Whas this a good tank when it worked?

>>2166823
No

>>2166823

Not really. It was a reasonably good long range platform for attacking other tanks, but a tank's job encompasses far more than just that.

We have been having this thread daily lately.

>>2166823
Daily reminder that Tiger II's frontal armour never got pierced by any gun during the entire war.

It had good armour and was pretty good 1v1.

Keep in mind that by the end of the war, tactics had changed, the tanks role was no longer primarily for just exploiting gaps and cutting off supply and communications from the rear, but had basically become like armoured infantry.

That's why post war, you saw the shift from "medium tanks" to "main battle tanks" and MBTs have largely assumed the role of heavy tanks and form the bulk of most modern armoured forces.

The Tiger I, Tiger II, and Panther tanks were some of the most advanced tanks of the war. Problem was that they didn't get enough testing to iron out their flaws, and they were so costly they weren't able to be fielded in signifact numbers, whereas the russians and amerifats were pumping out tens of thousands of t-34s and shermans off the production line, which not as good as the tiger tanks in terms of armor and gun, were much more suitable for a workhorse in terms of reliability and ease of mass production.

>>2166922
This is /his/, most of the threads here are the same shit every single day anew.

>>2167073
Except that it was 100mm of un-angled RHA that Sherman Firefly's,SU-100's,and a whole cadre of Soviet heavies could eat right through.

Pretty good 1v1? Two things
1.WW2 wasn't world of tanks.Tanks rarely faced off one on one.It's most famous battle (Kursk) was a massive action that saw huge clashes of larger amounts of tanks.
2.Your idea of the "1v1" us contradicted by your later statement of MBT's becoming the main type of tank.MBT's are do everything vehicles that,among other things, engage enemy armor and exploit gaps

>"Whereas the Russians and amerifars were pumping out tens of thousands of t-34s and Sherman's off the production line..."

God not this meme again.
It is true that the allies outnumbered the Germans.But,it wasn't a fight between the extremely powerful select German tanks against a Zerg rush.Germany produced plenty of Panzer IV's and the Soviets made much much more than T-34s.Not to mention the British Fireflies, and Churchill's.Or the American M10's,M36's, and the late late late war Pershing.

>>2167135
Disregard that first paragraph.I misread and thought you said the Tiger I's frontal armor never got penetrated.

It's just a SPG with an 88 and a turret.

>>2166823
Tactical yes, it was excellent.
Strategical no, it was just to costly.
Operational no, it was too unreliable.
It was a good psychological weapon though.

>>2167431
My Great-Grandmother's Brother fought with the Sherbrooke Fusiliers in Normandy. Any time a tank was struck, true what sources claim, his commander would shout 'Tiger!'.
I guess it was better off as a psychological weapon.

>>2167073
>That's why post war, you saw the shift from "medium tanks" to "main battle tanks" and MBTs have largely assumed the role of heavy tanks and form the bulk of most modern armored forces.
Except that's fucking wrong. They act EXACTLY like medium tanks and are meant to use maneuver to destroy an enemy force.

Properly handled armor is going to bypass strong points where possible, break into your rear, and fuck your back line units out of existence/encircle your front line forces.

MBTs do absolutely everything except reconnaissance. They do that too, but in support of IFVs rather than directly.

>>2167481
medium tanks aren't used to destroy an enemy force, dipshit, that's what infantry and artillery does. Medium tanks are used to split apart armies and split supply lines and attack supply lines and HQs

MBTs on the other hand are designed primarily for direct head on confrontation, tank vs tank, tank vs infantry, etc, which is originally the role of heavy tanks.

>>2169157
Except engaging armor and infantry head on was something shermans were designed to fucking do.

>>2166823

Pretty good. 5 or 6 of those kept the entire brit army from taking Caen for weeks, prompting Monty to call on Bomber Harris to break the stalemate with those tanks and with the city of Caen itself, for a winning move.

>>2167440
>. Any time a tank was struck, true what sources claim, his commander would shout 'Tiger!'.
Russian here, by the time of 1943 every square tank got called by public "a Tiger" and every Self-Propelled Gun was called "a Ferdinand"

>oops transmission broke
>dang that bridge collapsed
"no"

File: Pete, I swear to God, ahyuck, if you show me another photocopy of your hairy cat testicles I will punch a fucking hole through your head.png (79KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 250x238px

>>2166823
>Was [x] good when it worked
Probably, considering we're talking about when it worked.
You might want to try rewording that.

>>2167073
>hey hans
>the russians are making 10000 t-34s
>why are you making 1000 tigers when we could make 2000 pz4s
>2000 pz4s could totally win against 10000 t-34s
>why are you so stupid hans stop making wunderwaffe and just make normal tanks

File: t-34 tank.jpg (52KB, 640x260px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x260px

>>2170464
Was the T-34 good when it worked? Even though it only had 180 degree turret traverse from the factory?

>>2170486

well if you make enough shit and throw it at the wall...

biggest problem with late german tanks, was that they focus on overeneriged tanks that was not fit for mass produced. It would have been way better if they had focus on building way more Panzer IV and SPG. They would have got the work done.

>>2170767
>It would have been way better if they had focus on building way more Panzer IV and SPG. They would have got the work done.


Like they were doing in North Africa, Italy, and Saturn?

>>2169972
KV line of tanks had more impressive moments.

>>2169972
>Caen

If you mean, 5 or 6 divisions, rather than individual tanks, you would be closer to the mark.

>>2167073
>That's why post war, you saw the shift from "medium tanks" to "main battle tanks" and MBTs have largely assumed the role of heavy tanks and form the bulk of most modern armored forces.

But that's wrong. The shift towards MBTs was because of advancements in technology which made it possible to give a tank the speed of a medium tank as well as the armor and armament of a heavy tank. Not because of any doctrinal changes. They still fulfill the same role.

>>2170486

It was fine, once they handed out enough radios and got away from the 1-man turret.

Also being able to fire directly behind you is not terribly useful because then you're showing your thin-skinned ass and are gonna die. If you need to retreat under fire, you do it in the reverse gear, not by turning around.

>>2166823
It was expensive as fuck, so it better be.

>>2171675
>1-man turret
T-34/76 always had a 2 man turret, the gunner/commander and the loader
The T-34/85 had a 3 man turret, the commander, gunner and loader

What the heck is /his/'s strange obsession/hatred of the Tiger?

>>2171782
Wehrmaboos love German tech, especially the Tiger. /his/ hates Germans and the Tiger.

>>2171717

oops, right you are. It was the 2-man turret that needed to go

File: panzerslopped.jpg (22KB, 700x389px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 700x389px

>>2167073

The tiger 1 was better, but that didn't matter a whole lot when cheaper t-34s could still destroy it or disable it.

With german levels of production, a far more realistic and practical tank would've been making better panzer 3s.

>pic related

Slopping the armor would've been a huge, but simple step compared to re-doing your manufacturing methods for meme machines.