Tiger's Teeth: How Tiger ended up with the 8.8cm gun.

[@Frostfly]

Recently gave up on World of tanks. still enjoy your content. Slap the sound mixer 4 or 5 times please.

[@davidbrennan660]

This is just Chieftain’s normal background music.......it must get odd when in the toilet.

[@JackDrinkn2DollarJim]

@@davidbrennan660 Having dramatic music following you around in everything you do all day and night would be an epic nightmare.

[@callejansson682]

Maybe he hears music all the time...Star Wars when he enters the Supermarket, Bad Boys, Bad boys is programmed to when he starts the engine. Maybe we shall talk to his wife instead?

[@ThePzrLdr]

Yeah, WoT has gone to the dogs. Lost interest when I found myself getting killed in less than 30 seconds into the game... why..... gold ammo, LOTS of it.

[@Frostfly]

@@ThePzrLdr you should always assume they are shooting gold, armor has no value. it's more that it's gone from game to way to take money from people and watch them abuse people who didn't spend anything. games as a service is a way to make bad games.

[@zbyszanna]

You can tell right away this was sponsored by wargaming. The music drowning Chieftains voice is here.

[@ww2blackcat]

So many years this annoying unbalanced audio. Specially disturbing for those not used to listen to someone speaking English. For God's sake!!!

[@hoilst265]

They hired the guy from the BBC who uploaded all the old Top Gear clips.

[@Quintus_Fontane]

So this music volume is mandated by wargaming then? But... why? If its volume was less than half of what it is here, I might actually be able to concentrate properly on the really interesting stuff the Chieftain's trying to educate me in, but instead we get boss music with some faint, soothing Irish tones in the background, apparently.

[@discordia013]

Stupid music again. You would think by now Wargaming would have learned.

[@BlackHawkBallistic]

@@Quintus_Fontane the video is probably edited by Wargaming so it's their people doing everything besides shooting the video

[@clonescope2433]

The audio balance for wargaming sponsored videos is getting better I can tell

[@RonJohn63]

Better for whom? Certainly not people who want to pay attention to the Chieftan.

[@clonescope2433]

@@RonJohn63 I'm not saying it's perfect It still drowns out the chieftain a bit but compared to earlier ones where he was near impossible to hear I can actually somewhat hear him now.

[@uzivatel56]

And it took them only what six, seven years?

[@clonescope2433]

@@uzivatel56 Sadly yes

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

They need to hire Mark Felton.

[@F1ghteR41]

1:48 Given that the previous German AA gun was the FlaK 16, which had the same calibre, they could argue that these were just new mounts for old WW1 designed guns.

[@steventhompson399]

I heard they wanted to get around Versailles by calling stuff developed after 18 up to early 30s "18" so they could say they weren't making new weapons or breaking the treaty, hence flak 18 and lefh 18, I haven't read much about it but that's what I heard which makes sense

[@_Matsimus_]

Awesome video! Who does your editing?

[@iivin4233]

I think your editing is just fine my man.

[@t2av159]

Your mom

[@biggles9604]

He works for World of tanks so some professional editor.

[@stephaniemiller9269]

@@iivin4233 :.

[@samholdsworth3957]

Wargayming

[@18robsmith]

I like the use of the old-style school chalk board as the backing image for the "green" screen.

[@leonjohansen1818]

everything is a green screen, aside from the man himself. The desk isn't even real.

[@dave_h_8742]

@@leonjohansen1818 😮

[@colbeausabre8842]

According to my readings, the British Military Attache in Berlin viewed the 1938 autumn exercises and reported on the use of the 8.8 cm Flak as an expedient AT gun. Like the Japanese Zero. it should have surprised no one.

[@Bryster51]

Background audio is too high, taper it down so we can hear the dialog more. Thanks.

[@terifarley4770]

Yep background audio is never needed! Good info and good reference photos only, save the music for beginning and end!

[@STHV_]

11:56 That Panther is a modified G hull mounting a Schmalturm with a 75mm Kwk 42. The 88mm Schmalturm was never built

[@Battleship009]

Military History explained the the 18 in flak 18 was a means to bypass the Treaty of Verstiles as it meant it was developed in 1918 IIIRC.

[@carlcarlton764]

Blueprints more or less ready but no actual production because the war ended. ... Scouts honor.

[@Tishirobearcat]

I think that Chieftain is saying that the Disarmaments commissioners were not going to be taken in by a bunch of Germans in tweed and flat caps going "Es ist von 1918! Ehrlicher Gouverneur!

[@carlcarlton764]

@@lostalone9320 Take a look at this. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.7_cm_Leichte_Kraftwagengesch%C3%BCtze_M1914

[@jnievele]

To be fair, the Flak 18 DOES seem to be closely related to the Flak 16: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_16

[@larrybomber83]

That was great, awesome, super, very good stuff. I have been reading books trying to find out how the 88 wound up in the Tiger Tank, but only could get bits and pieces, not one answer in one place. You fixed all that with this one video Chief. Thank You so much.

[@daveybyrden3936]

The phrase "the 88" is confusing. The Germans had several guns of calibre 88mm. The gun in the Tiger 1 was a new design, and was not used anywhere else.

[@dwwolf4636]

It was Kwk version of the flak 88/56 to be able to fit in turrets. Different mounts were needed, obviously. Projectiles were largely the same.

[@z_actual]

when you think that by the time the decisions were made on the Tiger 1 with an 88, Feb 42 the British were still a few months away from having the 6 pounder in tank turrets in May 42

[@Rendell001]

The Brits weren't fighting KV-1's in June 1941...

[@colbeausabre8842]

And the Americans were about to mount the 3 inch gun on the M6 Heavy, to create the most powerful tank gun in the world. Check out Chieftain's video on the M6

[@Rendell001]

@@colbeausabre8842 Hi there, could you provide a link to the video please?

[@ianmarsden1130]

A very informative video as usual Mr Moran. I never fail to learn something I didn't know from watching them. It would be nice however to not have to screw my eardrums up to hear these pearls of wisdom over the annoyingly intrusive music. Still enjoyed it, no pain no gain as they say.

[@LordXelous]

I know when I start any WarGaming product their music has to drown out everything but nearby foghorns, but does the same have to happen to The Chieftain?

[@NathanOkun]

The original 88mm APC round was a miniature version of the "Psgr.m.K. L?4,4" (Armor-Piercing HE Projectile with AP Cap Length 4.4 Calibers) used ass the last shell in such warships as BISMARCK, HIPPER, and SCHARNHORST Classes. These had a thick round-tipped AP cap for protection against thick face-hardened KC armor, 2% TNT explosive filler, and a 1.4-caliber radius tangent-ogive pointed nose (the naval shell also had a standard 0.035-second delay-action base fuze -- way too long for something as tiny as a tank -- and an aluminum windscreen, that would have been far too fragile for Army field use), The rather large filler size, about average for a naval AP sell used against huge warships, was greatly excessive against the tiny confines of the inside of a tank it had penetrated.. As a result, the cavity was reduced considerably, the AP cap reduced in size and made into a nearly-flat cone face, the base fuze had its delay reduced or even removed entirely (inertia would give it a built-in tiny delay, anyway), and its nose blunted to only a 1.1-caliber radius arc for strength and to make it ricochet less against thicker plate hit at a highly oblique angle. Similar APC shells were used by the new 75mm gun on the PANTHER. The hardened corner at the edge of the AP cap's face would give a wood-plane notching effect at high angle impacts against thick homogeneous armor plates, though thin plate capable of denting had this effect vary depending on the thickness at any angle, all for angles over 50 degrees. When it happened, US tests showed that it gave a 12% drop in the required velocity to penetrate a given plate. The protection against damage afforded by an AP cap against the rather soft tank armors was only significant under some conditions, with in other conditions the AP cap interfered with penetration. A compromise.

[@pep206]

The 'background' music is annoying, but I love the content.

[@TrollOfReason]

*Someone* isn't familiar with the meenie-meenie riff, I see. Oh, sweet summer child.

[@dillonpierce7599]

That's how u know its actually a world of tanks video in a sense..... to help teach the gamers and well.... our man is good with the facts while doing a nice job keeping us amused.

[@tekis0]

I was so into the story that I didn't notice it.

[@essexclass8168]

*foreground music

[@morgww1894]

Agreed

[@bbcmotd]

Love this format. Please talk about Koshkin's T-34 next and its pedigree related to A series, BT series and Christie designs.

[@TysoniusRex]

This was an absolutely awesome. Hearing about all of the design decisions that went into the chassis and turret due to the changing gun requirements was just riveting. I also liked the mention of the Panther II, which was (to my knowledge) never produced due to being superseded by the Tiger II.

[@DecoratedSPLATTER]

very informative as always sir, I can only imagine the crap-ton of research that must be done in order to put out these types of videos.

[@sirridesalot6652]

A lot of times I just use the close-captioning and thus never hear the distracting or overly loud background music.

[@alistairbuckle3450]

Holy production values, Chief, this a good-looking video!

[@laurisikio]

This is a repost from wot channel, it was originally released months ago

[@alistairbuckle3450]

Oh thanks for the pointer, I didn’t know that. I’ll take a look at the World of Tanks channel.

[@podemosurss8316]

3:03 In fact, when Rommels mentions that battle in his diary he implies that it was already a doctrinal thing.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Thanx Mr. Moran. Very informative and well done. For your future consideration, I'd like to understand the workings and roles of the German 20mm auto cannon. From 222 armored cars to Stukas it seems an interesting topic.

[@Wastelandman7000]

The music was a very nice touch. Added tension.

[@Halorulez24]

Absolutely love what you did with this format!! Keep up the great work Chieftain.

[@marcusott5054]

Love the Format of this. Very nice.

[@maycontainhyjinks2347]

Music didn't bother me. Thanks for the video Chieftien!

[@jonathanbaron-crangle5093]

Awesome work, Colonel Moran.

[@scpenny1]

The old Steel Panther game taught me this

[@whiteskullz]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIK2imOIr5Z9rqc

[@carlnewman7096]

Another great programme Chief! 👍👍

[@alfiewho1604]

Excellent background illustration work

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Great video Chieftain!

[@americanpatriot2422]

Outstanding video and presentation

[@andrewg9216]

Fantastically informative as always,

[@troymilks7342]

Gun shield because "If the enemy is in range, so are you."

[@Juel92]

Imagine aiming for airplanes with a 25 sec airtime. Has to be a tense feeling between the firing and the explosion to see how well you potentially stopped those tons of bombs from creeping forward.

[@nathanokun8801]

The original 8.8cm APC round was a miniature version of the naval shells used in SCHARNHORST and BISMARCK (naval title "XXmm Psgr.m.K. L/4,4", in English "XXmm APHE Shell with AP Cap", where the "XX" was the size, here for the new anti-tank gun, "88", and the "L/4,4" was the shell length in calibers). The German Army had its own somewhat different ID terminology, such as changing the "s" to a "z" to indicate "AP" but the "HE" was optional, solid shot being also used in some projectiles. Note that as a naval-pattern APC shell, it had about a 2% pre-shaped bock TNT filler, a "flying-saucer" AP cap front face with a large dome in the middle and a wide, flat ring-disk out to the edge of the cap face, with the windscreen screwed onto the edge of that outer ring, and, in the naval shells, a medium length delay-action (0.035 second nominal) base fuze, neither the filler nor the fuze of which was needed in a shell designed against very small tank-like targets. The later replacement APC shells had a much smaller filler weight, a new smaller, very-flat-cone-faced AP cap (much like US Army AP caps), and, possibly, a new higher-strength quick-action base fuze to keep it functional after punching through very thick armor (much thicker, on the average, than the naval shells had to penetrate for their size).

[@chrysler5thavenue822]

What in the world is that background music? jeeeeeeez

[@lancewilliams8382]

Werner von Braun makes a cameo @ 9:33. Hilarious.

[@theshepherd9382]

Awesome video! Loved it! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Really interesting!

[@fifteen8]

Great vid. Excellent content.

[@Erwin0859]

11:59 Isn't that still a 7,5cm L/70 but with a muzzle brake (on the Schmalturm-equipped Panther picture) instead of a 8,8cm L/71?

[@bgbeck55]

Interesting and informative video. The music is distracting to the point of being annoying though.

[@pilotsimms535]

Needs a way to mute the background music . . . .

[@GARDENER42]

Absolutely. It's distracting & dire.

[@winter67uk]

I found it difficult to press the like button over the music. Nice desk tho...

[@paintballmuseum]

We love your content Nicholas!

[@catalin-oprea]

Thanks for the contents! I love the new graphics, about the way 😍

[@DadofTwinGirls-uo9xe]

Great graphics, narrative, and quality

[@bobmartin9918]

8:54 "there was a brief discussion about the flak 41 gun *but it got shot down* "

[@neillh]

Thanks for showing your video 👍

[@davidodonovan1699]

Thank you for being an amazing fact checking/ mythbusting machine. God bless you. You're awesome. Well done soldier.

[@MOrab46019]

Thank you. Most insightful.

[@garycleveland6410]

Tiger: A word that became a psychological weapon in WW2 tank combat given form.

[@garycleveland6410]

@Wroger Wroger A lot of allied tanks and troops would disagree. The Tiger had weaknesses but few tanks were a serious threat to it one on one.

[@DeosPraetorian]

@@garycleveland6410 tanks generally didn't fight each other one-on-one

[@garycleveland6410]

@@DeosPraetorian I know that but there were armored encounters and skirmishes. Kursk, Operation Goodwood are just 2 examples of tank battles in WW2.

[@HanSolo__]

@@garycleveland6410 It's not like all that don't disagree simply can't ...from their graves, do they?

[@garycleveland6410]

@@HanSolo__ Pretty much the point.

[@masonicrat]

Really impressed by the production values on this!

[@ChrisBrown-iu8ii]

Would definitely like to see more content like this.

[@thalidin]

the music is a bit much.

[@mr_sparkly_face4087]

More like, how the 8.8cm got a body lol

[@talscorner3696]

Take care, too, Chief!

[@Play4it1]

I listened to this entire video. It was very informative, what I learned is that loud music was the sole point of the video. Oh yeah there also was a human talking but I couldn't hear him, must not have been important or interesting. What a shame, seems like he putted a lot of effort in it.

[@gizmophoto3577]

Why was Von Braun shown in the photo at around 9:40?

[@machasenau]

I've never thought I'd see Werner von Braun in one of your videos :)

[@tomppeli.]

11:56 Correct me if I'm wrong, but mounting the long 88 on the Panther's Schmalturm was nigh impossible, if not practical at the least. Only a study to mount the 88 on the Panther was concluded. The one in the picture is just the Schmalturm with the 7,5 cm still with its muzzle brake attached. I'm just going to leave this video link by Cone of Ark here for anyone interested kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJ2mfZyhebmaoNU

[@cokeline]

realy cool video, but please cut back on the music a bit :)

[@russwoodward8251]

It would be great to learn more about the armor used in the 6 Day War. There was lots of WW II armor upgraded and used by both sides, Panzer 4, and Stug on the Syrian side, Sherman’s, Centurions and half tracks on the Israeli side. It was, in many ways, the last big battle of WW II AFVs.

[@ftffighter]

The music needs toned down a big

[@aon10003]

The reason they ueed the term Flak18 was that they where not allowed to develop new guns by the Versailles treaty. The general dispositions whete grom a range of Bofors guns where the Germans took the Gun and the sighting and everything else was Bofors signatuure.

[@Doricini]

The 88 otherwise known as the ATGOUS, the Anti Tank Gun of Unusual Size. Best I can do with such short notice.

[@grahamrumbelow5778]

Can’t beat a Princess Bride reference when talking tanks!🤪

[@islaymassive1530]

AMOGUS

[@jangamaster8677]

Short notice? You’ve had 87 years too work on a better one

[@fogdelm]

Why so much boss fight music?

[@tomrecane6366]

8:55. “There was a brief discussion about using the Flak 41 but that got shot down...” Get it? Flak gun. Shot down. Heh

[@frankgulla2335]

Terrific job!

[@pieguy7157]

Love the new intro! Can see you put a lot of work into it

[@christopherboudreau2451]

Someone sponsor him a nicer desk....

[@Kuschel_K]

Pretty sure that the old 8.8cm Pzgr. wasn’t built with high armor penetration in mind but to defeat concrete bunkers. So the Shell wasn’t hard enough to defeat armor efficiently while the 8.8cm Pzgr. 39 was properly heat treated to enable superior penetration even at long range.

[@thomaszhang3101]

I really want to see what the original Slopped Tiger I hull with 88 L71 looks like. Do you have a blueprint for it? Or did the idea never go past design stage?

[@HbEthan.]

Its in the game under the name VK 45.03 at tier 7 its basically just a smaller tiger 2. Being around 50 tons instead of around 70 like the tiger 2

[@harrymack3565]

I imagine it would look pretty much like a tiger 2.

[@podemosurss8316]

There is a Flak 18 in the town of Lanjarón, in the province where I live (Granada, Spain).

[@HGSchmerz]

The term Tiger II is never used by the Wehrmacht. Even the Propaganda used this name only in one of the last Wochenschau. So this name is a name from the US and English troops. On German side it was often called Tiger B.

[@JansenX12]

I really like the new style of the video

[@dmg4415]

Always interesting!

[@jlyngdoh5608]

At 5:06 I read the text as TVP lol (LOL) TURRET ON THE.......... and not typ(e) 101.. That missing 'e' had me wondering quite a bit.. lol

[@herosstratos]

The 8,8 ammunition of the KwK had electrical ignition. For being able to fire 8,8 FlaK ammunition with the KwK, a special replacement bolt of the on-board equipment of the Tiger had to be used.

[@daveybyrden3936]

I'm curious about that information. Where did you read it? Surely you're referring to the Tiger II? I don't think that FlaK ammunition would fit into the KwK36 at all, quite apart from considerations of firing it.

[@EdAtoZ]

Chieftain, one item, yes the tiger 1 and 2 were both 8.8cm caliber (an I believe the same shell outer body). The casing and powder charge were way different. With tiger 2 gun have close to double the powder charge. So an ammo difference, I bring this up because I do not think most people under stand that the two guns use different ammo. I did not know that the 7.5cm pak-42 was considered for Tiger 1. Which bring up a different point Germany used 4 different 7.5cm cartages.

[@ScottKenny1978]

Well, the infantry gun needs a low velocity. IIRC that also covers the short 7.5 in the StuGs or the Pz4. Edit: and then there's the long 7.5 in the StuGs and Pz4, and the PAK40/Panther gun.

[@Stardude78]

So did the Americans, for that matter. 75mm French, the pack howitzer version of it, 3" and 76mm. All of which were used on armored chassis. I'm sure the Brits had to deal with the 17 Pounder as well, for that matter.

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@Stardude78 I thought the pack howitzer used the same round as the 75 French?

[@Stardude78]

@@ScottKenny1978 Yes, but you couldn't safely fire a full power round in pack howitzer. Also, pack howitzer HE round was a semi-fixed design which as I understand was not fully compatible with the tank gun chamber. Substitute the 17 Pounder if you wish. Some British formations were running all 5 guns at some point.

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@Stardude78 my understanding of the 75 French and Pack howitzer is that like any artillery piece, the shell isn't crimped into the case so you can pull one or more booster charges out of the case. But for tank use, it's always at max power.

[@MililaniJag]

Great vid as always! Perhaps I missed something. Thought the 8.8 cm Flak 16 was from WWI (1915-16)? Naval version back to 1905? Cheers!

[@freppie_]

He mentioned the navy cuz of it

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

The 8.8cm were indeed naval guns, fitted to either armored cruisers or pre-dreadnought battleships.

[@Sleepy.Time.]

thank you, excellent information

[@terry58501]

I wasn't aware Dora had been planned for an anti-aircraft role. Learn something new every day.

[@Rendell001]

Used for shooting Star Destroyers in low orbit...

[@terry58501]

@@Rendell001 seems legit

[@mikegonzalez1821]

@@Rendell001 funny enough Dora probably could put a small hole in a star destroyer or at least take down an AT-,AT

[@Rendell001]

@@mikegonzalez1821 yeah, mass plus velocity equals energy... and an 800mm shell with hardened penetrator is going to pack quite a wallop!

[@AGWittmann]

Did you meant Anti-Airport Role ...

[@juanzulu1318]

Thx

[@SAS1122334455]

awesome video! pls do more like this!

[@JasonOfTGA]

This is quality work I have never seen in my 30 years of engineering and science

[@DeepPastry]

Wonder how many of these SK L/45 guns were the actual ones used on their boats? It was around the time the SK L/45 guns were being pulled off the boats, to be replaced by the SK C/32 upgraded versions.

[@ElysiumNZ]

I like how you defend the Tiger tanks when people say it was a bad design. No it wasn’t. The Tiger tank did what they were designed to do.

[@alan-sk7ky]

Just keep Porche's greasey mitts of the thing, oh dear the guvnor loves him...

[@KuK137]

It can both be designed to do X and be trash design at the same time, you know. Garbage in, garbage out, fascists had really stupid ideas how to wage war (see Maus and Ratte)...

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tiger had the highest knock out ratio of any tank of WW2, over 10:1. Most Tiger abteilungs performed very well, even in difficult situations. Very well liked by their crews too.

[@jackray1337]

Good content. The background music is a bit high. I prefer your videos without it.

[@mbr5742]

As for the name: The germans had an 88mm Flak 16 in WW1 that actually does look a bit like the Flak 18. At this point in history germany played the "believe me, I follow Versailles" game and the former Entente Nations where willing to play with them (This is Appeasement era europe) de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8,8-cm-Flak_16#/media/Datei%3A8.8_cm_Kw_FlaK_1916_3.jpg So looks over reality was the order of the day.

[@JoshSees]

Music is distracting

[@Pocahonkers]

A Tiger I with an L/71 schnase sure would be a sight to behold.

[@daveybyrden3936]

Yes, because it would have to be like Doctor Who's Tardis - bigger on the inside than the outside.

[@antlamaki1108]

German II-world war 'Acht-Acht' was actually further developed from year 1918 antiaircraft cannon of same caliber.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I use Jentz/ Doyle as the primary source in this, they have a fairly unimpeachable reputation. If they say the Naval gun was the base (wherever the Naval gun came from), that's what I'll go with

[@antlamaki1108]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Well, about only thing common in these naval and Flak/KwK cannons was their caliber,,,,.EDIT But,,, what J/T and You are tlling seems also to be correct. Base of the 88 Flak m/-16 and -18 appears to be Kriegsmarines 88, mostly the barrel and ammo....

[@widehotep9257]

The Panther's lighter, smaller 75mm gun had equal (and sometimes better) penetration against armor. But the Tiger II's 88mm high explosive shells were much more devastating against other targets like infantry and bunkers. Unlike "World of Tanks," most ww2 tank action was against infantry, anti-tank guns, light equipment, and bunkers; not enemy tanks.

[@hiltibrant1976]

Note on the naming/numbering - I wonder if the Flak 18 got its name from the mounting/carriage? At least for field artillery pieces, the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht used the standard that the number immediately following the type of gun signified the design year of the carriage, hence the 10,5cm leFH 18. As said, not sure if that's the case here, tho.

[@hlynkacg9529]

The visuals are nice but I miss the killer bunny and emotional support missile.

[@grumblesa10]

Well, there was a "Flak 16" from circa 1918, so the "Flak 18" would thus be a development of that weapon. Doubt that getting one by the Treaty inspectors was a reason.

[@Predator20357]

Ah the Tiger 1, it’s a good tank for when it was made, even better when made into a defensive role.

[@chefchaudard3580]

A bit of misconception here: a tank is, by definition, an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. Tigers were no exception: there were used for breakthru operations in the Battle of the Bulge, for example, and numerous counter attacks, all over the war. The Germans used them in the defensive role only when they had no other option. Using a tank in the defensive role is a waste of resources. For defense, you need AT guns. If you want them to be more mobile, put them on a chassis, like a Marder. If some armor is preferable, a turretless Sturmgeschutz or a Panzerjager IV is the best option. Turret is for offensive operations. It is not needed tactically in defense. Turrets are heavy, cramped, have a high silhouette, use strategic materials like ball bearings and sophisticated gears like hydraulic or electric traverse systems.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tiger had the highest kill rate of any tank of WW2. It did its job well. Problem was, Germany had already started losing the war before the Tiger abteilung were really deployed. Stalingrad and El Alamein had already been decided. No way forward for Germany after that. Locally though the Tigers often did exceptionally.

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

​@@chefchaudard3580the tiger could perform both roles, it was designed to be a breakthrough tank but since it had a long-range armament, good sights and good armor it could perform in a defensive role, as it did when Germany went on the defensive, and was quite good at it. Would it have been better to just produce tank-destroyers? Yes. But the germans weren't planning to be on the defensive, so it makes little sense for them to build defensive weapons, and retooling their entire production would probably not do a lot of good on the production side of things.

[@DrLoverLover]

Why the distracting music?