The people's tank

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The people's tank


  • Total voters
    244
Status
Not open for further replies.

LukeFF

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 12, 2006
706
0
0
Riverside, California, USA
It fails to mention the Tiger II's gun was very accuarate/powerful and could hit targets at very long range distances as a reason for allowing this very expensive and valuable machine to stay behind the smaller tanks and provide some covering fire from behind.

"SLOW"?! Thats a misconception the Tiger II went about the same speed of the Tiger I and like the Tiger I had excellant mobility as is stated by many tests and by accounts from Tiger II drivers (American /German). The Tiger II's as well as the Tiger I had speeds compareable to the PzIV (only 2 kms slower than it).

Have you even read the book, or are you just going to keep referencing the same internet sites over and over again?

Slow? Yes, it was slow, and it was DAMN HEAVY as well. Slow tank + rough terrain + overly heavy = not a very combat-effective tank. A Panzer IV weighs about 23 tons. A Tiger II? Nearly 70 tons. Yes, dear one, that DOES make a difference on the battlefield, where the terrain is not an immaculate parade ground.

From the book:

The King Tiger, however, was not suited for the type of operation envisioned in the German plan. They were very slow and continued to be mechanically unreliable. The hilly terrain in the Ardennes further exacerbated the mechanical difficulties. The soft-surfaced, narrow roads were also insufficient for such large, heavy vehicles needing to move quickly. Peiper realized these deficiencies and considered the King Tiger too slow and too heavy for the rapid advance of his unit, {Combat Group Peiper} therefore he placed the entire battalion {SS-Heavy Tank Battalion 501} at the rear of his column.
From the very beginning of the march, King Tigers started to break down with mechanical problems, mainly failures of the final drive.
{By 18 December} The King Tigers of SS-Heavy Tank Battalion 501 had great difficulty in following Peiper's advance even to this point. As a result of the many mechanical breakdowns, the battalion fragmented and large gaps in the march column developed.
The great fuel requirements of the King Tigers imposed a huge logistical burden on the German forces. Even though this battalion was assigned with the lead unit (Combat Group Peiper), it essentially did not contribute to any consequential combat action until the fourth day of the offensive. Of the 45 King Tigers that began the offensive from their initial assembly area, only six were able to keep up and not break down, joining Combat Group Peiper around La Gleize.
One hour of Tiger operation requires ten hours of maintenance.
Not exactly a glowing report, don't you think? You see, I, like you, am wowed by what the Tiger did accomplish, but that is seeing only half the picture. The reality is that the Tiger, throughout all its iterations, was an expensive, slow, heavy, gas-guzzling, mechanically unreliable vehicle that was only able to show its offensive prowess in few instances and usually in small numbers. Given this and Germany's ever-chronic fuel problems after 1943, one wonders why they pushed forward with a design that had more drawbacks that positives. Germany would have been much, much better off focusing on Panther and Panzer IV poduction.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
LukeFF said:
Have you even read the book, or are you just going to keep referencing the same internet sites over and over again?

Slow? Yes, it was slow, and it was DAMN HEAVY as well. Slow tank + rough terrain + overly heavy = not a very combat-effective tank. A Panzer IV weighs about 23 tons. A Tiger II? Nearly 70 tons. Yes, dear one, that DOES make a difference on the battlefield, where the terrain is not an immaculate parade ground.

My Tiger II/Tiger I information is taken from Thomas L. Jentz "s "Panzer Tracts" which is one of the best German armor information book series around he has spent years researching German Tanks finding modifications or information that have gone scewed/or unnoticed by most.

If you do a bit more reasearch than just quoting that same book youll find the Tiger II/Tiger I were not slow tanks (weight is of no consequence*) at all and even reports from Americans whom captured/tested the Tiger II reveal how surpriseingly quick and manuverable they were. When the Tiger II was driven on a non-"parade" surface like mud the Tiger II had very low ground psi pressure if Im not mistaken it was lower than the American Sherman tank meaning it could manuver very well even in thick mud due to its wide tracks and low ground psi. Its funny how you quote its slow speed but do not actually give numbers atesting to its slow behavior just the opinon of the author here are the numbers again this time from my book
German Tanks of the thrid Reich (which nicely matches up with Achtung Panzer)

Tiger II:
Road: 35-38 km/h
Cross Country: 17 km/h

* The E-100 prototype was much heavier than most tanks yet it performed as well as the Panther when tested in rough terrian in fact. It was said that everything the Panther could do the E-100 could do.


tests and after action reports said:
test reports or after-action accounts from the units that used the Tiger II. In spite of these frequently repeated remarks, the capability of the Tiger II to negotiate obstacles and cross terrain was equivalent to or better than most German and allied tanks.

with a design that had more drawbacks that positives.

Had this been true the Tiger II would have stopped production in favor of the Panther II. The Tiger II's reilabilty issues were only a problem with inexperienced crews as have been stated by others on other threads as well as my nice quote from before.
 
Last edited:

Rameusb5

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 23, 2006
871
1
0
Do not use wikipedia as a source.

How about not using the internet as a source then?

Or at the very least, not using a website with the word PANZER in the title as a source, since it's going to be pretty obvious that that site will be biased towards German equipment.


I find wikipedia to be a more reliable source than some other sites. I have yet to see ANY site on the internet that has reliable production figures. Everyone seems to just put want they WANT the numbers to be.
 

Rameusb5

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 23, 2006
871
1
0
I remember reading somewhere that the Tiger II used the exact same engine as the Tiger I (Maybach I believe).

Is this correct?
 

ROMMEL34

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2006
184
0
0
Pittsburgh
Slow? Yes, it was slow, and it was DAMN HEAVY as well. Slow tank + rough terrain + overly heavy = not a very combat-effective tank. A Tiger II? Nearly 70 tons. Yes, dear one, that DOES make a difference on the battlefield, where the terrain is not an immaculate parade ground.

Heavy? Yes. Slow? According to German Tanks of World War Two in Action and Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two and various other books and sources :)) now available at your local library:) ) the Tiger II's speed is 35 km/hr (comparable to the Panzer IV H (38 km/hr)). As for rough terrain and its heaviness that is exactly why the Tiger II had wider tracks (32in) when compared to the Tiger I (28.5in) and other German tanks

.... mechanically unreliable vehicle that was only able to... ...one wonders why they pushed forward with a design that had more drawbacks that positives.

Everything is mechanically unreliable without proper maintenence even Soviet tanks.:D If the design had more drawbacks that positives then it would not have been built at all. Common sense. Why would the Germans waste limited resources on building almost 500 tanks full of drawbacks? The only drawbacks were its weight (bridges), its poor miles per gallon, and lack of proper maintenence. These drawbacks were more than countered by the benefits.

rameusb5 said:
I remember reading somewhere that the Tiger II used the exact same engine as the Tiger I (Maybach I believe).
Is this correct?

Tiger II had a Maybach HL230P30 engine.
Tiger I had a Maybach HL210P45 engine.

ramebus5 said:
reliable production figures
489
 
Last edited:
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Rameusb5 said:
How about not using the internet as a source then?

Or at the very least, not using a website with the word PANZER in the title as a source, since it's going to be pretty obvious that that site will be biased towards German equipment.

I used Panzer tracts and German Tanks of the third Reich which as I said matches up perfectly with Achtung panzer. Thats rediculous "Panzer" meaning its biased since panzer is the german word for tank and because most information matches up with AchtungPanzer.
I do not like wiki because it misses details if you want to keep using it that your choice not mine. as for production numbers
here's the actual number:

"The production run continued through March 1945 for a total of three prototypes and 489 production series Tiger II produced by Henschel"
 
Last edited:

Moz

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,773
1
0
I must know; is the sky Green and the grass blue in this fantasy world you are living in?

I'm fine with adding the king tiger to RO as long as it is realistic.

It can't start - No Fuel
It can't shoot - No ammo
It can't move - half sunk in terrain

If you do manage to get it under way after 100 feet there is a 70% chance of the drive shaft shattering into a million pieces and if you rev the engine you will blow a cylinder... which ironically will likely be the only thing you'll blow up.

Sure there were a few cases of the King Tiger actually working, but when only 6 of 45 tanks can even make it to a battle without rattling themselves apart then the average representation of the King Tiger is clearly a joke of a vehicle.

So if you want Tripwire to go through the very long process of developing a vehicle how about you push one that would actually be playable?
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
RO schneidzekk said:
Yes, but we are talking about Germany, logic or common sense was barely a reason or factor at that time.
Oh yes it was espeically later in the war they wanted to build a tank that would destroy as many Allies as possible and defend germany which was why the Tiger II was born. It was heavliy armored providing excellant battlefield survivablity and protection toward its valuable crew. Its gun made itr second to none in battle and its mobility ensured it could easily manuver around the combat area. It was logically the best heavy tank. It was also a big morale booster for the German tankers/Infantry.Problems only occurred with inexperienced crews or if supplies were short.

moz said:
It can't start - No Fuel
It can't shoot - No ammo
It can't move - half sunk in terrain

If you do manage to get it under way after 100 feet there is a 70% chance of the drive shaft shattering into a million pieces and if you rev the engine you will blow a cylinder... which ironically will likely be the only thing you'll blow up.
Grossly exaggerated except perhaps the fuel shortage which effected everytank.
 
Last edited:

A-tree

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 3, 2006
370
11
0
UK
Im sure that by 44-45 Germany had very few experianced crews to put in them.
 

ROMMEL34

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2006
184
0
0
Pittsburgh
If you do manage to get it under way after 100 feet there is a 70% chance of the drive shaft shattering into a million pieces and if you rev the engine you will blow a cylinder... which ironically will likely be the only thing you'll blow up.
Sure there were a few cases of the King Tiger actually working, but when only 6 of 45 tanks can even make it to a battle without rattling themselves apart then the average representation of the King Tiger is clearly a joke of a vehicle. I'm fine with adding the king tiger to RO as long as it is realistic.

Ive got two words for you buddy: Allied misinformation or better yet Allied propaganda. If you recall the early Tigers/Panthers had similar problems but they matured into the best tanks of WW2. With proper maintenence the Tiger II could be maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. Since breakdowns arent modeled in game (yet?) this makes all the tanks in game unrealistic as they never break down.

thedonster said:
Just what kind of fantasy world are you living in anyway? Ever heard of PHYSICS?
Ever heard of 700hp engines?:D :D
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
A-tree said:
Im sure that by 44-45 Germany had very few experianced crews to put in them.
True but many inexperienced crews would have gained a lot of experience especially in the Eastern front were the attacks on the fronts were rerentless.
thedonster said:
Just what kind of fantasy world are you living in anyway? Ever heard of PHYSICS?
Have you heard of low ground Psi pressure or wide tracks?
 
Last edited:
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Yeah right. Obviously this explains why they produced the Elefant and the Me 110.

They produced the Elefant because they had already produced 90 chasis for the the Porche Tiger when the other Henschel model Tiger proved better and they switched production to the Tiger I (E). *The Elefant was a good tank though it proved its effectiveness on the 1944 front and in Berlin. Its earlier form the Ferdinand was ineffective toward infantry but did produced an impressive numer of tanks /gun postion kills. Its main problems were the lack of Mg's /Cupola/Wider tracks and the fact it was used out side its intended role as a defensive tank and was instead used as a breakout tank. The Elefant tank was a lot better since all of those things were fixed and its true role was realised.:D

*A case of not wanting to waste valuable tanks.
 
Last edited:

BSE|Vietcong

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2006
185
0
0
Germany
And the Reichsfeuerzeug :D

However, you all seem to trust into the Nazi-government and thats why I think, we should add a super tank, shouldn't we? It will never break down, go fast cross country, kill every tank at ranges over 3000m while being invulnerable to enemy fire.
If the Tiger II was that great, why didn't germany stop the 1000s of russian tanks, if it was so invulnerable?

Could (theoretically) have something to do with reliability... you know.... maybe a tiny little bit :D
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
BSE|Vietcong said:
It will never break down, go fast cross country, kill every tank at ranges over 3000m while being invulnerable to enemy fire.
If the Tiger II was that great, why didn't germany stop the 1000s of russian tanks, if it was so invulnerable?

1. It was not invulnerable it could be flanked by well organized T-34/85s and killed from the sides/rear and was vulnerable to the Soviet airforce.
2. It did stop a significant number of Soviet tanks(allied) but there were too few Tiger II's vs. hordes upon hordes of well suppiled Soviet (Allied) tanks*
3. Germany was running out of supplies so fuel and ammuntion as well as tank crewmen especially for later war Tiger II's
4. Yes, there was a bit of unreliablity but only if it was not well maintained.

*489 Tiger II tanks vs 40,000 T-34's and 50,000 Shermans.
 
Last edited:

Welt

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
324
17
0
Finland
Ever heard of 700hp engines?:D :D
That equals 10hp/tonne or 0,01hp/kg, T-34 has 16,18hp/tonne. Quite underpowered engine to me. And the power needed to make 70 tonnes move is going to make the engine crack quite fast.

The tank is pulled towards earth with a force of 686700 N. If its enough to break bridges, it WILL sink in to the mud. No questions about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.