The only German weapon I remember my father speaking about in terms of what "worried" them - was the 88's.
@evanhughes76092 ай бұрын
There were no Tigers in the US sector of the Normandy campaign, but GIs swore they'd seen them. They were probably Panzer IVs with Schürzen and spaced turret armour.
@janmale77672 ай бұрын
I think that shützen (skirts) was a very innovative idea to give a slightly under armored but very reliable tank an extended lease on life! With the unintended benefit of the allies seeing it as a Tiger!
@sirridesalot66522 ай бұрын
@@janmale7767 actually that supplemental armour was designed to stop anti-tank RIFLE bullets.
@timonsolus2 ай бұрын
@@sirridesalot6652 : And bazookas.
@user-xh3wr1do7k2 ай бұрын
The US also faced virtually no SS units in Normandy either. Nearly all the elite SS units faced off against the 2nd British Army which included the Canadians as well as country’s troops.
@michaelkenny85402 ай бұрын
@@timonsolus No. It was an answer to the Soviet AT Rifle which could penetrate the sides and rear of the Pz III & IV. It had nothing to do with protection against hollow-charge weapons.
@ianhowdin9932 ай бұрын
The most effective tank/tank killer the Germans had was the Stug III. Most produced, cheapest to build, easiest to service, lowest profile, most tank kills.
@GrahamCStrouse2 ай бұрын
The Stug III was very effective. It was basically the Volkswagen Beetle of tank destroyers.
@seanmurphy70112 ай бұрын
Most tank kills? Where did you get that statistic? Warthunder?
@dovetonsturdee70332 ай бұрын
It was never a tank. It was an assault gun, repurposed as a tank destroyer. A means o getting a long 75mm gun into a Panzer III chassis.
@carl53812 ай бұрын
@@seanmurphy7011it’s actually a fact. STUGs are responsible for the most allied tank kills according to the Bovington Tank Museum researchers
@CaseyTheBrash2 ай бұрын
@@carl5381 if you have more of something and engage something else with it, you are going to get more kills with it. But was it the most effective or prolific?
@brunozeigerts63792 ай бұрын
The movie Kelly's Heroes demonstrated that the Tiger 1 was completely impervious to paint shells.
@finncarlbomholtsrensen11882 ай бұрын
This one was a T34 made to look like one, but a fine job if not an expert! I did suppose at first it was a real Tiger they had found somewhere!😁
@hbrano1Ай бұрын
But not to gold :P
@Castlelong333Ай бұрын
The Tiger tank used in Kelly's heros, was in fact a T34 tank modified to look like a tiger, the same T34 - Tiger tank was used in saving private Ryan
@sjoormen1Ай бұрын
@@Castlelong333 Are you sure there was what, 30, maybe more years between the movies. And Kelly's was made in Yugoslavia.
@Castlelong333Ай бұрын
@@sjoormen1 ya I am pretty sure, have a good look at the two film clips with the T34 - tiger tank they are the exact same
@daveybyrden39362 ай бұрын
Mr. Copson is asked whether the Tiger was the "most feared". He gives a long answer 5:10 talking about its cost, its reliability, the difficulty of maintenance etc. etc. But why? None of these aspects are relevant. Allied tankers didn't KNOW these facts, for the most part. And even if they knew them, what difference would they make? You "fear" a tank when you believe it's in your vicinity, because it might shoot you. The knowledge that its mechanics have a difficult job, or that arguments about fund allocations rage in Berlin, doesn't change your fear. He's answering a different question to what was asked. And then... he says "eight thousand Tigers". There were 1350, and even that number is double-counting components that got recycled.
@rolandgerhard92112 ай бұрын
Great. Your comment is better than the video itself.
@barryfrancis7421Ай бұрын
I beg to differ, the reliability aspect is a factor if the tank is broken down some miles from where it's needed.
@daveybyrden3936Ай бұрын
@@barryfrancis7421 But how do you measure "fear"? Surely it means the emotions that Allied tankers had, not anything the Germans felt. And only the Germans knew how many broken-down Tigers were sitting behind the lines. That factor couldn't come into play for Allied tankers.
@pete1942Ай бұрын
He wasn’t asked if it was the most feared, he was asked if it deserved the title. He answered the question he was asked. The 8,000 Tiger comment was odd though. I doubt he meant it, he should know the real numbers. I would guess it was a slip of the tongue.
@dallasreid7755Ай бұрын
Exactly!
@bart285118 күн бұрын
First the sherman tactic of getting within 500m but having a few shermans 'knocked out' is prized (quantity is quality) shortly later the exact same tactic for the T-34 against the germans is called suicidal..
@FinsburyPhil2 ай бұрын
And one of the other issues with the Tiger is how difficult it was to recover if disabled or broken down. You can find pictures of a Tiger being towed by two or three big Sdkfz 9s.
@johnanita92512 ай бұрын
How was the josef stalin II or KV 1 pulled when broken down. How did the russians go about that...
@outinthesticks1035Ай бұрын
Usually the Germans were in retreat, allies advancing. It's more difficult to retrieve and repair a broken tank if your troupes have retreated past it . The allies on the other hand , if a tank needed repair , it just had to wait till the repair facilities had advanced to it
@austin2842Ай бұрын
The fear among WW2 crews of Shermans exploding was real, even if the Ronson myth came later. My grandad was a tank driver with the 7th Armoured. He mentioned it to me that they tended to explode and blow their turrets, and was thankful that he was never assigned to one. Likey a rumor that started from early Shermans with dry stowage.
@osmacar533115 күн бұрын
No, it wasn't.
@patnor735412 күн бұрын
Not a rumour. The dry shermans did blow up easily.
@nigelhopkinson66143 күн бұрын
Didn't the Germans casll the Sherman the Tommy Cooker ?
@osmacar53313 күн бұрын
@@nigelhopkinson6614 unsure. but we called them ronsons, because they started up every time.
@vantabuna12352 ай бұрын
At 8:08 -> "....you're looking at 8 thousand Tigers..." ??? The number of produced Tiger I and Tiger II together was around 1900 total.
@EasyTiger.013432 ай бұрын
Yes. I was surprised he said that too.
@sirridesalot66522 ай бұрын
Perhaps he was thinking of the Pz.IV?
@davidmacy4112 ай бұрын
I think he combined the Panther and Tiger 1 production numbers. 6557 Panthers, 1368 Tiger 1. To be fair to him, either of these brought about the same amount of fear to crews.
@michaelc22542 ай бұрын
@@davidmacy411To be fair this guy works at the Tank Museum and should know better. I’m just a tank buff and I was shocked when he said 8,000 Tigers (not Panthers). I had to replay it. The Germans would have loved to have that many Tigers.
@cat-im4vv2 ай бұрын
@@michaelc2254 this so cold museum makes lot's of mistakes in nollage overall..been doing that for long time now...
@MEATOGRE2 ай бұрын
There is a lot of misinformation in this video. Try again with accuracy. "8000 Tigers" That's news to the rest of the world.
@ATOMTAYLOR2 ай бұрын
Yup and he was oblivious to the fact that the Germans called the Shermans Tommy Cookers.
@evanhughes76092 ай бұрын
@ATOMTAYLOR a Tommy Cooker is half a petrol tin filled with sand which has been soaked in kerosene. It's a British Army extemporaneous solution to lack of ready fuel in the Western Desert.
@tomgoff78872 ай бұрын
yeah, he's probably thinking of Pz IV production.
@davidmacy4112 ай бұрын
I think he combined the Panther and Tiger 1 production numbers. 6557 Panthers, 1368 Tiger 1. To be fair to him, either of these brought about the same amount of fear to crews.
@michaelfinger63032 ай бұрын
@@davidmacy411 then he could have added the 450ish Tiger II on top xD
@kenwheeler615018 күн бұрын
I will not have a bad word said about the Sherman. It was a tank built for the job, and the job started in the USA. It was made by three manufacturers and their subsidiaries all main parts were interchangeable. For every complete unit supplied there was enough spares to build another three or four. They were built to be just under the max weight of the cranes of the liberty ships that were to transport them to the UK. When they got here it had to moved around the country on a standard UK freight train so had to fit under the bridges too. It had to use fuels and oils that were available by supply or capture. All of these things were taken into account at its inception, it was a feat of planning and engineering. In the air there was the Spitfire, the Lancaster, the Mustang and the Fortress, on the ground there was the Sherman. Unfortunately we in the UK with our limited resources and bad management didn’t come up with something formidable until it was over, but then the Centurion did not have to fit into the hold of a Liberty Ship. THANK YOU USA.
@tvgerbil198411 күн бұрын
Development of the Cromwell started in 1940 and would have been a decent tank if it appeared in 1942. Instead, it only arrived the battlefield in 1944.
@ScottBrown-ec4sf2 ай бұрын
This myth is not busted.The allies saw tigers any time they spotted a german tank. The fear of the tiger were very real.
@thingamabob39022 ай бұрын
if you look at a frontal view of a Panzer IV G/H with the added side-skirt armour on the turret they - very superficially - look like a Tiger if you have bad visibility, far away or didn´t look long enough ... it easily can be mixed up with a real Tiger. So they probably said ... if in doubt, lets assume its a Tiger, lets go somewhere else ^^
@brennanleadbetter97082 ай бұрын
They thought everything was a Tiger
@wesmartin30972 ай бұрын
He said the fear was real so…
@slthbob2 ай бұрын
Remember... he is speaking from the convenience of an Ivory Tower my friend... framing and perception are amazing things
@juneabbey95382 ай бұрын
And Allied pilots in the Pacific saw Zeros every time they saw a single-engine fighter (the Zero was numerous but most were of course other types). German pilots always saw "Spitfires". Every single Axis anti-tank gun in Africa was "an 88" even though most of them were 37 and 50mm units. TLDR: situation normal.
@barryj388Ай бұрын
With respect to Wittmann, I seem to remember both Joe Ekins and the fellow from the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers said they could never be certain if they destroyed Wittman's tank. Both Ekins and the Canadian guy said his tank would have simply been "another enemy tank" and that they didn't even know who Michael Wittmann was at the time. The idea the Canadians may have hit Wittmann seems to be based on likelihood as they were positioned within 150 metres of where Wittmann's tank was destroyed.
@outinthesticks1035Ай бұрын
They were closer , and on the side that wittmans tank was said to be hit
@davidkgreen19 күн бұрын
@@outinthesticks1035 Radley Walters was with the Sherbrookes.The guy was an amazing tank commander.Have never heard his take on this incident.
@gerardhogan32 ай бұрын
Chris is correct. I travelled from Australia to Bovington to see the Tiger but also to see the other fantastic bits of kit there. Very memorable. Even my wife was into it! Gotta be happy with that.
@mongolike5132 ай бұрын
Get yourselves up to Cairns the armour museum up there is doing great work.
@Spartan9022 ай бұрын
You lucky bugger! I hope to get there one day.👍😁🇦🇺
@slotcarfan2 ай бұрын
Tiger had a tactical advantage, but srategically a drain. Wars are in the end won by logistics.
@jamesdellaneve90052 ай бұрын
The Germans did this over and over. V1 and V2 costs compared to how many fighter aircraft. Having a strategic bomber, etc.
@williamzk90832 ай бұрын
The Tiger cost only 50% more than a Panther. It was meant to be a small production run specialised breakthrough tank and it worked.
@SeanCSHConsulting2 ай бұрын
@@williamzk9083 It worked? Talk about rewriting history. lulz
@sloths-df3gf2 ай бұрын
I think James Holland says that over half of Tigers lost were simply abandoned by their crews.
@syncmonismАй бұрын
It was never a tank that they could have used in large quantities. It was designed as a heavy break-through and infantry support tank. It was designed for specialist units all along. They always needed a cheaper and faster tank which could be produced in larger quantities, and which would have better operational mobility.
@nomdeplume7982 ай бұрын
My late father in law served with the 50th Northumberland Infantry Division from 1941 - 1946 and landed with The Green Howards on Gold Beach on D-Day. He told me that almost every German tank they saw from 6 of June onwards was perceived to be a Tiger. Most tended to be upgunned and up armoured Mk IVs.
@ScottBrown-ec4sfКүн бұрын
Thank you this proves that it was not a myth. My uncle was with the North Nova Scotia Highlanders in Normandy and said they all had Tiger fever.
@FrontSideBusАй бұрын
The thing about what would have happened if we had Centurion in 1940 has got me thinking about something else. Imagine if the RAF and Air Ministry had actually listened to and supported a man called Frank in *1929* who had ideas for a new type of engine...
@joecarr326Ай бұрын
Jets were too complicated to make. You could make 4-5 propeller planes for 1 jet fighter. If Hitler had focused on more Propeller planes (Including a 4 engine bomber) instead of more wonder weapons D-day and the invasion of Europe may have never happened.
@knoll9812Ай бұрын
Jets not thR hard to manufacture. Once investment was available jets could be manufactured within years. Cheaper than the precision combustion engines at the top of the range. Slaves could make jets in caves. Slaves could not nakecmb or Merlin engines.
@confederatenationalist72832 ай бұрын
No fear of the 88mm gun among allied tank crews is the narrative being sold here. My Father only served as tank recovery and transport and even he feared it for what he would inevitably find and have to deal with inside every tank hit by it.Not necessarily penetrated.
@TSD40272 ай бұрын
German 75/L70 found on the Panther and Jagdpanzer IV would do the same thing.
@yashkasheriff93252 ай бұрын
Normandy is weird because anything with a muzzle brake with sufficiently scary effect was lumped into the 8,8 cm. You can see this with how the British reacted to 21st Panzer's S307 Pak and Becker's other vehicles based on Renaults and Hotchkisses with the 15 cm.
@confederatenationalist72832 ай бұрын
@@yashkasheriff9325 At the type of ranges that an 88 could obliterate an allied tank and its crew they wouldn't have had time to decide the difference even if they actually saw it.
@vernongoodey50962 ай бұрын
The Tiger was also designed so it couldn’t fit on German rail transporter wagons until you took a day taking off the outside wheels possibly during an air attack. I also read the Churchill Crocodile was the most feared tank German units ran from it.
@allanhagan51132 ай бұрын
Wasn't the wheels it was replacing the tracks with transport tracks. a bigger limit was how many 60 ton capable bridges there were once dismounted from the train.
@martinsims1273Ай бұрын
Crocodiles are easy to distinguish from the other types of Churchills, they always had a trailer in tow, the fuel tank for the flamethrower.
@luckyguy600Ай бұрын
I sure would!
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
You said that poorly: what you meant was that the Tiger in combat tracks couldn't fit on the SSyMS 80 heavy rail transport cars until after they changed tracks and removed the outer wheels, side mud guards, etc. Not sure where the possible air attack thing comes in. The only German units that would run from a Croc would be infantry or unobservant tank crews. Anything that big and slow WITH a wagon full of fuel was a pyro's delight.
@Mimer6Ай бұрын
These "experts" seem not to have heard of Kurt Knispel.
@daveybyrden3936Ай бұрын
Most of the myth of Knispel was invented by an author called Kurowski. Veterans from Knispel's unit got angry at his book and how he simply invented things and put words in their mouths. There may be some truth in the myth, but we'll never know, will we? Kurowski poisons everything he touches.
@anthonyeaton515317 күн бұрын
Who??
@logwog19918 күн бұрын
Exactly what I was thinking during the video.
@vancguy92042 күн бұрын
True
@terryriffe4792Ай бұрын
The vast majority of the Sherman tank crews never faced a Tiger or a Panther tank . Most of their losses came from anti tank weapons .
@daveybyrden3936Ай бұрын
I think the Russian crews of Russian Shermans faced quite a few Panthers.
@elkrumb915928 күн бұрын
That’s why the 75mm was preferred
@timmccarthy98227 күн бұрын
"The vast majority of the Sherman tank crews never faced" much of the German Army either. The German Army was fatally wounded in Russia in 1941, most was on the eastern front and 80% casualties' were on the eastern front to.
@Toenism23 күн бұрын
Against which the Sherman had no effective armor to speak of.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
@@daveybyrden3936 To their dismay
@rolandgerhard92112 ай бұрын
5:16 hi, sorry to correct but the Tiger I has a 700HP engine for 57 tons of weight and the Panzer IV a 300HP engine for 25 tons. So both has about 12HP/ton.
@MisterSplendyАй бұрын
Nothing about what he says in about the Tiger removes the fear factor. It WAS the most feared tank for WW2. None of his critique meant a single thing to the allied soldiers facing this beast. Bad take.
@elkrumb915928 күн бұрын
And your source is?
@oumajgad68059 күн бұрын
@@elkrumb9159 Countless memoirs of WW2 vets?
@alanwareham73912 ай бұрын
The trouble is that we can all say that on paper that this weapon is better than that one or it’s got a better killing range etc,etc but the proof is how did they actually do in any situation, take the Fairey Swordfish ,an aircraft that was outdated when it entered service ,it had virtually no protection and a top speed of best 130 mph.But un escorted for the loss of only 2 planes out of an attack by 21 aircraft all unescorted they put the main Italian battle fleet at Taranto out of action for a time, something that on paper they should never have been able to to
@htcltd2 ай бұрын
I recall reading that when they attacked the Bismark the German's fire control system didn't work because it was not designed for aircraft that slow.
@mrcaboosevg6089Ай бұрын
@@htcltd They also flew near sea level making the AA guns on the Bismarck unable to effectively attack them, most ships expected dive bombers and were built to counter that
@emmetjames3Ай бұрын
It was also so slow that when they attacked the Bismarck, the German gunners couldn't slow the turning speed of their orlikon anti aircraft guns slowly enough to hit the string bean planes.
@oumajgad68059 күн бұрын
@@htcltd It's even more hilarious. They survived the onslaught also thanks to the fact that it was made with fabric (metal frame covered by fabric to be more precise), meaning that shells could pass through it without exploding or causing any shrapnel damage.
@meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee27 күн бұрын
@@mrcaboosevg6089 Logical people the Germans it probably never occurred to them that designing their anti-aircraft guns to defend against aircraft attacking their ship from below, was necessary.
@sjoormen12 ай бұрын
No matter what my favorite is still matilda 2...Colin Forbes and his Tramp in armor might do something with that but still...
@coltsfoot99262 ай бұрын
Great book!
@jugbywellington11342 ай бұрын
Wow, I read that yonks ago. Loved it!
@timonsolus2 ай бұрын
The Matilda II was a great tank in Europe and North Africa in 1940 and 1941, and was still very effective against the Japanese in 1943-45.
@dovetonsturdee70332 ай бұрын
@@timonsolus The Queen of the Desert.
@DaveSherry-z1wАй бұрын
good book that. Still have my paperback copy
@nheather2 ай бұрын
The interviewer needs to factor in the reliability as well as the cost, and then consider the industrial capability of the competing nations. For example, you can build 40 Shermans for the price of 10 Tigers, but 5 of those Tigers might break down on the way to the battlefield so in reality you have 5 tigers versus 40 Shermans. And then when you consider the industrial might of the US, they didn’t build 4 Shermans for every Tiger they actually built 33 Shermans for every Tiger.
@hansulrichboning85512 ай бұрын
After some teethening-problems the Tiger1 was quite reliable.Unreliability of Tiger 1 is annother myth.Panther had more issues(weak drivetrain f.e.)
@ROBERTNABORNEY-jx5il2 ай бұрын
@@hansulrichboning8551 References to back that statement up?
@sotroof2 ай бұрын
The thing is that the Germans didn't have enough manpower for "quantity has a quality of its own"
@joealp81962 ай бұрын
Similarly, those comparing the Spitfire to ME109 hardly ever mention the 3:1 cost of production.
@sirridesalot66522 ай бұрын
@@sotroof Or enough fuel and oil to run them all if they did have them.
@IanDavies-gy4mg2 ай бұрын
The Valentine should get an honourable mention, surely?
@ihategooglealot37412 ай бұрын
reliable in the extreme - the russians loved it so much they asked us to extend production - and when the russians invaded manchuria they prioritised Sherman and Valentine because they were so reliable and perfect for use in remote theatres.
@yashkasheriff93252 ай бұрын
Very useful for light recce with the Soviets, hardier than a T-70, but relatively quite mobile. Performance in difficult ground holds it back, but handles quite nicely through the gears.
@ptonpc2 ай бұрын
Many models of it and many adaptations. It did its job well.
@ptonpc2 ай бұрын
@@ianhowdin993 Which isn't what history indicates.
@cheften2mk2 ай бұрын
@@ianhowdin993It wasn’t
@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus12 күн бұрын
The gentleman makes the assertion that the T-34 was the first tank to use sloped armor. I wonder if he's ever looked at the front of a Renault FT, or a BT-5.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Funny, eh?
@hvermout4248Ай бұрын
T-34: "Quantity is also a quality"
@MarcosElMalo2Ай бұрын
The quote, attributed to Joseph Stalin, is “Quantity has a quality all its own.”
@jeffreymckie3328Ай бұрын
So said Stalin.
@achimotto-vs2lbАй бұрын
this tank was halfarsed German. the gun certainly was
@hvermout4248Ай бұрын
@@achimotto-vs2lb But costed only a quarter. Four T-34s for the price of one Tiger. That's how you win wars.
@atillakandemir6439Ай бұрын
junk
@paulbromley66876 күн бұрын
The Ronson comment was new to me and sounds like an American comment, the British comment was about them being called Tommy cookers because they would easily “Brew up” so it’s the same style of comment inferring an unhealthy likelihood of catching fire, I don’t know enough to know how true that was but it sounds like the kind of dark British Army humour I am familiar with.
@rogerparkhurst57962 ай бұрын
I would think the Churchill tank, although slow had the ability to punch through
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Through what and with which gun? If you say "2 pdr" I say "Paper bag". You get the idea.
@samrodian91913 күн бұрын
Fantastic episode guys! Thanks Chris that was so interesting and informative.
@bosfotograaf51462 ай бұрын
For a historian and tank expert this chap's British underskirt hangs out way too far. This was supposed to debunk that the Tiger 1 was the most feared tank in WWII. First he basically admits it but then supposedly debunks it based on complexity and cost to produce. Sorry but that is two completely different aspects.
@martinsutton61882 ай бұрын
It is sort of true that it was the most feared. Allied commanders didn't fear it because it was too scarce to impact most battle results. Most allied tank crews and infantry never saw one so there wasn't much fear there either. On the other hand if you were one of the lucky tank crews to meet one on the battlefield there was almost nothing scarier.
@Cometkazie4 күн бұрын
Excellent episode. Chris Copson was outstanding.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Except for those annoying little boo-boos.
@sirridesalot66522 ай бұрын
I believe that the BIGGEST drawback of the T-34 was the lack of radios for tank to tank communications. Imagine having to use semaphore flags in a moving tank battle!
@emceedoctorb30222 ай бұрын
And a lack of an internal intercom. And the lack of a turret basket. And the two man turret on the 76. And the horrendous visibility on the obr41 and obr42s. The T34 had a few good features let down by many, many bad ones.
@apyllyon2 ай бұрын
@@emceedoctorb3022 the 34/76 did receive a 3 man turret late 42-early 43, produced by a specific arsenal, and later expanding to multiple factories.
@emceedoctorb30222 ай бұрын
@@apyllyon As far as I know no 76 model had a three man turret, that was exclusively the 85 which was introduced in 43. The later models of the 76 were fitted with a cupola for the commander which somewhat alleviated the horrendous visibility of the earlier models.
@executivedirector74672 ай бұрын
The T-34 was designed from the outset to have a radio in every tank. A shortage of equipment meant that most T-34s in the early years lacked radio, but by 1943 most had one.
@executivedirector74672 ай бұрын
@@apyllyon There was never a 3 man turret on any 76mm-armed T-34.
@T0mmy999Ай бұрын
Also they were know to the Germans as Tommy Cookers, possibly the Ronson Myth came later, but, is it a Myth, the Germans definitely did call them Tommy Cookers.
@sidm33002 ай бұрын
The T34 most definitely wasn't the first tank to have sloped armour, although it may have been the first to have all it's surfaces sloped.
@friedyzostas9998Ай бұрын
Man pretended to forget about the lower sides of the tank, then pretended to say something smart on the internet.
@RussianThunderrr23 күн бұрын
wrote: "The T34 most definitely wasn't the first tank to have sloped armour, although it may have been the first to have all it's surfaces sloped." -- Sure, what other tank before T-34 had a slopped armor that doubled the EAT(Effective Armor Thickness) from 45mm to 90?
@friedyzostas999823 күн бұрын
@@RussianThunderrr None, because a plate so small angled at such an aggresive angle expects the tank crew to be dwarves. T-34 is a stupid design.
@sean64030712 күн бұрын
yep, even the Matilda II had sloping armour AND the hull was also shaped a bit like a boat at the front (with storage compartments on either side of the driver).
@sirjosephwhitworth941527 күн бұрын
I always thought the Stug III although not a tank was a most effective bit of kit. Nevertheless, he has his opinion, but I'd take my chances in a Panther or a Tiger over any allied tank. Production numbers made Shermans and T34 effective.
@johnmay9726Ай бұрын
I believe the Germans did call the sherman the tommy cooker though
@mrcaboosevg6089Ай бұрын
From what i read they called it the 'Zippo' because it caught fire so often
@kurtdanielson993Ай бұрын
@@mrcaboosevg6089 Once they got better ammunition storage (water jackets I think) Shermans were safer. Plenty of pictures and video of Panzers on fire also. You were much safer in a Sherman than being in infantry.
@chrisrumbold3621Ай бұрын
British nickname for the Sherman was the "Ronson", as in lighter fuel.
@thevillaaston7811Ай бұрын
@@mrcaboosevg6089 No. The Germans knew nothing about Zippo or Ronson.
@JDChengАй бұрын
@@chrisrumbold3621 Someone didn't watch the video.
@Castlelong333Ай бұрын
A Tiger would take out four Shermans , the problem for the Germans was the Allies and Russians produced way more Shermans and T34s than four to one Tigers , also add in air superiority, and German lack of fuel
@stuartdollar9912Ай бұрын
The fate of most Tigers was to break down before they ever ran into those four Shermans.
@dewdew80Ай бұрын
"A Tiger would take out four Shermans" How did they manage that when there are no confirmed encounters between Shermans and Tigers?
@mitchellcouchman1444Ай бұрын
looking equipment in a vacuum like that is the problem, its called combined arms for a reason
@veetsv1597Ай бұрын
@@dewdew80there were three encounters between M4’s and Tiger I’s post D-Day. More if you count Firefly’s. For the standard M4, once the Tigers came out ahead, once the M-4’s, and the other was inconclusive.
@dewdew80Ай бұрын
@@veetsv1597 through process of elimination many historians believe that three instances may actually be real encounters with Tigers out of a heap of rumored encounters. Those three instances do not have conclusive evidence.
@richarddumont5389Ай бұрын
After WWII the Tiger was not even considered for the rearmament of the French army, the Panther was.
@davidandrew107810 күн бұрын
And it failed miserably.
@richarddumont538910 күн бұрын
@@davidandrew1078 I was not aware of this. About 50 were kept in active service until 1951 through the use of inventories of spares available … until exhaustion.
@jamesrickerby275612 күн бұрын
My grandfather built centurions when I asked him, and he always said, "I can't tell you, it's secret." He worked at Vickers Armstrong, on the tyne!
@Papasmokes8752 ай бұрын
I’m glad he touched on the P47, according to German soldiers they feared allied AirPower more then anything else. Allied tank crews would probably disagree with the rest of the show however.
@rossanderson44402 ай бұрын
And artillery; biggest complaint amongst the German army was that even a US noncom (sgt or cpl) could call in arty if a situation needed it.
@Roll_the_BonesАй бұрын
Thanks Chris, always a pleasure to hear you speak.
@beigethursday13522 ай бұрын
8000 Tigers? Thought there were only 1500.
@amogus9482 ай бұрын
You are right, I think it was 1200-1300 Tiger I and 400-500 Tiger II
@malcolmhunt71082 ай бұрын
1,346 production Tiger I and 489 production Tiger II.
@blitzkopf72672 ай бұрын
this is just fake expert from tank museum
@ThumperLust2 ай бұрын
Yeah, he’s got the production of the Tiger mixed with the Panther.
@KernelFault2 ай бұрын
@@blitzkopf7267 Indeed. What was the name of your book again? I seem to have forgotten.
@KOAP336 күн бұрын
Michael Wittmann destroyed a HUGE numbers of enemy tanks and vehicles in his STUG III then years later as a reward he earn his spot as a Tank Commander of Tiger I
@stephenconnolly3018Ай бұрын
The Tiger tank had one great advantage when it broke down the factory mechanics could walk to it.
@davidandrew107810 күн бұрын
Where was this, "Expert", found?
@nerome619Ай бұрын
Sir John Monash 'invented' combined arms blitzkreig at Hamel in WW1, which was well observed by the Germans
@DaveSherry-z1wАй бұрын
No he didn't.
@BingoFrogstranglerАй бұрын
Yes he could fly as well without a plane, all tactics ascribed to him had already been perfected by the British Army.
@darthcheney74472 ай бұрын
Soviet crews preferred the Sherman over the T-34 as well.
@rossanderson44402 ай бұрын
They loved the radio system, that's for sure.
@hadeedmalik7192 ай бұрын
they didnt but ok.
@executivedirector74672 ай бұрын
No evidence of that. Most red army tank crews never saw an M4 so they wouldn't have any basis for preferring one over the other. The red army loved their M4s but used them exactly how they used their T-34s. There was no preference one way or the other.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
@@executivedirector7467 Though they uniformly held the American 75 in great disdain.
@TheSleepLes2 ай бұрын
Tiger-too heavy for bridges, too expensive,tranny not fit for purpose, underpowered engine, fuel guzzler. Also it used petrol (gasoline) which was in short supply in Germany from 1942 onward.
@ClovisPointАй бұрын
what do expect back then ? some people
@wykehammato27842 ай бұрын
About preferring the 4 Sherman over 1 Tiger, that would assume that you have 20 trained crew members vs. 5
@terraflow__bryanburdo45472 ай бұрын
Probably the right ratio in 1944
@jeffbybee52072 ай бұрын
Considering the impact of a tank having fewer infantry isn't that out there
@solreaver832 ай бұрын
Well they did.
@ostiariusalpha2 ай бұрын
The actual ratio was often 20 trained Sherman crewman vs 1 trained Tiger crewman and the 4 barely trained recruits he was stuck with.
@ianwoodall45232 ай бұрын
We did
@colb715Ай бұрын
Sherman or tiger….ill pick the tiger most allied tankers would too!!
@genesmolko811325 күн бұрын
German Tiger tank was not the most feared? Why do US veterans say they feared it the most? Why do US battlefield reports report so many sightings of Tigers, far beyond what actually existed? Because US troops were so terrified of them they saw them everywhere.
@tonupharry22 күн бұрын
Why do people think the B17 was the best bomber ? It wasnt the Lancaster was . Even a mosquito could carry the paltry bomb load of a flying fortress.
@capnceltblood534717 күн бұрын
Was the Sherman also known by the Germans as the Tommy cooker or was that a Myth?
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Depends on who you ask: the results were the same though.
@timothyhouse16222 ай бұрын
The fact is that tank vs tank combat on the Western Front amounted to 15% of all engagements for Allied tankers. What percentage of that 15 percent was Tiger 1's? This obsession with Tiger vs Sherman is ridiculous. Never mind the problem with comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank. Also, not necessarily a myth but a misconception, Tiger 2 was not a development of Tiger 1. Tiger 1 was a stop gap temporary solution to the development of Tiger 2 being delayed. Tiger 1 was actually very crude. It is a monolithic slab of metal with square corners and a turret shaped around a gun.
@2ndavenuesw4812 ай бұрын
No, it wasn't crude. You think a machine that complex and effective is crude because of the shape? That's like calling a square body pickup crude compared to a curvy one. Squared shapes are not without advantages and sloped are not without drawbacks.
@Nick-rs5if2 ай бұрын
"Press the rivet to talk to the crew!" "Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?"
@sirridesalot66522 ай бұрын
Not to mention that iirc a crewmember had to exit the tank in order t o talk to the infantryman.
@executivedirector74672 ай бұрын
@@sirridesalot6652 Still better than nothing.
@Bagledog5000Ай бұрын
@@sirridesalot6652 Or they could open a pistol port or that nifty little hatch on the back of the turret, and talk through that instead.
@wor53lg505 күн бұрын
It wasn't to talk it was basically a door bell, to mean stop....
@scottbarham845511 күн бұрын
Canadians took the brunt
@andrewshore28982 ай бұрын
As a native English speaker, albeit from another country, I struggled to understand what this guy was saying.
@laserdadАй бұрын
I understood him fine, and learned a lot from him.
@curtisweaver3682Ай бұрын
Yes, I am from the USA midwest, and do struggle at times with, not so much his accent, but the low volume of his delivery.
@andrewshore2898Ай бұрын
@@curtisweaver3682 The actual times radio fella enunciates properly, and uses well defined vowels and consonants.
@DaveSherry-z1wАй бұрын
If you're not from England, you are NOT a native English speaker.
@40beretta1Күн бұрын
When talking about the Tiger I No one ever mentions... the Tiger was NOT designed for what is was inevitably use for... He NEVER mentions the Tiger, Panther or King Tiger(s) were a MBT ~ a Break Through Tank.
@jeffreywick40572 ай бұрын
48,000 man hours to build an M-4, 300,000 man hours to build a Tiger1.
@Suchtel10Ай бұрын
Without air support a Tiger can destroy more than ten sherman, but the US had a much bigger industrial capacity.
@phoenix211245Ай бұрын
@@Suchtel10Nope. The exchange rate was closer to 1-2. In fact, there were quite a few engagements where the tiger was destroyed before managing to hit any allied armor whatsoever.
@Suchtel10Ай бұрын
@@phoenix211245 What did i say? Without air support. But from 1943 onwards Tiger could not fight without danger from air strikes
@TheLucanicLordАй бұрын
About 500 for a T34.
@Suchtel10Ай бұрын
@@TheLucanicLord Even for the Russians would that be too cheap.
@edfrancis7122 ай бұрын
The irony is that a vast amount of the myths and misinformation came out of Bovington in the first place.
@garydownes21112 ай бұрын
This
@iantaylor33932 ай бұрын
Interesting. Can you elaborate?
@floydfanboy29482 ай бұрын
@@iantaylor3393yeah, curious here too
@douglasgreen4372 ай бұрын
How dare you...
@captiannemo15872 ай бұрын
Fletcher never went out and updated things or would not do additional research even if… the information existed at Bovy in the files that would explain things. Instead he went off the top of his head from stuff he’d dug into in the 80s 90s.
@chipcook5346Ай бұрын
I usually dismiss clicky thumbnails, but yours is worded just right. I like Hanson's take on the effect of Dunkirk on British armor. I was an American armor soldier long ago. I am not alone in my respect for the Centurion. What a beast. I remember days at the museum at Ft Knox and seeing the cutaway of the T34. The idea of sighting through the barrel, as was done with the earliest model, made us roll our eyes in disbelief.
@RussianThunderrr23 күн бұрын
wrote: "I remember days at the museum at Ft Knox and seeing the cutaway of the T34. The idea of sighting through the barrel, as was done with the earliest model, made us roll our eyes in disbelief." -- Why? Did "those" from Ft Knox did not know, that T-34 had both telescopic and periscopic sights on earlier T-34? And same for loader/gunner i.e. both telescopic and periscopic sights? Just look at 28:18 of this video.
@austin2842Ай бұрын
The Sherman Firefly wasnt just an upgunned Sherman. It made it a serious contender against any German tank. In all reality, Wittman wasn't a tactical genius. He was reckless, and arguably not very good. But he benefitted from having a vastly OP tank. Ths first time he encountered an allied tank with equal firepower, he was taken out.
@ToreDL87Ай бұрын
100%, though not completely unskilled he was pretty reckless and probably a fanatic. At the boccage and hedgerows the Western allies figured out the recipe, you could always count on German counter attacks, so they set up for it and hammered them with artillery and hit them at the flanks, which accounted for a lot of the available big cats. The Canadians in particular got quite good at it, as was the case with Wittman, 400-500 meters from the side.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Not exactly the way it happened that day especially as it has been proven through credible means that the Canadians bagged him and his compatriots that day and they didn't have Fireflies, did they? Hardly "equal firepower". More a case of not seeing the ambush; but that's why it was successful.
@somaday25952 ай бұрын
76mm 17 pounder could penetrate 150mm of steel at 1000 yds, better than the 88mm on the Mk VI (with a full powder charge). (Around Nov-44, the powder was reduced 25% due to the shortage of nitrogen to make explosives.)
@lewcrowley37108 күн бұрын
Got a source?
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
@@lewcrowley3710 I was wondering the exact same thing.
@camrenwick2 ай бұрын
The Centurion is my favourite, although it just missed WW2.
@wombatski1002 ай бұрын
Comet was mine. A really good tank
@camrenwick28 күн бұрын
@@wombatski100 Yes, I like the Comet too
@robertjahnigen424Ай бұрын
The Tiger was actually visually designed to be imposing. Seems to have worked.
@elkrumb915928 күн бұрын
It’s a Metal box it looks dumb
@RussianThunderrr23 күн бұрын
-- Its a frigging scarry tank, and for a good reason, especially if you looking at it only a couple of meters away. IDK why Chris thinks that Tiger I scare is a WWII Myth?
@pr2488 күн бұрын
@@elkrumb9159 You would absolutely cack your trousers if you saw one of them driving down your road.
@elkrumb91597 күн бұрын
@@pr248 I would be scared if there’s even a light tank coming at me and I have zero anti tank weapons
@jamesh23212 ай бұрын
"Disproportionately said to catch fire" is absolute horseshit. You can compare the burn rates of M4, T-34, and Pz IV, and see they're all comparable, but M4 always comes out ahead in the end because the crew is far more likely to survive, fire or no, which was touched on. But it was no more or no less likely to catch fire from a hit than any other tank of the era, and less likely than some others that receive more praise. Panther, for example, had a particular type of lubrication oil that pooled on the hull floor and was flammable. Ferdinand overheated its engine/transmission and caught fire just trying to top a hill. Another bit about the name "ronson" or even "zippo" was that flamethrowing variants of the M4 were known by those names.
@elkrumb915928 күн бұрын
Also the Wet ammo storage helped but for different reasons, the ammo is way less likely to be struck on the bottom of the hull which is the safest place to have ammo back then
@sean64030712 күн бұрын
@@elkrumb9159 but the British didn't get the wet stowage versions - the US kept those for themselves. It was the early M4s that were highly vulnerable, as the 75mm rounds were stored in "ready racks" around the turret for convenience. These early variants also lacked the loader's hatch, and didn't all have the large hatches like the later ones so were not quite so easy to get out of
@elkrumb915912 күн бұрын
@@sean640307 you’re correct about everything except the ammuntion and British, The reason why early Sherman’s from the British were so easy to set on fire was mainly because they overstocked on ammuntion, even if they didn’t have wet ammo, they were still at the back of the sponsons and below the turret basket
@sean64030712 күн бұрын
@@elkrumb9159 oh, I know the British had a tendency to cram extra rounds, but the early M4A1 had the ready racks around the inside of the turret. I have cut-away drawings of them showing what I mean, but unfortunately we can't post them on here. Later ones were moved down low to reduce the incidents but they had to learn their lesson the hard way. As Ken Tout wrote about the Normandy battles, the average British Sherman that was hit and penetrated had about 12 seconds before they "brewed up". Of course some took longer, some didn't burn at all. The British had taken to putting the rounds into ammunition boxes, down low. It helped considerable.
@elkrumb915912 күн бұрын
@@sean640307 true to that
@nomadpi1Ай бұрын
Opinions here. This is a farce of historian competency. Inaccuracy is rampant amongst KZbin videos. Every claimant is inept and not a truly educated historian.
@wacojones8062Ай бұрын
Never forget the massive numbers of trucks sent to Russia under Lend-Lease to support the offensive and defensive operations.
@tvgerbil19842 ай бұрын
The Japanese tank Ha-go was undisputedly the best tank in Malaya from 1941 to 1943.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
That's not saying much.
@richardcheek24322 ай бұрын
The ShermaM4a3e8 was much better than the Tiger 1&2. It was much faster to produce, could be modified to serve multiple roles, and had a much better turret (traverse stabilization, faster traverse, etc).
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
You go on believing whatever you want. We know better.
@richardcheek24324 күн бұрын
@@fwinkler112 You dont KNOW anything if you cannot defend your assertion. The Sherman was a MUCH better tank than either Tiger.
@stuckp1stuckp122Ай бұрын
The Panzermuseum held a conference where the director also showed the Bauhaus design philosophy influenced the shape of the Tiger
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Oh I really doubt that; I'm guessing that that passed as humour on the part of the Director. And you believed it. Wow.
@davidphilp4453Ай бұрын
Didn't the Germans call the Sherman tank, Tommy Cookers.
@mikebarnes7734Ай бұрын
''Ronson" after the cigarette lighter that lit the first time!
@mic4831Ай бұрын
@@mikebarnes7734 did you even watch the video😂
@knoxyishАй бұрын
yes until a British firefly sherman turned up with the British 76mm gun they had no problems with tigers !!
@thefantasyreview8709Ай бұрын
Yep.
@DaveSherry-z1wАй бұрын
The Brits called them Tommy cookers too.
@PfalzD32 ай бұрын
That Ronson slogan appeared in 1929 in a single ad. Perhaps not enough to be popularized, but way before the 1950's
@sean64030712 күн бұрын
yep, and although no American tank crewman would have referred to the Sherman as the Ronson, there's anecodotal evidence to suggest that the British were the ones who coined the phrase after their debut at the Battle of El Alamein - the 1920s slogan wasn't "lights first time" but was worded closely enough......
@shakeypudding65632 ай бұрын
Agreed. The Tiger WAS the most feared tank in WW2. Wether this was rational or warranted didn’t matter, fear is irrational, so not sure you busted this myth at all 🤷♂️
@ScottBrown-ec4sf2 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
I sure wasn't convinced and neither were the 8000 Tiger commanders.
@MrLemonbaby2 ай бұрын
Gentlemen very well organized and presented. Interviewer, thank you for letting Chris talk without interruption.
@P-MouseАй бұрын
meta-myth: a myth perpetuated by people constantly debunking it.
@RussianThunderrr23 күн бұрын
-- Ah, Chris, Chelyabinsk is where Kirov heavy KV/IS tank factory from Leningrad. T-34 was designed and manufactured in Kharkov, and moved to Nizhny Tagil which is beyond Ural Mounts to Ural rail road train factory. Both Chelyabinsk and Nizhny Tagil are in Siberia couple of thousands kilometers away from the original factories.
@RussianThunderrr23 күн бұрын
-- Thank you, Chris for mentioning slopped armor and explaining what EAT(Effective Armor Thickness) is.
@apis_aculei2 ай бұрын
Surprisingly mixed quality of information from Mr. Copson. Incorrect quantity indication of tiger production and no information about the completely different action doctrine of a Tiger compared to a Sherman, T34 or Panther. Keyword heavy breakthrough vehicle. The Tiger was never designed to be used like a Panther or Sherman. As far as the production costs are concerned, a tiger adjusted to todays scale at 3.7 Mill. € cost each, half about the cost of a M1 Abrams and significantly less than a Leclerc or Leopard. Does NATO make about the same mistake here?
@gratefulguy41302 ай бұрын
Obviously NATO is producing overly heavy, overly complicated, overly expensive designs and they are stupid. What NATO needs is more tankettes!!!
@thefantasyreview8709Ай бұрын
true. The Tiger was a breakthrough tank. The German equivalent to the Sherman was the Panzer IV...and then the Panther.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
@@gratefulguy4130 Cue Laughter right now!
@DD-cf1pl17 күн бұрын
Plus the "Tiger I" had something called "zimerit" (I don't know how to spell it correctly): "Zimerit" may have had the ability to prevent "sticky bombs" from sticking to the tank body.
@antoinemozart2432 ай бұрын
The greatest tank in WW2 was the T34/85. When they appeared in 1944 on the eastern front, the Tigers.....disappeared. 😂😂
@Tiberiotertio2 ай бұрын
All one can say to an armchair "expert" like you 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@antoinemozart2432 ай бұрын
@@Tiberiotertio but you, armchair expert as well doesn't know what the T34/85 are. Maybe you confuse them with the T34/76 like the ignorant armchair expert you are. 😂😂😂
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Uh huh. Sure. You go on believing that one comrade. Funny how the Soviets met them to their dismay in Berlin at the end.
@antoinemozart2434 күн бұрын
@@fwinkler112 the Soviets never met a single Tiger in Berlin. They were completely destroyed by the far superior T34/85. In Berlin they only met panzerfausts and artillery.
@joegoldberg877018 күн бұрын
Why would the "expert" go on about the Centurian tank which was only fielded AFTER the end of WWII in Europe? The British DID come up with a good tank....just to late to fight.
@darson1002 ай бұрын
There is almost no chance on earth that Joe Ekins made that shot form that range. I cannot understand why the Brits are so reluctant to admit that it was the Canadians?
@michaelkenny85402 ай бұрын
Its in the interest of the fanboys to cause confusion over Wittmann's demise. Any non-fanboy who starts arguing that Allied unit A didn't do it but Allied Unit B did it just plays into their hands.
@LoneWolf-rc4go2 ай бұрын
I think it's more the dogged belief that you needed a 17 pounder to penetrate the armour of a Tiger. Most people don't realise that the 75mm would do a number on the Tiger at around 500 feet.
@waynenash6008Ай бұрын
I don't think the ,,Brits,, really care as long as somebody got the bugger,
@jexxajess68376 күн бұрын
Not sure this guy really understands the impact of the tiger. There were never 8000 tigers, but 1 or 2 could cause a lot of destruction to opposing tanks. There were reasons why several commanders scored 10's of kills. As for 4 shermans or 1 Tiger, you'd go for the tiger every time.
@stephengunnell50482 ай бұрын
If the Tiger was not the most feared tank then what was? Myth NOT debunked.
@stevedix29732 ай бұрын
The most feared tank was the one you were up against until it`s been dealt with period , it matters not how superior the hardware , it matters how good the people fielding that hardware are
@michaelwilkinson29282 ай бұрын
According to contemporary German accounts, the Churchill Crocodile flamethrower induced terror amongst troops facing them.
@sulevisydanmaa9981Ай бұрын
JS-3 that just made the Berlin PARADA 8/45
@lst14117 күн бұрын
The T 34 did not win WW2, but thousands of then did. As as Sherman’s to many for few panthers and tigers
@robertdickson93192 ай бұрын
Hanson should have followed up with Copson to get him to correctly answer the question on the Tiger - none of what he mentioned, while in fact true, is an answer as to whether the Tiger was the most feared. Disappointed with the interaction. In fact he didn't correctly answer the question about the Sherman either - the armament changes to the Sherman are irrelevant to whether it catches fire or not. I always remember Karl Malden talking about the Shermans catching fire in the movie "Patton" - Omar Bradley was the military consultant on that movie and would have been in a position to correct that statement if it wasn't true to some degree.
@michaelkenny85402 ай бұрын
When you start quoting Hollywood as a reference you lose all credibility.
@robertdickson93192 ай бұрын
@@michaelkenny8540 you obviously missed the reference to Omar Bradley being either an accomplice to perpetuating the myth or letting it slide because there is some truth to the story but you do you.
@michaelkenny85402 ай бұрын
@@robertdickson9319 I missed nothing but you obviously missed me saying anyone who thinks Hollywood is a reference is deluded. Please come back when you grow up.
@ozone947319 күн бұрын
Later iterations of Churchill's were a good infantry tank. And very well armoured
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
And they could climb at incredible angles. BUT they were slow, not overly reliable and full of shot traps that made them overly vulnerable. Plus the main gun in almost all versions was sub-par at best.
@calgaryalberta46222 ай бұрын
Not sure about a British “ expert “ who doesn’t know about the Sherman Firefly ( British 17 pounder gun mounted on American Sherman ) that could knock out a Tiger at range. Also a reason it was called Ronson was also because it was gasoline powered , as any “expert” knows gasoline lights much better than diesel ( much much better ! ) Last , if Ronson was not a lighter brand till 1950’s,why were they print advertising in 1937 🤔 ( Google , not just a name )
@sirridesalot66522 ай бұрын
It's the Ronson slogan that came out in the 1950s not the lighter itself.
@japhfo2 ай бұрын
@ 18:56
@phil44832 ай бұрын
Sherman Firefly IS mentioned.
@captiannemo15872 ай бұрын
The only vehicles I have seen called Ronson are those equipped with the Ronson Flamethrower (which could be on several vehicles, but usually on Universal Carriers.)
@calgaryalberta46222 ай бұрын
@@captiannemo1587 pacific theatre I believe
@worldsend69Ай бұрын
Now to the comments section where everyone is an anecdotal expert (but was never even within 100,000 miles of a tank).
@daveybyrden3936Ай бұрын
Hallo!
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
Some of us have been rather involved with armour for longer than we'd care mention.
@richardvangelder3666Ай бұрын
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, the Tiger 1 did not weigh 60 tons; it weighed 56 tons! And the T-34 was not that mechanically reliable!
@Max_Da_G22 күн бұрын
T-34 wasn't massively reliable but what it was is easily serviceable in the field. In USSR, and Russia today, the tank driver is designated "mechanic-driver" and crew can perform regular maintenance tasks with them.
@joepetto94884 күн бұрын
I am sure quantity mattered until you were the first tank in the column to encounter that 88kwk.
@camelsacАй бұрын
Interesting what he said about crewing a T34. That explains why many Soviet tankers preferred their lend lease Shermans.
@achimotto-vs2lbАй бұрын
that is not true laddy
@camelsac20 күн бұрын
@@achimotto-vs2lb It most certainly is.
@camelsac20 күн бұрын
@@achimotto-vs2lb Sonny boy.
@seventhson2725 күн бұрын
When I was young, we had a neighbor who claimed he'd jumped a 10 ft ditch with a Sherman. He was being chased by a Tiger....
@volodymyrbuchak18529 күн бұрын
I doubt. Speed difference is real,and germans usualy,used heavy armor in ambush tactics. Tiger had outstanding gun and great optics,was effective on any enemy armor at 2000 meters. No need to chase anyone,they picked them from distance.
@patrickmarshall41422 ай бұрын
Huge gaff. I went back multiple times to verify that he said there were "8000 Tigers". Adding together both Tiger I and II production that was less than 2000. Probably a slip of the tongue, but still, this makes me leery of everything else said.
@razor1uk6102 ай бұрын
--...nope, he did not say that at all, I'm sorry but you need to listen more.-- *Edit: Yes he actually did near the 8th minute!* Itn the last few minutes before the end of the video 31:16 He again mentions again 8000 but split into 2 and 6 thousands. And I think this later generalisation, simplification, is about just rough wartime Sherman & T-34 production only verses overall German Armoured vehicle production of combat armour. LIkely meaning the heavier 3 main cats all together (not counting factory rebuilds 'as new') and Panzer 3 & 4 altogether (probably ignoring Assault Guns numbers which are roughly the same as Panzers 3, 4, 5, 6 & 6B together).
@malcolmhunt71082 ай бұрын
@@razor1uk610 my hearing due to industrial hearing loss isn't great but at 8:01 he either says " a thousand Tigers" or" 8,000 Tigers". It's hard for me to tell.
@stevedix29732 ай бұрын
@@razor1uk610 Yes he dose mention 8000 tigers , so perhaps it`s you that needs to listen !
@razor1uk6102 ай бұрын
@@stevedix2973 yes Edmund, I am Baldrick this time 😳😜🧐
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
@@razor1uk610 Too deep for little ol' me.
@chasatch18 күн бұрын
A "Ronson" was a commonly available cigarette/pipe lighter advertised as "lights first time, every time"!
@davidlavigne2072 ай бұрын
The U.S. Marine Corp referred to their flame throwing M-4s as Ronson Lighters, obviously speaking about the main weaponry. They were used to great effect at Peleliu and Iwo Jima. Perhaps this may have been the original source of the Ronson comment "Lights first time-every time." later on adopted in the 1950s?
@timothyhouse16222 ай бұрын
There is zero evidence to collaborate this.
@adamstrange78842 ай бұрын
Weren't they called zippos?
@coachhannah24032 ай бұрын
@@adamstrange7884- No.
@razor1uk6102 ай бұрын
Ronson didn't make oil fueled lighters until years after WW2...
@davidlavigne2072 ай бұрын
@@razor1uk610 I looked that up and found that Ronson was making those type of lighters since about 1932. Zippo eventually bought Ronson, but both companies made lighters in WW2. Check Wikipedia.
@Kalemnos2 күн бұрын
The German Tiger 1 was probably a terrific weapon, and the T34 was certainly a lot less efficient. But the soviets produced 50.000 T34 and the germans only 1700 Tiger1. This is something that our actual generals have forgotten It's no use to have the best weapon if we have only a few of them and if we are not able to produce them in large quantities. Better have less effective weapons but so many that you can't stop them.
@GeorgiaBoy196116 сағат бұрын
Old Russian military aphorism: "Quantity has a quality all its own"... It has been Russian military doctrine for a very long time, that when "Mother Russia" is invaded, especially by surprise, to trade space and manpower (both of which the nation has plenty to spare) for time. The numbers matter early so that the enemy can be stalled or held long-enough to allow the resistance to organize - and later, when the tide turns and the time has come for a counter-attack, superior numbers will also matter a lot.
@greymouser86592 ай бұрын
Didn't Wittmann command a Stug for most of his alleged 'kills'?
@ferallion35462 ай бұрын
Ya he started out in Stugs.
@paulrasmussen38582 ай бұрын
Alleged??? go out side and play.
@sirridesalot66522 ай бұрын
@@ferallion3546 And he used Stug tactics to great effect with his Tiger 1. That's one of the main reason why he was able to get his tank onto target so quickly.
@michaelkenny85402 ай бұрын
@@paulrasmussen3858 Find me a reference to his Stug claims then you can play with the big boys. Note that both Gary L Simpson and Franz Kurowski made up pretty much everything they wrote about Wittmann's career prior to June 1943. They are not valid sources. Your turn.
@fwinkler1124 күн бұрын
@@paulrasmussen3858 But he just came in crying because Johnny pushed him on the swing too high!