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.
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Welt said:
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.

-wide tracks low ground Psi

Tiger II :
Pressure: 13.7 psi
Track width: 80 cm
 
Last edited:

A-tree

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 3, 2006
370
11
0
UK
Keeping a tank well maintained in a war zone is near to imposible, especialy in a time when supplys where next to zero.
Just look at the fighting in north africa. Reliabilty was as important to a succesful tank design as armour or firepower.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
A-tree said:
Keeping a tank well maintained in a war zone is near to imposible, especialy in a time when supplys where next to zero.
Just look at the fighting in north africa. Reliabilty was as important to a succesful tank design as armour or firepower.

Which is why they did not drive Tiger II's (or most tanks) to the front they loaded them on trains to get them to the front.
There accounts of fixing damaged Pathers in a war zone.

Ro schneidzekk said:
People have strong believes here, no argument is going to convince any side.

Well said
 
Last edited:

thedonster

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 27, 2006
291
1
0
British Colombia
I remember reading somewhere that the Tiger II used the exact same engine as the Tiger I (Maybach I believe).

Is this correct?

Actually, the Tiger II used the exact same engine as the Panther. It just weighed 25 tons more!
But fortunately Rommel has explained to us that weight doesn't matter. This nicely illustrates the loss of contact with reality which had overcome the German leadership by 1944.
 

Nebfer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 23, 2006
384
11
0
So much knocking about the Tiger II, yet no one realises that the T-34 was almost regected twice in its early life, (the first time was becuse of a recent test between a recently bought Panzer III and a prototype of the t-34!)
acording to the soviets the only thing the T-34 had over a Panzer III was armor and firepower!

the second time was due to the discovery of so meny defects that it was qustiond weather or not that the tank was even combat capable!

Another problem was that is was hard for the manufacturs to make the requierd engien reliable enough (for a time 150 hours with out failure was prity darn good).

all this comes from every ones favrit website battlefield.ru :p

and lets not get started on the problems of the KV-1...
 

ROMMEL34

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 21, 2006
184
0
0
Pittsburgh
..........they produced the Elefant and the Me 110.
The Bf110 was not a bad plane! It was used in the wrong role. The Messerschmitt Bf110 was originally designed as a twin engine heavy fighter. The only problem with the Bf 110 was its poor maneuverability. Its size and weight meant that it had high wing loading, which limited its manoeuvrability. The Germans used it in the battle of Britian as an escort fighter for the German bombers because the single engined Bf109 was extremely short ranged even with drop tanks. This led to the Bf110 being owned by the more nimble and lighter Spitfires and Hurricanes. Even though it was unmaneuverable the Bf 110 was redeveloped as a very successful night fighter complete with radar and powerful 20mm and 30mm cannon. As a night fighter the Bf 110 was an impressive aircraft. The Bf110 proved itself a worthy adversary against night bombers of the RAF and racked up impressive kills against them.


As for the Ferdinand/Elefant: http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12370

welt said:
That equals 10hp/tonne. Quite underpowered engine to me. And the power needed to make 70 tonnes move is going to make the engine crack quite fast.

Actually its 10.1hp/tonne. All tanks in WW2 were underpowered when compared to modern tanks. As for the engine cracking perhaps if you have a noob driver who doesnt know what he is doing.

thedonster said:
But fortunately Rommel has explained to us that weight doesn't matter.

Which Rommel??
 
Last edited:
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Actually, the Tiger II used the exact same engine as the Panther. It just weighed 25 tons more!
But fortunately Rommel has explained to us that weight doesn't matter. This nicely illustrates the loss of contact with reality which had overcome the German leadership by 1944.

All this illustrates is that the Tiger II's engine is a bit strained and under powered nothing do do with speed or manuverablity this engine was put in because they lacked adquate materials to make a higher powered engine and this tank was needed to be on the battlefield as soon as possible. I said weight does not matter when it comes to its speed and manuverablity for the Tiger series espeically when you have very wide tracks to spread the weight of the tank out.

Ground pressure: 15,2 psi :I compared to 9,0psi for T-34.

The Tiger II is heavy espeically when compared to the light T-34 even with its wide tracks it has a higher Psi than that medium tank.
 
Last edited:

thedonster

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 27, 2006
291
1
0
British Colombia
The Bf110 was not a bad plane! It was used in the wrong role.

You have it backwards. The Me110 was produced to be used as a 2 engine long range fighter, and it was a dismal failure in its intended role. It was later adapted to use as a night fighter, and performed adequately, but was still really too slow. It was NOT "used in the wrong role". It failed in its role so was used for another.
Next you're going to tell me the Me 210 was a good plane. Sure, like the Elefant was a good tank. It was a piece of s--- which had a good gun.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Thedonster said:
Elefant was a good tank.
Exactly! Even the Ferdinand was half decent.
Welt said:
Well, 10,7psi for KV1. Still not convinced
Thats comaparable even with higher psi the Tiger II is somewhat within the range of those heavy tanks.
Sherman M3 medium tank :14.3 psi.
 
Last edited:
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
30 tonnes-70 tonnes. We can continue this all day long

Sherman M3:Thin tracks : 30 ton higher PSI- less manuverable.
Tiger II: Wide tracks:70 ton Lower PSI -more manuverable.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Mobile- "immobile"
Misconception

Tiger II -very mobile
Sherman -mobile as well
and Thin tracks are bad for speed and mobility they also get stuck easily in the mud,sand,snow,ect. this is why the Tiger's (I,and II) had very wide tracks.

my quote now ugh:
Numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy, too big, too slow, "a casemate", etc. One is left with the impression that it was lucky to move at all. These banal generalities, stated as incontrovertible facts, are never substantiated by actual specifications, 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.

The Tiger II was one of the best, if the the best, tank during World War II. It combined good mobility with heavy armour and the best German gun of the war - and one of the best of all the countries combined. Many people think that the Tiger II is a heavy beast that could not move at all. The capabilities of the Tiger II did, however, match or outclass many other Panzers, such as the Sturmgesch
 
Last edited:

Maschine Pistole-38

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
683
0
0
33
Oregon
You know, a fat man can be as mobile as a skinny man. Hell I have seen fat men run as fast as skinny men. But I am damn sure the fat man will tire much quicker and probably land on his ass because he is carrying so much extra weight.

So while the King Tiger was very mobile, it can only do it for a certain amount of time. Unlike the Sherman/T34/PzIV.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
Machine Pistole-38 said:
You know, a fat man can be as mobile as a skinny man. Hell I have seen fat men run as fast as skinny men. But I am damn sure the fat man will tire much quicker and probably land on his ass because he is carrying so much extra weight.

So while the King Tiger was very mobile, it can only do it for a certain amount of time. Unlike the Sherman/T34/PzIV.

Its a machine not a human it would always be mobile unless it gets its tracks blown off or the engine overheats and breaks down which would require a lot of fancy engine pushing driving or an engine shot with a gun that can penetrate its 80mm sides/rear this goes for every tank not just the Tiger II.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.