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).
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.
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.One hour of Tiger operation requires ten hours of maintenance.
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.
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.
Do not use wikipedia as a source.
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.
.... mechanically unreliable vehicle that was only able to... ...one wonders why they pushed forward with a design that had more drawbacks that positives.
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?
489ramebus5 said:reliable production figures
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.
.... If the design had more drawbacks that positives then it would not have been built at all .......
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.RO schneidzekk said:Yes, but we are talking about Germany, logic or common sense was barely a reason or factor at that time.
Grossly exaggerated except perhaps the fuel shortage which effected everytank.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.
Tiger II/Tiger I were not slow tanks (weight is of no consequence*) .
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.
Ever heard of 700hp engines?thedonster said:Just what kind of fantasy world are you living in anyway? Ever heard of PHYSICS?
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.A-tree said:Im sure that by 44-45 Germany had very few experianced crews to put in them.
Have you heard of low ground Psi pressure or wide tracks?thedonster said:Just what kind of fantasy world are you living in anyway? Ever heard of PHYSICS?
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?
Yeah right. Obviously this explains why they produced the Elefant and the Me 110.
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?
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.Ever heard of 700hp engines?