How Formidable Was the German Tiger Tank During WWII?

[@Metromania2022]

Can’t remember who but a German General once said “our tanks are 10 times better than the Sherman, the only problem is that 11 always show up.

[@richlewis8812]

Great line!!

[@michaelpielorz9283]

you`d better do, YT is full of "they say" quotes (:-))

[@pheels]

From a mechanics point of view the sherman was better than the tiger. The Sherman had a lot of upgrade potential. Was still a frontline tank during the Arab Israeli wars in 67 and 73

[@badbotchdown9845]

They never say that

[@badbotchdown9845]

​@@pheels it they still lighters.

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

The most iconic tank of ww2 imo.

[@lassekristensen385]

So true! Legendary and Germanic !

[@GeorgePierceSr]

no

[@imGeistevereint]

@@GeorgePierceSr It is the most iconic tank of WW2, hate it or love it.

[@magger254]

I found that it's lack of numbers and susceptability to 122mm shells, makes Tiger I kind of laughable atleast by late war standards, the allies had all responses necessary to deal it off.

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

@@magger254 : Always you with them negative waves. It's a beautiful tank baby!

[@adrianariaratnam5817]

Truly a terrifying thing of beauty! Great reel as usual with relevant details to boot. Keep up the very commendable work ; it's most appreciated. 👌

[@FactBytes]

Thank you very much!

[@alchabeta3237]

Just a few thousand Tigers were built. Still being talked about to this day. Nuff said.

[@TaeussKramme]

1347 Tiger I tanks and 489 Tiger II. A reputation out of all proportion to their modest numbers. More impressive because of that.

[@chrisigoeb]

It had major flaws there is no denying that but it was also an immensely effective tank, especially with skilled commanders

[@michaelkenny8540]

That's like saying it worked well when it worked well.

[@chrisigoeb]

@@michaelkenny8540 which is more often than people think which is interesting. First learning of the tiger you think its this perfect unstoppable machine, after more time learning you think it's the always broken machine with too few numbers and overall a disaster of a tank. And after even more time learning you think its a very decent tank that did its job well but wasn't perfect

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@chrisigoeb I'd say the more you learn you'd think "umm, waste of scarce resources" and "a heavy tank could be done better, ya know".

[@FairladyS130]

@@stewartmillen7708 Typical West front centric comment.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@FairladyS130 What do you mean by that? I see nothing in this particular thread by any of the commentators that would be biased towards either Front.

[@bryguysays2948]

Tiger kill count vs. other tanks was high despite only around 1,300 Tigers being produced. Effective? Yes. Expensive? Yes.

[@creamycheeks-c5h]

It's the 88 u can hit a target with very minimal aim for height, the muzzle velocity is insane

[@alessandroguermandi8828]

The most iconic tank ever.The GOAT.If you like tanks,you love the Tiger.

[@adriantowe278]

I love it so much I have a tiger one tattooed on my chest and stomach it's a battle seen

[@richardcheek2432]

Of the WW2 tanks, the Tiger 1&2 were an incredible waste of resources. 1. The Germans put quality in things that did not matter to actual military experts. Notice the little wavey surfaces on the Tigers? That was Zimmerit, a failed idea for getting the armor a little harder to attach an antitank mine with a magnet. But the Germans kept spending resources putting the crap on their tanks, and it NEVER worked. 2. The armor on the Tiger 1&2 was not ever sloped. The Germans just kept making the armor thicker adding huge weight to the tank, and making it slower. 3. The Germans never stabilized the turrets of the Tiger tanks (or any others), which made them take longer to acquire aim. They also had a slow turret traverse, twice slower than the M4 Sherman. So, this made it longer in terms of time to acquire a sight picture. 4. Tigers were complex and difficult to make and maintain. The USA could make 4 Shermans for every single Tiger, and the Germans desperately need more armor to cover their front in Russia. While the USA made around 50,000 Shermans during WW2, the Germans made far fewer than 1,500 Tigers. 5. Visually, Tigers were a very well known quantity once you got a decent enough look at them. The Sherman's chassis and turret were nearly exactly the same between all modifications of it. When you saw a Sherman it took time to identify if it was an assault variant, the most common infantry support, an assault version for fortifications, and many, many more. The Tigers were great morale boosters. As soon as German troops saw that monster appear on the battle field, the Germans got warm fuzzies, as if their fortunes were suddenly saved. It was a false hope.

[@slimracer1553]

​@@richardcheek2432 They feared that the alllies would employ a lot of magnetic at-mines, hence why they applied it. The application was discontinued in 1944. If i did not work why would they have applied it? Tiger 2 featured sloped armor.

[@richardcheek2432]

@@slimracer1553 Why did they continue to apply it though it did no good? Institutional inertia.

[@kristelvidhi5038]

Logically the best tank used in action. It's fear factor and inflicted damages remain unmatched by any other tank today. And German ww2 tank aces remain the best of the best even to this day, thanks to the Tiger.

[@asullivan4047]

Yes that statement brings Michael Wittman to mind. Perhaps a natural warrior of tank warfare.

[@alessandroguermandi8828]

The Ferdinand/Elefant may come to the party.

[@bber45]

Over Engineered and expensive but no way overhyped. Tiger Phobia was a real thing. Michael Wittmann almost single handedly threw the invasion back to the sea and Otto Carius turned his tiger tank into an Anti Air Craft gun with a confirmed kill.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

Hi hi you must be american ,because for them everything beyond leaf springs and cast iron is overengineered (:-))

[@bber45]

@@michaelpielorz9283 Ja. Icht Amerikana. Rest a sure kameraden, nobody here in the states is cheering and saying how awesome a Sherman was lol. Just how many we made and that the tiger could put many holes in a sherman before it ran out of ammo.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The definition of "over-engineering" is basically "doing too much for little or no gain". What shortcuts could they have done with the Tiger, and it would still have been the same tank?

[@wilco300674]

@@bber45 the M4 was awesome. That it not had the most firepower or armor, does not mean it wasn't awesome. Anyone could drive it, easy to repair/maintain, easy to escape when the tank got hit, essy to produce, very reliable, very versatile.. The M4 was the perfect tank, and because of the share numbers of it, it won the war, together with the T34. The Tiger might have been better in some areas, but sheer amount always wins over size.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@wilco300674 Nobody at the time, certainly not its crews, thought it was "the perfect tank". That it won by numbers, says much more about the capacity of US industry than the tank itself. A Panzer IV, Cromwell or even T-34 produced to US standards and numbers would have done the same job,

[@AFT_05G]

I think it also has to do with the crew just as the tank’s itself.Germans always gave their most experienced veteran tank crews to Tigers. During the late stages of the war tanks like Panzer IV and Panther(especially the ones at Western Front)mostly received inexperienced fresh conscripts who only received a couple weeks of training which caused German tanks to perform rather underwhelming against Shermans and other Allied tanks.This is also why Panther is less iconic and lesser known compared to Tiger I despite being a superior tank at most aspects,most of them were basically crewed by a bunch of teenagers that had little experience from 1944 onwards.

[@michaelkenny8540]

Wrong. Tiger Units got the same replacements as you do in any army. If your name was at the top of the list you were sent.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Agree on the crews, but the Tiger 1 was undoubtedly overall superior to the Panther. Tiger pros: Overall much thicker and better quality armor - the much thicker turret front and side armor especially important. Guns in the same ballpark; Panther slightly better at short to medium range, equal at long range, Tiger slightly superior at very long range. Tiger much better HE round, could carry more ammo and gun had much longer barrel life (6000 rounds vs. 2000) Much roomier - the Panther paid a price for that sloped side armor. Both had excellent offroad mobility, Tiger compensated for heavier weight with a more advanced transmission. Much better and durable final drives. Slightly more reliable. Fully combat ready more than a year before the Panther. Panther pros: More effective upper hull front armor. Much cheaper Lighter Faster Easier maintenance

[@Miratesus]

On early production versions of the Tiger maximum turret traverse was limited to 6º/second, whilst on later versions a selectable high speed traverse gear was added, There are videos of it making a full rotation in 30 seconds. Interestingly the Tiger II while having a even larger turret and gun was even faster.

[@konosmgr]

The kingtigers were pretty nimble for how big they were.

[@bkjeong4302]

The Tiger II also broke down even more often than the Tiger I, though less often than the Panther. To be honest, the Germans were hardly unique in building heavy tanks that didn’t work: the KV/IS series and the M26 Pershing also had severe reliability issues. In fact, just about any WWII tank that wasn’t the M4 Sherman had significant reliability issues (in some cases by choice, as with things like the T-34 where sheer numbers were more important than reliability).

[@Miratesus]

@@bkjeong4302 Very true, The Pershings were even withdrawn in the Korean war due to reliability issues.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@bkjeong4302 There is no actual evidence that the Tigers were less reliable than the Sherman. Shermans broke down en masse during road marches, too. The main difference were the circumstances they were fighting under - the Allies had a very safe supply line and air superiority. Both Tigers had a readiness rate of 73% from May 1944 til the end of the year - the same as the Panzer IV - and many of the big cats were sidelined due to combat damage, not only mechanical breakdowns. There are no stats from WW2, but in Korea the M4A3E8 had an average readiness rate of 80%, the M26 Pershing 65% -and USA and its allies had almost total air superiority. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHPRmmSEmZ54sJo kzbin.info/www/bejne/hquWo2iNi69sZ7M Stats from Normandy showed that the Cromwell was slightly more reliable than the Commonwealth Shermans.

[@0Turbox]

@@bkjeong4302 Pz III and IVs were pretty reliable, same goes to the Czech ones.

[@micahfodor8433]

The Tiger was already in development before the T-34 and KV-1 were encountered. The Panther was developed in response the soviet tanks but the Tiger was already designed

[@mirandela777]

BS dude, at the start of ww2 even the French had BETTER tanks than the germans ! They germans were unable to build a HEAVY tank years AFTER the war started !

[@micahfodor8433]

@mirandela777 Check your research bro. The French absolutely did have better tanks but that doesn't mean the tigers weren't being developed. Developmemt doesnt mean porduction, It would still take some time before it entered production. The only change that really came to the tiger because of allied Tanks was the gun. It was going to have a 7.5cm gun but becuase of how effecting the 8.8cm was, they chose that instead.

[@mirandela777]

@@micahfodor8433 - not really, they have NOTHING, NO heavy tanks, and mediocre or crap medium tanks in 1939, or they were plain stupid, they had instructors in the russians army many years BEFORE the war, and they knew about T34 and KV - yet they get terrorized when they meet the KV and later the T34 - reason why they rushed in production the Tiger. With other words, they got caught with pants down, with crappy tanks in 1939, reason why they confiscated all the french tanks and later even Skoda tanks, after they invaded Czechia. They only started to invest and produce decent tanks AFTER they got slapped hard by KVs and T34s, who terrorized the german infantry. They come in a hurry with the Tiger, but failed to adopt slopped armor - took them several f years until they got the Panther until they understand the concept. Looking at the facts, historical facts, I cannot say they were very smart and capable in designing a great tank. Lagged behind the russians all the war, and failed to understand the concept of medium tank as MBT. They did many stupid choices during the war in terms of tech - not just by choosing very expensive heavy tanks, hard to produce in an economy ruined by 24/7 allied air raids, but even more stupid, they DID HAVE fighter jets since 1939 but chose to ignore the huge advantage of these and when they realized how good they were, was already too late... they lost the war and the russians were in Berlin.

[@adriantowe278]

The tiger was on paper in 42 and was rushed in and had one on the battlefield mid 42 i work on tigers well just one but I am helping getting the second one driving

[@felszi1043]

@@micahfodor8433 Well the Panther started development even before the Tiger, thats why its panzer 5 and tiger panzer 6. Tiger development was just finished first.

[@pietervaness3229]

EXCELENT , INFORMATIVE VIDEO

[@simonrooney7942]

Your origin story is not correct, Tiger I was NOT created in response to T-34/ KV 1. With Hydraulic steering and advanced suspension, it was better than many other tanks on cross-country. All tanks had issues with radiators. When correctly employed with trained crews the kill ratio was outstanding.

[@daveybyrden3936]

You're correct. The Tiger project was under way long before the Russian tanks were known about. They only influenced the final design choices.

[@user-ot1eb6mt4k]

The Germans came across the French heavy tank called the Char B, and knew they needed a upgrade.

[@lesterbeals1443]

​@@user-ot1eb6mt4k And the Matilda.

[@georgelugenalt200]

Correct. The Panther was the response to the T-34 and KV 1 tanks. The Stalin tank (and the T-34/85) was the Russian response to the Tiger I.

[@stonefox9124]

Of course Germany was designing a new tank before invading Russia, but it was till facing KV1s an 2s that the tiger became equipped with a few extra tons of armor and it's lethal 88 gun... It literally wouldn't have been the same tank if not for the Russian awakening so yeah... It was actually created in response of Russian armor...

[@viking4130]

The Tiger 1 , Tiger 2 and 128MM Hunting Tiger were the best and most monstrously beautiful tanks to grace the battlefields of WWII.

[@ahhamartin]

Disagree with the first statement (shockingly fragile, a thirsty maintenance nightmare and difficult to transport), but absolute YES on the second. One of the best looking pieces of machinery ever. I actually went to the cinema for the first time in years simply to see the Tiger in Fury.

[@Dewrassd]

@@ahhamartin Bro learns history from Tik Tok comment section😂

[@paulpetrovich8779]

People forget that Germany only produced 1200-1400 tigers. Almost 2” of frontal armor, an 88 mm gun. A very formidable tank. Imho, anyone serving in the tank Corp on either side must have had balls of steel. I bet it was terrifying.

[@carlorrman8769]

A very inforamative well balanced video. Great job.

[@FactBytes]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@davidbraxton5110]

Excellent piece of history. Even today German engeineneers are more than competitive.

[@kenrobinson8667]

Too bad the Allies had air superiority

[@dioniciotorres4290]

I had many family members who were in WWII. I heard first hand how much what they called the big 88's, and how much is put fear in their voice

[@KonradvonHotzendorf]

Me too. But other side🇩🇪 What country you from?

[@vikingraider1961]

Tiger - Awesome whilst it worked, but that's the problem - "whilst it worked".

[@daveybyrden3936]

It's ironic that the thumbnail image of this video - the white tank with the title written over it - is NOT a tiger at all. It's a modern replica, and not a very good one.

[@albertofranchi6408]

Beautiful video

[@fredwilliams1048]

10:47 the tank crew that was told you’ll be the one distracting the tiger 😳

[@daman9780]

lol!

[@The.Original.Potatocakes]

Look at those beasts!

[@quinlanels9886]

It was a really great tank, when it reached the battlefield of course

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

It did. When maintained properly, which took more time and effort compared to medium tanks, it worked very well and was reliable.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

Nice to see cheap propaganda still working

[@sches9519]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 HAHAHA no the tiger had so manz problems

[@badbotchdown9845]

​@@sches9519 no after being resolved they were reliable machines

[@sches9519]

@@badbotchdown9845 what ? The tigers problems went throuout the war

[@stevehartz4615]

Great video,,my fav tank

[@FactBytes]

Mine too!

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

Actually a poor video with a computer voice and badly researched! For example they did not use interleaved road wheels for higher cross country speed it had to do with the weight if the vehicle and ground pressure per square inch! This needs to learn about engineering!

[@maxsheng8215]

Tiger1 is no doubt best heavy tank in ww2.

[@carlrudd1858]

very thorough

[@americanpatriot2422]

My favorite tank.

[@daviddoran3673]

Can you imagine how cramped it was when locked down????

[@flycatchful]

@@daviddoran3673 Not So, do some research.

[@keithallver2450]

@@daviddoran3673 Actually, because of its size the Tiger was quite roomy for a tank. If you want to talk about cramped that would be the T--34.

[@yvangascogne]

Me too, but 4 Stug lll for 1 Tiger !!! What a loss...

[@ChrisZukowski88]

​@@keithallver2450 t-34/76 to be specific. 0 room in the turret.

[@garyjones9023]

The downside to the Tiger was it cost as to build much as 9 Sherman tanks. This means the Tiger needed to achieve a 9:1 kill ratio just to reach economic breakeven. But given the Allies overwhelming economic advantages, simply "breaking even" at 9:1 would be a losing trade for Germany. Over 50,000 of the inexpensive, easy to build Shermans were made. In contrast, only 1,347 of the prohibitively expensive Tiger I were built. The Tigers were so costly to build they could never be produced in large volumes.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Tiger cost twice as much as a Panther, which cost about the same as a late war M4A3/M4A3E8.

[@johndowling3312]

Love the tiger tank it's was a most beautiful tank that ever built

[@PostalWorker14]

Tiger was ten years ahead in design but was complex to build and maintain

[@Eds7570]

I'll agree. The Tiger had an appealing look to it that made the allied tanks look ugly.

[@anitalekawska2767]

Beautiful tanks ❤❤❤

[@stonewalljackson7590]

The Tiger Tank even looks terrifying today.

[@cawimmer430]

Tiger I and Tiger II and the Panther plus all STUG variants were things of beauty!

[@deconfinedQPT]

I still have PTSD from the battle of Caen in CoD2 because of the Tiger 1

[@hbpirate9023]

I've heard the tiger needed three trucks to follow it. A fuel truck, a truck with spare parts and a third with mechanics to fix them when they broke down. Another major problem was most roads and bridges couldn't handle their weight.

[@MOTA_KRAMPUS]

The Best The Beast The Tiger

[@MegaBloggs1]

no it was designed in 1938 as a heavy assault tank

[@Jagdtyger2A]

I also feel that up gunning the Panther V with the Tiger's 88 mm, a 10.5 cm or 12 cm gun and a bit more armor would have been useful. As they were designed with that capability in mind. Such a Panther with a GT-103 1100 shp gas turbine would have been a serious problem

[@lesterbeals1443]

The 75mm was a superior anti-tank weapon compared to the 88mm. Greater penetration and velocity, which made it easier to aim with it's flatter trajectory.

[@michaelkenny8540]

Panther turret was too small to take the 8.8cm. You have to have enough room from the breech to the turret rear for the round. Panther did not.

[@mirkojorgovic]

Panther2/E50 planned and PantherF produced with Schmalturm 75mmL70 and also with 88mmL71 [ Daimler-Benz late war 1945]

[@Jagdtyger2A]

@@michaelkenny8540 Actually it was not too small. There were several experimental designs involved with this very idea. For production all that was necessary would possibly be required is a redesigned turret

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

​@@lesterbeals1443the Panther's gun had slightly better penetration at short to medium ranges, at long they were equal and at very long ranges the 88mm L/56 had slightly better penetration. The heavier 88mm shell had a better ballistic shape and kept the velocity better at long ranges compared the Panther's Panzergranate 39/42 which was optimized for defeating sloped armor.

[@jasonmussett2129]

Good stuff👍

[@generalposlijebitke6688]

What is the point for Germans to build 10.000 Tigers? They didn't have enough fuel to run those 1300...

[@stewartmillen7708]

Well said.

[@johnxina4906]

It's to impose fear to allied soldiers

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@johnxina4906 Why would that happen? As there actually be no more Tigers in use at the front lines. Military hardware isn't used that way. To give you an example, by the end of 1944 the Soviets had over 35,000 tanks overall. However, the number of tanks actually assigned to units and used was far less--from a bit over 12,0000 to 15.700. So the Soviets had at least more than twice, and maybe upwards of three times the tanks they actually used. Why do armies do this? One, you don't usually have the trained me to use all your hardware at once; two, you may not have enough support staff (mechanics and stuff) to use all of it at once, and three, having a surplus allows you to re-fit and re-built units depleted in combat quicker. This doesn't apply to just tanks, other hardware follows the same rule. A USAAF heavy bomber group full strength was 21 B-17s or B-24s, but in fact they had considerably more planes and men than that. Not every crew flew every mission, and there were plenty of "spare" bombers kept in reserve. So after a tough mission where several bombers were lost or badly damaged, and several crews were lost, the group could launch another full-strength 21 bomber mission using its 'spares'. In fact, a group might be able to fly through several 'tough missions' like that and still keep putting up its full combat strength.

[@mohammedpanju2236]

Really lovely and strong one.

[@stephenclarke2206]

A great piece of engineering the problem was it was too high maintenance for it's own good

[@seancrowley1065]

My favorite tank of all time !!!!!!

[@jebbroham1776]

On the Eastern Front, the Tiger had a kill to death ratio of about 10 kills to 1 death. My great uncle who served with the 2nd SS Panzer Division witnessed such a performance at Kursk.

[@vitmatyas2097]

At Kursk it was almost 17 to 1...

[@lassekristensen385]

Respect for your uncle! All German warriors against world communism and demonic allied are true heroes!

[@viktoriaironpride4977]

You should be very proud.

[@stironeceno]

I'm reading , Ratio 10 to 1 ... .Ratio 17 to 1 , wow ! . And in the end after all those killings by the superior German tanks , the same superior Germany's tanks lost at Kursk . Lets not talk about operation Bagration .boy hoo boy those superior tanks really got their ass kicked .

[@classicgalactica5879]

​@@lassekristensen385 Ah yes, the Germans. Losers of two World Wars and now basically soft pacifists.

[@sum12see]

Ive always loved the Tiger family of tanks..I was privileged enough to be able to look at,climb on and photograph all the collection of armor and weapons on Aberdeen Proving Grounds,in Maryland for decades!!!.But now theyre gone ...

[@ekspatriat]

Germans knew how to make good looking Tanks.

[@maxsheng8215]

Good looking means balance and right proportion. Same with human or animals.

[@ekspatriat]

@@maxsheng8215 Yep...Germans knew how to make good looking Tanks

[@TaeussKramme]

Looks had nothing to do with it; form followed function in all cases.

[@ekspatriat]

@@TaeussKramme That wasn't my point. The Sherman was built for function but is Fugly.

[@TaeussKramme]

@@ekspatriat I'll go with that provided you realize that their original task was infantry support and not fighting other tanks, hence the puny and ineffective 75mm M1 gun.

[@Itachi_88mm]

RAF rockets were primarily used to destroy tiger's not in a direct head on tank to tank battle as being portrayed one tiger survived 272 hits with damage to transition it travelled back 40 miles back to German lines

[@paulprice1705]

I would be interested to know if there are stats for tiger1 and panther5 losses by type. ie: other tanks, AT, Air... my guess is air took out a larger number especially in the west, (breakdowns probably being the highest haha). If they had good air cover these tanks really would have made a huge difference.

[@lincolntravelconcierge4846]

I think you are correct- breakdowns/mechanical failure was the leading cause of loss followed by losses to air power.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Slightly less than 1,600 Tigers were lost to all causes during the war, about 750 to combat, the rest to various other causes. About 300 were lost in tank vs. tank combat, many to various tank destroyers or assault guns - 50-60 of these in the West. Airplanes and artillery outright destroyed few Tigers, but damaged many - 10-15 were destroyed by heavy bombers in the carpet bombing before Operation Goodwood, where also a few probably were destroyed by the battleship HMS Nelson. Out of 126 Tigers deployed in Normandy, 69 were lost in combat; about 30 to tanks/tank destroyers (between 5-10 to Fireflies and M10 17pdrs), up to 15 to heavy bombers, the rest to AT guns and a few to infantry. Most of the rest were lost during the retreat from France. The percentage of Panther losses is pretty much unknown, but probably follows the Tiger trend - many were lost when German units retreated.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@TTTT-oc4eb The question is, how many of those Tigers/Panthers destroyed on the retreat were actually combat losses? The Germans only recorded tanks that they could not recover as "losses", even if the pieces could be picked up off the battlefield and the whole tank had to be shipped back to the factory to be rebuilt, it "wasn't a loss!". So many of German tanks destroyed by their own crews could be because of significant battle damage that wasn't easy to repair and in fact the tank might never be repaired. This is the problem of German bean-counting metrics, it tended to minimize apparent German losses compared to say, Soviet metrics, where anything that takes a tank out of action is a "loss", even if it's minor and the tank is back into action a day or so later. That's why Soviet losses look so huge, and in fact a Soviet unit would "lose" more tanks than it had to begin with during an operation (say, X tank army starts out with 800 tanks and "loses" 1000 during a campaign, you have to remember that most of those "losses" might have been minor damage, mechanical issues, or mishaps, with the bulk being quickly returned to service. By contrast, the German bean-counting methodology often gave the impression that a tank unit was still a formidable force (a handful of losses) when in reality it had been reduced to a handful of tanks. This, I believe had an impact on the course of the war. Hitler is often accused of ordering units that existed only on paper, but maybe this is because the way losses were being reported (and minimized) would logically lead someone to a conclusion said panzer division X or Tiger tank battalion Y was a powerful, potent unit, when in fact these were down to a scratch number of vehicles because their real losses were much higher than their reported ones? PS. 1600 Tigers lost? Are you including King Tigers among these? 1,347 Tiger Is and 492 Tiger II tanks were produced, and the loss rate was 100 % (as Germany lost the war). So the losses should be 1,839 combined, no?

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@stewartmillen7708 Ah, Russian stats - nothing is more reliable than that. I wonder how many tanks the Russians have lost in Ukraine according to their own stats, probably just a couple of hundred? 1580 Tigers lost in the war means that around 250 were left standing when the war ended, but were then sent to the scrapyard, like most surviving German hardware.

[@michaelkenny8540]

@@lincolntravelconcierge4846 Incorrect. Given there is no data supporting your belief can you explain how it is you came to believe this lie? Have you perhaps such an emotional attachment to the myth of the Tiger that you need an excuse to explain away its failure?

[@lanilacionni9919]

That was the best tank back in the day

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

The original Panzer VI was probably really a good tank. It seems to have had fewer of the Konigstiger's reliability issues, albeit inferior armor and inferior cannon.

[@daviddoran3673]

Just one Tiger 1 is running today...I think Kubinka has a static model also.

[@kungfuwitcher7621]

@@daviddoran3673 Apparently there are nine examples in various parts of the world, but 131 the only running one. Can’t remember where I read it, but another Tiger 1 is being restored to be run again.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@kungfuwitcher7621 I hope they can make enough parts!

[@kungfuwitcher7621]

@@stewartmillen7708 Hope so. This is the place and a lengthy vid but put together with different parts. kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5-9Y4l4hJypl9E

[@daman9780]

@@daviddoran3673 geez only how many were made ....compare the numbers and no kidding there will other tanks around and running...sheesh

[@volvo1354]

The Panther was more of a response to the T34, with the sloped frontal glacis.

[@TaeussKramme]

A superior response, at that. The Soviets used sound designs and prodigious production numbers -which led to appalling losses- to win in the end at losses that are grisly.

[@alkitzman9179]

Three major problems with this tank. First they only produced about 1900 between the Tiger and the disaster Tiger 2. Both of these Tanks broke down very often. The engines were under strength for the weight of these Tanks. also they used a lot of petrol . The upgraded Mark IV Panzer would have been a much better way to go as they were very reliable and once fitted with a long barreled gun . They could penetrate anything the US or Soviets had in large numbers at the time.

[@Mfields4517]

The Germans used them incorrectly because of Hitler. Most times when the Russians broke thru, the Germans would rush in the heavy tanks to seal the gap. This used alot of fuel and wore out the engines/transmissions. On the few occasions they dugin the tanks and waited for the Russian breakthru to reach them, the Germans crushed them. Hitler decided the morale of the troops needed to be boosted with the appearance of Tigers at the front , and it was boosted, but at great cost.

[@yvangascogne]

You can add the weight of these beasts, they were logistic nightmare for a limited use on few terrains...

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Tiger 1 had a power to weight ratio equal or better than most Sherman variants, and it used as little fuel as a late war M4A3. A heavy vehicle with good power to weight ratio will often use as little as a light vehicle with poor power to weight ratio. The Tiger II was clearly underengined, though. Both Tigers were relatively reliable.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Source?

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@nickdanger3802 The Tiger had a fuel capacity of 540-568 liters, and a max road range of 195 km = 2,8 - 2,9 liters per km. Depending on variant, the Sherman had a fuel capacity of 522-662 liters, and a max road range of 161-241 km, again depending on variant = 2,7 - 3,2 liters per km. The late war Panzer IVJ had a fuel capacity of 670 liters, max road range 320 km = 2,1 liters per km.

[@beersmurff]

The Tiger project was started in 1936 as they asked for a heavy breaktrhough tank aound 18 ton with the 75mm gun. I predates the experiences of France and Russia. However it is true it was regularly changed to fit new requirements and ended up being 56 ton and the 88mm gun. But it wasnt initially ment to counter any tanks you mention, but to act as a break through tank to take over from the stop gap pz4 short caliber 75mm as that was a temporary solution.

[@mirkojorgovic]

No T34 and KV were initially in German 's minds for starting Tiger1. Battle of Arras 1940 show advantage of Matilda2 tanks against pz38T,pz3 and initial version of pz4; it this battle also German's 88mm gun served as excellent antitank gun. Development of non-sloped Tiger1 started before 1941 as answer to Matilda2 and B1bis tanks.

[@sches9519]

im genuinlz surprised whz people still think that the tiger was developet against the soviets when it saw combat well before it

[@michaelpielorz9283]

Arras showed armour had to be fast moving ,or even moving at all !! some brits will never admit Matildas werent Tigers at all.The Matildas and the Chars got their asses kicked but like the charge of the light Brigade brits called blunders heroic action (:-))

[@daveybyrden3936]

@@sches9519 You are wrong. The first actions of Tigers were up near Leningrad in late 1942. The invasion of the USSR had been ongoing for more than a year.

[@daman9780]

@@daveybyrden3936 no the panther 4 were the german reply for the t34...tigers were already in desgin and made before...maybe first action

[@daveybyrden3936]

@@daman9780 The Tiger's first action was on 22 September 1942. Source : "Tigers in Combat volume 1"

[@rdallas81]

They should have built more hetzers and panthers or stugs.. The stug had 20,000 kills. The highest kill ratio of tracked vehicles I believe.

[@sches9519]

thats just wrong

[@TaeussKramme]

@@sches9519 Which part? Building more Hetzers and STUGs or the 20k kills? STUGs did, in fact, kill more enemy tanks than any other conventional tank. Off the top of my head I can't verify the 20k part but it was a huge number all on their own. The Soviet archives now show total Soviet losses to be in the tens of thousands and I think that it is fair to say that anything hit by a Tiger stayed dead. Rebuilding usually wasn't a viable option.

[@milt6208]

Like a lot German gadgets, most everything they had they were extremely complicated, broke down a lot and were hard to fix. That is why 50 thousand Sherman's were the best tank on the Western Front.

[@flycatchful]

Quantity versus quality and this tank is no exemption. Bottom line is Hitler bite off more than he could chew. Fighting on two fronts is a losing proposition.

[@gratefulguy4130]

Yeah, that gets overplayed quite a bit. The truth is, if all the myths about German equipmemt were true, the war would have been over several years earlier & they never would have achieved the mind-boggling kill ratios they did. They also were the one nation that didn't even have the option to push out cheap crap. Allied doctrine was that human life was far cheaper than complex equipment and could always be replaced. Germany never had the manpower to implement such a strategy even if they had wanted to.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Both the Panther and Tiger were reliable by WW2 standards in 1944. The "horrible reliability" is mainly Allied propaganda. All WW2 tanks, including the Sherman broke down - a lot. As for "complicated", three late war Bf 109s could be produced for the man hours of one Spitfire.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

Well, the Bf109 was a perfectly good fighter even in 1945, especially the late G models and K models which were every bit as good as the latest Mustangs or Spitfires in a one on one scenario between pilots of equal skill. And Germany was pumping out thousands of 109s. Germany just didn't have the infrastructure to train pilots and build enough equipment to sustain heavy losses. That's the fault of their leadership and geography. They would meet the Allies with neither a quantitative or qualitative parity. They wouldn't have the fuel to power thousands of Sherman-like tanks even if they could somehow produce enough hardened steel to make them. The Germans notably did not fear Allied tanks, per se, only the fact that there were so many of them, and no matter how good the German tanks were, they couldn't stave off the superior Allied manufacturing potential. The supposed unreliability of German tanks is highly exaggerated. It's not like Germany was building dozens of unreliable 1980s Land Rovers while the Allies were making Toyota Corollas. Allied tanks and equipment of all kinds had just as garbage reliability as German equipment, it's just that the Allies had the resources to field vast amounts of replacements and spares to mitigate the appearance of design ineptitude.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Source?

[@asullivan4047]

Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what the orator was describing. Professional class A research project. Berlin didn't do a very good pre war espionage job. Suddenly encountering the Russian T-34 tanks. On the battlefield wasn't a good environment to encounter massive amounts T-34s.

[@jackeman7514]

Bro the Sherman 75mm with apcr rounds could pen the front armor, and the 76mm Sherman can with ease. Please do more research bro

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The 75mm did not have APCR rounds, and the 76mm only very limited quantities. The low quality standards rounds of the 76mm could barely penetrate the front armor of the Tiger.

[@jackeman7514]

@@TTTT-oc4eb the 76mm almost always had the HVAP M93 (APCR-T) round that could pen the tiger at over 1,500 meters.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@jackeman7514 The 76mm Shermans had on average access to a couple of rounds per month. Some units didn't have APCR at all. The tank destroyers had priority.

[@TaeussKramme]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Ya! What he said! And quit calling us "bro".

[@DukeNukem500]

Panzer 4 75mm Gun was exellent

[@TaeussKramme]

The late-war KwK 40 L48 was a very effective gun with reliable ammunition. More than adequate for anything found during WW2 at reasonable combat ranges.

[@schwatzy6362]

Guderian wanted Panzer 1V's with the Long Barreled 75mm high velocity Not the Tiger. Panzer 1V was more reliable and more maneuverable than the Tiger and was a great counter to the T-34.

[@konosmgr]

And you could pen panzer 1s with infantry anti tank rifles.

[@schwatzy6362]

@@konosmgr Panzer 1? I think you meant Panzer 1V (4). There was a solution for the anti-tank rifle The Germans hung steel skirts on the sides and also steel mesh which caused the anti-tank rifle shell to tumble and not penetrate the side armor

[@konosmgr]

@@schwatzy6362 It's IV not 1V btw.

[@schwatzy6362]

@@konosmgr I didn't say btw. I meant panzer 4

[@schwatzy6362]

@@konosmgr as far as I am concerned Roman numerals are from the English Language They are symbols V=5, I=1(cap i), l=1 (L without cap), 1=1 (is the number one) Use any in the search bar and you come up with a Panzer 4 So stop being anal.

[@MickCampin-jp9kb]

A Sherman firefly could use a 17lb Sabot ap round could knock out a Tiger I at up to 2000 yards even hitting it's front armour. Pity there wernt more Fireflies available on 6th June

[@daveybyrden3936]

No Tigers were encountered on 6 June, so I wonder why you mentioned that date? Because Allied forces - even American forces - had battled Tigers many times before D day. Don't those soldiers matter too?

[@MickCampin-jp9kb]

@@daveybyrden3936 yes of course every life matters. I just mentioned if they had got ashore that Normandy campaign may have bee over quicker. I know Hitler kept his armour awaiting a landing in the Pas De Calais so I agree no Tigers were e countered only(?) Panzer IV which could easily be mistaken for a Tiger

[@TaeussKramme]

No documented case of a frontal penetration of a Tiger I glacis. Plenty of claims which usually turned out to be Pz IVs due to Tiger-phobia. Hits on the lower hull don't count here. It would also be a challenge for the Sherman optics to even SEE a Tiger at 2K, much less hit it. The reverse was, on the other hand. very true: think "Zeiss optics" on that one. That being said, the British 17pdr was the only truly effective main gun ever put in a war time Sherman. American arrogance refused the offer and they brought-in their much-vaunted (though under-achieving) 76mm M1. Wonder how many Sherman crews were sacrificed because the Higher Beings in the Pentagon wouldn't accept the 17pdr? Too many, I fear.

[@josephhinojosa992]

The MAJORITY of German tanks were Panzer Kampf wagon 3,4 and tank destroyers Sturmgeschutz 3. BUT PSYCHOLOGICALLY, THE TIGER WAS FEARED. And numerical Panthers were respected.

[@KonradvonHotzendorf]

Stug III got high score 🎯

[@crosbonit]

Different production numbers were given within this video for the Tiger I and T-34.

[@daveybyrden3936]

1:15 .... "against the Allies in the Tunisian desert" The first Tiger battle in Africa was not in a desert. It was in an olive grove. The density of the trees materially affected the outcome.

[@TaeussKramme]

Must have been an impressive grove.

[@daveybyrden3936]

@@TaeussKramme If you can't see the enemy tanks, that's too much foliage. Tiger commanders' eyes are located almost 3 meters above ground.

[@TaeussKramme]

@@daveybyrden3936 Ah, but could the Allied tanks see the Tigers or was it a mutual surprise that ended poorly for some poor sods?

[@danielb7660]

This thing was the T-Rex of its time. Completely Badass.

[@hansfyhrqvist7734]

It's self-evident that Germany's Tiger was by far the greatest tank in WW2. There was no match in a tank v tank battle for Tiger from the Allied counterparts, Russia's T-34, USA's Sherman or Britain's Churchill. Making the Tiger more menacing was the well trained crew. You could say that in an open field battle one Tiger could normally outgun at least 5 opponents.

[@nickdanger3802]

How significant was it? Production for tiger 1 and 2 was less than 2,000 total. M4 tank over 49,000, T34 about 55,000 (35,000 with 2-man turret). USA and Britian built more 4 engine bombers than Germany built AFV's. At 29.44 Total AFV production all nations 1945 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGfbfYCLnsuVrrM

[@hansfyhrqvist7734]

@@nickdanger3802 I was only refering to the best individual tank. Of course wars are ultimately decided by the war potential = human and economic resources (the latter = arms production totals). In 1944 tank production totals were: Germany 17 800 Soviet Union (Russia) 29 000 USA 17 500 (but in 1943 it was 29 500) Britain 5 000. So the Allied produced approximately 3 times more, and this was the case also in military aircraft etc. So overwhelming superiority for the Allied against Germany; and much more, and with only taking into account USA, versus Japan. The figures were taken from Paul Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000.

[@stewartmillen7708]

??? One, you're comparing a 60-ton heavy tank to 30-ton mediums. An apples-to-apples comparison would be against the US M26 Pershing and the Soviet IS-2, both of which were very likely to win a one-on-one with a Tiger, and moreover the IS-2 could even take on a King Tiger with reasonable chances of success.

[@sapiensiski]

Why was it the best? Didnt the germans lose the war? Didnt 76mm shermans and 85mm T-34s take their ass to town? That "5 shermans to 1 tiger" myth is total bullshit. 75mm hvap was more than capable of dealing with tigers, and numerical advantage assured that the tiger would be destroyed in that engagement. Over 90% of the tigers were lost during the war, not after it. I agree that it might take 5 shermans to tow a broken tiger out of the way since it was so heavy.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@stewartmillen7708 The Pershing was barely a WW2 tank (only some 20 saw action from late February 1945) and had unsurprisingly many teething problems, like all new tanks. The IS-2 was great on paper, but had a ton of limitations which reduced its value in tank vs tank combat. It was still, by far the best heavy tank the Soviets made, followed up by the utter disaster the IS-3.

[@evilcrow]

A beauty of steel.

[@tsonfire1]

The last line in this video says that they doubt that another single tank will have as much impact for a another army as the Tiger did. I think the same might be said about the Abrams for the US Army. As modern tanks go the Abrams is the pinnacle just as the Tiger was in WW2.

[@wilco300674]

The M1 also has its flaws.. The engine does not like desert sand at all, sinks easy in the mud. 2 very important things in warfare. The M1 is nice on flat dry grounds without too many desert sans.

[@daman9780]

@@wilco300674 and which modern tank hasnt flaws?...i would take an abrams over any other tank (Leopard 2 and the new american tank AbramsX would be next on the list)

[@kentleytaggart5816]

@@wilco300674 I

[@TaeussKramme]

While I agree with the start of what you said I'll say that I respectfully disagree on the Abrams because of its gas turbine engine which is overly thirsty and prone to failure when compared to any of the other turbo diesels more commonly found in other modern main battle tanks. It was a weird choice that the U.S. Army simply got used to.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

Wouldn't catch me in any tank nowadays now that any moron can point a javelin style top down attack AT missile at you and delete you.

[@josephwolosz2522]

40,000 Sherman tanks vs.1,300 Tigers. Just wait until the Tiger gets stuck and burns out the transmission. The name Tiger struck fear into any WW2 Veteran. PKW 4 often resembled a Tiger with the side skirts on the turret. The big German Tank Aces loved the Tiger 1.

[@hellrider6609]

Tiger was powerfull machine but Panther and Stug 3 were better tank killers

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Not per tank, far from it.

[@lincolntravelconcierge4846]

@@TTTT-oc4eb no, but maybe in the sense of resources expended. The opportunity cost of these heavy tanks is another matter.

[@lukeskywalker3329]

​@TT TT the stug 3 out shone and tripled the kill rates and ratios of the nearest panzers. Look it up .

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@lukeskywalker3329 9,000 StuG IIIs were credited with 30,000 kills. 1,800 Tigers were credited with 10,000 kills. Now, both these numbers undoubtedly includes a lot of overclaiming, but you get the general idea. Per unit the Tigers were more effective.

[@maxsheng8215]

Anti tank guns are true tank killers.

[@adriantowe278]

I love the tiger so much i have a tiger tattooed on my chest and stomach it a battle seen and it hurt but looks good

[@gratefulguy4130]

I find it funny how much people try to denigrate German technology now that the people who knew better are mostly gone. People love to act like the limitations of the day's technology only applied to them. Meanwhile, if all the stories about them were true, we would have never seen the kill ratios they achieved. The war also never would have dragged out anywhere near as long as it did. People who can't compete through strength always have to try to make their enemy smaller somehow, even if it's only in their head. This type of thinking goes beyond warfare into areas like critical analysis. Anyway, keep up the good work! 😁

[@nickdanger3802]

Source?

[@darth_elsa6681]

You should probably give Lazerpig a watch and see what he says about the Tiger

[@michaelkenny8540]

There is one 'kill-ratio' where is is not disputed The Germans were the winners. No Army in WW2 had the civilian kill-ratio achieved by The Wehrmacht. There were the undisputed best Army when you had millions of women and children you wanted killed quickly..

[@lincolntravelconcierge4846]

@@darth_elsa6681 should be taken in context with what he says about the T34 as well though. Face it, the Allied soldiers on the ground really feared this tank and I think that says more than we can really add or detract. This design really made an impact. Sure it had flaws but it could be a monster on the battlefield. Whether that made up for its opportunity cost is a completely different assessment.

[@stewartmillen7708]

I would argue the best tank technology developments of WWII were by the Soviets, not the Germans. Heck, the MBTs of today are essentially fast IS tanks. The German contributions to tank development were largely dead ends.

[@picklerix6162]

The Pershing tank showed up too late to make a difference in Europe but it shocked the North Koreans when several Pershing tanks suddenly appeared in defense of the Pusan perimeter. The Pershing’s larger gun had no problems penetrating the T-34 armor.

[@leesowers3538]

Great action videos. But poor data details. In one segment you claim 80,000 T34s were built then later 40,000. Such errors make all your statistics suspect. A real shame for an otherwise good video.

[@MikeSavage-i9r]

how effective? a lot depends on the crew..

[@phillipbrown8346]

Ever hear of "TIGERPHOBIA"? ASK AN OLD SOLDIER....

[@Primarch19th]

Simply stated, if the Tiger 1 had sloped armor in the front and sides, would have been almost impossible to take out.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Slightly sloped side armor did add little to the protection and took up valuable interior space, and was dropped from most postwar tanks.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

Some guys are obsessed with sloped armour (:-)

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Not immediately, and the dropping of slope was more the development of new AT rounds.

[@maxsheng8215]

There is a cost to internal space if make all sides sloped. Russian t34 are very cramped inside and it is hell for the crews.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@maxsheng8215 T-34 is cramped compared to what? Have you read some reviews of other tanks' ergonomics? The T-34/85 has more space than the PzIII, say, for the loader, while both of those seem like Hilton hotels to that of the PzIV. (The Churchill and Cromwell may be even worse). The Sherman wins the award for gunner comfort.

[@moegizzard5819]

A problem plagued almost unrepairable in the field bastardized Beast... BUTT when it worked it was an awesome Beast

[@TaeussKramme]

Whose butt?

[@arniewilliamson1767]

The problem was it was so complicated to build, they couldn’t build them in near the numbers that T34’s and Sherman’s could.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Tigers were never meant to be produced in large numbers. The Tiger 1 was built in about the numbers ordered, and Tiger II production was bombed to smithereens. The Panther and the Panzer IV were the volume models.

[@JohnnyKnackertache.]

As ein vise German philosopher once said: 'Ze man who shoots ze most space invaders ist alvays ze Winner.' So true.

[@John14-6...]

It's interesting to find out that there were more Sherman Fireflies created than Tiger ones

[@avenaoat]

The Sherman, Cromwell and Churchill guns were weaker than the Panther 75 mm gun. So the Firefly and the American tankdestroyers had to fight with the Panthers not only with the Tigers!

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Most of the 1,500 Tiger IIs ordered were effectively destroyed on the factory floor by bombers.

[@TaeussKramme]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Point being?

[@graemehuia5964]

The forerunner to the modern MBT.

[@larrymccue8097]

All the critics of this tank if given a choice would ride into battle in one certainly before getting into a Sherman 😅

[@ChrisZukowski88]

T-34*

[@TaeussKramme]

@@ChrisZukowski88 I noticed your name so I'll go with the bias that comes with having T 34s on every war memorial in your neighborhood as influencing your choice. I'd agree if I had to maintain it in the field on my own, though.

[@ChrisZukowski88]

@@TaeussKramme quite the opposite actually. I never liked the T-34 and think it’s overrated trash. History proves me right.

[@TaeussKramme]

@@ChrisZukowski88 Okay, I'll allow that though I would point out that the Germans valued its off-road capabilities and admired its effective 76.2mm gun which they made much use of through captured examples and re-tasking. The T-34 also proved to be a very useful target for German gunners who disposed of some 45, 000 T-34s out of an estimated 80k total Soviet tank losses! Man, but that's a whole lot of shells! And lives.

[@heinwein421]

One of the best Doc about the "Panzerkampfwagen VI / Tiger I.... most of the Docs i have seen overhyped or underrated the Tiger I.... Let's be honest after 78 years, the Tiger was an excellent Tank but, like all other Tanks, it was not made for all combat scenarios...

[@stewartmillen7708]

Hmm. The Tiger was: a) too heavy b) too unreliable c) its gun, while better than contemporaries, wasn't ideal for that of a breakthrough tank d) its vertical armor was ok for its era, allowing for side angling, but 1944 its opponents had guns that could penetrate it, and sometimes easily at medium or even long range. Notable among these are the British 17-pounder, the US 90 mm, the US 76 mm with HVAP, the Soviet 85 mm, the Soviet 100 mm, the Soviet 122 mm corps gun, and the Soviet 152 mm gun-howitzer. All these weapons found their way AFV that would fight Tigers; the Soviet ISU-122 being possibly the most effective anti-Tiger weapon of the war. e) even before, its armor (like so many German tanks) was of spotty quality, often cracking or splintering when hit. For that reason it's possible the lowly Soviet 76.2 mm gun on the T-34/76 and in divisional AT gun batteries might have taken out the most Tigers in total (repeated hits causing armor cracking and splintering, despite the 76.2 mm struggling to actually penetrate even the Tiger's side armor). Both 1944, the Soviets had a heavy tank that was superior to the Tiger hands-down in gun vs armor comparison (the IS-2) and that superiority grew with the 1944 IS-2 version. The Americans followed with the Pershing in 1945, which was also superior by gun/armor comparison. Yet on the internet the Tiger gets praised more than either the IS-2 or the Pershing, and I can't fathom why (the Pershing had some mechanical issues, but probably not as bad as the Tiger's). Even its introduction in 1942 at Leningrad was something of a disaster.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

a) Yes, probably its biggest disadvantage. b) No, on the contrary, as long as proper maintenance could be undertaken, the Tiger was one of the most reliable tanks of the war. Stats from the Tiger units show this. c) Why not, it had a very good a APCHE round and a very good HE round. d) Almost all the guns you mention weren't available in good numbers until mid/late 1944 - by then the Tiger had been in action for almost two years - 1943 and the first half of 1944 was the time it really built up its reputation. And all this guns, with the exception of the British 17 pdr, were plagued with poor quality (too soft) standard armor piercing rounds. The Soviets compensated with sheer size, but the 85mm was not a cat killer, although it was much better than the 76mm. I don't doubt that the ISU-122 was effective, but why should it be more effective than an IS-2? On the Western front around 10 Tigers fell prey to the 17 pdr, in the form of a Firefly, M10 or AT gun. All in all, only some 300 Tigers (I and II) were lost in tank vs. tank combat on all fronts, while claiming thousands of kill themselves. e) The Tiger 1 had probably the best armor quality of any WW2 tank (possibly late war British and US tanks came close), as it received the best possible armor quality the Germans could do at the time. This was confirmed by British tests of captured Tigers where the armor performed 13-20% better that could be expected compared to British standard armor plates. They found that the 82mm upper hull side armor performed like it was 92mm and the 62mm lower hull side plate like it was no less than 82mm. The IS-2, like most thing Russian, looked much better on paper than in reality. It had a long list of disadvantages compared to even the Tiger 1 that limited its performance in tank vs. tank combat; Very slow ROF, could only carry 28 main gun rounds, very hardand brittle poor armor quality resulting in interior spalling even from non-penetrating hits, poor visibility, the effective turret front armor was much thinner than on the Tiger and vulnerable at long range, poor optics making long range hits difficult, no turret basket, troublesome transmission, the big 122mm gun actually penetrated less armor than the "short" 88 (130mm vs. 138mm at 1000 meters), but was still very dangerous due to its sheer size. In short; a powerful, but also very crude and primitive tank. It also appeared one and a half year later than the Tiger. The Pershing, which appeared in very small numbers when the war was almost over, was roughly comparable to the Tiger, especially if had access to APCR rounds. It had more effective hull front armor layout, but much thinner effective front turret armor (110-115mm vs. 140-225mm). Side and rear armor was thinner than the Tiger's. Armor-wise it was somewhere between a Tiger 1 and a Panther. It also had a weak engine and poorer mobility than both cats. The Tiger 1 and the Pershing actually met twice, it ended 1-1.

[@stewartmillen7708]

​@@TTTT-oc4eb The KZbin dog ate my first homework assignment, so I had to re-type it. Here goes: a) Well, we agree on *something*. Moreover, the Tiger had terrible off-road mobility, despite its wide tracks. b) What, the Tiger was "reliable"? Maybe compared to the Panther, which even after being "fixed" had a drivetrain that wouldn't last much over 100 operating hours. But the Tiger too had significant reliability problems (even Otto Carius, who otherwise defended the tank, admitted that it was easy for an unskilled driver to break the tank and it always broke down even with a skilled driving on long marches). For instance, even in Italy, more than a year after the Tiger had been introduced (and supposedly had most of its problems "fixed") the 504 and 508 PzAbt had lost 70 % of their Tigers, despite recording only 5 combat losses*. A typical action was recording May 23rd, where 16 Tigers of the 508th PzAbt set out to counterattack US forces near Cisterna. 3 Tigers were damaged in a mishap getting soil in their barrels, four more tanks encountered transmission troubles, four more were used to tow fixable Tigers away, then the transmissions in two more Tigers failed. One of the survivors was knocked out by artillery, and then the final Tiger gave up the ghost May 23rd. What could be towed away with captured Shermans (haha!) were towed, and the rest (9 Tigers) blown up by their own crews. And all these losses were incurred without much in the way of enemy combat (one Tiger was taken out by artillery, and one similarly had a shell fragment take out its radiator). Also note that the Germans used captured Shermans to tow damaged Tigers as almost inevitably using a Tiger to tow a damaged Tiger often resulted in *two* damaged Tigers when the towing Tiger broke down too! That's "the most reliable tank" of WW2? Contrast that sorry situation to the M4 Sherman and T-34/85, which by Soviet tank army records (the Soviets being the only army to operate both tanks in large numbers) were exhibiting excellent (and overall equal) reliability, with the IS-2/ISU tanks not far behind (IS-2s by 1945 were able to go twice their recommended mileage before needing service). Like I wrote above, even Carius, who defended the Tiger, said it was an easy tank to break, and moreover always broken down under extended operation. If a tank is so delicate it needs to be handled like fine china to keep it from breaking then it's simply not reliable, because you can't give a weapon that kind of care in combat. * PS. The Germans overall in WWII, and Tiger tank battalions in particular, were notorious both for overclaiming kills and under-reporting losses. So their true combat losses may have been greater than just 5 Tigers.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@TTTT-oc4eb c) The 88 mm/L56 Kwk36 did have a good APHE round (the best German tank that could-have-been in WWII would have not been the one-trick-pony Panther tank, but a 30-35 ton tank like the T-44, and carrying the Kwk36 which was a good compromise weapon between AP and HE capability. But for a breakthrough tank the HE round of the Kwk36 wasn't that great. I'm basing this on the Soviet experience in 1945, in the more-built up terrain of Eastern Germany, where the Soviets sometimes found the similar-caliber 85 mm gun on the T-34/85 inadequate for fortification-busting, where their D-25T HE round on the IS-2 excelled. That's less a fault of the Tiger I, but using the 88 mm/L71 Kwk43 gun instead of the better-suited Kwk44 128 mm for the Tiger II was inexcusable. The 128 mm was fire both a much-better HE round and a much-better AT round than the Kwk43. As for "RoF" objections, see below. d) Yes, the Tiger I was 'the first out the gate' but my point was it didn't take long for the Allies to produce satisfactory countermeasures...at least the Western Allies. Only the Soviets had a period of crises in mid-1943, where their tanks struggled to penetrate both the Tiger I and Panther frontally, but even on the Eastern front, both Tigers and Panthers were too few in numbers to affect the strategic outcome (most of the tanks at Kursk were Panzer IIIjs and Panzer IVs). By the time both Panthers and Tigers started showing up in significant numbers, the Soviets too had at least stopgaps in place (The SU-85, and later the KV-85). (Interestingly, there was a regiment of KV-1cs that bested the Tigers of PzAbt 502 near Leningrad in July-August 1943, but those were special KV-1cs, equipped with the 76 mm K-3 AA gun that had similar ballistics to the US 76 mm/3-inch gun and the German Pak40 gun family. The Soviets considered upgrading ALL their T-34/76s to this gun, along with their KVs, which makes a lot of sense as the Soviet 76 mm K-3 AA gun, unlike the US 76, not only fired a much more potent AT round but also a superior HE round as well. However, this sensible stopgap was ditched for the option of waiting for the 85 mm gun. This decision, like the decision to not uparmor the T-34/85's hull from 45 mm to 65, 70, or 75 mm in 1944, I believe to be a mistake). Interesting what you say about the Soviet 85 mm being superior to the US 76 (and, by inference the Pak40). I completely agree with this assessment; the Soviet 85 mm gets assigned too-low penetration values by Livingston-Bird and in wargames that don't fit at all with its test results against captured tanks or tank armor, and don't fit with all by the DeMarre equation when not only compared to similar caliber guns (the 88 mm Kwk36 and the US 90 mm) but also don't fit when compared to Western values obtained on Soviet guns which used the same-style/same-quality of ammunition (BS-3 100 mm; the A-19 122 mm). The Soviets tested all three guns against 82-mm armor plate obtained from a Tiger side, angled at 50 degrees, and the US 90 mm came out on top (with both its AP and ABCBCHE ammo), followed by the Kwk36, followed by the 85 mm. But the differences were small. That's exactly what the DeMarre equations predict.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@TTTT-oc4eb e) "Best armor quality"? No, the Germans had the worst armor quality; I completely invert your rating system. While everyone at times had armor quality issues, the Soviets had the best quality overall, and the British/US in-between, and the Germans the worst among the major European combatants (actually, from what I have read, the US Navy had the best, but they apparently didn't share their secrets with the US Army; likely because a tank that is lost can easily yield its metallurgical secrets whereas a ship that is lost goes to the bottom of the ocean and becomes rather hard to examine). I have read excerpts of the British testing, and let me quote: "“If the armor tested so far is typical of recent German production, the outlook is distinctly encouraging. There is nothing like the same consistently high quality that was found in specimens of the thinner German machineable quality armour taken from the Pz.Kw.III and Pz.Kw.IV. The hardness of the thicker plates does not materially increase their ballistic resistance above that of softer British armor, hence there is no compensation for worse behavior of the German plates when overmatched.” A summation of the report then says of their specimen: "The quality of the armour was not high. According to British specialists, it was too brittle and tended to crack and flake. The front armor was higher in quality and on par with British I.T.80 amour. The gun mantlet was also high quality, at the very least no penetrations of this part were found when inspecting Tiger wrecks." (PS. This British specimen, tank #131, engine broke down twice during its testing, with the same mode of failure, indicating a likely design flaw.) Soviet testing of captured Tigers also showed the same tendency for the Tiger's armor to catastrophically fail. I have the 1943 firing test report, and the front lower plate (100 mm sloped at 25 degrees, ~120 mm effective armor) insofar as I can read (confession: I can't read Russian, so I'm having to infer from summations and from the numbers) was hit 3 times by weapons. The first impact seemed to have been a Soviet 57 mm gun from a distance of 500 meters, which failed to penetrate but induced some cracking which damaged the welding seam for 500 mm. The second hit was from the Soviet 85 mm, from a distance of 1000 meters, which cleanly penetrated the 120 mm effectively thick armor with the shell exploding inside the tank (note: Bird & Livingston, and games like War Thunder, would tell you this wouldn't be possible at this distance). The third shell, also fired from the Soviet 85 mm at a distance of 1450 meters, hit the plate and catastrophic failure occurred---the welding seam broke and two large chunks, 500 x 240 mm, and 800 x 200 mm, fell of the Tiger. Just *three hits* on the lower plate led to big chunks of it falling off the tank. I have looked at the report, the two Soviet 45 mm, the Soviet 57 mm, the Soviet 76.2 on the T-34, the US 75 mm on the Sherman, and the Soviet 76 mm K-3 gun, were fired during this test. But most of the shots were aimed at the Tiger's side armor. So I don't think you can counter with this being a case of shooting at a tank until it falls apart; 3 hits are completely realistic and good-quality armor doesn't fall off the tank after three shots from rounds that don't even overmatch the armor thickness. By contrast, from a 1942 Soviet evaluation of T-34 losses, only 2.1% of the hits were ragged (indicating impurity in the steel), 0.6% had cracks, 0.6% led to spalling, and 0.6% had fragments fall off. The Soviets used high-hardness armor, true, but had access to raw materials that allowed more robust alloys. The Germans apparently concurred, as a back-calculation of their WaPruf October 1944 values indicate that they gave the T-34/85's hull armor the highest armor quality multiplier possible (1.25). Moreover, you just don't see photos of Soviet tanks where the plate falls off; I have seen photos of T-34s and IS-2s where the whole tank is riddled with holes from front to back yet there is no plate failure and indeed, it's rare to see even a penetration with jagged edges. Checking for spalling and cracking is the very reason why the Soviets would test their IS and KV tanks with modest anti-tank weapons like the ZIS-5 76.2 mm gun (essentially the same as the T-34/76), which wouldn't be likely to penetrate the armor but the Soviets wanted to see if cracks and spalling would occur (and indeed, to be truthful, some of the first IS-1s and IS-2s which came off the assembly line did fail such testing, which resulted in altering the armor tempering protocol in production). But spotty German armor quality wasn't just a Tiger I problem--it was encountered in all German AFV, and more so as the war progressed and materials for the best alloys became rare. I've seen a Panther hit on the mantlet by a US 90 mm round, which again did not overmatch the mantlet's thickness, but yet the Panther's mantlet on the loader's side shattered like glass on impact. For armor quality reasons no German tank was as well armored in reality as it should have been by theory.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@TTTT-oc4eb e-II) The IS-2 as I said had much superior armor to the Tiger I (not so much in thickness, but by armor angling, even with the 1943 version and even more so in the 1944 version). Heck, its armor was designed to resist the Tiger I; which it did rather well. The Panther's gun represented more of a problem and had more 'reach'. But even then, by a review of IS-2 losses the Soviets did at the end of 1944, they concluded that the IS-2 could engage both Tiger I and Panther at 1000 meters with low probability of loss, and that most losses that occurred tended to be easily-repairable damage. Most irrecoverable losses of IS-2s against both Tiger I and Panther only occurred at very close ranges, 300-400 meters, from ambush situations. This makes sense, as IS-2 (again, likely the 1943 version inferior to the 1944 version in armor protection) in the Battle of Gumbinen in October 1944 IS-2s from the 81st and 75th Guards Heavy Breakthrough regiments slugged it out with not Tiger Is, but King Tigers from PzAbt 507. The King Tigers had set up prepared ambush positions in houses, popping out to engage the attacking IS-2s at ranges of 800-1200 meters, and won the engagement on October 6th (the 81st lost 6 IS-2s destroyed vs one King Tiger). However, when the Russians inspected their wrecks, they found out each IS-2 had been hit *12-19 times* by Kwk43 rounds from the King Tiger before being penetrated. Being able to shrug off a dozen or more hits by one of WWI's best AT weapons at 800-1200 meters is pretty impressive! While it is true the Kwk43 on the King Tiger can easily penetrate the flatter areas on the IS-2 of any model (and, likewise, the Kwk36 on the Tiger I and the Kwk42 on the Panther, and heck, even the Pak40) those flat areas on both the turret and hull are quite small and not targetable; one has to keep just shooting until one gets lucky. You're most likely to hit an area with significant slope. The IS-2 turret is thus not a weak spot even on the 1943 model, and the 1944 with the wider mantlet is even better protected...the largest weak spot is on the lower hull, and there you have to hit an area not covered by spare tracks. As for Rof for the D25-T, that's indeed an issue, but more an issue for a close-up scenario like the one at Gumbinen. The Tiger I or Tiger II maxes out its advantage at closer ranges, where (especially in an ambush situation) they can pump round after round quickly into their opponent against a surprised and perhaps stunned opponent. The 122 mm D25-T wins at longer ranges, as its accuracy was just as good (and the Soviets simply copied German optics) so it's just as likely to hit as the Kwk43 or any other German gun. This is why Soviet doctrine called for IS-2s and ISUs to engage targets at ranges of 1500-2000 meters. Moreover with the 122 mm D25-T, and the ML-30 152 mm gun-howitzer on the ISU-152, the HE rounds were tank-killers too. The IS-2 thus has an advantage over any German opponent at long range as while its opponents may shoot faster, the most likely result of their faster shooting, barring a lucky hit, is that they will be ineffectively plinking the IS-2, whereas a single hit with the HE round from the D25-T will take out its opponent, whatever the opponent is, and it doesn't matter where the round lands. During firing trials performed on a captured King Tiger, the first round fired was a 122 mm HE round against the best-protected area of the King Tiger--its upper front hull. The result was just a burned mark on the outside hull...but inside, the shock and concussion of the HE explosion shattered the King Tiger's transmission and set the tank on fire. As for any human unlucky enough to be inside a tank or AFV hit by a 122 mm or 152 mm HE shell, the Soviets did testing with animals and determined that even 240 mm-thick armor (!!!!) would not be enough to protect the animals inside from being killed or seriously injured. So...in the great ROF debate, at long range, which would you rather have? A "plink your opponent until you get lucky" faster-firing weapon, or a "one hit anywhere and it's all over" gun like the D25-T? This is also why the Germans should have put the Pak44, 128 mm gun, on the King Tiger; both for its much better HE performance but also the King Tiger now can pull off the same trick against even IS-3s and IS-4s by clobbering them with HE rounds...the IS-3 hull tests indicated that the D25-T could penetrate the IS-3's "pike" nose hull while the Kwk43 88 mm could not, but I'm sure the German 128 mm would have been lethal. PS. Why was the ISU-122 such a Tiger killer more than the IS-2? Doctrine; ISU-122s were to stay concealed, under cover, to oversee the advancing friendly tanks and infantry then "ambush the ambushers" when German AFV popped out from cover to engage. This role simply gave them the most opportunities to shoot at Tigers. Also, when your weapons is a "one hit = one kill" weapon ammo load isn't as big a problem. As for turret baskets, funny how tanks that had turret baskets can later have them taken out without anyone mentioning this as a fault, but then for critiquing tanks that never had them it becomes this dire shortcoming.... e-3) Insofar as the Pershing, the final score was indeed 1:1, but only because the Tiger got a lucky hit. The Pershing's armor was actually pretty-much Tiger-proof (170 mm effective hull; the turret was mostly dual-layered: 114 mm mantlet overlaying 102 mm turret leading to ~200 mm of effective armor even before adding any multiplier for rounding). Both areas would be largely invulnerable to anything but maybe the Tiger's APCR round, which was in such short supply it essentially didn't exist. The Tiger only killed the Pershing because its round hit a vision slit--the luckiest of lucky shots. 300 Tigers lost? Thousands Tiger kill claims? The "Tigers Lost" figure is likely an deliberate undercounting methodology that all German units, but especially the SS Tiger battalions, seemed to do a lot. As for the kill claims, German intelligence themselves disbelieved the kill claims of Tiger crews, and with good reason. More recent historiography shows (especially on the Eastern front) Tigers claimed to kill 'dozens of T-34s' where either there are no Soviet tanks engaged, or the wrong tanks were there (the Tigers claimed to destroy dozens of T-34s while the only tanks in the area are Lend-Lease Shermans) or the losses that were reported were a lot smaller than claimed and moreover cited as losses to AT guns or Panzerfausts. This is especially true of the "lone Tiger gets separated from its unit, is surrounded by and destroys hordes of enemy tanks, and then makes it back to its own lines" meme repeated so often, including on KZbin.

[@Eds7570]

I wouldn't have wanted to go up against a Tiger in WW2 in any tank. You would've had to have nerves of steel, and just hope you could knocked it out, before it did you in. The 88 mm gun with the range it had was formidable.

[@davidtimson64]

What's a millumetre?

[@TaeussKramme]

A French-bot generated millimeter. Odd but true.

[@jimcase3097]

Very good

[@Mokimanify]

If you read T&TTs ... It is reported that a Tiger could be destroyed by a 57mm AT at 500 yards. Out of 20 or so rounds 5 penetrated the side turret and exiting the other side, and hull penetrations, even at 15 degrees. The Tiger did not have face hardened armor unlike all allied tanks.

[@AFT_05G]

Calling a tank with one of the best combat record statistics in history “overhyped” is a thing only an idiot would say.

[@TaeussKramme]

Lots of them circling the field today, I fear...

[@georgeparsons7338]

The average time for a Sherman to be out of action after being hit was 3 days. When a tiger was hit it was out for the remainder of the war. Part of that was due to the fact that the allies were pushing forward overrunning destroyed tank. The Sherman was a lot easier to maintain and the Americans did a wonderful job of salvaging

[@daman9780]

"tiger would be out for the rest of the war"....lol that has to be the most idiotic comment i have ever heard!!..sherman out 3 days?....the germans had a name for the shermans when they were hit cause they were done...."Ronsons Notorious for their flammability, Shermans were nicknamed “Ronsons” after a lighter with the slogan “lights every time.” The Sherman tank's primary role was infantry support, spearheading attacks as well as bolstering defensive positions.the most tanks the germans produced for the entire war was 46,000 tanks give or take including panthers and tigers...the american alone produced 50,000 shermans and overall 86,000 tanks....never mind the russains the english the french ...give your head a shake 1 nation vs how many others?? it was shear numbers not equipment

[@nickdanger3802]

@@daman9780 How the fuk would the Germans know what Ronsons slogan was???

[@daman9780]

@@nickdanger3802 What did Germans call Sherman tanks? The model proved itself somewhat effective against German Mk II and Mk IV Panzers, but it was thoroughly outclassed by the Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger tanks. Notorious for their flammability, Shermans were nicknamed “Ronsons” after a lighter with the slogan “lights every time.”

[@nickdanger3802]

@@daman9780 Source?

[@daveybyrden3936]

Out for the remainder of the war? And yet there are so many photos of operational Tigers with repaired hits...

[@AnthonyShowe]

Don't base your conclusions on this video. Gobbledygook, unchecked statements, and, general inaccurate claims. Soviet AT rifles had no chance of doing any damage to the tiger, except for the tracks. This video states that they easily damaged the radiator. Only if the rifle crew stood atop the hull and, fired the rifle down through the grill into the core itself. Buncha crap if you ask me.

[@TaeussKramme]

Good point about the AT rifles in so much as the Tiger radiators but they were Hell on vision blocks -not to mention crew members!

[@MrCouchmen]

Such a good looking and lethal tank that he became a cover for one black metal band.

[@caucasianbulldog6057]

Definitely underrated. The allies absolutely hated it.

[@TaeussKramme]

So how was it "underrated" if it gave the Allied tankers facing it the willies? Seems like it was doping part of its job. The other part was destroying the opposition.

[@YaRight2986]

Production numbers quoted keep changing during the video

[@zbigniewuramowski4031]

I can't understand why TVI Tiger had a vertical front armour isntead with an angle!! This could do that tank even more strong again hitts!!

[@paullyon-vv9tb]

If you could keep it running it was a deadly tank on the Eastern front wide open space and if fighting against small guns. Larger guns, could take it out in Italy few people talk about how poorly it did for the most part 60percent broke down many other s performed poorly being to large for most Mt.roads and small tight village war far.if the Allies would of come out with 76 mm 17pder and 90mm guns early in 43.the tiger would of been in real trouble. When it did come up against bigger guns they fell in trouble ask whittemann, and the other tiger crews that were with him 😂💥💥💥

[@PostalWorker14]

Tiger was deadly in open long range battles

[@johndowling3312]

It would take the German to build a tank like the tiger