Tiger tonk was the bast tonk of ze war

>I'm going to compare a Tiger 1 to tanks that came out in 1943 but comparing a KV-1 to tanks in 1941 is WRONG and BAD
Terminal wehrabooism

>Tiger I and Panthers could be taken out by medium tanks
>Tiger 2 eventually btfo by Stalin's,and can still get knocked out by 76 Sherman at 600 metres,and by fireflies at 1 km
>not to mention the allied superiority in tank production,air superiority and supremacy,lack of resources,fuel starvation,poor armor quality due to lack of material,breaking down because all your railroads are bombed to hell and your tanks cant cross bridges etc

yeah you wehraboos can take the title of best tank in the war to compensate for your fees fees or whatever its worth

I didn't say or imply that, but if you scream WEHRABOO loud enough it doesn't matter
kys
Not defending his point, but are you really saying German armor was worse because it could be destroyed and wasn't actually invincible? Weak counterargument tbqhwy, there are better

No, we're saying German armor was worse because they only had access to shit-quality steel. And then they didn't fucking angle it worth a damn save for the front plate.

You absolutely did, you also had the fucking bold faced gall to list reliability as a bad thing when comparing a KV-1 to the fucking terminal patient that was the Tiger which died in the arse constantly from it's fucking shithouse engine and drive

no,im saying that when an enemy tank 20 tonnes lighter than you could destroy you within reasonable combat distance any claimed superiority in armor is rendered moot especially when you're reasonably outnumbered by 6:1

>inaccurate gun
Akschually the IS-2 had a good accuracy of up to 2000m somewhere.

>because that's what this thread is about?
No, OP is talking about "The best tank of the war". This might come as a surprise to you, but tanks do more than engage other tanks in flat open plains at roughly similar numerical odds.

Fear the Aussie

FETCH THE CODPIECE STRETCHER

fair enough
I didn't you liar, some user suggested the KV-1 was better than the Tiger I, I said it wasn't. I never judged any comparison at all. Go cry Wehraboo somewhere else.
I wasn't talking merely about tank vs tank engagements, though

...

>I wasn't talking merely about tank vs tank engagements, though

>Name one tank that was better individually, not including factors like ease of production or cost (because they aren't of much use when you're in a fight)
If you're excluding tank to tank engagements, than half the tanks of the war are better individually, and not even for their cost. THe PZ4 and 3, the Sherman, hell, even the T-34. They all have far superior ability to engage soft targets and to exploit breakthroughs, the natural role of a tank.

Your comments in posts like here about engineering comparisons between guns and armor are only really meaningful factors when you're talking about some head on tank to tank fight.

Your entire set of criteria are stupid. The best tank is the one that helps you win the war; and that's mostly going to be a question of "how well does it chew up artillery and machine gun nests, as well as command posts, marshalling yards, repair stations, etc, when it rampages behind the enemy lines after your infantry and artillery create a breach". The tiger was shit at that role, so it was a shitty tank. Even before you factor in things like production costs, or numbers.

>I gain my tank knowledge from World of Tanks - the post

what do you mean sidescraping isn't a viable tactic?

give me a metrics on judging the best tank of the war then

Here's our exchange you little cunt
Now please tell me, how the fuck did you get the idea a tank not in service until 1943 having a better gun was relevant to the KV-1 fucking your little Panzeru's up in 1941-1942? Just for the record the Tiger and Panther were designed almost entirely because of how fucking mauled German Panzers were getting their shit pushed in

but muh kd ratio

Jagdtiger, great armor, one of the most powerful guns of the war

...

Only two heavy anti-tank battalions (schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung), numbered 512 and 653, were equipped with Jagdtigers, with the first vehicles reaching the units in September 1944. About 20% were lost in combat; most were destroyed by their own crews when abandoned, chiefly due to mechanical breakdowns or lack of fuel in the final stages of the war.

The gun used two-part ammunition, which meant that the projectile and the cased propellant charge were loaded separately. Two loaders were tasked with this work.

Tiger ace Otto Carius commanded the second of three companies of Jagdtigers in Panzerjägerabteilung 512. His memoir Tigers in the Mud provides a rare combat history of the 10 Jagdtigers under his command. He states that Jagdtigers were not utilized to their full potential due to several factors, among them that Allied air supremacy made it difficult to move, and the massive gun needed to be re-calibrated from jarring after traveling off-road for even short distances.[6][Note 1] The vehicle was slow, and transmissions and differentials broke down easily because the whole 72 tonne vehicle needed to rotate to traverse the gun. The massive gun had to be locked down, otherwise mounting brackets would have worn too much for accurate firing. Also, a crew member had to exit the vehicle in combat and unlock the gun before firing.[7] However, he also recorded that a 128 mm projectile went through all the walls of a house and destroyed an American tank behind it.[8]

nsufficient crew training and poor morale were the biggest problems for Jagdtiger crews under Carius's command. At the Ruhr pocket, two Jagdtiger commanders failed to attack an American armored column about 1.5 km (1 mile) away in daylight for fear of attracting an air attack, even though the Jagdtigers were well camouflaged.[9] Both vehicles broke down while hurriedly withdrawing through fear of an air attack that did not come, and one was then destroyed by the crew. To prevent such a disaster at Siegen, Carius himself dug in on high ground. An approaching American armored column avoided the prepared ambush because German civilians warned them of it.[10] Later, one of his vehicles fell into a bomb crater at night and was disabled, and another was lost to a Panzerfaust attack by friendly Volkssturm troops who had never seen a Jagdtiger before.[8]

Near Unna, one Jagdtiger climbed a hill to attack five American tanks 600 meters away; two withdrew and the other three opened fire. The Jagdtiger took several hits, but American projectiles could not penetrate the 250 mm (9.8 in) frontal armor. However, the inexperienced German commander lost his nerve and turned around instead of backing down, exposing the thinner side armor, which was eventually penetrated and all six crew members were lost. Carius wrote that it was useless when crews were not trained or experienced enough to have the thick frontal armor facing the enemy at all times.[11]

When unable to escape the Ruhr pocket, Carius ordered the guns of the remaining Jagdtigers destroyed and surrendered to American forces.[12] The 10 Jagdtigers of 2nd Company, Panzerjagerabteilung 512 destroyed one American tank for one Jagdtiger lost to combat, one lost to friendly fire, and eight others lost to breakdown or destroyed by their crews to prevent capture.

Vehicle 305004, The Tank Museum, UK (2008)
On 17 January 1945, two Jagdtigers used by XIV Corps engaged a bunker line in support of infantry near Auenheim. On 18 January, they attacked four secure bunkers at 1,000 meters. The armored cupola of one bunker burned out after two shots. A Sherman attacking in a counter-thrust was set afire by explosive shells. The total combat included 46 explosive shells and 10 anti-tank shells, with no losses to the Jagdtigers.

During April 1945, s.Pz.Jäg.Abt.512 saw a great deal of action, especially on 9 April, where the 1st company engaged an Allied column of Sherman tanks and trucks from hull-down positions, and destroyed 11 tanks and over 30 unarmored or lightly armored targets, with some of the enemy tanks having been knocked out from a distance of more than 4,000 m. The combat unit only lost one Jagdtiger in this incident as Allied ground attack P-47 fighters appeared. During the next couple of days, the 1st company destroyed a further five Sherman tanks before having to surrender at Iserlohn. Meanwhile, the 2nd company still fought on, but with little result. On 15 April 1945, the unit surrendered at Schillerplatz in Iserlohn without fighting.[13]

Tonk is BIG bom, i leik big bom!
tigra sound scery, grugmann leik.

the 88mm had a good HE charge too
> and to exploit breakthroughs, the natural role of a tank.
why should they?
>guns and armor are only really meaningful factors when you're talking about some head on tank to tank fight.
armor is important against anti-tank guns, and at infantry weapons as well...
>The best tank is the one that helps you win the war
Strategically yes, but not if you compare how they individually fare in combat
> "how well does it chew up artillery and machine gun nests, as well as command posts, marshalling yards, repair stations, etc, when it rampages behind the enemy lines after your infantry and artillery create a breach". The tiger was shit at that role, so it was a shitty tank.
When fighting a defensive war against an enemy with far more AFVs than you, I'd say tank-killing performance is kinda relevant...
Far too large, underpowered engine, and overkill gun

you're still not giving any metrics or scenario for comparison sweetie

Here's a question for you dickhead, what exactly is the advantage in mounting your 88mm gun in a slow, ponderous, unreliable instead of hiding it in the shrubs as a standard 88 (like Germany did basically the whole war)? Do you want me to get into how paranoid soldiers reported just about every single tank as a Tiger?

how well does your tank
>kill armored targets
>kill soft targets
>withstand enemy fire
>let its crew perform to their best ability
>drive on difficult terrain
>withstand attrition, how hard is it to repair? (big con to the Tiger)
>slow, ponderous, unreliable
>Early Tigers had a top speed of about 45 kilometres per hour (28 mph) over optimal terrain. This was not recommended for normal operation, and was discouraged in training. An engine governor was subsequently installed, capping the engine at 2,600 rpm and the Tiger's maximum speed to about 38 kilometres per hour (24 mph). Tiger crews report that typical march speed off-road was 10 kilometers per hour (6 mph).[62] However, medium tanks of the time, such as the Sherman or T-34, had on average a top speed of about 45 kilometres per hour (28 mph). Thus, despite the Tiger being nearly twice as heavy, its speed was comparatively respectable.[61] With the tank's very wide tracks, a design feature borrowed from the Soviet T-34, the Tiger had a lower ground pressure than many smaller tanks, such as the M4 Sherman.
>From May 1944 to March 1945, the reliability of the Tiger tank was as good as the Panzer IV. With an average of 70%, the Tiger's operational availability on the Western Front, was better than compared to 62% of Panthers. On the Eastern Front, 65% of Tigers were operationally available, compared to the 71% of Panzer IVs and 65% of Panthers.[64][65]

mobility =/= max speed
both Panther and Tiger, let alone heavier beasts, weren't terribly agile

Also watch this if you're genuinely interested about the idea behind the Tiger
youtube.com/watch?v=J1_hifqjmP4

Yeah, drive 38km an hour, see how your dogshit maybach engine designed for a tank half as geavy handles that after about 5 km

Both Tiger and Panther were fairly mobile, watch this if you're interested (excuse the shitty editing and background noise, couldn't find the original video)
youtube.com/watch?v=O-cFP4S7bc4
youtube.com/watch?v=Mwiy1bdqMfQ
No reason to get angry, but neither Panther nor Tiger were significantly slower than contemporary medium tanks

>Another Wehraboo tonk thread
Jesus Christ, how boring. Can we get something more interesting like a Japanese tank or plane thread? Sure, the tanks Japan used in combat weren't up to the task, but they did develop some interesting and powerful vehicles. More interesting than fucking dead-horsed Tiger tanks.

>neither Panther nor Tiger were significantly slower than contemporary medium tanks
Both of them were designed to be far lower in weight dickhead, the Panther was literally made because Hitler went full autism and wanted MORE ARMOUR for the Tiger. This proved to be a mistake because Hitler fucked that up too by adding 10 fucking tonnes to it

doesn't change the fact that they weren't significantly slower than other tanks.
Now fuck off and insult someone else

>the 88mm had a good HE charge too
Not any better than the allied guns. You don't need to blow up soft targets all that hard.

>why should they?
Why should they what? Use a tank for a role that needs the tank's combination of mobility, protection and firepower instead of in roles where at least one of those three factors largely doesn't matter?

>armor is important against anti-tank guns, and at infantry weapons as well...
Actually, the best way to avoid being killed by anti-tank guns is to see them before they see you, not by slathering armor on everywhere.

>Strategically yes, but not if you compare how they individually fare in combat
You're missing the point. Again. "How they fare in combat" is going to be predicated on how they're used far more so than engineering statistics. The tank that has light armament and light armor that chewed up a critical HQ by running through a gap and blazing away with its 25mm gun is going to do a hell of a lot more to contribute to the war than the huge ponderous tiger that shredded a sherman or two before being flanked and killed.

>When fighting a defensive war against an enemy with far more AFVs than you, I'd say tank-killing performance is kinda relevant...
I say you're a fucktard. I say that if you want that, you should be building anti-tank guns and hiding them everywhere, instead of building a massively complicated and expensive tank to do the same ambush tank role. Hell, they'd probably even be better, since you don't have all those instances of Tigers being abandoned en route because they couldn't be fueled or something broke down that couldn't be repaired, or attacked on their trains because their engines were so underpowered they had to be moved by rail whenever possible.

>No reason to get angry, but neither Panther nor Tiger were significantly slower than contemporary medium tanks
Until you start distance races. Then you tend to get only one tank finishing as the Panther or Tiger breaks down or runs out of gas and has to be abandoned.

>Muh speed
If you cared about that you wouldn't be sucking off these dogshit designs

>Why should they what?
how do you prove that these other tanks were better at said roles than the tiger?
>Actually, the best way to avoid being killed by anti-tank guns is to see them before they see you, not by slathering armor on everywhere.
AT guns tended to be hidden for ambush, in most cases they did see you first no matter what. Good armor is nice in these situations.
>muh tiger was soo much slower and more ponderous than other tanks
already disproved that
>I say you're a fucktard.
fuck you then
>reliability meme
scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=cmh
I didn't start talking about speed, and I'm not 'sucking off' any tank. I'm just not spouting memes about how shit some tanks were either. I feel you have no arguments

>I'm not sucking them off
>I'm just saying they were as fast. better and AWESOME
Fuck off cunt

You're lying and not presenting any counterarguments, instead you're insulting me. How about you fuck off?

>how do you prove that these other tanks were better at said roles than the tiger?
Because they had greater degrees of operational mobility, and were cheaper, meaning you could put more of them to the task (and thus cover more area) than a Tiger could. THey also had far lighter logistical footprints, especially in the ways of fuel consumption, which means that they can operate behind enemy lines for longer.

>already disproved that
No you didn't. KPH!= operational mobility.

>scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=cmh
That is an incredibly stupid argument
>We lost more in combat than to abandoned after reliability issues
does not mean it was unreliable. Not to mention that it counts any degree of combat exposure and subequent breaking down and/or abandoning as a combat loss and not a mechanical loss is incredibly poor methodology, as they make no attempt to discover the extent of combat damage before writing it off as such.

Don't forget the paper is about panthers, not Tigers.

Meanwhile, you have things like Le Panther 1947 for the French experience using them postwar, with no Allied combat damage or interdiction efforts from the air, and they still found it to be a mechanically unreliable piece of shit that was almost unusable. How do you factor that?

>Muh superior Panther and Tiger
>Actually they suck dick and break down constantly
>NO THEY DON'T, THEY ARE BEST TANK EVER
Fuck off idiot

>Grug think this cavepainting go forever sleep alot of ages ago
>Grug thing you need to go to seen it cave

It's not like the british and americans were the ones who started this meme in the first place.