King Tiger with Hilary Louis Doyle - Part 2 | Arsenalen Swedish Tankmuseum

[@exharkhun5605]

It's a real privilege to listen to both gentlemen.

[@captainhurricane5705]

When Mr Doyle speaks, I sit down and I listen. His knowledge is vast, and he has my uttermost respect. There is nothing better than getting your hands on original documents and reading through them. I can understand his motiviation all too well; the thrill of reading original documents cannot be beaten. Well done to the Arsenalen, you didn't just take this tank on loan, you brought in Mr Doyle to tell us all about it.

[@simonrooney7942]

It does not get any better than this- lucky to have this recorded....entertaining & excellent

[@AdamMann3D]

Wow. Hilary never ceases to amazed me. Stefan, great job asking questions. I didn't see the zinger coming about when Hilary published his first book. Great stuff. The fact it's not over produced and begging for money makes it so much more valuable as historical information. Never turn in to Bovington Stefan. You're the real deal.

[@AndrewPayne]

Fantastic video with an absolute legend in Hilary, thank you 👏

[@danbendix1398]

Great detail. e.g. The production issues of the original turret.

[@cpawp]

Tankastic - the best description. Many thanks to you both.

[@ThePsiclone]

yes, what he said, Thank you. Always a pleasure to see you two guys

[@philbosworth3789]

Great to hear how Hilary got his info from

[@andrewlewis3486]

What a labor of love for these gentlemen. And responsibility. Many thanks for your efforts!

[@18robsmith]

Interesting listening how the availability of original-source material has changed over the years and helps our understanding how these tanks were constructed.

[@plasot]

I had a pleasure to visit museum last year to see KT and by pure accident to even see director with my own eyes :D

[@conceptalfa]

Great video, thank you very much!!!👍👍👍

[@haroldfiedler6549]

Hilary Doyle, a tank expert that everyone can respect. The man is a national treasure. I am amazed at his incredible depth of knowledge over such a wide range of armored vehicles, but particularly his knowledge of German armor. The guy is a genius.

[@michaelmcdonald3195]

Always enjoy Mr Doyles talks.I learn a great deal about German armor.

[@CthulhuInc]

woo! part 2! thanks, chaps!

[@ptonpc]

Great to hear you both :)

[@depleteduraniumcowboy3516]

Amazing information, indeed. What a treat this and the previous video is.

[@davidjernigan7576]

The fix for bending armor plate still exists. Steel body armor plates still have minimal curvature if any at all. Welding cracks will soften the metal.

[@Nudnik1]

Maraging steel in layers can't be welded . Ask me how I know.. Ugh

[@ivoferin8176]

Doyle is a walking encyclopedia!!

[@Paul-ie1xp]

Wow Doyle has the knowledge to really get into the minutia of the platform.

[@novus80]

Awesomy in-depth with Mr Doyle, as always.

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

Wonderful.

[@HerbertAckermans]

The exhaust layout seen here was part of exhaust pressure testing equipment.

[@tekis0]

We NEED a part 3!

[@StenEriksson]

Great talk!! Thank you!

[@danielburgess7785]

Good intel is always difficult to come by.

[@alasdairhamilton1574]

Hilary must be same age as “bilbo baggins 111” if he was researching back in the 60s👍🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[@ooosoo8727]

200 mm thick frontal armor on the Tiger II? That's over 7.8 inches thick armor! That's crazy!

[@parrot849]

I imagine someone has already commented on this issue, but unless I missed something ( 0:13 ), Mr. Doyle was describing the reasons the Germans switched from the “Porsche” designed King Tiger turret after the first fifty units were built, to the “Henschel” designed turret. In all the reasons he spoke about, he never mentioned the term “Shot Trap” in his explanation. In all my time reading and hearing everything about the manufacture of Tiger II B, it was always the case that the switch was made because of that inherent “Shot Trap” flaw. Anyone else pick up on this when listening to Mr. Doyle’s explanation?

[@odb_roc_hound4186]

The inter locking plates were for ease/speed of manufacture not strength, as a properly welded joint would see no benefit in the tabs, but pre-weld assembly would be much easier with the parts being aligned minimal clamping and jigging.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Porsche side of turret was more shaperly sloped good for deflecting impacts

[@mbr5742]

I find it interesting that the first german post WW2 tank (Leopard 1 up to the A2) had a cast turret. Philosophy surely changed quickly

[@stevenharsono9911]

Although Porsche turret King Tiger is also great , i like more the Henschel turret variant. Hopefully someone restored the Porsche Tiger (VK-4501P) and found the burried E-100 hull and restore it

[@tarjei99]

The problem with the turret shape was that they did not have the right steel additives. In this case Molybdenium. They had Vanadium, but it was difficult to shape steel with this additive.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Who cares it was a shot trap

[@kajlennartsson4234]

Hejsan Stefan. Vad lärde ni av Hilary om Tiger 2an när han var på besök i Arsenalen?

[@novus80]

”Why make things simple when you can complicate it” seems to fit much of German WW2 tank design as well..

[@HaVoC117X]

Tigers, Jagdtigers, Ferdinands did not even make up 4% of nazi Germany total tank and spg production of almost 60.000 vehicles. Yeah, let's make a conclusions about german tank design based on those rare tanks, which were special tanks for special tasks.

[@billevans7936]

❤❤❤❤

[@saradolphin3242]

Mr.Doyle Is Going to be Missed Someday because he is a Walking Library!

[@Nudnik1]

Bulldozer have drive sprocket in rear . Curious why they are in the front on most tanks? Excellent channel thanks 👍

[@HerbertAckermans]

The Germans trialed a number of tank designs during the mid to later 1930's (Leichttraktor, Klein Traktor, Großtraktor) which had rear wheel drive. Their experience was this layout led to excessive track throwing, so the designs were changed to front wheel drive.

[@westmus]

I guess some of the design choises on a tank are based on getting a good weight balance. A tank should be able to "balance" in even very rough terrain. A bulldozer are designed for a very different type of use in the terrain. There are typical no perfect design solution for techical stuff, the design chosen are a compromise based on priorities.

[@michaelguerin56]

I understand that there was also an issue with mechanical gear selector linkage function, as in the the T34 and the later T34/85. If you want to have a tank gearbox at the other end of the tank (relative to the engine) it is best to use either a pre-selector gearbox or an automatic gearbox. Nicholas Moran aka ‘The Chieftain’ is one of the KZbin personalities who have covered this issue in a video.

[@michaelguerin56]

Great video. Thank you gentlemen. It was fascinating, listening to Hilary’s story of evolving research. Stefan, I was born in 1962, so at least one of your KZbin followers (apart from guest presenters) is older than you😁! Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.

[@СусаннаСергеевна]

Two commonly cited explanations are given for the yanks and Germans preferring front drive. One is that the shorter gear linkages makes driving easier. The second is that with front drive the track will shake off much mud and gravel before it has a chance to cause trouble at the sprocket. On the other hand having a crankshaft at the bottom of the vehicle took up a lot of room and added mechanical complexity, which is why modern vehicles, apart from Merkava, are all rear drive. And even Merkava is only half an exception, since it also has the engine at the front, negating the crankshaft disadvantage.

[@sandgrownun66]

Apparently, the Germans didn't use cast armour, because they weren't able to make it of the same quality as the Allies.

[@martinbredberg7616]

Maybe true, but cast armor is never at the same strength as rolled armor. It has the same weight, but perhaps 70-80% of the strength. That´s why all penetration charts states "rolled armor". If the T-34 (or Sherman, Matilda, Samoa...) turret had 60 mm cast armor, it would perhaps be equal to 40 mm of German armor.

[@sandgrownun66]

@@martinbredberg7616 Casting allows you to make a tank hull in one piece. A much faster process, than fitting and welding several pieces of plate together. Isn't that obvious? It allowed the Americans to produce tens of thousands of tanks. Whilst the Germans only made a few thousands. As I previously said, the Germans weren't very good at producing cast armour. They lacked some of the technology that others, such as the Americans had. Also, due to Allied bombing and lack of additives to make even rolled armour. They had problems making decent armour of any type.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

​@@sandgrownun66cast turret takes long time to cool down I beleve in MTBs days or longer

[@sandgrownun66]

@@Eric-kn4yn OK. WWII lasted six years. So there was plenty of time. Anyway, how do you know how long it took for a casting to cool down? Cooling of the sand mold by sprinkling with water can reduce the required cooling time by 30%.

[@markwilliams2620]

​@@sandgrownun66 Exactly. The US, due to casting technology related to steam locomotive frames, was a world leader at the time. At the same time we were casting Shermans, we were casting the frames to monsters like the Union Pacific Big Boy 4-8-8-4.

[@hofnaerrchen]

4:52 Panzerkommandant: Du hast schon wieder einen Zug Russen überfahren Fahrer: T'schuldigung Herr Kommandant, aber ich seh hier unten doch nichts! Panzerkommandant: Ist mir egal! Das ist eine riesen Sauerei, also pass besser auf oder du frimelst später wieder die ganzen Körperteile alleine aus dem Laufwerk! Tank Commander: You ran over a platoon of Russians... again! Driver: Sorry Herr Kommandant, but I can't see anything down here. Tank Commander: I don't care! It's a total mess, so you better watch were we are going or it's your job latter on to get the body parts out of the running gear!

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

I think to remember that Sweden was donated a Tiger 2. which they originally just wasted! Shame on You!

[@azgarogly]

Gentlemen, are you sure the PaK/KwK 43 two-piece barrel was sectioned length-wise? Is there any photographic evidence to that? I would totally get barrel with the liner or, instead, the barrel with the sleeve at the breech side. These where well proven techniques at the time. But making high velocity gun barrel in two pieces lengthwise and then bolting them together seems to be very rare thing for production gun. There where indeed some experimental ones. Why would anyone ever bother with boring 70+ caliber barrel in one piece if they could bolt it together from shorter pieces? I am afraid it does not work that way.

[@michaelguerin56]

The second model of 88mm flak gun definitely came with a two piece barrel. There were pros and cons to that approach. A very good book came out, sometime in the last five years or so. It also covers the postwar use of the 88 by Norway. I cannot remember the title but the page size was slightly taller than A5, if I recall correctly.

[@azgarogly]

@@michaelguerin56 I have no doubt in that 88/L71 had a two piece barrel. The way it was built is what I question here. If there was some photos of the barrel taken down, historical or modern. Or some original German manual showing how it goes, it could be clear. Otherwise, unfortunately, the best of the books can contain mistakes and the best of the professionals can be citing them. One example is the common misconception about crew member roles in KV and T-34 tanks, "the tank commander had to load the gun" they say.

[@michaelguerin56]

@@azgarogly A simple misstatement in a single-take video, I would imagine. Hilary’s gestures were in line with my understanding that two rifled tubes were bolted together. What you say about the KV and T34 tanks is probably another annoying accident, possibly a mistranslation, such as the error in translating (to English) an important German book published in the 1970s, which led many of us to believe that Porsche and Henschel had designed Tiger Tank turrets. It is worthwhile pointing out inadvertent errors, both as a courtesy to the video publisher and to help others avoid confusion. At least with KZbin channels, errors tend to be acknowledged whereas here in NZ, I advised an acquaintance of factual errors he had made in an article on the 8.2x57 S cartridge. I lent him my copy (Schiffer edition) of Goetz’ work on German Military Rifles, which he read and photocopied for personal use but no correction ever appeared in the magazine which published his article. Have a good week. If, as I suspect, you are in the Northern Hemisphere, it will probably be warmer (and possibly drier) in your part of the world.

[@azgarogly]

@@michaelguerin56 Well, at this point I would really want to know one way or another :) As far as I could google I found no evidence, though pretty much everywhere they mention that the barrel was multiple piece.

[@michaelguerin56]

@@azgarogly I will Google the book. Since I know what it contains and have a recollection of the cover image, I should be able to find it quickly. I borrowed it from one of my brothers. None of us have the library that we might wish to possess.

[@conceptalfa]

Isn't this a re-run presented as a fresh video???

[@FurryCruz]

Yeah, I think he was there a few months ago. But the King Tiger is leaving soon, so think they are trying get som last interest.

[@conceptalfa]

@@FurryCruz yepp, you're right, I reacted too early in the video as it again was about the same tank (a great one) but now browsing through it, I see it's a new one....so pitty the swedes shut their own one they received after the war to pieces....

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

I've seen Hilary on this channel before but not him talking about this vehicle.

[@conceptalfa]

@@ABrit-bt6ce oh yes, these two had another talk in the same place over this King Tiger before....

[@ThePsiclone]

no I don think so, I've watched this channel since day 1 and haven't seen this content before, there is a part 1 to this however that came out a month or so ago.