Tiger I was a bad tank.

your mom was a bad tank

>>30780483
nig

>>30780483
You're correct, well done.

/thread

>>30780483
Thats not how you spell T-34

>>30780607
t-34 was not as bad as tiger was

It was a good tank, it was just not the tank Germany needed. And it was to difficult to produce.

>>30780636
it was a bad tank.

>>30780483
It was the best heavy tank of the war and was very infulencial. (Sherman fag here)
It was only 4 mph slower than the average speed of medium tanks. It was expensive af and took a little bit to get the kinks out but it was overall,sucessful.

>>30780483
You're wrong. Good job.

Commence shitposting about muh miles, muh overheating, muh poor shermans Q.Q

Seriously. Everyone who cries about tigers, in the same breath, swear by shermans and t-34s. (garbage piss poor tanks designed to be cheap.)

Allied high command didn't give a single shit about their troops and how many of them died. Atleast the Germans did.

File: BaitNegative.png (357KB, 800x342px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 800x342px

>>30780678

File: 1463794562103.png (14KB, 166x166px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 166x166px

>>30780650
>It was the best heavy tank of the war
dank

>>30780729
Not even baiting.

If you think the allies were the good guys then you're wrong.

>>30780678
>Allied high command didn't give a single shit about their troops and how many of them died. Atleast the Germans did.
>Allies give infantry proper armor and artillery support
>Germans don't
>allies have functional radio for infantry platoons
>Germans don't

>>30780650
>and was very influential.
Ah yes nothing says influential like unsloped armor and being fucking horrifying to maintain!

>>30780607
>Made the Germans shit themselves when they first encountered it
>Carried the Red Army to victory during WWII
>Saw service in some nations up to 1996
>It's a bad tank

>>30780745
OOOoohohoho HEEERE we go, where are we gonna go now? Gonna tell me about the clean Whermacht? Or oh wait! Allied war crimes being wayyy worse than Germain war crimes! (don't forget linking articles holocaust denial websites!). Or perhaps just spouting "facts" with shoddy or easily disproven sources while you wank off to Triumph of the Will?

Moron

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-571-1721-29,_Russland,_Panzer_VI_(Tiger_I).jpg (68KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x533px

>>30780483
A tank is only as good as its crew. For the Tiger I, the crews were highly trained and knew how to use their vehicles, and in turn the vehicle was built to maximize the effectiveness of the crew. These two things combined into a fantastic weapon.
But then the were the required logistics to transport/operate the Tiger I, and regardless of how awesome the vehicle and crews were, this is where the tank suffers and ultimately fails.
The Tiger I was a fantastic tank- too fantastic for what was needed at the time.

>>30780483
The Tiger I was a flawed tank, not necessarily bad, but very flawed.

>>30780650
I'd argue the most influential tanks of the war were the Sherman, T-34/85, and the Panther. These three tanks would be the biggest inspirations towards main battle tank design, while heavy tanks were a bit of a dead end design wise.

>>30780832
>I'd argue the most influential tanks of the war were the Sherman, T-34/85, and the Panther. These three tanks would be the biggest inspirations towards main battle tank design, while heavy tanks were a bit of a dead end design wise.
Pretty much all of this

>>30780832
>Panther
>Not a heavy tank

>>30780850
Not to the Germans it wasn't. They classified things by role rather than weight.

>order the first Tigers into battle near Leningrad where the terrain was full of swamps and roads narrow
>they get shot to shit by AT guns
why did hitler always ruin everything

>>30780866
>use a machine of war in war
>war happens to it
Well shit

>>30780824
>The Tiger I was a fantastic tank
Yeah but when all of the other parts of the tank fail....then it's not really a fantastic tank is it?

I mean, if you can't move it easily, you can't build it easily, you can't repair it easily, has an extremely high fuel consumption, and was prone to major track failures and getting stuck in the mud, then what does it matter? If you can't even get it to the fight or have it last long enough in a fight then it's not exactly a fantastic tank, is it?

>>30780850
>Panther
>Anything but a medium tank

>>30780866
Hitler was a shit strategist

>>30780866
>Everything the Wehrmacht screwed up in the war was Hitler's fault

Von Mannstein plz

>>30780862
The Panther was an overweight medium tank whose final drive broke every 150 km, had a gun that severely limited its effectiveness in anything but an open field, and its gunner only had 1 fucking optic to look through.

If you honestly believe the Tiger I is a bad tank, please kill yourself.

>>30780824
>The Tiger was a fantastic tank

It had a good gun and good protection -- for a mid-war tank. By 1944, and especially by 1945, the allies were fielding tanks that outclassed the Tiger I in every aspect. But, like you said, how a effective a tank is ultimately up to the skill of the crew. If you put Tiger crews in KV-1s instead of Tigers we'd being lauding the KV-1 as the single greatest heavy tank of the war.

>>30780896
>Hitler orders PzIII to have a L60 gun
>someone at ordnance dept makes it L42 instead
>get fucked by T-34s
why did the army always ruin everything?

>>30780901
It's still a medium tank, though. We didn't say it was reliable, or well-designed, but it was still a medium tank since it was designed for and used by the German military to serve the roles of a medium tank.

File: stopposting.gif (1MB, 400x219px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x219px

>>30780945
>If you honestly believe the Tiger I is a bad tank, please kill yourself.

If the Tiger was getting stuck then chances are others tanks were as well. I've never read about those problems afflicting the Tiger specifically. Mud and tanks do not mix regardless of what the tank is.
I will say that some aspects of the maintenance were difficult on the crew (Such as replacing a road wheel). But most of the problems come down simply to logistics and Germany's situation changing. But these issues were not around when the Tiger made its debut, Germany had a steady fuel supply, functioning railroads, and the ability to manufacture replacement parts if needed.

>>30781055
wtf i have german tanks now

>>30780952
>implying enough 50mm L/60 barrels were being made to equip both the latest towed AT gun and the latest tank
They compromised in the face of insufficient industry

File: tigerinr222frankreichbe.jpg (64KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x534px

>>30781062
Oops. Meant to reply to >>30780881

>>30780947
I believe that the Tiger I was the best balanced heavy tank of the war. With other heavy tanks you start running into issues that: hamper the crew's ability to fight (Such as the 122mm guns on the IS-2 using two piece ammo- slower RoF), not being mobile enough (Churchill), or just having inconvenient layouts.
The Tiger has its own issues but nothing that I would say make it a "bad" tank. If it is bad then some other designs are outright god awful.

>>30781062
When a PzKpfw IV is stuck or throws a track, you can recover it using literally anything you have lying around. But when a Tiger gets stuck it's so heavy and the high-tension track is so problemental that you need to divert another pair of Tigers to free it. Congrats, your entire platoon is now combat ineffective before they've even made it to the staging area.

On paper they're rad. In practical terms they leave far too much to be desired, as all heavy tanks did.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-635-3965-28,_Panzerfabrik_in_Deutschland[1].jpg (55KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x509px

>>30781158
Schachtellaufwerk was a mistake

>>30781158
This is where the well trained crews come in. To avoid those problems they scout out the area they will be operating in prior to bringing their tanks to the area. Commanders would know where they could and could not go.
In the event a vehicle became immobilized or stuck, they had already practiced how to remove it to an area to where it could be repaired.

This is not so much points about the Tiger itself, but that getting stuck or wrecking something is usually the fault of the crew and not to be blamed on the vehicle. MBTs of today weigh a lot more than a Pz IV, they are also liable to get stuck or damaged if the crew doesn't know the vehicle's limits and what terrain they are going into.

>>30781133
The problem is that heavy tanks don't need to be "balanced", necessarily, as they exist for the purpose of having a good gun and good armor. And whether or not the Tiger I was the most balanced, it was still obsolete by late-war.

>>30781133
What was wrong with the IS? Basically an up-armored T-34-85, right?

>>30780615
But anon, it was, in fact it was the worst tank of the war. Only thing goin for it was numbers.

>>30781234
The IS suffers the standard problems of any heavy tank.That being that it is not very mobile and suffers mechanical unreliability. That being said, the IS-2 had a much better armor layout and a much superior gun compared to the Tiger 1, it was one of the reasons the Germans were prompted to develope a successor to the Tiger I.

>>30781226
I disagree with it being obsolete. They were still usable to the end of the war. Their armor may not have been the best by that time, but the gun and mobility were still effective enough.
Although there are good reasons that heavy tanks mostly died out after WW2.

>>30781270
Usable, yes, no doubt, but it was showing its age. The 88mm was inferior to the American 90mm and the Soviet 122mm. It's armor layout was completely obsolete, not incorporating any form of sloped armor. Mobility as okay, but mobility is largely irrelevant to heavy tanks once you get passed "good enough".

The heavy tank died out because main battle tanks were able to have good armor and firepower without sacrificing mobility, thanks to advancements in engine technology.

>>30781234
>>30781265
Only problem I can immediately think of with the IS was the driver not having their own hatch. With the IS-2 the 122mm gun used two piece ammo, which reduced RoF.

>>30781334
>The 88mm was inferior to the American 90mm
Because there were so many Jacksons and Pershings running around Europe.

>>30781270
>Although there are good reasons that heavy tanks mostly died out after WW2.
But muh IS-3!

>>30780483
Michael Wittmann did well with it.

>>30781441
You didn't refute my point. The 90mm was still superior to the 88mm, and if the war carried on longer than May 1945 there would have been plenty on the field.

>>30781490
>Pulling your kill claims out of your ass
>Doing well

>>30781108
Why didn't they just stop the shorter barrel production and switch it all too L60 barrels?

>>30781512
>you will never have 3 inches of russian steel still in your ribs

>>30781519
You make it sound so simple. The problem is that you'd have to refit your assembly lines to accommodate the L/60, which takes time. You would have delayed the Panzer III refit by a matter of months all a gun with only marginally better performance.

>>30781569
all for a gun*

why are people always like "hurr durr the tiger can engage enemies at 8000 meters" if you want something that can engage enemies at 8000 meters why not just have the gun only and if you need it to be armored why not have it as an spg, the tiger cost 2 000 000 reichmarks while the gun only cost something like 30 000 reichmarks.

Bait thread.

>>30781672
Pretty much this. If enemy tanks are rolling up at 8000 meters then they probably haven't seen you, which means you are probably concealed. So why not just be a towed AT gun that's easier to conceal.

>>30781672
Because those idiots forget that it was designed as a breakthrough tank. Its doctrinal purpose was to spearhead armor assaults, not sit back on a hill like the nashorn and pick off enemy tanks.

>>30781672
whoops, i meant to 200 000 reichmarks.

>>30782225
why does a breakthrough tank need a range of 8k meters?

>>30780832
Honestly I would say the brit tanks were the closest to modern MBT's with shit like the Comet and Cromwell

>>30782225
>>30782256
And a breakthrough tank is supposed to be able to drive more than 100ft :^)

>>30782256
You aren't engaging anything at 8km unless you are an artillery piece. The longest shots made by German tanks in the open steppes of Russia were around 4km. Usually, shots were made at less than half that range. Optics and gunlaying were simply not good enough for common engagement at ranges longer than 2km. Even 2km was a stretch, because it was usually going to take more than one shot to get on target. This could alert your target and waste ammunition. Le magical sniper 8.8cm gun is more myth than reality.

>>30780483
Tiger Tank good tank, King Tiger is a mess. King Tiger materials should have been used to make Panthers.

>>30781261
"no"

>>30781672
Because the Tiger has multiple uses. For a country with a limited production capacity and limited resources, Germany had to pick what to build and what not and had to maximize the use of it. Which is why I say the Tiger was the last appropriate tank they built.
With the Tiger it could be stationed as anti-armor vehicle and use it's gun to fire on enemies and be safe from return fire. It could also be sent with infantry and still get decent HE performance with its 88. It was also mobile enough (Providing you had the fuel supply) to respond to Soviet attacks.

>>30780607
That's not how you spell m4 sherman

Muh USA stronk

>>30783179
The issue is that it was so time intensive to produce that you would have gotten better value out of Panzer IVs and Stugs. In 2 years of production, Germany managed to build 1300 of them. By contrast, depending on the time period you want to go by (start of '42 to start of '44, or start of '43 to start of '45), they produced between 3k and 5k Panzer IVs alone.

Fact of the matter is, the Tiger was incredibly time consuming to produce. Meddling by high command in the tank's design on the assembly line made this even worse, and exacerbated the maintenance problem at the front by making it so that a tank would not come out of the factory identical to the tank 6 spots ahead and 6 spots behind it in the production line.

That being said, the true bottleneck was available men. Germany's pool of reservists were used up literally by the end of Barbarossa. Much like Japan's pilot training program, once the reserves were gone quality fell as every man available was given a crash course and rushed to the front to replace the losses. In the end, they had neither enough men to man their tanks and fill out their divisions, and they didn't have enough "good" tanks to matter in grand strategy of a production war anyways.

>>30780769
It is a bad tank.

>>30782481
>unsloped armor
>relevant

>>30780607
>>30780769
>>30783395
That was is2, german tiger 1 commanders were ordered to not engage is2 unless they outnumber it

File: oh shit, I'm sorry!.png (333KB, 401x349px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 401x349px

>>30780678
You mean the army where soldiers were issued countless stand or die orders for little good reason?

File: tips_stahlhelm.png (187KB, 500x518px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x518px

>>30780745

>>30780615
The only redeeming quality of the T-34 was if it broke down you could fix it with bailing wire and tin cans or just take you crap out and get a new because they made tons of the pieces of crap.

>>30780896
A lot of bullshit can be traced to him micromanaging things for sure.

>>30780678
>The Germans
>All the easily preventable encirclements and last stands

t. Wehraboo

>>30781334
WOT pls

File: P-47 Strafing Tiger Tank.webm (822KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1280x720px

Shit tank for surrender teutons.

File: 1468836809884.png (421KB, 932x689px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 932x689px

>>30780571
>/thread-ing your own post.

>>30780646
The KV-1 was a bad tank.
The Churchill Mk III was a bad tank.

>>30783457
Or fuel, at that

File: wehrabingo.jpg (357KB, 1280x1484px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1280x1484px

>>30780745
>>30780678
I really wish he stuck around so I could fill out my Bingo card

>>30780769
The M3 grease gun saw use in the Gulf War. And it's not exactly the best sub machine gun ever made

File: 0_161540_3fa37ab0_orig.jpg (727KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 1200x800px

>>30780483
I don't think anyone will deny that it was good at destroying other tanks, it excelled at that part meanwhile having a load of other problems but in the end the success of the tiger is deeply owed to the lack of professionalism of the red army in some cases and the lack of care for soviet soldiers ie maintaining low casualty rates, soviet generals knew after the war had been won that there was a lot of unnecessary casualties. Also the tiger had good armor, even though it was 100mm at the front in actuality it was around perhaps 105-115mm effective since the Germans hardened the steel by cooling it very quickly I've heard making the steel in the front brittle (like 30-40% of the armor plate from the surface).

Anyways speaking of soviet tanks I think it would of been more logical for the soviets to give the is-2 a larger turret to make the loading of 100mm round easier but give the 122mm to the su-100 and have the su100 have 100mm of frontal armor, plus I reckon tds based on the t34 were easier to produce (no shit duh) than the is-2.


In the end the tiger was a german kv1 with better quality steel and had more visibility and better glass and a better cannon, otherwise too bad the soviets didn't produce the kv-1s with 85mms and too bad the 37/45 shells didn't have a ballistic cap hence they shattered on impact in some cases, anyways soviets had better designed light tanks and the panther was influenced by the t34 surely we all know this, but the germans having the autism they do invented very capable tank killing machines after technologically enriching themselves with soviet tech.

>>30785132
As a tanker's gun, not so much an infantry weapon.

Back in the day, it wasn't that terrible, did what it should, I figure it's use in the Gulf War was basically "Fuck, we haven't issued new guns for tankers, well we still have these, they'll do."

>>30784869
That tank would have been completely unharmed.

>>30780678
>>30780745

Eat a dick, the Panther takes this one by a long shot, alongside the M26 Pershing, the Centurion, the T-34-85, the Easy Eight, and the Comet.

That thing was slow, shitty, guzzled up gas like a mofo in a time and place where that was really not good, poor ergonomics (you have to be retarded to believe that the Tiger I has better ergos than the Panther), and overall poor performance.

Also, are you just thinking about Rus? US took better care of it's soldiers than Germany ever did. So eat it.

>>30781265

IS was more mobile than both tigers, while being better armored than Tiger 1.

>>30781441

Considering the Americans got more Jacksons into service by the end of war than Tiger 1, concentrated in a shorter timeframe.

I'd say it was common enough.

>>30780483

Hey guess what.

It was WWII.

Everyone's tanks were bad.

Russians tanks were bad because they were built by starving drunk illiterate russian peasants, for starving drunk illiterate russian peasants.

German tanks came in two varieties:

>fast, undergunned shit cans
>somewhat fast, gas guzzling maintenance heavy heavily armored overgunned shit cans

Americans were flat out retarded, because of their doctrine of Tank hunting.

>>30780832
The Panther wasn't terribly influential and was more of an evolutionary dead end of half-good ideas none of which really survived into the first generation of MBTs,.

The concept of a heavier armed and armored medium tank was floated around by all the tank building nations and the US and USSR had prototypes available by 1943 (T20 and T-43 respectively, both surviving into service via their turrets being mounted on extant medium tanks chassis) with only the British being late to the party (though they did beat everyone else to the MBT proper with their Centurions).

Nothing really came of its mechanical systems and it died out when the French gave up on their German derived engines and suspensions in the mid 50's.

>>30785342
The problem with US TD Doctrine was that there weren't enough German tanks to destroy. Besides, Shermans designed to kill enemy tanks just gine. It was part of US doctrine (the real one, not the one you're pulling out of your ass)

And when the Germans actually had enough tanks to actually use TDs as intended at the Bulge, they worked as intended.

>>30780483
is it the most iconic tank?

>>30782225
>Its doctrinal purpose was to spearhead armor assaults
Breakthrough is done by infantry, not by armor. Armor simply go through the gap.

>>30786057
Pretty sure the Tiger was a break through tank, that's why it was so heavily armored on all sides.

The Russians used infantry to breakthrough and then rushed tanks in. That was the basis of their deep battle.

>>30780483
pretty irrelevant given the situation

>>30786085
Tiger was supposed to be attached to infantry divisions when used as a breakthrough tank

>>30780483
Its Design and features we're flawed, true... overall its armor, caliber and engineering did exemplar job, by any means of developing stages of MBT. The King Tiger on the other hand was mistake and, Germans should've updated the current Tiger than replacing/supplementing them during Second world war.

>>30781055
lol wut

is this war thunder fan fiction?

>>30786153
Try an AAR of multiple engagements by a British armor unit against Tigers, Panthers, and MkIVs. All destroyed tanks were inspected by Allied troops and several were sent back to Britain for testing.

File: seriously.png (207KB, 494x492px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 494x492px

>>30785371
>>30785342
>It's another "Muh TD doctrine" Episode

File: 1467230942553.jpg (113KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 720x616px

>>30780483
pic related

>>30786141
>engineering

It has hollow drive gears and if you want to do something like change a bearing, you need an overhead crane, 12 man hours and a fully equipped workshop.

It's "engineered" in the same way everything else German is, poorly.

>>30780769
didn't have radios till late war.

Russian tankers preferred the Lend Lease Shermans.

>>30787590
Technically the partisans were terrorists.

>>30784869
>P-47
>nothing larger than a .50 caliber gun
wow its literally nothing

>>30785179
>>30787815
Watch it again.

>>30787862
oops
that poor horsie );

>>30785230
Anon as a heavy breakthrough tank and a tank designed in 1941 it had a pretty good performance (close speed to Pz4 for example), compared with heavy tanks designed in those years. And was the tank that started the autism of the tigerphobia.

The end model was more reliable than the later German big cats.

It is true by 1944 standards the Tiger I was outdated, but when you compare to what the Tiger II did in both fronts Tiger I did better.

>>30781441
But the American 90mm was better than the Tiger I 88mm, still the Pershing gun is at the same tier as Panther 75mm.

>>30785323
If we talk about IS1 and IS2 1943 even though it had sloped armor in some parts the armor was still comparable. Now the 1944 version with proper sloped armor was far, far much better.

>>30785143
An IS-2 with the 100mm was pretty possible without even changing the turret, the thing is that soviets wanted a Breakthrough tank more than a tank killer, so they used the 122mm gun since it was better to assault positions.

>>30780483
No ! The only bad thing here is your childhood !
You are faggot !
Your mother is ugly and fat !
Your father is homosexual !
Your sister / broher will marry a nigger !

>>30785131
Oh man, beat me to it

They're so much fun to fuck with

>>30784719
This wasn't even true. The T-34 was awful for its crews to repair.
The Christie suspension hard to replace, everything on the tank was bolted closed and heavy, and there wasn't much access to anything beyond fuel and fluid fillers. Soviet tanks were not easy to fix/ maintain, when something broke it was often abandoned/ demolished so the crew could get a new one.
That's not even touching how bad the T-34 was for the crew that had to fight in them.

File: SYpoXh0MEjj_9gx1Xk_xekz_Chfgt286Y45_sYUTBRg.jpg (73KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x616px

>>30780615
>slavboo triggered

>>30787814
Yes because they brought terror to the terrorists with the exception being of some of them or bandits committing crimes.

>>30788451
Thats not even that great of a meme for slavaboos, they rarely ever claim any of those things like wehraboos claim >>30787590 those kind of memes.

and wtf is a tankie

>>30780636
It needed to be started every hour or it would cock out.

>>30789328
Tankie is a derogatory term for communists who just blindly buy into Stalinism, originally stemming from people in Soviet Russia who's answer to the Hungarian revolution was "Just send in the tanks on them!"

Most commies look down on Tankies because most commies recognize that Stalinism is fucking horrible (they're still filthy commies though).

>>30789328
a Tankie is a term that originates from the CP-GB to describe communists that defended that Soviet invasion of Hungary