Hi LHT ! We've discussed this a few times by now: when a Tiger I got stuck, ANY tank got stuck. Tiger I had a lower ground pressure than Pz III/IV, T-34 and Sherman. There's no record of a Tiger getting stuck due to freezing snow or mud. The engine was in fact powerful enough to deal with these issues that weren't ... At Kursk, only 90 Tigers (on paper) were involved. Each of the three W-SS divisions had an organic company that time and there was one army sPz.Abt. (503 ?). The reliability issues due to some understrength parts were very well known in Germany and they partly compensated with the addition of a complete workshop company which usually served a whole tank regiment. By doctrine, Tiger was to be used in offensive operations until a breakthrough was achieved. Then the medium tanks were to take over. This would have allowed Tiger units plenty of time for refit and repair until the next mission, practically neglecting any reliability issues. Major road marches were not intended ! I see some issues with that doctrine, but that's how it was. Reality however was that Tiger units found themselves on the defense and were spread out as local fire brigades. This caused havoc for maintenance. You know what happens to a Sherman (which is my top tank for reliability) if it isn't maintained properly ? It will eventually break down ! Tiger was designed with a 1940/41 combat situation in mind and found itself in 1943. Not the tank's fault. You should read more combat records to see "the bigger picture". Yes, some Tigers broke down due to simple/stupid mechanical failure, but most Tigers came to the workshops due to BATTLE DAMAGE which would have damaged ANY tank if not killed it. Not to mention that they brought back their crews. I like to mention that one Tiger of sPz.Abt. 509 at Shitomir/Ukraine which received 128 hits - everything from AT rifles to 7,62cm AT guns - and returned to camp on its own power, the crew a bit shaken but alive ! What I also repeat as a mantra by now: 1400 Tigers killed roughly 9000 enemy tanks. Thus I give a fart on reliability, man-hours, costs and fuel consumption. The thing worked damned well even outside the very specific doctrine for which it was originally designed. I say it was a /very) good tank, but as with any tank of the time not without flaws.
On thing. Up to 1941, the most expensive series produced land vehicle was the Steam Shovels which dug out the Panama Canel. SDKFZ 181 became most expensive, costing equivalent to one million US Dollars each in 1941. Since then, Main Battle Tanks have maintained that record.
1. Sherman tank crewmen's reaction when a Tiger saw them first, "Oh, shit!" 2. Sherman tank crewmen's reaction when they saw a Tiger first, "Oh, shit!"
Years ago, in a documentary of the History Channel, WWII war veterans of both sides were asked which tank they considered the best protective; all answered "the Tiger tank"...
With anything WWII you must keep in mind that everyone started with certain ideas of how the war would be fought, and then needed to adapt to how it actually proceeded. The Tiger never really got to preform the role it was intended to, but did have a gun and level of protection that allowed it to still be of some use. At the beginning of the war, most light anti-tank guns (like the Pak-36) weighed around 500 kilograms, while bigger 50mm or 75mm could weigh three to five times that or more. It took some time to hook the thing up to a towing vehicle, and a few min to set it up later, meaning defenses were fairly slow. So you could have a tank like the tiger roll up nearly immune to the light weapons, clear the filed a kilometer or two on either side with long-range fire, and open a gap where light armor could rush through and wreak havoc moving faster than AT artillery could reposition. However, AT defenses became more mobile as the war progressed - with either new tank destroyers, better ammunition for other tanks, or light infantry weapons like the bazooka. When the tiger appeared in numbers, light tanks were on the out, and Germany was often on the defense. It broke up enemy assault groups, but never really cleared the field.
Corrections: The number of Tigers sent to Tunisia was 31. There was no "H version" or "E version". The H to E change was an administrative change in the name. It had no connection to the version of the Tiger. There was a small backup battery in the turret, so that you could still fire the gun even if you lost the main batteries.
Oh I thought the E and H1 version were different sorts my apologies for that. And about the batteries I found the information in the book of Otto Carius, should've probably checked it better. Anyway thanks for the feedback👍
1938. The 88 came later into the program. Initially the "breakthrough tank" was to be equipped with the short 7,5cm known from Pz IV. Later the 7,5cm L70 came into talks for more tank killing capabilities. The 88 didn't meet the armor penetration requirements yet at that point.
The Tiger Battalion (45 tanks) was the absolute Trump Card of any armored unit, worth up to five times its numbers in any allied tanks. But Germany rarely had the means or ability to field enough units to fight that way.
Probably Tiger II and the reason for this being that it doesn't matter since when you can chose between the 2 the war is basically lost 😅 I mean the Tiger II came into service in January 1944 So I just chosing for the coolest lol
I say it was worth it. Playing with numbers: in theory you could build 5 Pz IV for the cost and labor of a Tiger. a) Where do you build them ? b) Where do you get the fuel from, considering 5 Pz IV consume more fuel than one Tiger ? c) You also need 5x the crews.
I think the tiger 1 was a good tank on paper but it had too many issues that were probably overlooked by the designers because they focused only on strong armour and a good cannon.
@@Dreachon exactly why I said probably. I didn’t read any of the records you did but I still think that armour and firepower was valued more than other things by the designers.
@@josol_1547 No , that isn't how the design process of a tank works. A design firm receives a set of instructions or requirements from the Army office that oversees it. The designers then bein to work making a draft based on what information they have given.
Videos like this one are bizarre! I would think that the average person would think of a T34 or M4 before any German tank. The Tiger may, or may not, have been the best German tank. But all German tanks were inferior to all allied tanks - even those horrible things that the British deployed. The reason is that the loss rate of the German tanks was 100% - much higher than any allied tank.
hey, agree to disagree. it is factual that all the German tanks would lose to all allied tanks, but i don't think I've ever argued against that though. i believe that I've just talked about the individual quality of these beasts, and tried to lay out the facts about it, you are free to make up your own mind about a vehicle :)
🤚🏻👀Painter said “Yes, we were a Democracy back then, but we’ve been plundered and squeezed dry...Are you willing to be plundered? Yes or No? When a democracy is stupid enough to be plundered and keep quiet about it then it is good, but when an Authoritarian stands up and says, you do not plunder our people any longer, then that is bad”! Are you willing to be plundered ? Yes or No?
slow, mechanically unreliable and easy to knock out once british the 17pdr was available-17pdr anti tamk gun arrived on the battlefield same time as the tiger in Tunisia in December 1942
Where do you get your info ? Tiger I was as fast as Sherman, had better off-road mobility than Sherman due to way lower ground pressure, was probably more reliable than T-34 ... If the 17pdr could hit it, yes, there was killing potential. But as with 88s, there was never one around when you needed it most and 17pdr APDS ammo couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. You could as well use a 6pdr at short distance. Turn it around: was there any Western Allied tank that could withstand the attention of a German 7,5cm PAK40 ? Or an 8,8cm L56 since we're talking Tiger ? I've seen destroyed M1 Abrams. No tank is indestructable.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Where does he get his info? I hope from a better source than you because you are hopelessly wrong with nearly every one of your 'killer facts' For example the claim there never was a 17pdr when you needed one. In Normandy by June 3th there were over 300 Firefly tanks in service. That is at least twice the maximum total number of Tigers in Normandy. Numbers increased to c 700 by December 1944. Then add in all the 17 pdr AT guns.......................
@@michaelkenny8540 Arthur Gullachsen (Canada): "The 1st SS Panzerkorps Defence of the Verrières-Bourgebois Ridges Vol.1"(2021) . He goes to town where which unit on both sides was. Obiously, the British hadn't enough 17pdrs - Fireflies and AT guns - at Bourgebois and Verrières, when they needed them. It was coincidentally one of the few occasions in Normandy where Panthers and 8,8 cm AT guns could use their long-range capabilities for good. Three British armored divisions had more Fireflies than 1st SS PD had Panthers (add some Stugs of 1st SS and Marders from 21st PD) and they were slaughtered within two days, including the Fireflies. Germans only lost (total losses) a handful of Panthers. The British couldn't get their AT guns up front due to traffic jam and the Firelfies didn't get the job done. At Verriéres the leading Canadians were overrun by a company of Pz IVs when their AT guns were still attached to the tractors. And they didn't bring enough armor to begin with. I'm not saying 17pdr was a bad gun, I just can't understand the hype about it. It's sinmply nothing special. Russians and US killed Tigers and Panthers without it.
discord.gg/ZBjEKbpyR4
Hi LHT ! We've discussed this a few times by now: when a Tiger I got stuck, ANY tank got stuck. Tiger I had a lower ground pressure than Pz III/IV, T-34 and Sherman. There's no record of a Tiger getting stuck due to freezing snow or mud. The engine was in fact powerful enough to deal with these issues that weren't ...
At Kursk, only 90 Tigers (on paper) were involved. Each of the three W-SS divisions had an organic company that time and there was one army sPz.Abt. (503 ?).
The reliability issues due to some understrength parts were very well known in Germany and they partly compensated with the addition of a complete workshop company which usually served a whole tank regiment. By doctrine, Tiger was to be used in offensive operations until a breakthrough was achieved. Then the medium tanks were to take over. This would have allowed Tiger units plenty of time for refit and repair until the next mission, practically neglecting any reliability issues. Major road marches were not intended ! I see some issues with that doctrine, but that's how it was.
Reality however was that Tiger units found themselves on the defense and were spread out as local fire brigades. This caused havoc for maintenance. You know what happens to a Sherman (which is my top tank for reliability) if it isn't maintained properly ? It will eventually break down !
Tiger was designed with a 1940/41 combat situation in mind and found itself in 1943. Not the tank's fault.
You should read more combat records to see "the bigger picture". Yes, some Tigers broke down due to simple/stupid mechanical failure, but most Tigers came to the workshops due to BATTLE DAMAGE which would have damaged ANY tank if not killed it. Not to mention that they brought back their crews. I like to mention that one Tiger of sPz.Abt. 509 at Shitomir/Ukraine which received 128 hits - everything from AT rifles to 7,62cm AT guns - and returned to camp on its own power, the crew a bit shaken but alive !
What I also repeat as a mantra by now: 1400 Tigers killed roughly 9000 enemy tanks. Thus I give a fart on reliability, man-hours, costs and fuel consumption. The thing worked damned well even outside the very specific doctrine for which it was originally designed. I say it was a /very) good tank, but as with any tank of the time not without flaws.
On thing. Up to 1941, the most expensive series produced land vehicle was the Steam Shovels which dug out the Panama Canel. SDKFZ 181 became most expensive, costing equivalent to one million US Dollars each in 1941. Since then, Main Battle Tanks have maintained that record.
Bedankt
Thank you i really appreciate the donation! hope you enjoyed the video
@@LearningHistoryTogether super! Great video collin. Keep up the good work👍👍
1. Sherman tank crewmen's reaction when a Tiger saw them first, "Oh, shit!"
2. Sherman tank crewmen's reaction when they saw a Tiger first, "Oh, shit!"
Years ago, in a documentary of the History Channel, WWII war veterans of both sides were asked which tank they considered the best protective; all answered "the Tiger tank"...
With anything WWII you must keep in mind that everyone started with certain ideas of how the war would be fought, and then needed to adapt to how it actually proceeded. The Tiger never really got to preform the role it was intended to, but did have a gun and level of protection that allowed it to still be of some use.
At the beginning of the war, most light anti-tank guns (like the Pak-36) weighed around 500 kilograms, while bigger 50mm or 75mm could weigh three to five times that or more. It took some time to hook the thing up to a towing vehicle, and a few min to set it up later, meaning defenses were fairly slow. So you could have a tank like the tiger roll up nearly immune to the light weapons, clear the filed a kilometer or two on either side with long-range fire, and open a gap where light armor could rush through and wreak havoc moving faster than AT artillery could reposition. However, AT defenses became more mobile as the war progressed - with either new tank destroyers, better ammunition for other tanks, or light infantry weapons like the bazooka.
When the tiger appeared in numbers, light tanks were on the out, and Germany was often on the defense. It broke up enemy assault groups, but never really cleared the field.
Corrections:
The number of Tigers sent to Tunisia was 31.
There was no "H version" or "E version". The H to E change was an administrative change in the name. It had no connection to the version of the Tiger.
There was a small backup battery in the turret, so that you could still fire the gun even if you lost the main batteries.
Oh I thought the E and H1 version were different sorts my apologies for that.
And about the batteries I found the information in the book of Otto Carius, should've probably checked it better. Anyway thanks for the feedback👍
Very enjoyable video man thank you
My pleasure!!
Legend, from Glasgow 😎
You are one as well! :)
@@LearningHistoryTogether Shucks 😊
Is the late Tiger 1 with steel roadwheels used by the Tiger 2 and more powerful engine, more reliable and easier to maintain overall?
Well done!
Thank you very much Raven, went a lot of time in this video but it certainly was worth it!
Nice video.
Thanks!
Plans for the Tiger were already laid down in 1936. The main goal was to get the superb 88mm into an AFV.
1938. The 88 came later into the program. Initially the "breakthrough tank" was to be equipped with the short 7,5cm known from Pz IV. Later the 7,5cm L70 came into talks for more tank killing capabilities. The 88 didn't meet the armor penetration requirements yet at that point.
I agree with your thoughts on this tank!
The Tiger Battalion (45 tanks) was the absolute Trump Card of any armored unit, worth up to five times its numbers in any allied tanks. But Germany rarely had the means or ability to field enough units to fight that way.
Which would you order into production, the tiger 1 or the tiger 2 ? They both had problems and advantages 🤔.
Probably Tiger II and the reason for this being that it doesn't matter since when you can chose between the 2 the war is basically lost 😅 I mean the Tiger II came into service in January 1944
So I just chosing for the coolest lol
Comment for algorithms. Keep developing!
Thnx bro
It was a really good tank (when used what it was designed for) if you forget about the cost to build it, mechanical issues, fuel consumption, etc
I say it was worth it. Playing with numbers: in theory you could build 5 Pz IV for the cost and labor of a Tiger. a) Where do you build them ? b) Where do you get the fuel from, considering 5 Pz IV consume more fuel than one Tiger ? c) You also need 5x the crews.
Chariot gun?
I believe that is the literal translation of Kampfwagen Kanonne (Kwk)
@@LearningHistoryTogether "Fighting vehicle cannon" would be more fitting. War chariots went out with the Persian Empire...
I think the tiger 1 was a good tank on paper but it had too many issues that were probably overlooked by the designers because they focused only on strong armour and a good cannon.
yeah i fully agree
That finds no support in the actual records.
Only is maybe a strong word but they surely prioritised armour and firepower over all else
@@Dreachon exactly why I said probably. I didn’t read any of the records you did but I still think that armour and firepower was valued more than other things by the designers.
@@josol_1547 No , that isn't how the design process of a tank works.
A design firm receives a set of instructions or requirements from the Army office that oversees it.
The designers then bein to work making a draft based on what information they have given.
It dominated the battlefield until its engine broke down
Videos like this one are bizarre!
I would think that the average person would think of a T34 or M4 before any German tank.
The Tiger may, or may not, have been the best German tank. But all German tanks were inferior to all allied tanks - even those horrible things that the British deployed. The reason is that the loss rate of the German tanks was 100% - much higher than any allied tank.
hey, agree to disagree.
it is factual that all the German tanks would lose to all allied tanks, but i don't think I've ever argued against that though.
i believe that I've just talked about the individual quality of these beasts, and tried to lay out the facts about it, you are free to make up your own mind about a vehicle :)
With poor reliability it was its own worst enemy
You ask the 9000 destroyed enemy tanks what they think about Tiger's reliability.
🤚🏻👀Painter said “Yes, we were a Democracy back then, but we’ve been plundered and squeezed dry...Are you willing to be plundered? Yes or No? When a democracy is stupid enough to be plundered and keep quiet about it then it is good, but when an Authoritarian stands up and says, you do not plunder our people any longer, then that is bad”! Are you willing to be plundered ? Yes or No?
Painter still bad man though ;)
Nah, it didn't dominate anything because it was operationally misused / abused in most every sense of the word.
slow, mechanically unreliable and easy to knock out once british the 17pdr was available-17pdr anti tamk gun arrived on the battlefield same time as the tiger in Tunisia in December 1942
Where do you get your info ? Tiger I was as fast as Sherman, had better off-road mobility than Sherman due to way lower ground pressure, was probably more reliable than T-34 ... If the 17pdr could hit it, yes, there was killing potential. But as with 88s, there was never one around when you needed it most and 17pdr APDS ammo couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. You could as well use a 6pdr at short distance.
Turn it around: was there any Western Allied tank that could withstand the attention of a German 7,5cm PAK40 ? Or an 8,8cm L56 since we're talking Tiger ?
I've seen destroyed M1 Abrams. No tank is indestructable.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Where does he get his info? I hope from a better source than you because you are hopelessly wrong with nearly every one of your 'killer facts' For example the claim there never was a 17pdr when you needed one. In Normandy by June 3th there were over 300 Firefly tanks in service. That is at least twice the maximum total number of Tigers in Normandy. Numbers increased to c 700 by December 1944. Then add in all the 17 pdr AT guns.......................
@@michaelkenny8540 Arthur Gullachsen (Canada): "The 1st SS Panzerkorps Defence of the Verrières-Bourgebois Ridges Vol.1"(2021) . He goes to town where which unit on both sides was. Obiously, the British hadn't enough 17pdrs - Fireflies and AT guns - at Bourgebois and Verrières, when they needed them. It was coincidentally one of the few occasions in Normandy where Panthers and 8,8 cm AT guns could use their long-range capabilities for good. Three British armored divisions had more Fireflies than 1st SS PD had Panthers (add some Stugs of 1st SS and Marders from 21st PD) and they were slaughtered within two days, including the Fireflies. Germans only lost (total losses) a handful of Panthers. The British couldn't get their AT guns up front due to traffic jam and the Firelfies didn't get the job done.
At Verriéres the leading Canadians were overrun by a company of Pz IVs when their AT guns were still attached to the tractors. And they didn't bring enough armor to begin with.
I'm not saying 17pdr was a bad gun, I just can't understand the hype about it. It's sinmply nothing special. Russians and US killed Tigers and Panthers without it.
It's a real shame they didn't angle that front plate to atleast 30 degrees or 50 degrees ideally.