Redpill me on the Tiger I I don't think it the ultimate

>>33379323
too few to make an impact regardless

broke down a lot

/thread

Unless it had mechanic go over it every day, it'd shit itself within the week. Very unreliable and poorly made. Didn't even have a motorized gun turret lmao.

>>33379323
Great against France and American tanks, but in Russia it prove useless against SPG and Field Guns.

>>33379626
It was not poor made, it suffer from German Autism, overengineering was German big mistake in the war, also shit logistic.

Strong, but you could just build five smaller tanks and have a bigger impact on the front in combined operations instead of "MUH TANK BATTLES".

>redpill

KyS plebbit

>>33379323
Too complicated to make and thus not a good use of ressources for a suffering German war-machine. Often rushed into combat which meant that the complicated Tigers had many problems that should have been fixed before they where sent to battle.

As a tank it was heavily armoured and armed. It had a great canon that fired rounds at very high velocities and could wreck most of the tanks it would meet. As for the armour it was strong but it could be penetrated by even "normal" opposing tanks if they got close to the Tiger. IMO the design could have benefitted from a bit weaker side-armour and a sloped front - and generally being a bit less fuck-huge

>>33379626
>Didn't even have a motorized gun turret lmao.
Yes it did, you cancerous wot/warthunder fags need to leave.

File: f4df4becc05e6d4e00dc8055a51b2132.jpg (994KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

994KB, 2560x1600px

It's looks so boxy.

>>33379323
>redpill
The Tiger I thinks your a faggot.

It wasn't totally shit, but it wasn't very good either. The weight, mechanical issues and fuel consumption really hampered it's effectiveness and served as a big resource drain for a Germany that already was at an industrial/resource disadvantage.

Comparing Tank vs Tank is always a bad measure because by and large combat success comes down to other factors than paper stats. Also the Sherman vs Tiger is a weird comparison because they are very different types of tanks designed for very different roles.

The Tiger probably outperformed the Sherman plenty of times, but the Sherman performed excellent against it's counterparts.

File: h6tvkrc.jpg (108KB, 867x421px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 867x421px

>>33379339
>destroy nearly 10,000 enemy tanks
>countless thousands more AFV's, trucks, AT guns and infantry hardpoints
>no impact

>>33379640
>Great against France
The most advanced tanks the Germans had in the invasion of France were Panzer IVs with wimpy 75mm howitzers. The Tigers were 2 years too late for France.

>>33380215
He's confusing it with the last marks of Panzer IV. Ausf.J I think. Manual traverse only.

The Tiger turret did however take a full minute to rotate 360 degrees.

>>33379323
I think it was great for its intended use. Could have used sloped frontal armor but 100mm still stopped most of what came at it anyway when it entered service.

People like to bring up the engine problems that were solved by mounting an rpm limiter after like six months. It also suffered from constantly being brought from front to front while americans who had plenty of time to do maintenance in safety from the frontlines scoff at its reliability.

>>33379655
I also don't think building 25,000 tanks instead of 20,000 would have mattered as much as some people claim. I think a tiger proves itself as soon a the 5th time it shrugs off a 75mm tank/anti-tank round that would have wrecked any panzer 3/4's and drives up to the objective instead of just being five smoldering wrecks on the battlefield.

>>33380277
It looks so sexy*

>>33380420
The Sherman's did have the advantage of being far, far simpler to maintain by design, so even if they were maintained in safety, it still only took a day to restore a killed M4 to service. Everything was laid out so that it could be fixed/swapped in a matter of hours. Less in a proper facility. Try fixing a torsion bar on a Tiger even under ideal conditions.

Ironically the Panther was quite a bit less reliable than the Tiger. Barring failures that were entirely due to deteriorating material quality, the Tiger of 1944 and onward was actually pretty dependable.

>>33380400
I have difficulty trusting these round kill numbers.

>>33380419
Only at low engine rpm, though information on max traverse speed is iffy.

>>33380400
>all enemy losses are innacurate af
wehraboos

>>33380419
If I'm not mistaken the Tiger 1 didn't have a independent motor for the turret so when it was Idle you had to rely on on manual traverse, while the M4 had an electric engine for the turret so it could still operate a powered turret even with the engine off. He might be referring to that.

>>33379640
You do realize that when the War started, French tanks were without a doubt the best tanks in the world?

>>33380522
You're thinking of the Panther. Early variants had a PTO from the driveshaft and later ones had a (still insufficient) electric motor.

>>33379339

>Single vehicles and platoons weighed on the outcomes of entire strategic operations

>No impact


Nu-/k/ needs to die.

>>33380400
It should be noted that in a lot of these cases, the German sources will make exceptions for Tigers that are knocked-out but later recovered, while then turning around and saying that every knocked-out enemy tank was a 'kill.'

While I don't intend to remark about the Mark VI on a technical basis, this sole fact makes me question the majority of these kill claims. In Tigers in Combat volumes I and II, author Wolfgang Schneider tallies up kill/loss at the end of every chapter and disingenuously presents us with a picture of almost no Tigers having been 'destroyed,' while the battalions themselves destroyed hundreds of Allied tanks by merely looking at them.

When I, myself, went through one unit's performance during a particular campaign and considered a knock-out to be a 'kill,' I came up with much different numbers.

The fact of the matter is that some 40% (that number is best not quoted; I don't have the exact specifics right in front of me) of Allied tanks which were disabled by enemy fire were able to be put back into action. While I'm not suggesting that we should shave 40, 50, 60, etc per-cent off of these kill counts, I do wish historians would make a more honest analysis of kill totals without the national bias.

It was made for short ranges, it was to be transported by train.

The loss of railways made them have to drive long distances and put stress on the drivetrains, resulting in frequent breakdowns.

>>33379323
It was a good, solid tank that was effective but as the war went on and Germany got desperate, the tank was being lazily made. This also meant that the Tiger was being manned and sent out of the field immediately by inexperienced crews that were fresh out of tank school.
Otto Carius had said something similar about the tank crews I believe

File: this thing right here.jpg (58KB, 600x295px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x295px

Only 100mm of frontal armor for the weight of 60 fucking tons, that's pretty pathetic.

>>33379323
At BR 5.7 it has to go against post-war Russians now, while in reality it was always fighting BR 3.7 American and British tanks.

>>33381106
They should build small, cramp tank like Russian did right? Fuck the crews, I guess.

>>33381175
>it has to go against post-war Russians now

Pretty balance, if you ask me)))

File: bovvie tiger.jpg (85KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1280x720px

Want to check out a proper Tiger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvDJnsB-q4E

>>33381207
>you need to build cramped tanks if you want to achieve more armor than 100mm for 60 fuckenn tons

>>33381286
That is both beautiful and ugly as fuck. I fucking can't stand but at the same time love that massive square body of it.

>>33381600

Those Panzer uniforms are hot

>>33379323
Tactically effective with a well trained crew, strategically wasteful in almost every way. Looking at the was as a whole it was potentially more valuable in propaganda than it was on the battlefield.

>>33384147
war*

>>33379323

By tank standards, the Tiger's service life was extremely short, and they were already intending to replace it with the Tiger II before the first one rolled off the assembly line. What is often forgotten was that the Tiger is a stop-gap much like the M3 Lee, and it did its job exceedingly well under those circumstances: its role was to bring the 88 cwk onto a mobile chassis, which it succeded in doing.

>>33381175

Gaijin Logic:

>Tiger destroys Sherman
>Sherman destroys T-54
>Tiger=T-54

>>33384147

>Single vehicles can have strategic outcomes on the battlefield

>strategically wasteful

I'm always debating whether /k/ or /x/ have the lowest IQs..

>>33384395

/fa/ is probably worse tbqh