillery regiment, and only one-third strength of Recon and Anti-Air (company-sized instead of battalion-sized). HOWEVER, it had the same amount of Panzers (40x panthers and 40x pzIV ) as a proper Panzer Division, meaning the infantries and support weapons had to perform 200-300% of the workload to cover all the Panzers. - Obviously they couldn't and many high-end Panthers got lost in ambushes and well-prepared defense. One thing worthy of mentioning was many Panther tanks DID arrive on the battlefield (and got destroyed) despite its reliability history What did this battle shows? The quantity of armored vehicles required the corresponding quantity of supportive elements to actually make the numbers "count", without adequate support the quantity of tanks simply became diminishing returns of effectiveness, eventually become dead weights and waste of resources. Even an advanced tank like Panther could not escape such fate, not to mention "cheaper" vehicles like StuG or Panzer IV. Substituting the 40+Panther with 80+ StuG and the outcome would be just as horrible for the Germans. So when comparing the cost of Tigers and cheaper tanks like Panzer IV or StuG, let's look it in another way: The Germans could build one Tiger tank and have to train 1 set of crews, 1-2 squad of panzergrenadiers, etc OR 3 Panzer IV or StuG, and have to train 3 set of crews, 3-6 squad of infantry and so on. There were only so many training tanks or infantry halftracks in Germany. To build even more and suddenly the "cheaper tanks" option doesn't look much cheaper.
@@sthrich635 And additionally, the two Panzer Brigades at Arracourt didnt have the proper time to train on their Panthers. Panzer Brigade 111 didn't receive it's Panthers until the 5th to 7th September and the crews had less than 2 weeks to learn how to use them before going into battle. American air power and artillery was also a significant factor. It wasn't just tank v tank as a lot of people tend to believe today. And yes, tanks cannot function in a vacuum. They need all the supporting elements. Not only panzergrenadiers and their vehicles, but also recon, engineers, anti aircraft, field kitchen, medical etc sub units. Less than 20% of the personnel in a panzer division was made up of the actual 'panzer regiment' (including fuel and ammo personnel and trucks). The other 80% was the supporting personnel. So building extra Stugs etc is no good unless you also have the extra support and sully personnel and vehicles.
Very well Researched! Consulting Otto Carius Book is also a nice Flavour. He was critisized for beeing a Hitler Follower, but lets be honest, no Soldier brings really good Results in an All-out-War, without beeing convinced about his Work. So i trust his Reports, he was all about very modest and humbled about his Experiences.
@@drstrangelove4998, nothing wrong with hybrids, if they are done correctly. Most hybrids vehicles today are not. They are put together almost exclusively with fuel efficiency, instead of trying to balance that with power. I refuse to buy a plug-in only EV, but I would buy a hybrid, if it were done correctly.
Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed reliving some of our 'vintage' Tiger family Tank Chats. Which member of the family is your favourite. Let us know your thoughts in the comments below
I'm sure you've been asked this before and maybe it has happened (?), but why hasn't Tiger 131 and the Musée des Blindés's Tiger 2 been brought together? Surely seeing these two survivors in motion in the same space would be a truly amazing sight.
I was always under the belief that thr "Porsche" turret was called that, not because it was designed by Porsche, but because those 50 or so turrets were originally meant to go on the Porsche version , that never was built, so the Germans put them on the Henshel hulls. That was why they got called Porsche turrets, and the later versions got the "production" nomenclature. Just my $.02, it's my belief that was how they got the name. I like history, you can always learn something new if you actually take the time to learn.
As far as the legendary Tiger I, I see many comments in various places, mainly from the same author, claiming that the tank was easliy immobilized, because non penetrating shots were likely to destroy the Tiger's "fragile electrical system..." Has anyone else heard this? I can't find any evidence for such a thing.
Seeing how many times Ferdinand Porsche tried to flog a petrol-electric drive system is kind of ridiculous. At some point you would think he would get the message that it's not really a suitable system for a tank.
In regards to the Ferdinand, placing the suspension outside of the hull does not give "a slight" increase in space inside it. If we look at the Tigers or Panther suspension, a lot of room is taken up by the torsion bars inside of the hull. With that said, Porsche's solution was far from ideal. It places the suspension under the hull, thus making it more vulnerable. In addiction, the suspension kinematics of such system are inferior to the traditional torsion bar layout. This appears to be a theme with Ferdinand Porsche. For every great idea that he develops, there are ten others which are far from praiseworthy. Petrol/diesel-electric systems worked well on trains and trams because the weight and volume of the power unit was much less of an issue. Placing it into a tank, where weight and volume are very much restricted, is not the route to take. Some blame the engine, some blame the electric side of the power unit, others blame its complexity. The hard truth is that using a conventional engine and transmission was the best path to take. Eventually, the reason for its demise was attributed to lack of copper, but I think that was simply Hitler's and/or Speer's smooth way of getting rid of Porsche's design without hurting too many feelings.
Tiger I Ace Otto Carius vehemently hated the Jagdtiger, because it was too slow, didn't have a turret, and problems with the suspension and I would include petrol (gas) because in 1945, petrol was getting more and more scarce and that all the refineries that produced synthetic fuel were either destroyed or captured by the Allied and the Soviet armies.
Will The Tank Museum be putting out a discussion and analysis of the OPERATIONAL RESULTS of the use of these beasts, including the actual utility of them in the actual battlefield that came to exist, instead of the tunnel vision battlefield envisioned by Hitler and his fawning waffenamt lackeys? If plans never survive first contact, then these TANK DESIGNS never survived first contact with a strategic situation that Hitler and his short-sighted/Operationally Fixated generals were utterly unable to even partially forecast ..., especially when blinded by the fact they ALL began to believe their own LIES AND PROPAGANDA, like "Home by Christmas" for Barbarossa. Looking for a video edition of Doyle & Jentz's Tiger I & II Combat Tactics with further analysis of the actual overall operational success.
Because if it didn't overheat it held every advantage over a geared mechanical tranny. Next to no maintenance, nearly unlimited gear ratio aswell as smoother/easier operation. Outside of overheating issues, far too cramped engine bay making any work nearly impossible (he planned on different engine than what was actually used) the other massive drawback was using FAR to much Copper which was an extremely important material they needed almost everywhere else and far more important than a tank transmission system when not a necessity
Because an electric motor has much more torque than an internal combustion engine, so it's better suited to moving the great weight of this type of vehicle.
They really should stop at project 3001, because any country out there should only create vehicles that their logistics can actually support. USA can put jet engines in their tanks because their private companies have better logistics than entire countries out there (like Amazon). South America seems to mostly operate medium tonnage tanks 30-40t due to topography, logistics and budget. South Africa has ridiculous distances, but terrain is easily traversed with wheeled vehicles, so their tanks and artillery are 8x8 wheeled armored vehicles with turrets. Germany back then would be better off producing more cargo trucks to support what they already had.
@@KRAMPUS_G60_16VHe's literally standing in front of all the vehicles he's talking about. He can't very well do that with a Sturmtiger because Bovington doesn't have one.
Good to get the big "CATS" altogether, ok, an Elephant isn't a cat. Nice video. The guy at 37.28 with his hands in his pockets........24 hours ROP's in my day. Is this what the Military has now come down to.....wandering around with hands in pockets? Especially as he knew he was going to be filmed. 48 hours ROP's. Many have had worse. Iwould like to add that at the end of the King Tiger episode, David states prices and compares the cost of 1 King Tiger to 9 Sherman Tanks. Thats ok....Except that the Germans never had Sherman Tanks so is that comparison fair? Maybe to compare it to the cost of Panzer 3 or 4 or even assault guns/tank killers may have been more realistic?
Mighty steel can tigers with a puny engines. 47:54 - why didn’t Germans use aircraft Daimler engines? They used it in E boats - politics. 1944 Nazi engineers: we have lots of time build, test and modify Diesel-electric. While army cries we need stug tanks now.
4:58 "Amazingly powerful 88mm gun"...Did the Germans not even think about World of Tanks in the future? 122mm is easily larger and just, well, better...
@@bengtwahlstedt1021 Oh STFU. Its called feedback. Telling them need to come up with something new. Anyway what did you learn about the tiger series that you didn`t already know?
@@glennr2358 Too late darling. I watched them back when they were originally released. You, and everyone else on youtube, can do that too. That makes this video pointless filler. Nothing wrong with not having new content to put up EVERY week, but this repeat isn't needed.
@@Hanz13171 Do you have a reading comprehension issue? I never said anyone was forced to watch this. I refer you to my previous reply as to why repeated videos like this are unnecessary.
If you enjoy their content, videos like this help The Tank Museum's channel grow. It also compiles separate videos into a single one for easier viewing.
Here is my uneducated comment for the day.Whatever anyone says bad or good. Ww2 german tanks still have the most menacing look and are great to model with.
ALL of their war machines, weapons, uniforms, vehicles etc. ALL look nasty.
I love your comment and your right
While not glorifying the horrors of the war , but yes I agree.
thats German mentality towards war....
Just as no AA-Missile will ever sound as cool as a Gepard or C-RAM
Nice to see these Chats together as vehicle variant overview. I feel lucky to have visited when the Tiger Collection was still on display.
David Willey is fantastic. Could anybody be more perfect for the job?
The Tiger 1 is my favourite out of the series. That fact that it's all right angles on the bow makes it even look more menacing. For Allied Tank commanders seeing rounds bounce off that flat bow would of been terrifying! 👍🐯😎🇦🇺 Thanks David for the chat and information. I just got the Ferdinand in WOT-B.
If you look closely at the Tiger I you'll see that it's not all right angles The front plate were the driver's vision block and the bow machinegun are, despite popular belief, it not actually set a vertical, it's actually sloped, not massively, but it is definitely sloped. Then the front glacis and the nose are all sloped as well. The main difference between the sloping of the armor on the front of a Tiger compared to say aT-34 or Sherman was that its not one continuous piece of sloped armor but something like 4 pieces; 2 for the nose, one for the glacis, then another at the front.
Thanks for the tiger family reunion
I see what you did there!!
Went to see the Tiger collection,most impressive👍👍.
I am very jealous! 👍😁🇦🇺
@@Spartan902 It was good ,you got the Australian Armour Museum in Cairns . Very good watching their video's ,wasn't there when I was in Oz 😭😭.
@@steve1315 I haven't been there yet. It's a bloody long drive from where I am. I plan on flying over for a holiday soon. I have been to Cairns when I was young but didn't know it was there. This was a long time ago before the internet.
Great compilation, thank you!
Id loved to seen the tiger 2 with the same quality steel as the tiger 1 series were made from by the time the tiger 2 came along the steel composition was drastically lesser quality but it still held up great but wasn't as hard as the tiger one
Tiger was an extension of the PzII/III/IV family, thus the boxy shape and why 'everything on the field of battle was a Tiger.'
Yes. Big tiger. Little tiger. Medium tiger. Lol
That was very interesting. Thank you!
I once heard that the British 17 pounder anti tank gun as fitted to the Firefly was capable of penetrating as much armour as the 88.
If the game War Thunder is to be believed, it has similar penetration to the long 75mm on the Panther, which is more than the Tuger 1 88 but less than the Tiger 2 88
to add to one misconception on tigers and its relatives: yes, the cost of one of this beast is about 3 to 4 times that of a Stug3, But no, it is not that Germany would be able to build about 4.5K more Stug when not building 1.3k Tigers. In addition it is not for sure the more Stug would have been able to deliver the same impact on battlefield as a Stug is quite limited in tactical use.
I advise to have a look on German Panzer Museum videos on Tigers too, for more insight to the development and production of the Tigers.
This will give a background to better understand some of the decisions made that lead to some of the best ever known fighting machines in the world.
One more remark on the famous 8.8/L71. the gun was designed not because Krupp didn't "like" a Rheinemetall gun. the main reason is - as stated by Porsche too - you can't easily fit a gun for field use with close to no limitations to space needed too operate into a tank with very confined space. recoil needs to be shorter and buffer other dimensions. So Krupp build the gun to the specs of the Rheinmetall Flak but with dimensions fitting into a tank - even ammunition dimensional on case are touched to be fit for use in confined spaces inside a tank.
What are the OPERATIONAL limitations, especially volume and peculiarity of logistics and ability to reliably make the movements and reassignments in the face of a FLUID defense?! This is the Deep Financials, like Deep Time in geological subjects.
Stug3 and other turreted medium tanks were able to move, use the logistics of existing units, and redeploy without huge maintenance stand downs before and after.
These tanks were BADLY THOUGHT OUT 'breaching' tanks finally available only in a time when that kind of tank had little utility in the evolving battlefield, as opposed to the lesser tanks.
The only place these huge tanks may have been useful was in a battle like Kursk, AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THERE!
Oh, and taking Porsche's self-serving blather as 'truth' is a very dangerous logical leap.
These were dinosaurs when they finally reached the front, and a far more OPERATIONALLY USEFUL vehicle could have been developed in the same time. They were not best every fighting vehicles they were, as you note the best ever KNOWN, as in propaganda effects, stand alone fighting vehicle on SOME battlefields. They are fetish items, not war-winning, as was CLEARLY shown by the Russians flying their flag over Berlin.
@@rbaxter286 Actually the Tigers were very effective in the main and justified their production. Low crew turnover due to the high survivability and the Tiger units knocked out circa 10,000 enemy tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers for less than 1,000 Tigers knocked out. A better than a 10:1 knock out ratio.
The Tiger's propaganda value and the confidence it instilled, both in the tankers and the ground troops, was worth it alone.
Building 4 times more Stugs is pointless if you don't have the extra crews and all the other supporting personnel and their vehicles and resources to go with it.
1x Tiger = 5 crewmen and 92 rounds of ammo.
4 x Stug = 16 crewmen and 216 rounds of ammo.
@@rbaxter286
Germany built between 55000 and 60000 Tanks and SPGs during the war, of which just 1500 were Tigers. The Brits built more or less the same amount of Tanks and SPGs and soviets a bit over 100.000. 1500 Tiger are just 2,5% of germanies entire Tank production. All Tigers were built at Henschel, Germanys most important locomotive plant. The factory used most of its space for the production of locomotivs, which were far more important for the war effort than any heavy tank. A much smaller area was used for tank production. If this small factory area would have beed dedicated to produce Stugs or Panzer IV the output would not had been significanlty higher, simply by lacking space and tooling.
The Tiger was a special system only ordered in limited numbers and organized in its own independent battalions. It was never planed to be part of the regular units and hence did not interfear with their logistics.
Its burden on the german war effort is greatly outweighted by their effectivness. Tank develpoment was a primitiv buisness and consumed much less resoucres and money than other branches like aircraft or submarines. Tank research and production was in the lower single digets percentage wise compared to the overall military expenditures. Aicrafts, submarines, radar ....all that high tech stuff consumed much more resoucres than tanks....stuff the soviets had to deal with to much lesser degree, simply because they did not fight a high tech high altitude airwar or a submarine war in the atlantic. The Bomber which delivered the A-bomb was much more expensive during development (3 Billion), than the entire Manhatten Project (1.9 Billion). A B 17 Bomber costs 4 times as much, compared to a Tiger tank. Germany built 1500 Tigers the US built 12.500 B 17s.
Kursk showed that germany did not had the losgistics and resources to support the tanks it already had. The heavy tank battalions had a happy time at Kursk and usally reached their objective, while their independet logistics could keep them fighting. The regular tank arm was running out of fuel, ammo and replacements or in some cases they ran out of supporting infantry. With the oil resources and the man power shortage germany had to deal with, they could only maintain a fleed of around 6000 tanks at the same time, of which 3500 were fighting at Kursk of which just 211 were Tigers.
Russia despite having around 25000 tanks in their arsenal, never operated more than 10.000 at any given moment in frontline service. Even in late 1944 Germany had 6500 Tanks and Spgs in their arsenal, which showed that they could keep up with the increasing losses. Asking for more Tanks was just not possible. Germany produced 3800 Panthers and 2800 Panzer IV in 1944 (6600 Medium tanks). The US built 12500 Shermans across all variants in 1944 and the soviets 4000 T34/76 and 10.000 T34/85 (14000 medium tanks).
Both, the soviets and the US had much more natural resources and a bigger man power pool. Germany was already overperforming, asking for more is just plain stupid. Germany including austria had only one third of the US population and was roughly the size of texas and already had to guard most of Europe with its manpower. Tigers did not accelerate the downfall of the third reich. Their positive or a negative influence is grealty overhyped by the media, which began with german propaganda in the 1940s.
@@rbaxter286 The German army leadership understood tank warfare in WW2 wasn't just about how many tank/tank destroyer hull they could produced, it was about combined arms.
One good example about this is Battle of Arracourt, some might hear from many Panther-bashing argument. But let's take a new perspective: In the battle, German Panther tanks suffered huge losses while the US tanks, mostly Sherman, only had minor losses. The US tank forces weren't anything special, they know what they are doing but they weren't 101st Airborne or "elite" either, so the focus was on the German panzer forces, namely a sole Panzer Brigade: Noted it wasn't the typical Panzer Division, where it had reduced supporting elements. The Brigade had one less PzGren regiment (50% less infantry), a complete absence of artillery regiment, and only one-third strength of Recon and Anti-Air (company-sized instead of battalion-sized). HOWEVER, it had the same amount of Panzers (40x panthers and 40x pzIV ) as a proper Panzer Division, meaning the infantries and support weapons had to perform 200-300% of the workload to cover all the Panzers. - Obviously they couldn't and many high-end Panthers got lost in ambushes and well-prepared defense. One thing worthy of mentioning was many Panther tanks DID arrive on the battlefield (and got destroyed) despite its reliability history
What did this battle shows? The quantity of armored vehicles required the corresponding quantity of supportive elements to actually make the numbers "count", without adequate support the quantity of tanks simply became diminishing returns of effectiveness, eventually become dead weights and waste of resources. Even an advanced tank like Panther could not escape such fate, not to mention "cheaper" vehicles like StuG or Panzer IV. Substituting the 40+Panther with 80+ StuG and the outcome would be just as horrible for the Germans.
So when comparing the cost of Tigers and cheaper tanks like Panzer IV or StuG, let's look it in another way:
The Germans could build one Tiger tank and have to train 1 set of crews, 1-2 squad of panzergrenadiers, etc
OR
3 Panzer IV or StuG, and have to train 3 set of crews, 3-6 squad of infantry and so on.
There were only so many training tanks or infantry halftracks in Germany. To build even more and suddenly the "cheaper tanks" option doesn't look much cheaper.
@@sthrich635 And additionally, the two Panzer Brigades at Arracourt didnt have the proper time to train on their Panthers. Panzer Brigade 111 didn't receive it's Panthers until the 5th to 7th September and the crews had less than 2 weeks to learn how to use them before going into battle.
American air power and artillery was also a significant factor. It wasn't just tank v tank as a lot of people tend to believe today.
And yes, tanks cannot function in a vacuum. They need all the supporting elements. Not only panzergrenadiers and their vehicles, but also recon, engineers, anti aircraft, field kitchen, medical etc sub units.
Less than 20% of the personnel in a panzer division was made up of the actual 'panzer regiment' (including fuel and ammo personnel and trucks). The other 80% was the supporting personnel. So building extra Stugs etc is no good unless you also have the extra support and sully personnel and vehicles.
Excellent video! So much information...
Nice to be reminded of these classic tank chats, the channel seems to have gone off the boil in recent months.
Ahh, I was also hoping for a Sturm tiger😢
Very well Researched! Consulting Otto Carius Book is also a nice Flavour. He was critisized for beeing a Hitler Follower, but lets be honest, no Soldier brings really good Results in an All-out-War, without beeing convinced about his Work. So i trust his Reports, he was all about very modest and humbled about his Experiences.
Otto Carius was asked whilst visiting the UK, did his Tiger have any issues? He answered ‘…I can’t think of any!’
Ha! The Ferdinand is a Hybrid!
@@drstrangelove4998, nothing wrong with hybrids, if they are done correctly. Most hybrids vehicles today are not. They are put together almost exclusively with fuel efficiency, instead of trying to balance that with power. I refuse to buy a plug-in only EV, but I would buy a hybrid, if it were done correctly.
Great show
Love this channel ❤❤❤
Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed reliving some of our 'vintage' Tiger family Tank Chats. Which member of the family is your favourite. Let us know your thoughts in the comments below
Sturmtiger??
Actually All of them!! but if I have to choose: KingTiger...
King tiger😊😊😊
Kinda partial to the Tiger 1 but they all interest me. I'm researching all of them...
Konigstiger. Yes, it might be wildly impractical and hugely expensive but it looks the business doesn't it?
Tank you very much! 😎🤘
Still love that decepticon symbol on a serving armoured vehicle at 37.20!
Interesting!
Superb detailed information 👌
I'm sure you've been asked this before and maybe it has happened (?), but why hasn't Tiger 131 and the Musée des Blindés's Tiger 2 been brought together? Surely seeing these two survivors in motion in the same space would be a truly amazing sight.
Imagine that tiger day lol
Maybe worried if they lend one out they won't get it back.
Wir werden Sieger, durch unsere Tiger ✌
(that's what we say in Germany)
Where’s lt. Grüber’s little tank? Allo Allo?
Ah, I see you are a person of good taste 😊 I loved that little vehicle (tho it had wheels so more of an armored car)
Gruber was very fond of his little tank 😊
I like tanks 🙃
I'm living in the city where krupps hq was😲
Essen!
Yes@@papaaaaaaa2625
I live in a city that didn't exist during WW2
@@badcornflakes6374 rip😭
I was always under the belief that thr "Porsche" turret was called that, not because it was designed by Porsche, but because those 50 or so turrets were originally meant to go on the Porsche version , that never was built, so the Germans put them on the Henshel hulls. That was why they got called Porsche turrets, and the later versions got the "production" nomenclature. Just my $.02, it's my belief that was how they got the name. I like history, you can always learn something new if you actually take the time to learn.
10:41 translated means hornet it's also know as the Nashorn,
As far as the legendary Tiger I, I see many comments in various places, mainly from the same author, claiming that the tank was easliy immobilized, because non penetrating shots were likely to destroy the Tiger's "fragile electrical system..." Has anyone else heard this? I can't find any evidence for such a thing.
Seeing how many times Ferdinand Porsche tried to flog a petrol-electric drive system is kind of ridiculous. At some point you would think he would get the message that it's not really a suitable system for a tank.
I love tiger tanks but my favourite is the tiger one.
What’s the best way to shoot videos in a similar style to this one?
Is there plans to get the King Tiger in working order and mobile?
There one in the French museum.
does the museum have all the skirt or are they missing?
The museum has all of this Tiger's original skirting.
You need to read the latest research, the Tiger actually had a good power to weight ratio, one Tiger could tow another Tiger. Keep up please 😂
Worlds greatest super tank! :)
Question: can people get permission to get inside the tanks or is it not needed or is it not allowed with few exceptions?
You love them or hate them, they're pretty good looking
39:45 Louis Vuitton
In regards to the Ferdinand, placing the suspension outside of the hull does not give "a slight" increase in space inside it. If we look at the Tigers or Panther suspension, a lot of room is taken up by the torsion bars inside of the hull.
With that said, Porsche's solution was far from ideal. It places the suspension under the hull, thus making it more vulnerable. In addiction, the suspension kinematics of such system are inferior to the traditional torsion bar layout.
This appears to be a theme with Ferdinand Porsche. For every great idea that he develops, there are ten others which are far from praiseworthy.
Petrol/diesel-electric systems worked well on trains and trams because the weight and volume of the power unit was much less of an issue. Placing it into a tank, where weight and volume are very much restricted, is not the route to take. Some blame the engine, some blame the electric side of the power unit, others blame its complexity. The hard truth is that using a conventional engine and transmission was the best path to take.
Eventually, the reason for its demise was attributed to lack of copper, but I think that was simply Hitler's and/or Speer's smooth way of getting rid of Porsche's design without hurting too many feelings.
Tiger I Ace Otto Carius vehemently hated the Jagdtiger, because it was too slow, didn't have a turret, and problems with the suspension and I would include petrol (gas) because in 1945, petrol was getting more and more scarce and that all the refineries that produced synthetic fuel were either destroyed or captured by the Allied and the Soviet armies.
Will The Tank Museum be putting out a discussion and analysis of the OPERATIONAL RESULTS of the use of these beasts, including the actual utility of them in the actual battlefield that came to exist, instead of the tunnel vision battlefield envisioned by Hitler and his fawning waffenamt lackeys?
If plans never survive first contact, then these TANK DESIGNS never survived first contact with a strategic situation that Hitler and his short-sighted/Operationally Fixated generals were utterly unable to even partially forecast ..., especially when blinded by the fact they ALL began to believe their own LIES AND PROPAGANDA, like "Home by Christmas" for Barbarossa.
Looking for a video edition of Doyle & Jentz's Tiger I & II Combat Tactics with further analysis of the actual overall operational success.
Bengal Tiger.
Why the Didn't Earn It g
uy at the start?
Tiger
Why in the HELL did he even bother with petrol electric drive?!! 🤪
Because if it didn't overheat it held every advantage over a geared mechanical tranny. Next to no maintenance, nearly unlimited gear ratio aswell as smoother/easier operation.
Outside of overheating issues, far too cramped engine bay making any work nearly impossible (he planned on different engine than what was actually used) the other massive drawback was using FAR to much Copper which was an extremely important material they needed almost everywhere else and far more important than a tank transmission system when not a necessity
They were building hybrid Porsches to save the planet, you climate denier.
@@sirmoke9646😂🤣😂🤣👍
@sirmoke9646 Do you REALLY think they were concerned about climate change at the time?...🙄
Because an electric motor has much more torque than an internal combustion engine, so it's better suited to moving the great weight of this type of vehicle.
Why did the jagtiger stop working?
imagine trying to maintain a 70+ ton tank that has heavily underpowered pretty much everything for like 80 years
Yeah, but the other tigers?
@idontknowwhattonamemyself8022 is there a vid discussing the about the jagtiger?
@@idontknowwhattonamemyself8022 tiger 131
But..... when they broke down they were as useful as a garden shed.
It almost as if the Germans forgot there tank doctrine after the panzer 4
They didn't. They had the Panther, which was better than the Panzer IV. Plus the Jagdpanzer IV, Hetzer etc.
We got em all......hahaha
And E100?
that was a prototype
:)
Cool tanks cool designs ! Creating a fake war to use them in is not cool !
wasn't a tiger 2 a thing? not that it would stand a chance against the tonk or bob semple tank
Por-sha
thats how its pronounced
They really should stop at project 3001, because any country out there should only create vehicles that their logistics can actually support. USA can put jet engines in their tanks because their private companies have better logistics than entire countries out there (like Amazon). South America seems to mostly operate medium tonnage tanks 30-40t due to topography, logistics and budget. South Africa has ridiculous distances, but terrain is easily traversed with wheeled vehicles, so their tanks and artillery are 8x8 wheeled armored vehicles with turrets. Germany back then would be better off producing more cargo trucks to support what they already had.
DEI intro. Daft.
Cut out the buzzwords and just say you are racist, it’s pretty obvious.
They angled the back side of the King Tiger after watching Fury.
THE DESIGN OF PANTHER TANK IS MUCH BETTER
Sturmtiger: Understandable Have a great day 🗿
Recycling stuff, but where the hell is Sturmtiger??
Well they only have a rocket barrel of one. The only two remaining are in Germany and Russia.
@@Jonas-jq9qo Title says "Tiger tank family", doesen't mention only in Bovington.
@@KRAMPUS_G60_16VHe's literally standing in front of all the vehicles he's talking about. He can't very well do that with a Sturmtiger because Bovington doesn't have one.
@@lyndoncmp5751 What does the title say?
Funny how this channel has turned into an automotive review Channel, that being said things change and im not necessarily complaining
Good to get the big "CATS" altogether, ok, an Elephant isn't a cat. Nice video. The guy at 37.28 with his hands in his pockets........24 hours ROP's in my day. Is this what the Military has now come down to.....wandering around with hands in pockets? Especially as he knew he was going to be filmed. 48 hours ROP's. Many have had worse. Iwould like to add that at the end of the King Tiger episode, David states prices and compares the cost of 1 King Tiger to 9 Sherman Tanks. Thats ok....Except that the Germans never had Sherman Tanks so is that comparison fair? Maybe to compare it to the cost of Panzer 3 or 4 or even assault guns/tank killers may have been more realistic?
Mighty steel can tigers with a puny engines.
47:54 - why didn’t Germans use aircraft Daimler engines? They used it in E boats - politics.
1944 Nazi engineers: we have lots of time build, test and modify Diesel-electric. While army cries we need stug tanks now.
4:58 "Amazingly powerful 88mm gun"...Did the Germans not even think about World of Tanks in the future? 122mm is easily larger and just, well, better...
Nope. The 88mm L/71 had superior AP and accuracy, and didnt use slow firing 2 part ammunition.
Done watching yall. 60 second mandatory add plus another to skip...wtf
TH-cam decides that
I didnt even get ads
Very interesting but please pronounce Porsche correctly
Unresl
Sorry, German tanks getting tedious now . Same tiger, tiger.
DON'T LOOK AT THE VIDEO THEN !!!!
@@bengtwahlstedt1021 Oh STFU. Its called feedback. Telling them need to come up with something new. Anyway what did you learn about the tiger series that you didn`t already know?
Comments are a way to give creators feedback.... Don't read comments, if you are offended.... Same principle smart guy
Personally I'm bored with all the Sherman fan boyism now.
@@lyndoncmp5751 AAHHHG now you`ve done it!! ha ha. You will have the FURY boys hissing an spitting at you.! Good man.
Yes, the Tiger tank family sucked in real life. Overengineered, unreliable and heavy af.
Why the black guy?
Muh DEI
Why the weird question?
@@VikingTeddy Try Googling his username and you'll find out. I'll leave it at that.
..... couldn't find a pink or green one ...... 😛
🤨
This isn't TV, we don't need reruns or repeats.
Don’t watch then.
@@glennr2358 Too late darling. I watched them back when they were originally released. You, and everyone else on youtube, can do that too. That makes this video pointless filler. Nothing wrong with not having new content to put up EVERY week, but this repeat isn't needed.
@@jp18449your not being forced to watch if u don't like it then just leave its simple really or rewatch there old videos
@@Hanz13171 Do you have a reading comprehension issue? I never said anyone was forced to watch this. I refer you to my previous reply as to why repeated videos like this are unnecessary.
If you enjoy their content, videos like this help The Tank Museum's channel grow. It also compiles separate videos into a single one for easier viewing.
The only reason why german tanks failed was because of natural resources, if they had the material they would have won,plus fuel
There was no way they would have had resources and honestly the combined allied power was still too great.