What's your opinion about Nazi tanks ?

What's your opinion about Nazi tanks ?

How strong was Tiger 1 ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>What's your opinion about Nazi tanks ?


The ones that are famous were shit tanks, and the ones that won them their greatest victories, the 3 and 4, are relatively unknown.

>How strong was Tiger 1 ?

Not very. The entire concept of a Heavy Tank didn't mesh well with the way the rest of the Wehrmacht was built. Tanks were originally primarily used as an exploitation vehicle, to run through the cap and chew up rear echelon stuff with a mobility and local firepower that they combine well. Actually breaking the enemy line was a job for infantry and artillery.

Along comes the heavy tank, something that is too operationally slow to do breakthrough exploitation, because it guzzles fuel like nobody's business and has a much higher breakdown rate than a lighter tank. It's supposed to be good for breaking through an enemy line, but it can't deliver as much firepower as the same resources put into artillery. It's really only useful in a semi-mobile front facing line where you can't necessarily bring your artillery to bear on strongpoints of resistance quickly enough, but that just didn't happen all that often.

Tiger was not meant to replace Pz IV as exploitation tank. It was meant to fill the gap that Pz IV could not, namely infantry support. Germany had plans for every infantry division to have tank support even pre-war, same as US army.

>it can't deliver as much firepower as the same resources put into artillery. I
It does different things.

Please go back to

>Tiger was not meant to replace Pz IV as exploitation tank.


I never said that it was.

>It was meant to fill the gap that Pz IV could not, namely infantry support.

Not really, given that it was primarily designed to engage harder targets. "Semi-mobile anti-tank gun" would probably be better.

>Germany had plans for every infantry division to have tank support even pre-war, same as US army.


I'm not aware of any such plans. Can you cite some? It would go against their general doctrine of concentrating such equipment.

>It does different things.

No, it does the same thing as an anti-tank gun, just more expensively but with more tactical mobility.

They were all rubbish. If you want to take a look at good WWII tanks take a look at the Churchill, undeniably the best tank of its era.

Heyooo!

You see this guy coming towards you

What you do ?

What have I got on hand?

Isn't the point of a Heavy Tank to drive firepower into the enemy line ? Isn't direct fire more accurate and more effective than Artillery ? Didn't the Germans had a very hard time dealing with the KV before coming up with their own heavy tanks ? I know of assault guns, but what if the enemy defense is a heavy tank brigade ? Didn't they need a well-armored vehicle with a specialized anti-armor gun to deal with that type of target ? At this point, didn't they need heavy tanks more than assault guns and artillery ?

Step on the other side of the bridge.

German tanks had were inferior in a lot of ways to Allied tanks but German tank crews were superior. There's a reason why main battle tanks don't have one many turrets anymore. It's better to have a large tank crew that can specialize than a small crew that has to multitask.

The 88 was not specially designed for anti armour. It was just the biggest gun they could fit in it and that happened to be pretty good at blowing hard points and tanks.

>Isn't the point of a Heavy Tank to drive firepower into the enemy line ?

Generally.

> Isn't direct fire more accurate and more effective than Artillery ?

Anti-tank guns, and self-propelled variants of the same, were generally considered artillery in WW2. Those were direct fire weapons, and unlike the generally envisioned "artillery" like a heavy gun.

>Didn't the Germans had a very hard time dealing with the KV before coming up with their own heavy tanks ?

They had isolated incidents of trouble, but were usually either able to overrun them by hitting around them into softer areas (WW2 tanks in general have shit operational mobility; they can't travel all that far without something breaking down. If you can move around the tank and hit the repair yards that have to be somewhere in the vicinity, it'll fall apart), or by the slow method of ultimately bringing up their own towed ATGs and blasting it.

>I know of assault guns, but what if the enemy defense is a heavy tank brigade

Go around it. They can't have heavy tank brigades everywhere. Or bring up your own anti-tank weapons. Each German infantry battalion ought to have their own.

>At this point, didn't they need heavy tanks more than assault guns and artillery ?

That drives into the realm of opinion, but IMO, not really, no. They managed to advance far, fast, and relatively cheaply in 1941 without the need of Tiger tanks, and the introduction of such didn't really solve that many problems. Especially since, on the Eastern Front at least, the Soviets would pretty reliably use their own armor to make local counterattacks, meaning that if you could figure out where they'd hit, you could use the slower ATGs and hit them with those, instead of needing a more mobile variant.

>German tanks had were inferior in a lot of ways to Allied tanks
thanks for the laugh mate

Stug a cute.

A CUTE!

>cast steel tanks are inferior
You are really really wrong. The fact that you are acting condescending makes you look like a fool.

So cute !

hide till it brakes down

Hetzer a cuter though.

They're so fat and chunky!

Your trusty Tanaj.

Like everything German, they were simply, the best.

It took on average 6 Shermans to take down one Tiger. German tanks were the most powerful fighting force of all time.

How do you think they conquered Poland in just 4 DAYS?

>How do you think they conquered Poland in just 4 DAYS?


I can't tell if you're memeing sarcastically or are just tremendously uninformed.

It was strong, Tiger II was even stronger. Nazi tanks were really strong but their designs were super rushed without testing leading to many technical malfunctions on the battlefield.

battle of france was for all intents and purposes done after 10 days. everything after that was just mopping up the remainder of the french forces and the drive towards paris, but even churchill knew france was done for after dunkirk.

Shuve a tree banch in the tracks

What the fuck does that have to do with your claim that Poland was conquered in 4 days?

And also, if you're saying that by the time of Dunkirk, all was lost (reasonably accurate), that still comes out to 16 days, not 10. Where the hell do you get your WW2 info?

german tanks crossed the borders 10th of may, by 20th of may the northern french army and BEF was encircled and cut off.

And again, what the fuck does that have to do with POLAND?

In '39 they were utter shit. Later they got a little bit better.

i didnt mention poland did i?

I like how the early panzer Iv's and III's were pretty mucht the only medium tanks that could still be destroyed with At rifles.

the Tiger program was a shining example of the difference between Paper vs. Practice.

On paper the Tiger I and II are magnificent, able to effectively take out their strongest competition (the T-34 and KV-1) from 2 kilometers away as opposed tot he T-34's 1 kilometer range, and the armor to survive multiple direct hits from a T-34-88.

But the great specs and impressive armor didn't translate that well on the actual battlefield. The parts for the engine and internals were small, precision crafted, fragile, and most importantly, expensive. Making the cost of the Tigers unsuitable for wartime economics.

Since the armor couldn't be penetrated easily, Allied tankers were instructed to use high explosive rounds on Tiger tanks instead of armor piercing, which rattled enough of those fragile internal parts out of place to disable the tank and remove it from the battle.

The Tigers were also infamous gas guzzlers, even compared to other tanks of the time, which further strained Germany's already desperate fuel shortages.

In war, quantity certainly plays a bigger part than quality. When the Soviets encountered the Tiger I for the first time, debate was started on whether to develop the T-43 tank to counter the Tiger I, but instead it was decided to just double down on production for the T-34, albeit with a modified gun to improve its matchup against the Tiger I. The sheer numbers of just average performing and cheap tanks overran the German positions, who tried to fill their ranks with small numbers of superb tanks.

tl;dr: the Tiger I and II are Showroom tanks, excellent on paper, but unreliable, expensive, and overall not really worth it in practice.

The first post in this chain that I responded to was I even greentexted the part

>How do you think they conquered Poland in just 4 DAYS?

Which is why I wrote Then someone, presumably you, responds to it with

>battle of france was for all intents and purposes done after 10 days. everything after that was just mopping up the remainder of the french forces and the drive towards paris, but even churchill knew france was done for after dunkirk.

Were your mother and father brother and sister?

umm back the fuck off?

Nearly a century later and Polefags are STILL butthurt Preußen Krupp Steel conquered your shitland in just 4 days

>German tank crews were superior
well, not really - in the second half of the war, allied gunnery and crew training were on the whole better than german

>T-34-88.
Some kind of Nazi-Soviet love child? I think you mean T-34-85.

yeah sorry my bad, mistyped.

I'm not talking about skill, as I thought I made clear. I'm talking about how they were organized within the tank.

>Not making best WW II armed with best WWII cannon.
That is why Germany lost.

It goes without saying that German tank production and industry in general fucking sucked.

youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ

Start 28:00.

>Around 50,000 t34s produced during the war
>over 40,000 destroyed

That was very interesting. Thanks.

virtually all of the most numerous tanks of the war with the caveat of the 76mm armed t34 had five crew members

How did they fit a dude spotting half outside of the tank hatch, another dude loading the shells, and another dude actually targeting and firing the main gun all in the same tank turret? Sherman tank turrets is relatively small.

t. lindy

>It took on average 6 Shermans to take down one Tiger.

That's some nice side armour you have there, Jerry

>Poland
>France
The Tiger didn't exist until 1942
its obviously a troll

The French had more and better tanks then the Germans in 1940, it was all tactics my dude

The Germans literally had unmanned tanks sitting outside of factories. What they needed were trained crews, not more tanks. Expense and reliability were factors, but t34s were far less reliable than say, Tiger I's....which i guess is where the numbers thing comes into account, but that still doesn't change the fact that the German lacked trained tank commanders and crews

>but t34s were far less reliable than say, Tiger I's
Tigers in 1942 were on average more reliable and well-made than T-34s in 1942. The opposite was true by 1944, when Soviet factories were not under pressure to crank tanks out as fast as possible to rush to the front and German factories were.

>1347 Tigers built
>Lost the war

Soviets also used different definitions of a tank being 'lost'.
They claimed tanks that are damaged but repairable as losses.

>you and your fellow German lads are having a cheeky bit of chocolate in your defensive position
>suddenly Hanz bursts into flames and starts screaming about the British
>you look ahead
>see this

What do?

>suddenly
Churchill tanks were not known for their stealth.