Why did it perform so badly?

Why did it perform so badly?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    No physical evidence for battle of Stalingrad.
    But it was a good tank. American equipment was fail.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous
  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >too heavy
    >no oil for it
    >manpower issues
    >reliability issues when it first came out
    >only like 500 were made Lollll

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It didn’t. It was very capable as a heavy tank. Especially on the defensive when it could sit back and fire away.

      These also apply to the Abrams in Iraq tho. That tank smoked everything.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        America lost the gulf war.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        they did not fight 20 to 1
        most of their tanks where not only destroyed but obselete

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    There were no allied equipment that was really able to engage tigers.
    Soviets had larger width shells but they were undersized. Higher caliber.
    America didn't have any heavy tanks, they had one or two Pershing.
    The is3 or the su152 are the best threat to a tiger. They still have less range by far.

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Germany thought that everyone was going to build bigger and bigger tanks, remember they were the ones that had gone into Russia undergunned and underarmored.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Germany won ww2, it surrendered to the weaker side (America) because israelites.
    Soviets didn't have much capable of fighting them.

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it operated against an enemy who (on all fronts) possessed air superiority.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's very easy to shoot down planes with rifles.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's much, much easier for a plane to strafe a rifleman with it's machine guns

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's mathematically the same process. It's far easier for a rifle man to hit a plane.
          If Germans didn't have automatics they had other stuff.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's mathematically the same process. It's far easier for a rifle man to hit a plane.
        If Germans didn't have automatics they had other stuff.

        Mental illness.

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Soviet 85mm,122mm,152mm shot them from the side.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like you just watch talking israelite heads on twistory channel or read internet forums, and dont do any research yourself.

    The KT was single handedly responsiboe for many of the successes of thr late war counteroffensives. In Hungary at the Solznok river in October 1944, KTs of one of a singlr heavy tank battalion broke through thr Soviet lines and surrounded a romanian and soviet division, then they almost succeeded in surrounding the entire nearby soviet cavalry corps. This was well above the goals of that campaign, which were merely to repulse the Soviets from their bridgehead.

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ignore most of the responses, they're from morons who have never touched a tank, let alone actually know anything about them.

    Main thing was a grossly overburdened powertrain. Most of the Tiger IIs issues stemmed from Germany's material shortages. As such, they were not able to develop and put into production the planned engine for the Tiger II, which led to them reusing the Maybach HL234, an upgraded version of the Panther's engine, in the Tiger II. This led to a horribly overburdened powertrain. The Tiger II did surprisingly well moving on roads and cross country despite this, but its overall mobility was still extremely limited, made even worse by severe fuel shortages in late-'44/'45. The final drive also had issues because of the sheer weight of the vehicle.

    The vehicle itself was not terrible, it was good for its intended role as a heavy breakthrough vehicle, never intended to be produced in large numbers, but the issues I listed, plus the rapidly deteriorating state of the German Army, having to constantly retreat and abandon or destroy heavy equipment like Tiger IIs, led to poor performance and reputation.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s performance and reputation were good tho.
      The KWK4388 never encountered a tank it didn’t outgun.
      Its armor was poorly made but workable and even with inexperienced crews it was the most feared tank by other tanks.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but its overall mobility was still extremely limited, made even worse by severe fuel shortages in late-'44/'45. The final drive also had issues because of the sheer weight of the vehicle.
      Made worse too by operating under conditions of Allied air superiority - by 1944 German divisions regularly had to detrain over a hundred miles from the battlefront and the take longer routes over secondary roads to cover that ground to avoid air attack. Increasing fuel consumption and the wear and tear on an already inadequate engine.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Aircraft are actually useless. It's just that his is a moron board.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >~50% of german munitions production of ww2 is aircraft
          >numbers are comparable for the other powers
          >useless

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            The bullets were interchangeable and they didn't produce a significant number of bombs.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Munitions means all war material, moron

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what to say lib. You make no sense.
            German tanks were only fightable by the best soviet stuff.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            and for reference, AFVs of all types, represent between 4-8% of production (it varies by month). Land warfare is the real meme

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            But that 4% is enough to break through the entrechments, destroy their artillery and give you control of the battlefield.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then why did is it that meme tanks like the PzKpfw II could achieve this when the Luftwaffe had air superiority and the things like the Tiger 2 couldn't when the Luftwaffe was effectively impotent?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Peak oil. The same reason capitalism is collapsing now.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            at least try and troll better moron anon

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            OK well I don't think they even had the tiger 2 available when the war ended, and with the tiger 1 they didn't convert it to alternate fuels.

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    German engineering is overrated crap.

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unrelated questions but when/why did some people start calling this a warwinning tank?

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Problem was that German designs were too complex and too expensive.

    They costed ten times more than any other allied tank and needed ten times longer production time which is bad news when Germany barely has any resources to compete and its factories constantly blown up.

    Hitler is partially to blame for this. His constant interference with tank designs meant Germany could never mass produce anything because every tank had 20 different versions of its turret, chassis, filters, sights, engines, treads, cannon, ammunition, etc

    The allied tanks were better because they did the job just as good and costed much less and were much easier to maintain and repair. Germany lost most of its tanks not due to combat but breakdowns, Germany never even standardized its spare parts which created a logistical nightmare especially in North Africa.

    Yes the tiger and panther had superior armor and cannon, but the western allies rarely engaged them in tank-to-tank battle. Why should they? There was an abundance of free reigning P51 Mustangs ready to bust it with little risk.
    The tigers were also more rare than allied heavy tanks of equal caliber. the majority of German tanks were Panzer IV who were of equal caliber to the Churchill, Sherman, and T34 who were again far cheaper and quicker to produce and easier to maintain.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >reddit spacing
      >reddit history

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Hitler is partially to blame for this. His constant interference with tank designs
      Could you post the evidence for this?

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was designed for well supplied and prepared armored spearheads but ended up being used in the chaotic fighting withdrawal across eastern Europe.

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Germans had no tank transporters. Hence they didn't have a way to transport tanks.
    If they had those then they would actually use their tanks.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *