US Troops: Every Tank a Tiger!

[@yamato3151]

Boys: every tank is a Tiger! True men: every SPG is a Ferdinand, comerade!!!

[@BearnardMacNicholas]

When I was a student I did a placement at a regimental museum of a well known British Army Unit from WW2. I was assigned the task of digitising the regimental diaries and AAR's from the 30's and 30's. There were some photos along with one of the documents and two showed destroyed Panzer 4's with handwritten notes from the officer who had to complete the AAR saying they were Panthers destroyed by the Regiment.

[@82dorrin]

US Troops: Oh shit!!! It's a Tiger, boys!! Take it out!!! Panzer IV Commander: Great! It's about time those assholes got here!! We need- Oh. They're talking about me, aren't they? Scheiße...

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

Ya, Scheiße!

[@Winged_Gunsknecht]

Some poor shmuck doing airfield defense in an Renault FT:

[@BigBruh47]

Also panzer 4 crew " how we know and understand what they are talking"

[@borchen0]

In the book "The battered bastards of Bastogne" by George E. Koskimaki, there is a picture of a knocked out Tiger with an 88mm gun...except it's a Panther with a 75mm gun...

[@nickmitsialis]

There was also a pic I saw as a middle school student showing a Pz IV with it's turret partially blown off--the caption named it as a knocked out Tiger. AS my personal opinion, ANY slab sided tank was a Tiger (whether it was a Pz III or a Pz IV or actually A Tiger) and any tank with sloped armor is a King Tiger (even if it's a Panther)---well, it doesn't pay to stare too long an an enemy armored vehicle, lest you get yourself killed.

[@mensch1066]

Much as I enjoy "Kelly's Heroes", this data makes the plot of that movie (where a bank far to the German rear is guarded by three Tiger 1s) extraordinarily silly.

[@cyberiankorninger1025]

I don't get why that movie is so loved. Its an ahistoric strange comedy movie and its not very funny like MontyPython or Mel Brooks either. These days peoples hate when Hollywood does that. I guess it has very good actors and its unique and you could say that's what makes it a good movie but I am very conflicted on it.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

MENSCH1066@ always with the negative waves.....😏

[@Casmaniac]

Is that the one with the hippie soldiers who fire paint rounds from their Shermans? Strange film indeed

[@SearTrip]

@@WALTERBROADDUS😂

[@BadMoonRising92]

I mean It’s really not meant to be taken very seriously or said to be historically actuate. It’s just a fun heist movie based in WW2 with some silly characters.

[@pavelslama5543]

US troops: Oh sh*t, its a Tiger! Pz IV crew: What?! Where?!

[@hunormagyar1843]

The whole reason the US won, the Pz4 crews were distracted tryna find the Tiger

[@scottwatrous]

So you're tellin' me Tom Hanks actually was firing at a PzIV? Well that makes taking it out with a 1911 way more believable.

[@asmallchicken5836]

Technically, a T-34 dressed up to look like a Tiger 1

[@lernaeanhydra5766]

Technically it would have been an R35.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

No Panzer IVs in the Cotentin Peninsula either. Just obsolete French tanks and a very small number of Stug IIIs.

[@_kommandant_3055]

I remember as a kid I always used to think he destroyed the tank with his pistol

[@СергейНиколаев-б8ж]

На Восточном фронте то же самое. Каждое штурмовое орудие - Фердинанд!

[@looinrims]

Oh I want to hear more on this

[@cleanerben9636]

Like the Weeping Angels of doctor who, even the image of a Tiger, is itself a Tiger.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Americans:”Oh shit. RUN, IT’S A TIGER!” Pz. IV crew: “Finally, reinforcements. Oh wait, they’re pointing at us, aren’t they?”

[@peterhewson3216]

During the Battle of Britain I believe the Luftwaffe described every RAF fighter as a Spitfire whether it was or not. Perhaps genuine mis-identification but I have heard the term "Spitfire snobbery" to describe this phenomena.

[@88porpoise]

People assume that any threat is the scariest possibility. Note that is the subjective scariest (hence the "any German artillery is an 88"). And Spitfires would have been the scariest thing for a German aircrew to see both from propaganda and it being the most capable fighter the Brits had.

[@LeftCoastStephen]

I remember an interview with a RAF pilot describing a series of dog fights he had one day. Pilot: “The Fockers were everywhere! Every time I looked around there was another Focker” Interviewer: “Didn’t you see any Messerschmitts?” Pilot: “oh! They were all Messerschmitts!” 😂😂

[@WanderlustZero]

'Ach neeeeinnnn! These Spitfires are killing my men!' The Boulton-Paul Defiant crew about to be forgotten by history: 'Sigh... why do I bother' They get a bad rep but they did actually get some aces :')

[@peterhewson3216]

A very successful nightfighter was the Defiant and with the right tactics it could survive somewhat in day fighting. Emerging from a concept that was sound on paper and took no account of the changes that war brings.

[@copperlemon1]

@@LeftCoastStephen Focker as in Fokker of the Netherlands or Focker as in Focke-Wulf?

[@hillbillyscholar8126]

My great uncle served under Patton and never spoke much of his experiences. He did comment when pressed by me later in life that the Tiger was a rare bird, most German armor encountered was of the non-turreted variety. He did concede that the single armored vehicle that instilled fear in the troops was the Panther as it was encountered just often enough to be problematic.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Patton was hardly ever where the Tigers were in NW Europe 1944/45. He was moving around the outside of the main German forces in Normandy where there weren't any Tigers, then in the Lorraine there weren't any Tigers and finally across southern Germany. Again no Tigers there. His 3rd Army briefly encountered Tigers in Jan '45 in the Ardennes but apart from that all the Tigers faced the British 21st Army Group and US 1st Army, well to the north of Patton.

[@Chiller11]

I imagine looking at an enemy tank with the limited field of view through a commander’s periscope or a gunners sight makes positive identification even more challenging.

[@ibalistichedge1098]

I think that a lot of panthers were mistaken as Tiger IIs as those tanks look much more similar than panzer IVs and tiger Is.

[@michaelporzio7384]

As stated, with the schurzen attached to a Panzer IV, especially from the front, it looked a lot like a Tiger I. US Troops assumed the worst when they saw a panzer!

[@82dorrin]

US Troops: Oh shit!!! It's a Tiger, boys!! Take it out!!! Panzer IV Commander: Great! It's about time those assholes got here!! We need- Oh. They're talking about me, aren't they? Scheiße...

[@Teh0X]

Often enough one wouldn't have clear view of the ground wheels either, which are obviously the easiest way to tell these tanks apart from one another.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The fog of war and combat stress wouldn't have helped either.

[@Casmaniac]

The cool thing about Fury is that is an actual real Tiger tank in the movie. The sad thing is, the scene makes zero sense

[@johnculver2519]

It's also cool that the same Tiger appears in this youtube video, and with a more historically accurate plot!

[@rotwang2000]

It's not at all implausible. There were several training units with a weird mix of older tanks in Germany. An older model Tiger might have remained in a driving school, end up manned by raw recruits with little or now experience. It doesn't explain the silly idea that a 76mm armed Sherman had to get point black into the rear to kill it, except of course to conform to the dogma that it took an absolute minimum of 5 Shermans to kill a single Tiger.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@rotwang2000 Its a silly scene. The Tiger doesn't knock out Fury first, and takes ages to fire a second shot this time on the stationary Shermans.... and the second shot completely misses. That's an easier shot than the first shot when the Shermans were moving. Stupid scene, purely designed to let Fury live. There were indeed ad hoc units with Tigers facing the Americans and British in north central Germany around Hannover in April 1945, such as Gruppe Fehrmann and Clausewitz.

[@rotwang2000]

@@lyndoncmp5751 When you read action reports, you get this all the time. Soldiers just fumbling around, missing "impossible to miss" shots all the time, or completely failing to spot a gun that should be "impossible to no spot". Throughout history we find documented battles that are so utterly skewed that if you put them in a movie, everybody watching would be screaming to see the makers being hung upside down from razorwire and set on fire for being so unrealistic !

[@Casmaniac]

@@rotwang2000 Just the mere fact that the Tiger does not shoot the first vehicle in the column, that's just super basic, and then that he leaves his concealed position for no reason. There you go. Nobody puts raw recruits in tanks, why would you give a multi million dollar machine to a bunch of untrained guys, we're not talking volkssturm with panzerfausts here

[@Warmaker01]

If you start looking into enough combat accounts and historical analysis, you come across a lot of incorrect identification. The heat of battle, the stress, and conditions of the battlefield can throw things off. The Tiger I and PzKpfw IV are very boxy looking tanks, so easy to confuse. German error in identifying KV-1 and T-34 apart is understandable because they look fairly close to each other in profile. You can even look into naval combat and some very crazy errors in identification happened. In the Battle of Coral Sea, a Japanese scout plane spotted an American "carrier." The carriers Shokaku & Zuikaku immediately launched an all out strike. Once their bombers arrived at the area, they found there wasn't a carrier, but a mere oiler ship and a destroyer. They sank both, but the Japanese carriers wasted their critical first strike advantage on a mistake, which would have profound effects later on. There was a battle in the Solomon Islands where a Japanese admiral was on command of a flotilla of destroyers. Japanese scout planes had spotted American "battleships and cruisers" heading towards them. This stressed the Japanese because they only had destroyers, but had to push on with the transport mission. They entered battle with American destroyers. It was a pretty close run thing. A subsequent arrival of American ships started firing. The Japanese thought these were the battleships and cruisers they were warned about. Panic ensued and there was a retreat. Only that there were never any American battleships and cruisers at all. Just some destroyers. As part of the overall larger battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral Kurita's Center Force, composed of numerous battleships like both the Yamatos, were going to go after the American landing force. However, they expected the distinct possibility of running into Admiral Halsey's extremely powerful fleet composed of large fleet carriers, fast battleships, cruisers, and many destroyers. It was going to be a 1 way trip if that was the case. Center Force was ambushed by submarines, losing 3 heavy cruisers. The next day a massive carrier air attack damaged many ships and sank Musashi. In the 3rd day they entered Samar, where they expected to see Halsey's fleet. They encountered a fanatic resistance by American destroyers and repeated carrier based air attacks. Center Force anticipated dealing with Halsey's larger ships: Cruisers, battleships, and large fleet carriers. So they had armor piercing ready to go. In reality they were facing Taffy 3's destroyers and very slow moving and retreating, small, dinky escort carriers. These small destroyers were being confused for cruisers. Casablanca-class escort carriers were being mistaken for the much larger Essex-class fleet carriers. Armor piercing shells against these small, flimsy ships had little effect. The Japanese for a long time this battle ASSUMED these were the larger ships. It was only way later did they realize the error and switch to high explosive. This was a major reason why the American destroyers lasted so long and continued to fight. One of the Japanese heavy cruisers was running down an "American carrier" and kept pumping AP shells into it. Only when they got closer did they positively identify it was a mistake, it wasn't a fleet carrier. They switched to high explosive shells for better effect. Another thing that contributed to the Japanese firmly believing they were dealing with Halsey's fleet was the constant air attacks at Samar. They assumed all these planes were coming from Halsey's many carriers. They had to avoid bomb drops, torpedo attacks, and fighters strafing their ships. It was a major concern. The reality was that none of these planes came from the larger fleet carriers, but from the escort carriers who were originally tasked to support the US Army's amphibious operation. But for a guy sitting on a ship getting strafed, bombed, torpedoed by airplanes, you can't tell if a Hellcat or TBF Avenger came from a small escort carrier or a large fleet carrier. It makes no difference. It's the stress of war and the uncertainty of the battlefield is all this is. Mistakes are bound to happen.

[@SD78]

Most of the Tigers were deployed against British Commonwealths forces around Caen.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

ALL of them were. All three Tiger battalions in Normandy were in the British/Canadian sector. None faced the Americans until the Americans got near Paris at the end of August and the Germans sent two units with King Tigers to try and halt the allies in front of Paris.

[@whirving]

Caen was the down and dirty slug fest of armor for the invasion up until the Bulge. Also, there were some truly elite tank units there and they were dug in. Of course the Canadians were disproportionately represented as armored "shock troops", but the Yeomans really took the heat. What an absolute hellhole that battle must have been.

[@joshmeads]

To be fair, from a distance a Panzer 4 does look similar to a Tiger. Plus the soldiers probably weren't tank experts, so identifying Panzer 4s as Tigers makes sense. Especially considering Tigers were the talk of the town.

[@bumpermanthesecond615]

Americans: heads up!! Another tiger coming in!! British: oh blimey not those tigers again

[@hadeedmalik719]

10:00 I think the soveits also tended to refer to all casemates tank as "Ferdinand" as a sort of generic term in combat report

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Pardon a little fun, but what happened to Disclosures B and C? Thanks for all these videos, silly disclosures or not.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Nothing, it's a Panther joke :) Panther D was the first, Panther A was the second, then Panther G... :) Thanks for your support!

[@Teh0X]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Do you have a video which explains the D A G ? Was it just to confuse allies and themselves?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

@@Teh0X As far as I know, nobody knows.

[@MsZeeZed]

All the real stories end “and then the Tigers were sent back for repairs” 😹

[@michaelpielorz9283]

If you had a look at the war time strength reports of the Tiger units you may think different . remember the they in they say is a doubtful source but it may pamper some unhappy viewers:Sorry to say a Thompson could not take out a Tiger nor a P51 could (:_)

[@fryaduck]

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thank you for putting this together and publishing it. My research from 15 years ago wrt Zaloga and confirmed by Nicolas Moran. I will save a link to this if it comes up in future conversations (particularly with Americans).

[@lyndoncmp5751]

American enemy tank identification was often pretty poor. For example, the US 4th Cavalry Group actually ambushed two Tiger Is with their Chaffees at Dormagen German on February 25th 1945, yet 4th Cavalry marked them down as Panthers. Schwere Kompanie Hummel lists the loss of two of its Tiger Is at Dormagen on the 25th.

[@fryaduck]

@@lyndoncmp5751 There are two facets to this problem. Firstly, piss poor American tank identification (basically because too an infantryman every tank may as well be a Tiger) and the Spielberg, Hanks, Dye and Ambrose piss poor research and "artistic license" versions of history. One can only conclude that Americans project excessively as a generality. How else does anyone justify the wanton slaughter of their own men. To answer the question, yes I'm not American.

[@russwoodward8251]

Excellent research. Thank you.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks MHnV

[@BotRetro]

very informative! as always.

[@Teh0X]

Tiger = Panzer, so Panzer = Tiger, right sarge?

[@seanmalloy7249]

@Teh0X "All men die. Socrates is dead. All men are Socrates."

[@WanderlustZero]

@@seanmalloy7249 His name was Robert Paulsen. His name was Robert Paulsen.

[@vladimpaler3498]

I think at some point you just want to impress people back home, so you tell them the Tiger 1 is invincible and you destroyed it. The story grew in the telling. It's not like years later you are going to fess up that it was a Panzer IV. It sounds really impressive to say, "They had 10,000 Tigers and we overcame them." A similar thing happened at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. (Battle of the Greasy Grass) It started out there were 1400 Indians, revised up to 2000 and in the end there were 4000 to 5000. It turns out there were not that many if you rounded up all the women, children and elderly along with the combat effectives. Or you are Roger Waters and write a song about when the Tigers broke free. Were there Tigers at Anzio on 18 February 1944, and did they wreck havoc? Maybe not, but it sounds better than being killed by a bolt action rifle.

[@Alex-pu5lz]

4:19 Can someone explain what FKL stands for? Google only gives sources in German, in which there is also no explanation.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Sorry, missed that: FKL = Funklenk remote/radio controlled.

[@Alex-pu5lz]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thank you very much.

[@IchmagZuge-xp1xi]

What about the Battle of Châteaudun on August 18, 1944, in which parts of the 3rd US Army destroyed Tiger II of the 316th Tank Company (Fkl)? Did you not find any evidence for this or simply forget it?

[@lyndoncmp5751]

American enemy tank identification was often pretty poor. For example, the US 4th Cavalry Group actually ambushed two Tiger Is with their Chaffees at Dormagen German on February 25th 1945, yet 4th Cavalry marked them down as Panthers. Schwere Kompanie Hummel lists the loss of two of its Tiger Is at Dormagen on the 25th. Doh!!!

[@tileux]

Thanks for the video. Ive been having arguments with americans on this subject for a long time.

[@pleasedontmakememakeupanalias]

I don't find this very surprising. If people don't know much about a topic they just fall back on a common or iconic symbol. For example people always think every rock is a granit or a marble although these are very specific rock types. There are a lot of very specific but iconic things that are used as stand-ins for whole categories. I bet most people can come up with an example from their interest. Every dino is a t-rex, every caveman is a neanderthal..

[@The_Modeling_Underdog]

"Tiger I (early) was no longer used by 1944". Oberleutnant Fehrmann with his rag-tag collection of Tiger: "And I took that personally."

[@committosterbath8833]

Have you ever thought about making a video on how anti-aircraft vehicles where used during the war? I ask because at 3:54 you told about how some M15's took out some tiger crews on a train and I wondered why would AAA be near enough to the front lines to ambush a German train.

[@auferstandenausruinen]

At the time the German line of defense in Normandy was in complete disarray after the Falaise Pocket. The US armored columns were basically speeding all their way across France and the units were spread out very thin, so the AAA unit likey had its own front of advance. The encounter was basically a target of opportunity on the march rather than a pre-mediated ambush.

[@MrCiceroneize]

Same thing in Italy, especially in the u.s. reports during the Tuscany campaing

[@PitFriend1]

It makes sense that there were way more Tigers reported than there actually were in battle. You have troops that are jumpy from combat and they see a boxy looking tank in the distance using the sometimes iffy optics of a WWII tank so in their minds it must be that boogeyman of a German tank, the fearsome Tiger. Then if the tank isn’t knocked out or seen better all the reports will say is a Tiger spotted here. I used to have a tabletop solo board game called Patton’s Best where you played an M4 crew and it had a mechanic to simulate this misidentification. When an enemy tank was spotted until it was successfully identified it was treated as a Tiger for all gameplay purposes.

[@jeffbosworth8116]

Didn't the Tiger Teror start in Africa and Italy?

[@DOMINIK99013]

47 years later everthing was T-72.

[@EpicRenegade777]

i was confused by the title and thought it was a hyperthetical of 'what if the germans had every tank become a tiger on the western front'

[@DiggingForFacts]

IIRC the closest US forces came to engaging combat ready Tiger I in Normandy was US naval gufire support shelling a rest area for one of the Schw.Pz.Abt.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

I dont believe any of the Tiger abteilungs in Normandy got closer than about 20 miles from the beaches though.

[@WanderlustZero]

Infantry Sergeant; 'Aw shit it's a Tiger!' Me: '_Actually_ sergeant it's very unlikely you'll find a Tiger in this part of Normandy - all the units listed as having them are around Caen fighting the British and Canadians. The tank does have armoured skirts, but you can see under them there, the rollers and roadwheels of a Panzer IV, not the distinctive interleaved roadwheels of German heavies like the Tiger or Panther. What's more, the main gun is clearly the long-barrelled 75, not the KwK 88 - not to say the 75 isn't capable of taking out my Sherman, but I-' *gets killed*

[@matthewjones39]

The only reason you wrote this comment was because you wanted to feel smarter than everyone else

[@JosipRadnik1]

Now I am curious to learn about how many encounters with Tiger II's there were, since their production was only a third compared to the Tiger I

[@nickdanger3802]

150 in the Ardennes, largest concentration in the west.

[@nickdanger3802]

150 in the Ardennes.

[@thetankcommander3838]

I’m going to dispute your claims, Herr Kast. According to several sources, the T26E3 Pershing known as “Fireball” was, in quotations, “knocked out”. This does not mean it was actually knocked out. Yes, the first shot went through the coaxial machine gun port and killed the gunner and loader, but the further two hits only damaged the Pershing’s gun, and bounced off the turret forehead and took out the open commander’s hatch. “Fireball” was repaired and returned to service. So, with this information, we can say, for certain, T26E3 Pershing “Fireball” was NOT knocked out. It was disabled. As a fact check of the action following this encounter, another T26E3 caught the Tiger that you mentioned climbing out of its position. It did not expose its underbelly, but the 100mm thick front hull plate. The first 90mm AP shell penetrated the corner of this plate, knocking out the Tiger’s final drive assembly. The second 90mm AP round punched through the lower part of the Tiger’s gun mantlet. Only after this, did the Tiger crew try to dismount, only to be dispatched by one of two HE rounds.

[@davidmouser596]

Depending on which front it was deployed in the first 5 to 7 months of the Tiger 1's introduction there wasn't an immediate solution. For that time unless you had big guns or immediate air support the Tiger 1 was largely impervious and would kill anything in its path. Also the early Tiger crews where highly trained and which increased the issue for the allies. Yes eventually they figured out how to deal with it but until they did they had monster to deal with.

[@Lykas_mitts]

On the point of Aircraft identification being more effective/accurate: Could the point there be made that tanks (unlike aircraft) tend to stay around and be an immediate danger to the self. Whereas aircraft of the era tended to flyover before leaving, or attacking before leaving. i.e. Once the aircraft has turned about, the imminent danger is gone. Obviously this doesn't account for tank camouflage and the fact that aircraft tend to be silhouetted against the sky when viewed from the ground.

[@fitycalibre7555]

Say what you want about Fury, but it really gets the late war Western Front vibe and aesthetic down really really well. Especially uniforms and equipment. And even tho it gets a lot wrong, I cant help but really like it.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Feels TOO doomy and gloomy for me and the weather looks too much like November 1944 instead of April 1945.

[@fitycalibre7555]

@@lyndoncmp5751 I think a lot of that has to do with color grading for sure. But the doomy and gloomy feeling I think is spot on. Everyone is tired and just wants it to be over. This is finally after the battles on the Rhine that stalled the advance for 7 months. At this point you’d just want the Germans to surrender and be able to go home

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@fitycalibre7555 Thats what bugs me though. The doom and gloom of the disappointing autumn and winter was over. The period of going nowhere had changed to racing across Germany with much optimism that it'd soon be over. The weather was quite pleasant in April 1945, even from the end of March actually. Plenty of pictures showing this. Very spring like and sunny. Just saying. Cheers ✌️

[@5co756]

@@fitycalibre7555 Sure , the only problem are the fights and encounters with Germans . Just some idiots running into the enemy fire , I mean the last scene on a stationary Sherman . 50 SS men attack the front of a stationary tank , wtf guys ?

[@fitycalibre7555]

@@5co756 oh yea 100%, not defending that at all lol. That was silly

[@willnibor6075]

US troops first fought outdated "beutepanzer". Some little Renault R35 used by the germans.

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

Of course , you should be aware that there was NO way to tell the difference between a Tiger Tank and a panzer 4 in Normandy. Both would have been glimpsed briefly while the observer was under fire, both would have been moving fast and covered with dust and foliage . At best , one might have a glimpse of a long barrel and a squarish shape, perhaps the movement of tracks and wheels.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Yes and no, yes as mentioned in the video. No, because the Allies more often than not took control of the battlefield.

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Of course , if you can take a good look at a knocked out enemy vehicle for your after action report then you can identify the vehicle . Clearly . However , there was no way to identify the two types of tanks while an action was taking place and it would be entirely unreasonable for anyone to expect such an identification . This is why so many enemy tanks were identified as Tiger tanks. There was simply no way to tell the difference and, so , allied troops had no choice but to assume they were facing the best that the enemy had available . Any other assumption would have been foolish.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@andrewwoodhead3141 To quote you, 'perhaps the movement of tracks and wheels'. If you can see the road wheels it's very obvious which is a Tiger and which is a panzer 4

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 I am sure that these things are obvious to you as you sit and look at a picture in the comfort of your home , of course , or perhaps on a computer screen as you play a game, but that has absolutely nothing to do with successfully identifying an enemy tank in combat. Your face is going to be inches from the ground , for a start , or pressed up against a gunsight while someone is trying to kill you. You'll be looking at something moving several hundred meters away and covered in dust and foliage. You won't see much in the few seconds you can spare to make your identification . People should try to think these things through a bit , IMO , before they make comment .

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@andrewwoodhead3141 You mentioned 'perhaps the movement of tracks and wheels', I just pointed out that that would be enough to distinguish between the two. Also fairly confidant your opening paragraph applies as much to you as it does to me.

[@Angrybarberman]

Its funny how here we are, 80 years later, and we can tell a mk 4 from a panther or tiger, but the troops facing them couldnt! Its like on the histerdy channel documentary film of the panther vs shermans in front of cologne cathedral....the guy who filmed it narrates and keeps saying tiger.....clearly its a panther

[@eric-wb7gj]

TY 🙏🙏

[@bobbymay8618]

i was just talking to my friend about this very thing but also i really want to know the percentage and times in detail that Americans came across Germans using French or Czech or other capture tanks in Normandy and further into Germany, like i would think that the further they go into Germany would you see a lot of auxiliary captured vehicles and equipment.

[@tileux]

Pattons men in normandy mostly fought those old obsolete european tanks. They even fought 28 skoda tractor chassis that were fitted with guns and had armour welded into them as a makeshift casemate. They even built a few selp propelled guns on the chassis of vickers captured at dunkirk. With the hummel, the hetzer, the nashorn, the marder, the ferdinand/elefant, and all their variants (and thats not even mentioning all the captured tanks they used) the germans created a menagerie of weird and wonderful tanks - and created a maintenance and supply nightmare for their engineers.

[@michaelhband]

👍👍👍

[@Heike--]

I thought the King Tiger was the rare one. So what did the Germans use as a heavy tank, then?

[@CGM_68]

M15 = M "Fifteen" Combination Gun Motor Carriage (CGMC)

[@Red72618]

There is no Tiger in the US lines in Normandy

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

I tend to prefer the Panther, though it suffered from being overweight for the engine/transmission.

[@budwyzer77]

The long-barreled Panzer IIIs and IVs would have been virtually indistinguishable from Tigers when viewed head-on from a distance.

[@82dorrin]

US Troops: Oh shit!!! It's a Tiger, boys!! Take it out!!! Panzer IV Commander: Great! It's about time those assholes got here!! We need- Oh. They're talking about me, aren't they? Scheiße...

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Very few Panzer IIIs in front line service after 1943. Stug IIIs were sometimes called Tigers no doubt however.

[@ReichLife]

Hardly. It was skirt armor which made earlier Panzers look boxy like Tiger.

[@88porpoise]

In the end it is a common thing among people, probably dating back to before humans existed, to assume the worst case scenario. The early hominid who assumed the rustling grass was a tiger when it was realy a rabbit would pass on their genes, unlike the one who assumed the rustling was a rabbit only to find out was a tiger. Similarly, I bet a lot more crews who mistook a Panzer IV for a Tiger returned to tell of their exploits than crews who mistook a Tiger for a Panzer IV.

[@abstractgeniuscomments]

Every US ww2 buf needs to watch this; getting tired if how many peoples grandfathers, fron the US, fought Tigers in Normandy and the western front.

[@nickdanger3802]

135 tiger I's around Caen, 150 tiger II's in the Ardennes.

[@dietmar604]

its a fucking king tiger, run!

[@AJAtcho]

tank identification isn't high on the training list hence everything is a Tiger.

[@kawaiiarchive357]

In COD: Finest Hour when you play as US in the end you face a King Tiger in France.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Sounds like the Amis were suffering from "Tigerschreck".

[@Paultarco]

I believe several of the elite SS Panzergrenadier / Panzer divisions (Totenkopf, Das Reich and LAH) had tigers authorised with around 1-2 companies for each, however it seems like this only lasted between late 42 and early 44, and most lost their tigers between late 43 and early 44. Not exactly sure why this happened, possibly standardisation of unit organisation which seemed to be a late war trend. Would be quite interesting to have a video looking at the evolution of German TOEs and going through the rationale at each point

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

I'm sorry, but at 1:43 you did something i also like to do, four hundred fifty FREIV??? 🤣 A few weeks ago i had a similar linguistical brainfart in a official meeting...confused myself for around 10 to 20 seconds what language I'm currently talking in😂 By the way, I'll never get it why the StuG III wasn't a Tank. I always see it as a simplified tank without turret, no matter what army branch invented or used it. Used by the Sturmartillerie it was still similar to a I Tank in British doctrine. I mean i wouldn't call a Matilda II a Tank Destroyer because it only could fire AT ammunition.

[@Zona-w9i]

why do youtubers keep changing the title and thumbnail of their videos multiple times after publishing the video? is it to try to get the video recommended multiple times?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Currently KZbin supports 3 different thumbnails it tests.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

It is to find out which combination converts the most viewers.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

It is to find out which combination converts the most viewers.

[@Zona-w9i]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized woah thats cool youd reply to a question slightly off topic. thanks for the insight!

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Here is a video about the whole "game": kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2HEh4qlZc16f8k

[@joselitostotomas8114]

Every tank a tiger, every gun an 88. Americans never bothered with teaching troops what enemy tanks, artillery and other enemy equipment they're likely to face. Glad to know that other nations have the same mind set.

[@88porpoise]

They were absolutely taught identification and other countries absolutely had similar issues, as noted in this video. Its human nature to assume something is the thing you most fear as that tends to lead to greater odds of survival.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Stephen Ambrose is notorious for going on about Tigers and 88s.

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

US tankers hardly ever encountered Tigers. They were far more worried about their frequent encounters with German infantry and their AT guns, and reluctant to trade in their trusty M3 75mm cannon armed M4s for the new, upgunned high velocity 76mm cannon armed M4 variants.

[@jintsuubest9331]

That's only partially true. Different unit had different encounter. Some unit that encounter heavier armored opponent, such as tiger or more realistically the panther, sing the praised the efficacy of 76.

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

@@jintsuubest9331 True, at least at Normandy, British and Commonwealth forces had far more trouble with Mk6 Tigers and other German armor. US tankers faced STUG3s, Mk4 medium and Mk5 Panthers, but every German track was a Tiger as far as they were concerned.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Greetings. The Americans faced the Tiger Is of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 504 in Tunisia and Sicily and Italian mainland, and the Tiger Is of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 508 in Italy, as well as Kompanie Meyer with a small number of Tiger Is. In NW Europe they faced Tiger Is in Abteilung (Fkl) 301 and Kompanie Hummel. They faced Tiger IIs near Paris (Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 and Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503) and faced Tiger IIs of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 in the Aachen battles and Ardennes. Tiger IIs of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 501 (formerly 101) in the Ardennes, and another battalion with Tiger IIs in Germany, Schwere Panzer Abteilung 507. Cheers.

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

@@lyndoncmp5751 All true, I was not suggesting Tiger encounters never happened, just that US tanker's ongoing encounters with German PAK and FLAK AT guns had them a lot more worried. That, plus the fact US tank destroyer (M10's, M18s, etc) doctrine confused the issue of which equipment mix was optimal to counter German armor.

[@auferstandenausruinen]

In Normandy, it was mostly the Brits and Commonwealth forces that born the frontal attack of the panzer divs around the Caen-Bayeux line which involved s.Pz.Abt and SS Pz.D with Tigers and Tiger IIs. The only noticeable armor counter attack by US forces faced was the Operation Lüttich at Mortain, which itself was poorly organized and fell apart quickly. However, the Americans were more than happy to appropriate the Tiger-fighting stories from the other allies to work for themselves.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

"However, the Americans were more than happy to appropriate the Tiger-fighting stories from the other allies to work for themselves" Culminating in the fantasy end part of Saving Private Ryan.

[@edelweiss45]

The first 5 Königstiger in normandy were disrupted by allied bombing, from the Swr.Pz.Komp.FKL. 316

[@jamesjenkins81]

What about the battle at Arracour? Were there Tigers involved there?

[@tileux]

No.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

As stated no. Nearest Tigers to Arracourt were facing the British around Arnhem during Market Garden. The Tiger Is of Kompanie Hummel and the Tiger IIs of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506. Arnhem is over 500 km north of Arracourt.

[@jerry2357]

I remember a talk by the Chieftain where he said that American forces only encountered Tigers on 6 occasions.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

😏 every German tank is a Tiger. Every Japanese fighter is a Zero......

[@Wazup13579]

Every tank absolutely was not a tiger. But every US infantryman thought so. This is a clip from the 1277th Combat Engineers movements in July 44 in France. “The engineer colum was moving in behind the spourhead of the fifth Armored Division to assist in the Seine River Crossing north of Paris and for several days the roads back to Dreux and the imediate Manks were very vulnerable. The Battalion halted and bivouaced five niles short of the intended area because our armor encountered a reported fifty "Tiger"tanks and was having a battle for the area.”

[@grantm6514]

Let's face it, well-researched facts stand no chance against the prevailing belief that despite every tank being a Tiger, America still won the war (with perhaps a small contribution by some soviets using mostly _American_ lend lease equipment). Oh, and Ben Affleck won the battle of britain. 😂😂😂

[@pyeitme508]

Ha 😂

[@kstreet7438]

Ja

[@stephenduffy5406]

But quite a few were encountered by US troops prior to D-Day in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Yes. Two abteilungs with Tiger Is faced the Americans in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy prior to D-Day. 504 in Tunisia and Sicily and 504 and 508 in Italy. There was also a small unit in Italy with 8 Tigers called Schwere Panzer Kompanie Meyer.

[@yourlocalmilkman8481]

*panzer 2 appear* American troops: ITS A KING TIGER

[@nickdanger3802]

Pz II was in service in 1940 when the 400,000 man BEF, the largest fully motorized force in the world, "evacuated" from Dunkirk.

[@mikeromney4712]

At first I thought "What kind of shitshow is this going to be?" - then I read the channel name and was reassured...:)

[@krone5]

Panzer 6 macht rechts

[@gratefulguy4130]

Allied soldiers always "upgraded" German tanks they faced. Germans would assume they had faced a lesser tank. Food for thought..

[@davidbrennan660]

The Red Army soldiers called all German tanks “ Tigers” and SPs “Ferdinand”s in their memories of the late War…. It became the slang term it seems.

[@bigsarge2085]

👍👍

[@jamesevans886]

While researching the availability of German tanks, I came across a Tiger I availability that stated from June 44 to the end of the war, there was never more than 54 operational Tiger 1 tanks on the Western Front and 56 on the Eastern Front on any given day. I would have to trawl through my notes to give you a proper quote reference. Certainly, the Tiger 1 from mid 44 was a very rare tank indeed. During this research, I started wondering if the removal of the hull side skirts on the panzer IV was to confuse the allies in thinking they were Tiger 1s. In later research, I found out that these side skirts were added originally on the Eastern front to counter the effects of the Russian anti-tank rifle. In Normandy, it was discovered that these skirts detonated the bazooka rounds at the deadliest distance to penetrate the side hull, so they were quickly removed. Which of course sank my idea about deliberate confusion. Another great video on the interesting topic of availability.

[@ReySchultz121]

Is that a Huey Long reference?

[@YoBoyNeptune]

I guess that explains why fireflies got all the credit for killing tigers instead of 76mm armed shermans

[@michaelpielorz9283]

According to the unbiased british sources, the Fireflies took out more Tigers than ever produced(:_)

[@jessicaregina1956]

Why dont they make any videos on Japanese troops: every tank a sherman.