was there ANY tank in ww2 that could defeat the Tiger II in a

>>2177765
Was there any tank more expensive than Tiger II?

File: Is-3_lesany.jpg (302KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1024x683px

Technically IS-3's production started during WW2, too bad the Reich folded before it saw action.

>>2177765
M8 Greyhound

>>2177765
Half an Abrams manned by armless, down syndrome patients.

>>2177765
1v1, no, unless you count this >>2177780

The US and Soviet Union produced many more Pershings and IS-2s though, both of which are nearly a match King Tiger and much more practical.

I believe that another Tiger II would be up to the task.

Heavy armor is useless in today's modern warfare paradigm. Tank battles always end up with the victor being who saw who first.

>>2178023
But we are not talking about today's warfare, not even CW warfare.

>>2177765
There was no need for that.
In Soviet doctrine enemy tanks are target for tank destroyers and artillery not your own tanks.

>>2178124
>SU85
>Standing a chance against a konistiger

>>2177765
No. But that doesn't matter, because real war never was Warthunder, CoD or Company of Heroes. Jerry could've had Merkavas instead of those Tiger II's, and would have still lost just as miserably and unconditionally in about the same timeframe.

File: tiger 2.jpg (48KB, 800x504px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x504px

*breaks down*

File: transferir.jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>2177765
the is3 if you count it as a ww2 heavy

>>2177765
Any other WW2 tank because Tiger IIs were mechanically unreliable, manned by inexperienced 16 year old Volkssturm boys and used in a time where Germany had little to no ammo and fuel left.

File: sherman.jpg (1MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2304px

>>2178322
*explodes*

>>2178349
>tanks catch fire or even explode when hit
More news at 11.

>>2177780
That driver's hatch looks like it can chop the driver's head off.

>>2178362
early shermans were known for their poor ammo stowage methods and frequently blew up when hit

File: ISU-152 beast killer.jpg (241KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1280x960px

>>2178251
It wouldn't be SU-85 by the time of Tiger II, but ISU-122 or ISU-152, and they called these "beast killer" for a reason.

>>2178375
>early version tanks have serious technical problems
YOU DON'T SAY!
Name one (1) tank family that had no technical flaws in its first version.

>>2178393
T-34-76

>>2178393
T-34

>>2178396
>>2178397
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.de/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

>>2177765
>shoot Tiger II frontally
>Tiger II's armor starts to crumble because German late war steel lmao
>fragments fly around in tank and kill the whole crew
gg ez no re

>>2178396
>>2178397
There are reasons they made T-34-85, you know, retarded turret is one of them.

>>2178393
>"b-b-but its not its fault, all first model tanks have technical problems!!"
>"HURR DURR TIGER II BROKE DOWN A LOT HAHAHA STORMFAGS BTFO"

>>2178412
>t. butthurt stormfag

>>2178409
T-34-85 was an upgrade to 76 just like Easy Eight was an upgrade to M4 Sherman. T-34-76 murdered Panzer III/IV which T-35-76 murdered Panthers and Tiger I's.
It's like saying "if B-17 bomber was so great, why did they replace it with B-52", or "if M1 Garand was so great, why did they replace it with M14 and M16?"

>>2178423
t. Kremlinbot with Google Translate Beta

>>2177765

a marine witha bazooka or some explosives,thats basically a fighting machine.

>>2178393

Ammo stowage methods aren't really a technical problem. More of a "stupid crew" problem.

>>2178461
>M4 sherman ammunition almost always detonates when tank is hit
>heh, stupid crew

>>2178484

>Stuff all your explosive ammunition together in dry storage racks near the hull
>Hey, it keeps exploding when we take hits
>Let's scatter the ammo storage compartments and keep them wet
>We have solved a technical problem!

>>2178503
Do wet tank bullets even work?

>>2178509

I can't remember any reports about wet stowage causing firing problems. I realize that's not quite the same thing, but if there was a problem, it couldn't have been that widespread.

>>2178433
What has American marine in common with tank, except for the weight?

>>2178397
>>2178396
Poor suspension springs
Hilariously outdated transmission
Bad steering clutches
Little space inside the tank

File: Coldstream Guards' Sherman Firefly IC Guards Bridge at Namur.jpg (428KB, 1600x1040px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1600x1040px

>>2177765

A m4 Sherman tank fitted with a 17 pounder could rip a hole straight threw a Tiger I tank hull Armour and out the other end. The Tiger2 made better use of its frontal slopped armour but even then any hit to it from a APDS round would rip through it like a hot knife through butter. Its a misconception to think that Tiger tanks were invulnerable. As a matter of fact Germans preferred to use lighter tanks as opposed to heavier ones and heavy tanks were only introduced to counter highly armored soviet KV1 tanks that were invulnerable to German Panzer 3 tanks and t34s which could only be taken out by by a hit to the lower hull with the 30mm cannon used at the onset of the war. A much better tank was the Panther tank which had much less weight, more speed and agility and good firepower and required less fuel which was a big deal.

>>2178681
shotsfired.jpg

> Nobody has mentioned the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus yet.

>>2178869

because a 200 ton moving bunker isnt practical for warfare

>>2177765
Tiger 2s were knocked out frontally by SU-100s.
In theory a Pershing or IS-2 could have knocked them out through the turret at less than 800m, although I'm not sure if any were confirmed to do so.
The Porsche turret was vulnerable to anything bigger than an Allied 75mm or Soviet 76mm gun, however. At long ranges, its cheeks only being 100mm thick. It would require some luck or precision to pull off a hit as the turret was mostly sloped of course.

>>2178484
The issue was the British were literally stuffing ammo under their seats. This was a carryover from storing 2pdr ammo, which was smaller and far less at risk for both fire and especially exploding. 75mm shells were far more liable to catch fire and when crowded into every nook and cranny, explode due to them having a much larger explosive charge.

>>2178509
The shells are not stored in water, they are enclosed in a casing which is filled with water.

>>2178814
>could rip right through a tiger 2
If it hit. Early sabots were notoriously inaccurate. Borderline useless past 500m, completely useless past 800.
Also it'd only be able to reliably penetrate the turret, not the hull. The only weapon that reliably penetrated captured King Tiger frontal hills were captured Panzerfausts.

>>2178412
>Tiger II
>first model
It even says II right on the tin, ya fuckin weapon

>>2179005

Even a hit on the frontal hull with a 17pounder would be enough to penetrate the frontal armour of the Tiger2 if it was less then the sabots 1000m drop off. Also Panzerfausts tended to richochet off of slopped armour due to their low velocity.

A Wa Prüf 1 report estimated that the Tiger II's frontal aspect was impervious to the 122 mm D-25T, the heaviest although not the best penetrating tank gun on the Allied side. On the other hand, an R.A.C 3.d. document of February 1945 estimated that the British QF 17-pounder (76.2 mm) gun, using armour-piercing discarding sabot shot was theoretically capable of penetrating the front of the Tiger II's turret and nose (lower front hull) at 1,100 and 1,200 yd (1,000 and 1,100 m) respectively although, given the lack of a stated angle, this is presumably at the ideal 90 degrees angle.[47]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#Gun_and_armour_performance

>>2179157
I'm talking about actual post war tests here. The only weapon that could penetrate the hull in testing at standard combat ranges (admittedly close range) was captured Panzerfausts. It was half the reason the British started developing big fuck you guns and worked to make sabots better. Yes in theory it could penetrate at 1,000m but in practice the only range you had a decent shot of hitting at was 400m. Hardly nominal combat range for frontal engagement.
You couldn't hit anything at 1,000m with a sabot in 1945.

File: T28_Super_Heavy_Tank.jpg (2MB, 1761x1174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1761x1174px

>>2177765

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID9eMSQ-Hr8

I am disappointed in all of you. Here's 95 tons of freedom, you Wehrboo shit.

>>2179302

You said that nothing could have penetrated the frontal armour of a Tiger 2 besides the Panzerfaust. Not even mentioning the more powerful Panzerschreck. I gave you a an example of a weapon that could. It doesn't matter if it could hit the tank at 400m or 1000m the effect would be the same the Tiger2 would be scrap metal.

>>2179325
>first prototype built after the war
>never saw action
impressive

>>2179485

>Welding was completed on the first hull in August 1945.

>>2179512
So they were going to invade Japan with it in the final weeks of the war, while it was a response to German heavy tanks?

>>2179382
>Panzerfaust. Not even mentioning the more powerful Panzerschreck
Panzerschreck was NOT more powerful (in terms of penetration) than the Panzerfaust.

>>2179382
I never made that claim, what the hell are you talking about? Read the reply chain dude.

All I said is that the sabot was inaccurate and the only weapon they tested that actually penetrated the hull reliably was a panzerfaust.
And you're also a bit wrong in saying that a Tiger 2 would be scrap metal. The sabots have great penetration but no explosive charge, it would be possible for the round to pass through the tank harmlessly, shatter, ricochet due to instability in flight, or only damage the tank but not take it out of action.
And yes, in theory it could knock out a Tiger 2 at 1000m, but again, in practice you're not going to hit anything at that range you're actually aiming at. Sabots were useless past 500m, not because they lacked penetrating power, but because they never landed where you aimed them at that range.
And the Panzershreck has far less penetrating power than a Panzerfaust, especially the 1945 model.

File: T-28-1.jpg (32KB, 489x255px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 489x255px

>>2179592

They were designed to crack the German West Wall and Siegfried Line and plow through the Panther without giving a fuck, their immersive weight from the requirement they be able to survive blows from the 88 cm Kwk at a close range.

There were considerations of using them to storm Japanese beach heads (not as stupid as you would think as their ground pressure is lower than the Sherman's, though their ability to navigate steep inclines remained poor) in the theoretical Operation Downfall after their completion, but then the nukes happened and they were silently kept on-base; here they would have been redundant there as the strongest anti-tank guns the Japanese had were hardly adequate against the Pershing while both the T28 and Pershing suffered from poor engine to weight ratios. Along with their bong counterpart the A39 Tortoise, the T28 was noted for being mechanically reliable in spite of its overtaxed engine and it never broke down in testing.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=331

>>2179677
>There were considerations of using them to storm Japanese beach heads (not as stupid as you would think as their ground pressure is lower than the Sherman's, though their ability to navigate steep inclines remained poor) in the theoretical Operation Downfall after their completion


Not him, but how the fuck would you get something like that onto a landing craft? Hell, they had enough trouble getting comparatively tiny Shermans across for beach storming.

MAYBE once you've secured a port and are looking to break out, but I can't imagine WW2 tech being able to put that thing in a landing craft shallow enough to touch up on sand.

>>2179652

shown me where it says an Panzerfaust could penetrate the frontal armour of the TigerII tank.

>>2179699
Geeze dude, you're really getting picky about this. Give me some time, it was an old documentary I watched. Can't remember if it was specifically about the Battle of the Bulge or the Panzerfaust, but there's a video of American service men testing out a panzerfaust on an abandoned Tiger 2 and it leaves a nice big hole in the front plate.

File: T28_Landing.jpg (106KB, 689x663px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 689x663px

>>2179681

It was largely the DoD trying to find a use for the damn things after committing resources in building and testing them (and more importantly, building the tools needed to making them, constructed as 100% combat-ready machines with 0 physical prototyping). Tests were conducted in Virginia and it apparently passed the ability to be transported on a LST-542.

It is entirely unlikely that it would be able to roll directly from a LST into the thick of combat as it needed to remove its outer tracks to fit, and without said tracks has an ungainy ground pressure that would cause it to sink in most conventional sandy beaches. Coupled with its low top speed, and its practicality in being used in an amphibious assault is highly suspect.

File: T28_Transporting.jpg (112KB, 832x680px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 832x680px

>>2179742

>>2179737
Not him, but I know what you're talking about. It was a Panther, not a Tiger II, and it's the Don Lewis test.

>>2179752
Panther? My memory is hazy so maybe, but looking up the Don Lewis test doesn't bring up anything relevant for me on a quick search.

>>2179767
>In late 1942, numbers of early-production American M1 bazookas were captured by German troops from Russian forces who had been given quantities of the bazooka under Lend-Lease as well as during the Operation Torch invasions in the North African Campaign.[32] The Germans promptly developed their own version of the weapon, increasing the diameter of the warhead from 60 mm to 88 mm (2.4 to 3.5 in). In German service, the bazooka was popularly known as the Panzerschreck. The German weapon, with its larger, more powerful warhead, had significantly greater armor penetration; ironically, calls for a larger-diameter warhead had also been raised by some ordnance officers during U.S. trials of the M1, but were rejected. After participating in an armor penetration test involving a German Panther tank using both the Raketenpanzerbüchse, or RPzB 54 Panzerschreck and the U.S. M9 bazooka, Corporal Donald E. Lewis of the U.S. Army informed his superiors that the Panzerschreck was "far superior to the American bazooka": ‘I was so favorably impressed [by the Panzerschreck] I was ready to take after the Krauts with their own weapon.[33]’
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka#World_War_II
I've seen a video of the Lewis test somewhere, can't remember exactly where though.

>>2179677
>Two prototypes of the T28 were built. They underwent evaluation at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Knox facilities until 1947. In 1947 one of the T28s was heavily damaged by an engine fire during trials at Yuma Proving Ground and was broken up and sold for scrap. The T28 never went into service due to the obsolete design, expensive maintenance costs, and the heavy weight; prevented it from being transported across seas, but was retained to test the "durability of components on such a heavy vehicle".

>>2179784
I know that part, but yeah I can't find videos of this anywhere. I can't find videos of jack shit, actually that's not just surface level stuff.

>>2179742
>>2179748

>It was largely the DoD trying to find a use for the damn things after committing resources in building and testing them (and more importantly, building the tools needed to making them, constructed as 100% combat-ready machines with 0 physical prototyping). Tests were conducted in Virginia and it apparently passed the ability to be transported on a LST-542.
>It is entirely unlikely that it would be able to roll directly from a LST into the thick of combat as it needed to remove its outer tracks to fit, and without said tracks has an ungainy ground pressure that would cause it to sink in most conventional sandy beaches. Coupled with its low top speed, and its practicality in being used in an amphibious assault is highly suspect.

Still, I'm impressed they managed to cram it into a boat. I would have bet against it.

>>2179742

are those the fuel tanks?

File: Invasion Scenes Europe US Troops 1940-1949 - panzerfaust demonstration.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>2179795

>>2179957
That's not a Tiger and it's not the frontal armor. Myth busted.

>>2177839
>IS-2s
>more practical
It had to lower the gun in order to reload and then reacquire the target, for every shot.

>Panzer
*breaks down*
>Tiger
*bankrupts builder*
>Sherman
*explodes*
>British tanks
*falls apart*
>T-34
*performs its function with superior effectiveness*

>>2180166
Also the turret was slow as fuck, and the weight of the ammunition greatly limited the rate of fire.

>>2180191
>*explodes*
This myth needs to die. Also you forgot about needing to change gears with a hammer on your little slavtank.

>>2179994
Nigga are you blind? That's is clearly the front of a tiger2.

>>2177765
It's a little known fact that a 75mm armed Sherman tank could fire phosphorous shells and basically spread gas inside the Tiger II, making it wholy unoperable due to the nature of the gas.
Don't give the 75mm M3 a bad reputation.

>>2178869
>Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus
>implying not just another bullshit superweapon dreamt up by hitler
>implying of any practical use to soldiers
>implying wouldn't have drowned the crew in mud
>implying implications

>>2180293
>Kubelwagen
I rest my case.

>>2177765
No.

Too bad that the Allies didn't sign up for 1v1 duel and turned it into team deathmatch because they were too pussy to face the highskilled tiger crews that would have 720-no-scoped them in a fair fight.