While its logistical and reliability issues made it strategically

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

822KB, 1280x720px

Nice metal coffin.

>>34430440
Uh, that doesn't look like a Tiger tank to me...

>>34430417
>By tactically I mean regiment and below scale operations, like trying to capture a village or hold a hill.
How can a single tank capture a village or hold a hill? Tanks are super easy to knock out if it doesn't have infantry cover.

>>34430447
That's the joke

>>34430417
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

>>34430447
hownew.ru

>>34430459
How does "regiment and below scale operations" imply "a single tank"?

>>34430417
Depends on the terrain. In bocage the big cats were pretty severely hampered by their size, inferior target acquisition and slower turret slewing, all of which compromised their ability to react to flanking by medium tanks, especially Shermans with their gunner scopes, powered traverse and stabilizers.
On open steppe terrain they could be nearly impossible to overcome in a 1:1 engagement without artillery or close air just because of the gun and the armor. This is the reason the Panzer Aces like Wittmann got obscene k/ds on the Ostfront only to die quickly when transferred to closed Western Front terrain.

File: 1487196969487.jpg (47KB, 564x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 564x400px

>>34430447

Jesus fucking Christ, there's always one.

No wonder people say /k/ has some of the lowest IQs.

>>34430447

thatsthejoke.gif

>>34430466
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
that's an impressive example
but..
>the Germans only used panthers and Panzer 4s, no Tigers at all
>The Germans were largely composed of fresh troops with no combat experience and poor training
>the Americans had Total air superiority.

you've proven nothing in regard to OP's question

File: image.jpg (128KB, 686x1200px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 686x1200px

>>34430417
If we're ignoring that they break down every five minutes, that there weren't a lot of them built, and they were a pain in the ass to transport, then yes, the tiger tanks would have BTFOd the allies' ground forces, their armor, firepower, and visibility were excellent, and their speed was pretty decent for such heavy tanks.

America might've eventually deployed shit-tons of the old heavy tank designs against them though, many of which even the Tiger II would struggle to penetrate.

>>34430529
They did struggle in the unique terrain of the bocage, but even still there superiority to the tanks of the Western allies was undisputed, heck you even mentioned Wittman who happened to destroy 30 tanks and APC's in 15 minutes in said terrain using a Tiger.

>>34430576

> day was foggy, no air cover.

Says so right in the article.

>>34430417
IIRC, the Soviets first encounter with Tiger IIs they treated it like a Panther and blew them the fuck out. At La Gleize defending Tiger IIs were btfo by M36s, anti-air guns, and the 82nd. The entire northern push at the Bulge was basically halted by artillery. Then you have Otto Carius' adventure in the Jagdtiger, where he spent most of his time being shot at by other Germans.

I always love it when people bring up "well, what if everyone was equal," because that is something that never happens in actual conflict. Someone is always going to have an advantage to exploit or a disadvantage to mitigate. Wars aren't jousting.

>>34430417
>inb4 butthurt ameriboos say the Sherman was better

Shermans were made for a different army with different needs. Every that would see combat would have to go across at a time when there was a shortage of cargo ship and enemy subs. Thus the Sherman tank needed to be on the lighter side and cheap. The main factories that made them were on the other side of the ocean so Shermans had to be very reliable and serviceable. The US army excepted the first places they would use them in would be North Africa and on Pacific Islands. This means harsh terrain and stressed logistics chains.

If the US had a tiger copy that it used for the same things it used the Sherman for it would of had a very bad time of it.

Even putting that aside the Sherman did see combat on the eastern front via lend-lease. However it rarely ended up in combat against Tigers over there because the Soviets used its Shermans in muddy terrain were it was far more mobile then any other tank in the eastern front, Soviet or Axis. The Germans just could not use its Tigers in and around the swamps of the southern eastern front.

>>34430417
Assuming basically WoT/WT levels of "fairness" (so no numerical superiority, no mechanical breakdowns, etc.), the IS-2 could easily match a Tiger, and probably a Tiger II. The Pershing would probably do reasonably well, too.

>>34431106
Their first Eastern Front conflict at Lvov they got ambushed and flanked for days. Their second performance was at Debrecen, where they tore the soviets a new asshole (until they all broke down) .

>>34430417
>both forces are equally matched in all other aspects


but they were not and one huge reason for german failure was gigantomania

besides war is not team deathmatch its more like capture the flag