Has anything in history caused more kraut butthurt Veeky Forums?

someone needs to shop Burlaki so they're dragging a King Tiger/Panther behind them

tbqh if you're only discussing the weapon and not the historical context

Also, why are so many on Veeky Forums autistic about Germany 70 years after the war?

Because of the rampant /pol/ influence.

so why not post against Stormfags or Nazis, why against Germans and Germany?

/pol/fags who pollute the board are massive wehraboos. It's ez to call them out on their history channel equivalent knowledge of ww2.

Because you get a large number of people constantly claiming GERMANY DINDU NUFFIN! DEY DESERVED DANZIG! AND TO OVERRUN FRANCE AND POLAND AND YUGOSLAVIA! USSR THE REAL MENACE! WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR WITHOUT DA JOOOOOOOZ STABBING THEM IN THE BACK.

etc. After a while, you just get sick of hearing about Germany at all, and the natural reaction becomes the memes we see here.

Because it's a shit country. Kill yourself krautcuck.

where did the German touch you?

Versailles (both the palace and the treaty)

the konigstiger was pretty reliable for a tank its size, more reliable than the panther by quite a wide margin but this isn't really saying much

KILL YOURSLEF

Yes

Communism was the bigger threat and the Versailles was pretty harsh, and the UK technically did turn what was a regional conflict into a world war. The rest are wrong though.

>what what what?!?? I'm not allowed to loot and pillage anymore?!?!
>I mean... muh tree
>I am such an oppressed victim boo hoo

all memes aside, and not considering the suitability for mass production, just looking at a single tank, name one better WW2 tank than the Tiger I.

Tiger I was incredibly expensive and inferior to Panther in many ways.

IS

>underpowered (but so was the Tiger to be fair)
>initially shitty frontal armor that could be penetrated by Panzer IVs (though later ironed out)
>only 28 rounds could be carried in the tank
>accuracy was shit (nice pic, it was still a gun built for indirect fire and Wikipedia says 'citation needed' for the claim that it was accurate)
>horrendous reload times (initially 1,5 shots a minute, later increased to 3-4)

the Tiger:
>very good armor initially, later it was sufficient
>very accurate gun that could be reloaded quickly, great high explosive and armor piercing capabilities
>very good optics
>good maneuverability
>could carry 92 rounds
>but still underpowered (like every WW2 heavy tank)

>more reliable (lel)
>better armor
>better multi-purpose gun

it was slightly better all around I'd say, though the Panther was obviously better suited for mass production.

So is this board full of butthurt slavshits or what?

You lost and your women bellies got filled with subhuman slavic semen. Get over it.

How are you defining the worth of a single tank? Because at least the way I would look at it; the main purpose of a tank is exploitation. Artillery provides more firepower, infantry with SAWs are more surviveable, but nothing but a tank provides firepower, survivability, and mobility quite in one package like that. They are best used when your infantry and artillery create a breach to pour through it and chew up the enemy's second echelon stuff.

By that metric, probably the most successful tank of the war was the Panzer 3, with the Sherman probably running second. The Tiger is completely unsuitable for such a role, and to be fair, it wasn't designed as such, but at least in my opinion, the idea of a heavy tank was pretty stupid overall.

Whoa calm down Ivan, back to to bitch about muh /pol/ and whereareboo meanies.

...

no shit

Why do victors trigger you? Do you sympathise with losers becuase you're one of them?

you are absolutely right and I'd also consider the Panzer III and Sherman the best (most effective) tanks of the war all things considered (early and late war respectively) but to answer your question I'd look at the metrics one usually compares single tanks with and these are (among others)

>ability to move well
>ability to perceive stuff
>ability to kill stuff
>ability to survive stuff

If you were to rate every tank by these metrics I think the Tiger I would be the (or one of the) best packages for WW2 tanks.

>y'all kraut bitches need to suck my 'merican dick
>javohl herr shtronk emerikaner menn :)

>t.

Maybe on those metrics alone the Tiger is good, but you also forgot

>ease of production
>ease of maintenance

With these factors Tiger falls off, and the Sherman shines more.

I already said I'm talking about only the single tank.
Your tank having been easily produced won't help you against an 88mm if you're sitting in a Sherman.

Maintenance ok, because your tank will less likely fail, but in the situation tank against tank that's way less important than optics, gun, crew performance and armor.

Again, strategically the Sherman was obviously superior, because you now have >40,000 M4s against 1,500 Tigers, but in the (rare) situation where a Sherman faced off a Tiger, that didn't matter.

>I'd look at the metrics one usually compares single tanks with and these are (among others)
But those are stupid metrics. Tanks are not there to go into a two tanks enter one tank leaves arena deathmatches in fights with each other. To qualify a tank on those bases is dumb.

>but in the situation tank against tank that's way less important than optics, gun, crew performance and armor.
In tank against tank pretty much none of those are important except optics. See first=shoot first=win about 85% of the time. I've got some statistics here, not about Shermans v Tigers, but Shermans v panthers, and well, they speak for themselves. Despite the better gun and armor, the Shermans are shooting first, hitting first, and inflicting disrpoportionate losses far more often than not.

>Again, strategically the Sherman was obviously superior, because you now have >40,000 M4s against 1,500 Tigers, but in the (rare) situation where a Sherman faced off a Tiger, that didn't matter.
No, full stop. Wrong. The Sherman is superior not because it's cheaper and there were more of them (a somewhat spurious comparison in any event due to production advantages in the U.S. overall), but because it does a tank's job better. The Tiger is optimized for all of the wrong things, it's more of a semi-mobile bunker than an operational weapon.

>I've got some statistics here, not about Shermans v Tigers, but Shermans v panthers
Yes, and the Panther and the Tiger were different tanks you know.
The Tiger was intended as a heavy breakthrough tank and development began in 1937 - the Panther was essentially Germany's counter to the T-34.

On /k/ I read that Tiger Is were extremely rare on the Western front, and that there were only very few recorded combat situations between American tanks and Tiger Is on that front.

The Panther had a very good anti-armor gun but lacked high-explosive firepower. Also the optics were suited for long ranges and the armor was only (really) strong on the front. Someone on /k/ said it was basically a tank destroyer. Well suited for combat against T-34s in open fields of eastern Europe, not suited for combat against Shermans in French villages and the Bocage.

The Tiger I had a great multi-purpose gun, great sights, strong armor all around and a good crew layout. The only real issue was that it was underpowered (and of course its strategic effectiveness).

All the post 1941 Tanks were pretty FUCKING USELESS at helping the Germans win the war

They simply consumed too much fuel and were built too slowly.

It may not be the best, but is the Panzer III pre-Ausf. J the cutest tank of the war?

>Yes, and the Panther and the Tiger were different tanks you know.
For points of comparison in tank to tank fights against Shermans, not very; both German tanks significantly outgun and outarmor the M4.

>On /k/ I read that Tiger Is were extremely rare on the Western front, and that there were only very few recorded combat situations between American tanks and Tiger Is on that front.
And the Americans held their own in 2 of the 3 instances I'm aware of anyway.

>The only real issue was that it was underpowered (and of course its strategic effectiveness).
No, the issue is this
>The Tiger was intended as a heavy breakthrough tank and development began in 1937
A "heavy breakthrough tank" is a stupid ass idea. If you want raw firepower, you're better off with artillery, and adding a small amount of mobility, especially on the operational level, doesn't justify the extra complexity and costs involved. It definitely ran counter to German armored doctrine. usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number08.pdf

>usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number08.pdf
Your PDF isn't working

Panther literally had better frontal armor and better gun. For fighting tanks that is. It was also far cheaper.

Can confirm zat we constantly think about these things and we want to take revenge on the world because you are so mean to us >:-(

It's working fine for me. But try this link, it has the same

mudandblood.net/downloads/number08.pdf

Or if that doesn't work, search for

>Series no 8 1942 German tactical doctrine

Cheers, as a token of appreciation have this U.S Military Intelligence handbook on German forces in 1943
ia801400.us.archive.org/1/items/Tm-e30-451HandbookOnGermanMilitaryForces-1943/1943HandbookOnGermanMilitaryForces.pdf
It pretty much has everything, from organization, to weapons (howitzers, planes, tanks, cannons etc). Might take a while to load since it's 44 MB.

I have a soft spot for the Panzer III too, but let's be real here: The entire thing was just painfully mediocre aside from the three-man turret and radio. It's armor was never good, it was always undergunned and it was neither particulary mobile or reliable. There was a good reason than the Germans loved their 38(t) in the early war.