Okay /k/

>>31215061
when it ran, it was great. being german they were very intricate and had reliability issues.

probably should have used sloped armor too.

File: Tiger I of the 503rd arming up just before Operation Citadel.jpg (70KB, 800x544px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x544px

Pretty much a copy of a kv1 with better armor and gun and optics but apart from that it fit the doctrine of German tank forces quite well meaning it was good at destroying other tanks.

>>31215061
mobile gun platform that gave early 75mm's trouble, it had terrible gun arcs for all weapons so it was easily approached and its heavy nature asked to be placed in flat spots, not near terrain that infantry could protect it

in short, early tank warfare it was nothing more than a sniper tank that refused return fire of even equal guns of angled properly at long range (which sometimes happened a tiger fired upon another tiger and bounced)

>>31215061
best tank there ever was
in my unbiased opinion at least

>>31215061
Good tank for when it was made, but the wrong way in tank development, and not what Germany needed as war went on.

>>31215228
You're never going to out-Soviet the Soviets, so heavier vehicles that can take hits and mow down T-34s from range are good for the defensive.

>>31215061
Good for starting troll threads and getting 75mm faggots all riled up.

In the field? Meh.

>>31215061
It outclassed every tank when it came out, and remained competitive to the end. Really though, Germany's situation was such that it could take no right answer in tank development.

>>31215387

> competitive to the end

IS-1 was issued to field units in September 1943, and it outclassed the tiger in just about every way, having better armor, better mobility, and better reliability while weighing only 2/3rds as much.

Tiger 1 first saw combat September 1942, so it's reign as top dog lasted only a year.

It was a great tank.
It gave the Germans a mobile platform for the 88, and when employed according to doctrine, were an absolute monster on the battlefield.

The whole "it broke down too much" thing is blown way out of proportion. Tigers had reliable engines and for the most part, decent transmissions.

It really came down to the crews to maintain their vehicles in order to get the most out of them.

Regarding the transmission, it took a very skilled driver to know how to use it correctly. The semi-automatic gearbox was a great innovation, but for reliability's sake they should have kept it at manual. From what I have read, the Tiger's transmission was very sensitive and need a skilled driver to operate it when moving the vehicle to not damage it.

There are some other issues that it had too, but those are minor compared to what everyone likes to talk about.

>muh engine
>muh tranny

People really need to do their research before making stupid claims.

>>31215525

You don't seem to understand what the word "competitive" means.

It was still decently armored for that time, with a good gun, performing pretty well. So yes, it was competitive. It just wasn't the top dog any more.

Can we agree that all widely used tanks were good and the real difference maker was artillery and air support?

>>31215525

>IS-1
>Outclassing Tiger

Tigers win battles, Shermans win wars

>>31215061

Greatest tank ever made.

Sadly over-engineered and not produced in big enough numbers to check the Zerg-rush.

>>31215525
>2-pice ammunition.

It hade a RoF of like 2 RPM. Thats terrible if you are going to fight other tanks.

>>31217263
T-34s win wars. They even BTFOd Shermans in korea.

File: penetrations.png (123KB, 320x259px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 320x259px

>>31215061
75 mm M3 gun from an M4A2 Sherman with M-61 and M-72 rounds. Here are the results:

Side, shell type M-61, distance 400 m. Result: penetration, spalling inside in an area of 300 mm by 300 mm
Side, shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: penetration, minor spalling on entrance and exit.
Side: shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: same as above.
Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650 m. Result: dent 50 mm deep, 140 mm diameter. Penetration of the turret platform.
Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: dent 40mm deep, 120mm diameter.
Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: Penetration. Shell knocked out a cork-like section of armour.
Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: same as above.

>>31215061
Terrible tank considering that it has terrible range, maintenance, reliability, dwindling quality as the war went on and so on. Pretty much anything can pen it, the F-34 gun has trouble but other than that flat 100mm isn't gonna do much. It was only sorta "invincible" for about year or less. Other than that its pretty much whoever shoots first wins.

>>31217683
You're talking about IS-2 now

File: 1448030141251.jpg (2MB, 2855x3503px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2855x3503px

>>31217704
>implying norks could do anything against Tigerface Shermans, M26s, and M46s.

Maybe right at the start when all North Korean tanks had to face were Chaffees and recoiless rifles

>>31217704
>M4 costs about the same as the T-34 to produce
>US has significantly better than a 1-1 loss ratio in AFVs
>USSR loses a minimum of three tanks for every one German tank killed, against an enemy almost entirely armed with Panzers and Stugs
>"war winner"

>>31217704
The fuck they did, you god damn gook lover.

It is not American made.

They have already lost.

>>31217704

Yea no, M4A3E8's had a 3:1 kill ratio with T-35/85 in Korea.

Both had about the same armor, both could kill each other at combat ranges, but the M4 had much better gun depression, which is vital in hilly country like Korea, since it can shoot from behind hills without cresting.

Lastly, the M4's were lavishly supplied with HVAP rounds, which let them score kills at longer ranges and on a bigger portion of the T-34/85's profile.

>>31215106
>the doctrine of German tank forces quite well meaning it was good at destroying other tanks.

That's funny, the Germans weren't very good at this doctrine for several years. During their most successful blitzkrieg campaigns most of their tanks couldn't really stand up to enemy ones.

>>31217263
>tigers win battles
Maybe tactical engagements. Name an operational level battle where Tigers made a difference.

>>31221129
Armored vehicles are operational weapons:

>20 December 1943, the 501st Heavy Panzer Battalion attacked an enemy tank formation near Losovka, which inflicted 21 enemy tank, and 28 gun casualties, for the loss of two of its own tanks and all three company commanders wounded. Because infantry support was unable to follow, the 501st withdrew. Three days later, Major Löwe, the battalion commander, went missing after he was forced to change tanks when his own was knocked out. In the next five days, the battalion destroyed 81 enemy tanks. By the end of December, 16 Tigers were operational out of 39 available, two having fallen into Soviet hands.

A lone Tiger battalion assaulting Soviet mechanized corps blunted the Soviet winter offensive strategy into Belarus until Spring. No other armor grouping (and leadership) could have succeeded with such operational success.

>>31215106
>kv1
>45 millimeter dinky cannon
>tiger
>88 millimeter boom gun

>>31220343
you forgot
>western front was largely a sideshow for the germans

File: 1277991981981.jpg (112KB, 994x1344px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 994x1344px

It's as though there is something about the Tiger that somehow causes people to immediately begin making things up about it and spouting all kinds of bullshit.

>>31215164
>it had terrible gun arcs for all weapons so it was easily approached
What is that supposed to mean?
Its traverse and elevation was completely adequate, if slow.

> its heavy nature asked to be placed in flat spots, not near terrain that infantry could protect it
Complete nonsense.
The Tiger's ground pressure was 1.05kg/cm2 whereas the M4 was 0.92kg/cm2.
If the Tiger couldn't drive over a surface it is unlikely a Sherman could either.

>in short, early tank warfare it was nothing more than a sniper tank that refused return fire of even equal guns of angled properly at long range
It was used aggressively, taking advantage of its good speed and smooth suspension, not as some immobile gun emplacement.

>>31215525
The IS-2 was a fantastic machine but to compare it with the Tiger is stupid, they were built for completely different roles.
The Tiger had a higher main gun ROF, faster top speed, far better crew ergonomics, a turret basket and a commander's cupola that wasn't trash.
The tiger was better than the IS-2 in just as many ways as it was inferior.

>>31218811
Why didn't you post the source?

>>31221532
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/sherman-vs-tiger.html

File: kv-2.jpg (367KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1280x960px

>>31221485
>152mm howitzer cannon
Get on my level boys

File: Armor_Scheme_Tiger1.png (58KB, 650x255px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 650x255px

>>31222812
No details or images of the state the Tiger was in before testing (such as previous hits or even penetrations from tank guns and stuff), no images of the damage from the testing itself and no indication that was even the first round of testing the tank had gone through.
Also note that none of the test-firing was performed on the turret or hull front.
It's amazing how some of these Soviet tests manage to be so useless.

>>31221485
The KV-1 had a 76mm gun. A dinky one, but 76mm still.

>>31215106
>Copy of a KV-1

It's not a copy of a KV-1, the origins of the Tiger lies in a 1936 requirement for an infantry support breakthrough tank.

The Tiger was good at destroying many of the tanks it faced when it was introduced due to fielding a high velocity 88mm cannon, but it was fielding it because it was meant to support infantry and 88mm HE shells made bigger boom than 75mm HE shells. It was NOT designed primarily to fight other tanks, but it ended up doing so because it turns out the Soviets had a lot, and could still build a lot, of tanks.

>>31223384
Meme tank extreme, tfw cant traverse turret if not on level ground

File: tiger blew up.jpg (206KB, 713x1024px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 713x1024px

wew lad, tiger has strong armor definitely not weak or anything but whatever, kruppstahl eh.

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (7KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 480x360px

>>31215061
>It's a Piece of Junk!!!...the Fuel system leaks gas all over the place... IT'S A PIECE OF JUNK!!

File: tumblr_lr88cdHnsx1qkxjew[1].png (139KB, 500x207px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 500x207px

>>31224476
>Cut those negative waves man, it's a beautiful tank

File: a765106e575bb8807328407f4e7edb72[1].jpg (16KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x250px

>>31220291
This, The Allied forces didn't have shermans when the war started only M24's, which were totally shit. So bad that the Military had to scrounge every depot, base, armory and warehouse in the pacific for 76mm Shermans as the sherman was on it's way out of service and there were not as many Mershings and Pattons needed for the job. As soon as the reinforcements arrived the T34 issue became neutralized

>>31220894
ib4 vatniks >HUUR DATS CUZ THE US HAD BETTER TRAINING DEN THE NORKS, IF THE GLORIOUS RUSSIANS WERE THERE THEY WOULD HAVE SMASHED THROUGH AND KILLED ALL THE SHERMANS

The Russians trained the Norks, supplied the Norks, advised the Norks, and in many cases rode with the norks and still the shermans had a 3 :1 ratio

MFW The T34 is greatest tank meme is dying, deal with it

>>31221504
It definitely wasn't. Why do you think the nazis built the Atlantic Wall or attempted their Ardennes meme counterattack there?