How Formidable Was the German Tiger Tank During WWII?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 03. 2023
- The German Tiger tank was renowned as one of the most formidable and terrifying weapons of the Second World War.
Armed with an 88 millimeter gun and protected by seemingly invulnerable 120 millimeter armor, it earned a notorious reputation among soldiers who shared chilling stories of its exploits.
The Tiger saw action on all of Germany's battlefronts during the war. It was typically used in independent tank battalions and proved to be a formidable opponent.
Within a short period, the Tiger tank quickly gained a fearsome reputation.
Its thick armor astonished crews who helplessly watched their shells bounce off the Tiger's hull and turret, leading to a sense of despair.
Most Allied tanks, on the other hand, were vulnerable to the Tiger at 2,000 metres, but they had to come within a few hundred metres to have any chance of disabling the Tiger.
The Tiger stands out as one of the most exceptional combat weapons of World War 2 and is unlikely to be surpassed by any tank in terms of its enduring impact on the army.
#tigertank #germantank #ww2tanks
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
The most iconic tank ever.The GOAT.If you like tanks,you love the Tiger.
I love it so much I have a tiger one tattooed on my chest and stomach it's a battle seen
Can’t remember who but a German General once said “our tanks are 10 times better than the Sherman, the only problem is that 11 always show up.
Great line!!
you`d better do, YT is full of "they say" quotes (:-))
From a mechanics point of view the sherman was better than the tiger.
The Sherman had a lot of upgrade potential.
Was still a frontline tank during the Arab Israeli wars in 67 and 73
They never say that
@@pheels it they still lighters.
Just a few thousand Tigers were built. Still being talked about to this day. Nuff said.
1347 Tiger I tanks and 489 Tiger II. A reputation out of all proportion to their modest numbers. More impressive because of that.
The most iconic tank of ww2 imo.
So true! Legendary and Germanic !
no
@@dynothane300 It is the most iconic tank of WW2, hate it or love it.
I found that it's lack of numbers and susceptability to 122mm shells, makes Tiger I kind of laughable atleast by late war standards, the allies had all responses necessary to deal it off.
@@magger254 : Always you with them negative waves. It's a beautiful tank baby!
It had major flaws there is no denying that but it was also an immensely effective tank, especially with skilled commanders
That's like saying it worked well when it worked well.
@@michaelkenny8540 which is more often than people think which is interesting. First learning of the tiger you think its this perfect unstoppable machine, after more time learning you think it's the always broken machine with too few numbers and overall a disaster of a tank. And after even more time learning you think its a very decent tank that did its job well but wasn't perfect
@@chrisigoeb I'd say the more you learn you'd think "umm, waste of scarce resources" and "a heavy tank could be done better, ya know".
@@stewartmillen7708 Typical West front centric comment.
@@FairladyS130 What do you mean by that? I see nothing in this particular thread by any of the commentators that would be biased towards either Front.
The Tiger was already in development before the T-34 and KV-1 were encountered. The Panther was developed in response the soviet tanks but the Tiger was already designed
BS dude, at the start of ww2 even the French had BETTER tanks than the germans ! They germans were unable to build a HEAVY tank years AFTER the war started !
@mirandela777
Check your research bro. The French absolutely did have better tanks but that doesn't mean the tigers weren't being developed. Developmemt doesnt mean porduction, It would still take some time before it entered production. The only change that really came to the tiger because of allied Tanks was the gun. It was going to have a 7.5cm gun but becuase of how effecting the 8.8cm was, they chose that instead.
@@micahfodor8433 - not really, they have NOTHING, NO heavy tanks, and mediocre or crap medium tanks in 1939, or they were plain stupid, they had instructors in the russians army many years BEFORE the war, and they knew about T34 and KV - yet they get terrorized when they meet the KV and later the T34 - reason why they rushed in production the Tiger. With other words, they got caught with pants down, with crappy tanks in 1939, reason why they confiscated all the french tanks and later even Skoda tanks, after they invaded Czechia. They only started to invest and produce decent tanks AFTER they got slapped hard by KVs and T34s, who terrorized the german infantry.
They come in a hurry with the Tiger, but failed to adopt slopped armor - took them several f years until they got the Panther until they understand the concept.
Looking at the facts, historical facts, I cannot say they were very smart and capable in designing a great tank. Lagged behind the russians all the war, and failed to understand the concept of medium tank as MBT. They did many stupid choices during the war in terms of tech - not just by choosing very expensive heavy tanks, hard to produce in an economy ruined by 24/7 allied air raids, but even more stupid, they DID HAVE fighter jets since 1939 but chose to ignore the huge advantage of these and when they realized how good they were, was already too late... they lost the war and the russians were in Berlin.
The tiger was on paper in 42 and was rushed in and had one on the battlefield mid 42 i work on tigers well just one but I am helping getting the second one driving
Truly a terrifying thing of beauty! Great reel as usual with relevant details to boot. Keep up the very commendable work ; it's most appreciated. 👌
Thank you very much!
Logically the best tank used in action. It's fear factor and inflicted damages remain unmatched by any other tank today. And German ww2 tank aces remain the best of the best even to this day, thanks to the Tiger.
Yes that statement brings Michael Wittman to mind. Perhaps a natural warrior of tank warfare.
The Ferdinand/Elefant may come to the party.
The Tiger 1 , Tiger 2 and 128MM Hunting Tiger were the best and most monstrously beautiful tanks to grace the battlefields of WWII.
Great stuff, as always, thanks.
My pleasure!
EXCELENT , INFORMATIVE VIDEO
A very inforamative well balanced video. Great job.
Glad you enjoyed it!
On early production versions of the Tiger maximum turret traverse was limited to 6º/second, whilst on later versions a selectable high speed traverse gear was added, There are videos of it making a full rotation in 30 seconds. Interestingly the Tiger II while having a even larger turret and gun was even faster.
The kingtigers were pretty nimble for how big they were.
The Tiger II also broke down even more often than the Tiger I, though less often than the Panther.
To be honest, the Germans were hardly unique in building heavy tanks that didn’t work: the KV/IS series and the M26 Pershing also had severe reliability issues. In fact, just about any WWII tank that wasn’t the M4 Sherman had significant reliability issues (in some cases by choice, as with things like the T-34 where sheer numbers were more important than reliability).
@@bkjeong4302 Very true, The Pershings were even withdrawn in the Korean war due to reliability issues.
@@bkjeong4302 There is no actual evidence that the Tigers were less reliable than the Sherman. Shermans broke down en masse during road marches, too. The main difference were the circumstances they were fighting under - the Allies had a very safe supply line and air superiority. Both Tigers had a readiness rate of 73% from May 1944 til the end of the year - the same as the Panzer IV - and many of the big cats were sidelined due to combat damage, not only mechanical breakdowns. There are no stats from WW2, but in Korea the M4A3E8 had an average readiness rate of 80%, the M26 Pershing 65% -and USA and its allies had almost total air superiority.
czcams.com/video/bBni1Nd9Ez8/video.html
czcams.com/video/Pz3r5WVJ91Q/video.html
Stats from Normandy showed that the Cromwell was slightly more reliable than the Commonwealth Shermans.
@@bkjeong4302 Pz III and IVs were pretty reliable, same goes to the Czech ones.
I think it also has to do with the crew just as the tank’s itself.Germans always gave their most experienced veteran tank crews to Tigers.
During the late stages of the war tanks like Panzer IV and Panther(especially the ones at Western Front)mostly received inexperienced fresh conscripts who only received a couple weeks of training which caused German tanks to perform rather underwhelming against Shermans and other Allied tanks.This is also why Panther is less iconic and lesser known compared to Tiger I despite being a superior tank at most aspects,most of them were basically crewed by a bunch of teenagers that had little experience from 1944 onwards.
Wrong. Tiger Units got the same replacements as you do in any army. If your name was at the top of the list you were sent.
Agree on the crews, but the Tiger 1 was undoubtedly overall superior to the Panther.
Tiger pros:
Overall much thicker and better quality armor - the much thicker turret front and side armor especially important.
Guns in the same ballpark; Panther slightly better at short to medium range, equal at long range, Tiger slightly superior at very long range.
Tiger much better HE round, could carry more ammo and gun had much longer barrel life (6000 rounds vs. 2000)
Much roomier - the Panther paid a price for that sloped side armor.
Both had excellent offroad mobility, Tiger compensated for heavier weight with a more advanced transmission.
Much better and durable final drives.
Slightly more reliable.
Fully combat ready more than a year before the Panther.
Panther pros:
More effective upper hull front armor.
Much cheaper
Lighter
Faster
Easier maintenance
Beautiful video
Over Engineered and expensive but no way overhyped. Tiger Phobia was a real thing. Michael Wittmann almost single handedly threw the invasion back to the sea and Otto Carius turned his tiger tank into an Anti Air Craft gun with a confirmed kill.
Hi hi you must be american ,because for them everything beyond leaf springs and cast iron is overengineered (:-))
@@michaelpielorz9283 Ja. Icht Amerikana. Rest a sure kameraden, nobody here in the states is cheering and saying how awesome a Sherman was lol. Just how many we made and that the tiger could put many holes in a sherman before it ran out of ammo.
The definition of "over-engineering" is basically "doing too much for little or no gain". What shortcuts could they have done with the Tiger, and it would still have been the same tank?
@@bber45 the M4 was awesome. That it not had the most firepower or armor, does not mean it wasn't awesome. Anyone could drive it, easy to repair/maintain, easy to escape when the tank got hit, essy to produce, very reliable, very versatile.. The M4 was the perfect tank, and because of the share numbers of it, it won the war, together with the T34. The Tiger might have been better in some areas, but sheer amount always wins over size.
@@wilco300674 Nobody at the time, certainly not its crews, thought it was "the perfect tank". That it won by numbers, says much more about the capacity of US industry than the tank itself. A Panzer IV, Cromwell or even T-34 produced to US standards and numbers would have done the same job,
very thorough
Tiger kill count vs. other tanks was high despite only around 1,300 Tigers being produced.
Effective? Yes.
Expensive? Yes.
It's the 88 u can hit a target with very minimal aim for height, the muzzle velocity is insane
Tiger I and Tiger II and the Panther plus all STUG variants were things of beauty!
Good stuff👍
Tiger - Awesome whilst it worked, but that's the problem - "whilst it worked".
Great video,,my fav tank
Mine too!
Actually a poor video with a computer voice and badly researched! For example they did not use interleaved road wheels for higher cross country speed it had to do with the weight if the vehicle and ground pressure per square inch! This needs to learn about engineering!
10:47 the tank crew that was told you’ll be the one distracting the tiger 😳
lol!
Look at those beasts!
Love the tiger tank it's was a most beautiful tank that ever built
Your origin story is not correct, Tiger I was NOT created in response to T-34/ KV 1. With Hydraulic steering and advanced suspension, it was better than many other tanks on cross-country. All tanks had issues with radiators. When correctly employed with trained crews the kill ratio was outstanding.
You're correct. The Tiger project was under way long before the Russian tanks were known about. They only influenced the final design choices.
The Germans came across the French heavy tank called the Char B, and knew they needed a upgrade.
@@user-ot1eb6mt4k And the Matilda.
Correct. The Panther was the response to the T-34 and KV 1 tanks. The Stalin tank (and the T-34/85) was the Russian response to the Tiger I.
Of course Germany was designing a new tank before invading Russia, but it was till facing KV1s an 2s that the tiger became equipped with a few extra tons of armor and it's lethal 88 gun... It literally wouldn't have been the same tank if not for the Russian awakening so yeah... It was actually created in response of Russian armor...
Excellent piece of history. Even today German engeineneers are more than competitive.
Too bad the Allies had air superiority
Really lovely and strong one.
The Best
The Beast
The Tiger
My favorite tank.
Can you imagine how cramped it was when locked down????
@@daviddoran3673 Not So, do some research.
@@daviddoran3673 Actually, because of its size the Tiger was quite roomy for a tank. If you want to talk about cramped that would be the T--34.
Me too, but 4 Stug lll for 1 Tiger !!! What a loss...
@@keithallver2450 t-34/76 to be specific. 0 room in the turret.
It's ironic that the thumbnail image of this video - the white tank with the title written over it - is NOT a tiger at all.
It's a modern replica, and not a very good one.
Very good
People forget that Germany only produced 1200-1400 tigers. Almost 2” of frontal armor, an 88 mm gun. A very formidable tank. Imho, anyone serving in the tank Corp on either side must have had balls of steel. I bet it was terrifying.
Great action videos. But poor data details. In one segment you claim 80,000 T34s were built then later 40,000. Such errors make all your statistics suspect. A real shame for an otherwise good video.
It was a really great tank, when it reached the battlefield of course
It did. When maintained properly, which took more time and effort compared to medium tanks, it worked very well and was reliable.
Nice to see cheap propaganda still working
@@ottovonbismarck2443 HAHAHA no the tiger had so manz problems
@@sches9519 no after being resolved they were reliable machines
@@badbotchdown9845 what ? The tigers problems went throuout the war
A beauty of steel.
What is the point for Germans to build 10.000 Tigers? They didn't have enough fuel to run those 1300...
Well said.
It's to impose fear to allied soldiers
@@johnxina4906 Why would that happen? As there actually be no more Tigers in use at the front lines.
Military hardware isn't used that way. To give you an example, by the end of 1944 the Soviets had over 35,000 tanks overall. However, the number of tanks actually assigned to units and used was far less--from a bit over 12,0000 to 15.700. So the Soviets had at least more than twice, and maybe upwards of three times the tanks they actually used.
Why do armies do this? One, you don't usually have the trained me to use all your hardware at once; two, you may not have enough support staff (mechanics and stuff) to use all of it at once, and three, having a surplus allows you to re-fit and re-built units depleted in combat quicker.
This doesn't apply to just tanks, other hardware follows the same rule. A USAAF heavy bomber group full strength was 21 B-17s or B-24s, but in fact they had considerably more planes and men than that. Not every crew flew every mission, and there were plenty of "spare" bombers kept in reserve. So after a tough mission where several bombers were lost or badly damaged, and several crews were lost, the group could launch another full-strength 21 bomber mission using its 'spares'. In fact, a group might be able to fly through several 'tough missions' like that and still keep putting up its full combat strength.
Tiger1 is no doubt best heavy tank in ww2.
The Tiger Tank even looks terrifying today.
I had many family members who were in WWII. I heard first hand how much what they called the big 88's, and how much is put fear in their voice
Me too. But other side🇩🇪
What country you from?
A great piece of engineering the problem was it was too high maintenance for it's own good
The downside to the Tiger was it cost as to build much as 9 Sherman tanks. This means the Tiger needed to achieve a 9:1 kill ratio just to reach economic breakeven. But given the Allies overwhelming economic advantages, simply "breaking even" at 9:1 would be a losing trade for Germany. Over 50,000 of the inexpensive, easy to build Shermans were made. In contrast, only 1,347 of the prohibitively expensive Tiger I were built. The Tigers were so costly to build they could never be produced in large volumes.
The Tiger cost twice as much as a Panther, which cost about the same as a late war M4A3/M4A3E8.
On the Eastern Front, the Tiger had a kill to death ratio of about 10 kills to 1 death. My great uncle who served with the 2nd SS Panzer Division witnessed such a performance at Kursk.
At Kursk it was almost 17 to 1...
Respect for your uncle! All German warriors against world communism and demonic allied are true heroes!
You should be very proud.
I'm reading , Ratio 10 to 1 ... .Ratio 17 to 1 , wow ! . And in the end after all those killings by the superior German tanks , the same superior Germany's tanks lost at Kursk . Lets not talk about operation Bagration .boy hoo boy those superior tanks really got their ass kicked .
@@lassekristensen385 Ah yes, the Germans. Losers of two World Wars and now basically soft pacifists.
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what the orator was describing. Professional class A research project. Berlin didn't do a very good pre war espionage job. Suddenly encountering the Russian T-34 tanks. On the battlefield wasn't a good environment to encounter massive amounts T-34s.
no it was designed in 1938 as a heavy assault tank
That was the best tank back in the day
Underated
Panzer 4 75mm Gun was exellent
The late-war KwK 40 L48 was a very effective gun with reliable ammunition. More than adequate for anything found during WW2 at reasonable combat ranges.
I also feel that up gunning the Panther V with the Tiger's 88 mm, a 10.5 cm or 12 cm gun and a bit more armor would have been useful. As they were designed with that capability in mind. Such a Panther with a GT-103 1100 shp gas turbine would have been a serious problem
The 75mm was a superior anti-tank weapon compared to the 88mm. Greater penetration and velocity, which made it easier to aim with it's flatter trajectory.
Panther turret was too small to take the 8.8cm. You have to have enough room from the breech to the turret rear for the round. Panther did not.
Panther2/E50 planned and PantherF produced with Schmalturm 75mmL70 and also with 88mmL71 [ Daimler-Benz late war 1945]
@@michaelkenny8540 Actually it was not too small. There were several experimental designs involved with this very idea. For production all that was necessary would possibly be required is a redesigned turret
@@lesterbeals1443the Panther's gun had slightly better penetration at short to medium ranges, at long they were equal and at very long ranges the 88mm L/56 had slightly better penetration. The heavier 88mm shell had a better ballistic shape and kept the velocity better at long ranges compared the Panther's Panzergranate 39/42 which was optimized for defeating sloped armor.
The Pershing tank showed up too late to make a difference in Europe but it shocked the North Koreans when several Pershing tanks suddenly appeared in defense of the Pusan perimeter. The Pershing’s larger gun had no problems penetrating the T-34 armor.
Too bad for them it hadn’t “further accelerated” more production on long range bombers, less Tigers, more Stugs!
Production numbers quoted keep changing during the video
The forerunner to the modern MBT.
The Tiger project was started in 1936 as they asked for a heavy breaktrhough tank aound 18 ton with the 75mm gun. I predates the experiences of France and Russia. However it is true it was regularly changed to fit new requirements and ended up being 56 ton and the 88mm gun. But it wasnt initially ment to counter any tanks you mention, but to act as a break through tank to take over from the stop gap pz4 short caliber 75mm as that was a temporary solution.
Germans knew how to make good looking Tanks.
Good looking means balance and right proportion. Same with human or animals.
@@maxsheng8215 Yep...Germans knew how to make good looking Tanks
Looks had nothing to do with it; form followed function in all cases.
@@TaeussKramme That wasn't my point. The Sherman was built for function but is Fugly.
@@ekspatriat I'll go with that provided you realize that their original task was infantry support and not fighting other tanks, hence the puny and ineffective 75mm M1 gun.
The Panther was more of a response to the T34, with the sloped frontal glacis.
A superior response, at that. The Soviets used sound designs and prodigious production numbers -which led to appalling losses- to win in the end at losses that are grisly.
The original Panzer VI was probably really a good tank. It seems to have had fewer of the Konigstiger's reliability issues, albeit inferior armor and inferior cannon.
Just one Tiger 1 is running today...I think Kubinka has a static model also.
@@daviddoran3673 Apparently there are nine examples in various parts of the world, but 131 the only running one. Can’t remember where I read it, but another Tiger 1 is being restored to be run again.
@@kungfuwitcher7621 I hope they can make enough parts!
@@stewartmillen7708 Hope so. This is the place and a lengthy vid but put together with different parts. czcams.com/video/MnZ2VBO7vao/video.html
@@daviddoran3673 geez only how many were made ....compare the numbers and no kidding there will other tanks around and running...sheesh
They should have built more hetzers and panthers or stugs..
The stug had 20,000 kills. The highest kill ratio of tracked vehicles I believe.
thats just wrong
@@sches9519 Which part? Building more Hetzers and STUGs or the 20k kills? STUGs did, in fact, kill more enemy tanks than any other conventional tank. Off the top of my head I can't verify the 20k part but it was a huge number all on their own. The Soviet archives now show total Soviet losses to be in the tens of thousands and I think that it is fair to say that anything hit by a Tiger stayed dead. Rebuilding usually wasn't a viable option.
40,000 Sherman tanks vs.1,300 Tigers.
Just wait until the Tiger gets stuck and burns out the transmission.
The name Tiger struck fear into any WW2 Veteran. PKW 4 often resembled a Tiger with the side skirts on the turret.
The big German Tank Aces loved the Tiger 1.
I still have PTSD from the battle of Caen in CoD2 because of the Tiger 1
Definitely underrated. The allies absolutely hated it.
So how was it "underrated" if it gave the Allied tankers facing it the willies? Seems like it was doping part of its job. The other part was destroying the opposition.
I've heard the tiger needed three trucks to follow it. A fuel truck, a truck with spare parts and a third with mechanics to fix them when they broke down. Another major problem was most roads and bridges couldn't handle their weight.
Three major problems with this tank. First they only produced about 1900 between the Tiger and the disaster Tiger 2. Both of these Tanks broke down very often. The engines were under strength for the weight of these Tanks. also they used a lot of petrol . The upgraded Mark IV Panzer would have been a much better way to go as they were very reliable and once fitted with a long barreled gun . They could penetrate anything the US or Soviets had in large numbers at the time.
The Germans used them incorrectly because of Hitler. Most times when the Russians broke thru, the Germans would rush in the heavy tanks to seal the gap. This used alot of fuel and wore out the engines/transmissions. On the few occasions they dugin the tanks and waited for the Russian breakthru to reach them, the Germans crushed them. Hitler decided the morale of the troops needed to be boosted with the appearance of Tigers at the front , and it was boosted, but at great cost.
You can add the weight of these beasts, they were logistic nightmare for a limited use on few terrains...
The Tiger 1 had a power to weight ratio equal or better than most Sherman variants, and it used as little fuel as a late war M4A3. A heavy vehicle with good power to weight ratio will often use as little as a light vehicle with poor power to weight ratio. The Tiger II was clearly underengined, though. Both Tigers were relatively reliable.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Source?
@@nickdanger3802 The Tiger had a fuel capacity of 540-568 liters, and a max road range of 195 km = 2,8 - 2,9 liters per km.
Depending on variant, the Sherman had a fuel capacity of 522-662 liters, and a max road range of 161-241 km, again depending on variant = 2,7 - 3,2 liters per km.
The late war Panzer IVJ had a fuel capacity of 670 liters, max road range 320 km = 2,1 liters per km.
Different production numbers were given within this video for the Tiger I and T-34.
One of the best Doc about the "Panzerkampfwagen VI / Tiger I.... most of the Docs i have seen overhyped or underrated the Tiger I.... Let's be honest after 78 years, the Tiger was an excellent Tank but, like all other Tanks, it was not made for all combat scenarios...
RAF rockets were primarily used to destroy tiger's not in a direct head on tank to tank battle as being portrayed one tiger survived 272 hits with damage to transition it travelled back 40 miles back to German lines
If you read T&TTs ... It is reported that a Tiger could be destroyed by a 57mm AT at 500 yards. Out of 20 or so rounds 5 penetrated the side turret and exiting the other side, and hull penetrations, even at 15 degrees. The Tiger did not have face hardened armor unlike all allied tanks.
It's self-evident that Germany's Tiger was by far the greatest tank in WW2. There was no match in a tank v tank battle for Tiger from the Allied counterparts, Russia's T-34, USA's Sherman or Britain's Churchill.
Making the Tiger more menacing was the well trained crew.
You could say that in an open field battle one Tiger could normally outgun at least 5 opponents.
How significant was it?
Production for tiger 1 and 2 was less than 2,000 total.
M4 tank over 49,000, T34 about 55,000 (35,000 with 2-man turret).
USA and Britian built more 4 engine bombers than Germany built AFV's.
At 29.44 Total AFV production all nations 1945
czcams.com/video/N6xLMUifbxQ/video.html
@@nickdanger3802
I was only refering to the best individual tank.
Of course wars are ultimately decided by the war potential = human and economic resources
(the latter = arms production totals).
In 1944 tank production totals were:
Germany 17 800
Soviet Union (Russia) 29 000
USA 17 500 (but in 1943 it was
29 500)
Britain 5 000.
So the Allied produced approximately 3 times more, and this was the case also in military aircraft etc.
So overwhelming superiority for the Allied against Germany; and much more, and with only taking into account USA, versus Japan.
The figures were taken from Paul Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000.
??? One, you're comparing a 60-ton heavy tank to 30-ton mediums. An apples-to-apples comparison would be against the US M26 Pershing and the Soviet IS-2, both of which were very likely to win a one-on-one with a Tiger, and moreover the IS-2 could even take on a King Tiger with reasonable chances of success.
Why was it the best? Didnt the germans lose the war? Didnt 76mm shermans and 85mm T-34s take their ass to town? That "5 shermans to 1 tiger" myth is total bullshit. 75mm hvap was more than capable of dealing with tigers, and numerical advantage assured that the tiger would be destroyed in that engagement. Over 90% of the tigers were lost during the war, not after it. I agree that it might take 5 shermans to tow a broken tiger out of the way since it was so heavy.
@@stewartmillen7708 The Pershing was barely a WW2 tank (only some 20 saw action from late February 1945) and had unsurprisingly many teething problems, like all new tanks. The IS-2 was great on paper, but had a ton of limitations which reduced its value in tank vs tank combat. It was still, by far the best heavy tank the Soviets made, followed up by the utter disaster the IS-3.
Tigers in another country :🐅
Tigers in Germany:
I would be interested to know if there are stats for tiger1 and panther5 losses by type. ie: other tanks, AT, Air... my guess is air took out a larger number especially in the west, (breakdowns probably being the highest haha).
If they had good air cover these tanks really would have made a huge difference.
I think you are correct- breakdowns/mechanical failure was the leading cause of loss followed by losses to air power.
Slightly less than 1,600 Tigers were lost to all causes during the war, about 750 to combat, the rest to various other causes. About 300 were lost in tank vs. tank combat, many to various tank destroyers or assault guns - 50-60 of these in the West. Airplanes and artillery outright destroyed few Tigers, but damaged many - 10-15 were destroyed by heavy bombers in the carpet bombing before Operation Goodwood, where also a few probably were destroyed by the battleship HMS Nelson.
Out of 126 Tigers deployed in Normandy, 69 were lost in combat; about 30 to tanks/tank destroyers (between 5-10 to Fireflies and M10 17pdrs), up to 15 to heavy bombers, the rest to AT guns and a few to infantry. Most of the rest were lost during the retreat from France.
The percentage of Panther losses is pretty much unknown, but probably follows the Tiger trend - many were lost when German units retreated.
@@TTTT-oc4eb The question is, how many of those Tigers/Panthers destroyed on the retreat were actually combat losses? The Germans only recorded tanks that they could not recover as "losses", even if the pieces could be picked up off the battlefield and the whole tank had to be shipped back to the factory to be rebuilt, it "wasn't a loss!". So many of German tanks destroyed by their own crews could be because of significant battle damage that wasn't easy to repair and in fact the tank might never be repaired.
This is the problem of German bean-counting metrics, it tended to minimize apparent German losses compared to say, Soviet metrics, where anything that takes a tank out of action is a "loss", even if it's minor and the tank is back into action a day or so later. That's why Soviet losses look so huge, and in fact a Soviet unit would "lose" more tanks than it had to begin with during an operation (say, X tank army starts out with 800 tanks and "loses" 1000 during a campaign, you have to remember that most of those "losses" might have been minor damage, mechanical issues, or mishaps, with the bulk being quickly returned to service. By contrast, the German bean-counting methodology often gave the impression that a tank unit was still a formidable force (a handful of losses) when in reality it had been reduced to a handful of tanks.
This, I believe had an impact on the course of the war. Hitler is often accused of ordering units that existed only on paper, but maybe this is because the way losses were being reported (and minimized) would logically lead someone to a conclusion said panzer division X or Tiger tank battalion Y was a powerful, potent unit, when in fact these were down to a scratch number of vehicles because their real losses were much higher than their reported ones?
PS. 1600 Tigers lost? Are you including King Tigers among these? 1,347 Tiger Is and 492 Tiger II tanks were produced, and the loss rate was 100 % (as Germany lost the war). So the losses should be 1,839 combined, no?
@@stewartmillen7708 Ah, Russian stats - nothing is more reliable than that. I wonder how many tanks the Russians have lost in Ukraine according to their own stats, probably just a couple of hundred?
1580 Tigers lost in the war means that around 250 were left standing when the war ended, but were then sent to the scrapyard, like most surviving German hardware.
@@lincolntravelconcierge4846 Incorrect. Given there is no data supporting your belief can you explain how it is you came to believe this lie? Have you perhaps such an emotional attachment to the myth of the Tiger that you need an excuse to explain away its failure?
BOTH !!! 🧐
Well with less people to fight on the German side it was the best tank for them even with the break downs. But it still sucked to have to take one out by numbers then by a real tank that could take it on.
If you are saying Tiger 1 being a first MBT then my friend you're not wrong!!!
Having perfect speed , perfect penetration ,
One shot killer ,
A wonderful armour And....so on .
But one problem is
The crew itself they don't have capability to control
this fierce tiger
Huh?
I love the tiger so much i have a tiger tattooed on my chest and stomach it a battle seen and it hurt but looks good
The MAJORITY of German tanks were Panzer Kampf wagon 3,4 and tank destroyers Sturmgeschutz 3. BUT PSYCHOLOGICALLY, THE TIGER WAS FEARED. And numerical Panthers were respected.
Stug III got high score 🎯
The best tank
Possibly. I might pick a Panther late G or F variant instead.
Without this tank. We would not have the Abrams M-1 and the Leopard. I can only imagine if they had waited two more years to start WW2. And had time to develop her with the auto-loaders. A better engine. And Armor and had built 15,000 of them. WW2 would be totally different too
They never worked on an auto loader for the Tiger I; the engine was terrific; it was the final drive that usually did it in. Read my earlier comment on steel/workers/factories as to building 15k of anything.
I can't understand why TVI Tiger had a vertical front armour isntead with an angle!! This could do that tank even more strong again hitts!!
No T34 and KV were initially in German 's minds for starting Tiger1. Battle of Arras 1940 show advantage of Matilda2 tanks against pz38T,pz3 and initial version of pz4; it this battle also German's 88mm gun served as excellent antitank gun. Development of non-sloped Tiger1 started before 1941 as answer to Matilda2 and B1bis tanks.
im genuinlz surprised whz people still think that the tiger was developet against the soviets when it saw combat well before it
Arras showed armour had to be fast moving ,or even moving at all !! some brits will never admit Matildas werent Tigers at all.The Matildas and the Chars got their asses kicked but like the charge of the light Brigade brits called blunders heroic action (:-))
@@sches9519 You are wrong. The first actions of Tigers were up near Leningrad in late 1942. The invasion of the USSR had been ongoing for more than a year.
@@daveybyrden3936 no the panther 4 were the german reply for the t34...tigers were already in desgin and made before...maybe first action
@@daman9780 The Tiger's first action was on 22 September 1942. Source : "Tigers in Combat volume 1"
The Germans made excellent weapons, and some say they were over engineered, hard to work on, and the parts were hard to get during the War. When the tanks broke down, usually the crews just abandoned them.
more than a handful of parts, beyond leaf springs and cast iron =overengineerd (:-))
Or when they ran out of gas which was often.
Unfortunately true, though the German tank recovery teams and the repair crews did phenomenal jobs on returning damaged tanks back to service.
@@michaelpielorz9283 Try and build anything effective as a tank with those parts!
Tiger was powerfull machine but Panther and Stug 3 were better tank killers
Not per tank, far from it.
@@TTTT-oc4eb no, but maybe in the sense of resources expended. The opportunity cost of these heavy tanks is another matter.
@TT TT the stug 3 out shone and tripled the kill rates and ratios of the nearest panzers.
Look it up .
@@lukeskywalker3329
9,000 StuG IIIs were credited with 30,000 kills.
1,800 Tigers were credited with 10,000 kills.
Now, both these numbers undoubtedly includes a lot of overclaiming, but you get the general idea. Per unit the Tigers were more effective.
Anti tank guns are true tank killers.
The average time for a Sherman to be out of action after being hit was 3 days. When a tiger was hit it was out for the remainder of the war. Part of that was due to the fact that the allies were pushing forward overrunning destroyed tank. The Sherman was a lot easier to maintain and the Americans did a wonderful job of salvaging
"tiger would be out for the rest of the war"....lol that has to be the most idiotic comment i have ever heard!!..sherman out 3 days?....the germans had a name for the shermans when they were hit cause they were done...."Ronsons
Notorious for their flammability, Shermans were nicknamed “Ronsons” after a lighter with the slogan “lights every time.” The Sherman tank's primary role was infantry support, spearheading attacks as well as bolstering defensive positions.the most tanks the germans produced for the entire war was 46,000 tanks give or take including panthers and tigers...the american alone produced 50,000 shermans and overall 86,000 tanks....never mind the russains the english the french ...give your head a shake 1 nation vs how many others?? it was shear numbers not equipment
@@daman9780 How the fuk would the Germans know what Ronsons slogan was???
@@nickdanger3802 What did Germans call Sherman tanks?
The model proved itself somewhat effective against German Mk II and Mk IV Panzers, but it was thoroughly outclassed by the Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger tanks. Notorious for their flammability, Shermans were nicknamed “Ronsons” after a lighter with the slogan “lights every time.”
@@daman9780 Source?
Out for the remainder of the war? And yet there are so many photos of operational Tigers with repaired hits...
Guderian wanted Panzer 1V's with the Long Barreled 75mm high velocity Not the Tiger. Panzer 1V was more reliable and more maneuverable than the Tiger and was a great counter to the T-34.
And you could pen panzer 1s with infantry anti tank rifles.
@@konosmgr Panzer 1? I think you meant Panzer 1V (4). There was a solution for the anti-tank rifle The Germans hung steel skirts on the sides and also steel mesh which caused the anti-tank rifle shell to tumble and not penetrate the side armor
@@schwatzy6362 It's IV not 1V btw.
@@konosmgr I didn't say btw. I meant panzer 4
@@konosmgr as far as I am concerned Roman numerals are from the English Language They are symbols V=5, I=1(cap i), l=1 (L without cap), 1=1 (is the number one) Use any in the search bar and you come up with a Panzer 4 So stop being anal.
1:15 .... "against the Allies in the Tunisian desert"
The first Tiger battle in Africa was not in a desert. It was in an olive grove. The density of the trees materially affected the outcome.
Must have been an impressive grove.
A tank is a tank is a tank.
...is a dolt...
What's a millumetre?
A French-bot generated millimeter. Odd but true.
Great video astounding facts 14 min down 1347 tigers build and than only 1715 lost. Now the Germans are pretty amazing but how do you accomplish that??
1347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II were built.
I think he said they include recoveries in that. Germany army recorded losses differently, and often tanks could be knocked out and returned to the field - so technically more than once? Worth them clarifying more though for ease of numbers :D
@@DH-cw9it The Germans didn't count a tank as a "loss" so long as they still held it - in any condition.
@@daveybyrden3936 Thanks Davey, Yeah, I knew it was something but couldn't remember exactly what - I just remember it muddies the waters somewhat when discussing tank losses and kills :D
I beg to differ, the Tigers frontal armor was NEVER penetrated in battle. Only after the war during testing on captured Tigers. Now remember I said FRONTAL ARMOR.
They were "spread to thin" and took too much maintenance to make any lasting impact on outcome of WWII
The Tiger development started before the second front opened in the East. Its best features were its excellent communication systems, ergonomics, optics and aiming equipment. The engine was the most powerful of WWII and paired with a sophisticated transmission, it was very nimble and maneuverable. The ride was exceptionally smooth and off-road performance was excellent (it had lower ground pressure than the T34). The freezing of wheels in freezing mud was never an issue since any tank required the removal of mud when night frost is expected. The mud issue is Allied propaganda that has survived WWII.
The "excellent communication systems" of the Tiger were exactly the same ones in the Panther, Tiger II, the later Panzer IV and even the final Panzer III. Nothing there was Tiger-specific.
The ergonomics were not great. The gunner was in a particularly cramped position and had no exit hatch of his own.
If mud in the wheels was "never an issue" then why did most Tiger crews permanently remove their front outer wheels?
@@daveybyrden3936 I'd also like to know how they removed the mud from between the road wheels as car washes were yet to be invented. Surely you're not saying that they laboriously took off all the wheels each evening? That would be the dumbest thing yet said on this page and there have been some real boners!
@@TaeussKramme Hoses and sticks, I suppose. No, they would not remove the wheels if at all possible.
@@daveybyrden3936 My point exactly! And you'd quickly find that sticks really don't work and hoses aren't available. Inter-leaved road wheels might have solved certain problems but were hardly problem-free.
Main difference between Germany's weapons and those of the Allies were that the Germans tended to over design their machines. While this made for excellent weapons, they would have done better at mass producing a more standard tank (in this instance).
What does "over design" mean? Too complicated? Too simple? Too expensive? Too efficient?
@@daveybyrden3936 for your purposes, too beyond comprehension.
@@jackcade68 So you don't have a clue, then. The Panther was designed to be easy to mass produce and maintain, cost only 15% more than a Panzer IV and roughly the same as a late war M4A3.
Just imagine if they had sloped armor
always puzzled me why they didnt modify it to have sloped armour, too simple i suppose lets just make the kingtiger instead!!
A problem plagued almost unrepairable in the field bastardized Beast... BUTT when it worked it was an awesome Beast
Whose butt?
The information regarding the M4 and the 76mm high velocity gun was incorrect. The 76mm gun found on the "Easy Eight" version of the M4, was more than capable of penetrating the frontal armor of a Tiger at distances up to 1000m.
Nope, the 76mm had severe ammo quality problems.
One of the biggest nail in Wehrmacht coffin.
Huh? Oh right! You're one of "them".
Why do you start off with saying something that is wrong ??? The Panzer V aka the Tiger Tank was developed before Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. the development of the Tiger Tank Began in 1937 So way before the war 😟😟😟
As TT TT so kindly points out the Tiger is the Panzer VI ( even if it was in development 4 years before the development of the Panzer V the Panther began.)
Panzer V is the Panther, VI the Tiger.
@@TTTT-oc4eb I was about to say that.
The last line in this video says that they doubt that another single tank will have as much impact for a another army as the Tiger did. I think the same might be said about the Abrams for the US Army. As modern tanks go the Abrams is the pinnacle just as the Tiger was in WW2.
The M1 also has its flaws.. The engine does not like desert sand at all, sinks easy in the mud. 2 very important things in warfare. The M1 is nice on flat dry grounds without too many desert sans.
@@wilco300674 and which modern tank hasnt flaws?...i would take an abrams over any other tank (Leopard 2 and the new american tank AbramsX would be next on the list)
@@wilco300674 I
While I agree with the start of what you said I'll say that I respectfully disagree on the Abrams because of its gas turbine engine which is overly thirsty and prone to failure when compared to any of the other turbo diesels more commonly found in other modern main battle tanks. It was a weird choice that the U.S. Army simply got used to.
Wouldn't catch me in any tank nowadays now that any moron can point a javelin style top down attack AT missile at you and delete you.
"Ok the plan is as follows: You draw the fire of the tiger, and we engage it from the flanks..."
"Sir, yes sir"
When comes the day, "the tiger and panther were developed as a reaction to the "surprise,surprise" unexpected t34's" story finally becomes one of the past?
Interesting question, depends on the standard for comparison.
By comparison to the Sherman it's a beast, better armor, better firepower etc etc
If I had a section to defend, I d take 6 mark IV tanks over 2 tigers.
6 Stugs would be better!!!!
@@robertbruce7772 STuG life !
How big a "section" are we talking about? Effectively covering a frontage with only two Tigers might prove impossible, but so would six Pz Ivs surviving the unending numbers of Allied tanks. Better to sit in a well-chosen scrape and snipe, surviving the occasional hit while putting paid on the opposition. Pz IVs late in the war were the equal of any Sherman likely to be encountered but they could only do so much.