@MarkBlack. Mr. Wehraboo, a couple of corrections. The Sherman had the highest crew survivability of the war, with an 80% chance of the crew getting out if it were hit. The Tiger, if knocked out, (and it could be, because Sherman Firefly and Easy Eight go brrrrr), the crew would have a significantly harder time getting out of the tank. Tigers were also extremely unreliable and expensive to produce. The Sherman could be mass produced and shipped to the frontlines in a single week. It took the Tiger two weeks to just be built alone. Logistics win wars. And the Sherman, was the king of logistics
@@reapertalon No, survivability is the accumulation of all crew protection measures, that includes signature (don't be seen), silhouette (don't be hit) armor (don't be penetrated) and post penetration (don't be killed).
@@reapertalon In fact the success of the Sherman is the reason why to this day the US stuck to the tank design philosophy of light, cheap, simple, easy to mass produce tanks. *M1A2 SEPv3, 66.8 tons, 27 million USD unit cost* _Hmm... Perhaps the Germans were right..._
@@BEANBOYOBEANITH That went completely over your head. Sherman design philosophy: Cheap, simple, easy to mass produce in high numbers. Tiger design philosophy: Expensive, complex, resource intensive in mass production in low numbers. Now guess which design philosophy of the two above modern Main Battle Tanks follow... The Germans were right.
@@jonny2954 you cant compare a ww2 tank to a tank that entered service in 2017? in ww2, one was made for a scramble of the world fighting itself with low resources and desperation, and the other was made by a worldsuperpower with no actual imminent threat with lots of technological advances… a lot of which came from ww2
The Sherman was 48kmh though and How long does it take the Tiger to reach that though compared to the Sherman... And that doesnt account for Efficiency Either
Вообще довольно странно сравнивать но все же. У тигра лучше броня, скорость, вооружение, живучесть. Шерман более прост в обслуживании, больше никаких особо серьёзных плюсов нет
Не особо правильное решение сравнивать эти танки, тигров мало, а шерманов куча. В бою 1на1 Или 1на2 тигр победит легко У тигра как бы лучше проходимость из за хорошей ходовой В тиграх были лучшие танкисты Германии, в шерманах обычные танкисты
King tiger supermacy ⚡⚡
Bro it was ass 💀
it was jank
Height is not a positive point though
It depends. If you want it to defend, a heavy tank is a good option, it can also be used to attack enemies head on :p
@@Yessev_2asometimes height only matters as a physiological thing. Bigger scarier right?
But sometimes it just makes you a bigger target
As long the Transmission wont broke down and yes the fact that is still a fatal weakness for Tiger Family.
Lemme give a comparison:
Armor-----Tiger
Gun----Tiger
Penetration---Tiger
Mobility----Sherman
Survivability----Sherman
Crew Comfort----Sherman
Reload Speed----Sherman
Reliability----Sherman
Variants----Sherman
Живучесть это к шерману точно не относится, у тигра во лбу 100мм качественной стали😂
И в реальном бою тигр уничтожит любой танк второй мировой
@MarkBlack. Mr. Wehraboo, a couple of corrections. The Sherman had the highest crew survivability of the war, with an 80% chance of the crew getting out if it were hit. The Tiger, if knocked out, (and it could be, because Sherman Firefly and Easy Eight go brrrrr), the crew would have a significantly harder time getting out of the tank. Tigers were also extremely unreliable and expensive to produce. The Sherman could be mass produced and shipped to the frontlines in a single week. It took the Tiger two weeks to just be built alone. Logistics win wars. And the Sherman, was the king of logistics
Oh, and a quick addendum, survivability means the survival of the crew IF the tank was knocked out, or otherwise disabled.
@@reapertalon No, survivability is the accumulation of all crew protection measures, that includes signature (don't be seen), silhouette (don't be hit) armor (don't be penetrated) and post penetration (don't be killed).
@@reapertalon In fact the success of the Sherman is the reason why to this day the US stuck to the tank design philosophy of light, cheap, simple, easy to mass produce tanks.
*M1A2 SEPv3, 66.8 tons, 27 million USD unit cost*
_Hmm... Perhaps the Germans were right..._
cost and resource efficiency,
sherman
Tell that to the 27 million USD 66.8 ton M1A2 SEPv3. Guess which tank design philosophy lives on to this day.
@@jonny2954 the sherman was good cause of how modifiable it was, so pointing out a specific version is a bit redundant
@@jonny2954 also they didnt have the abrams in ww2, war changes?!
@@BEANBOYOBEANITH That went completely over your head.
Sherman design philosophy: Cheap, simple, easy to mass produce in high numbers.
Tiger design philosophy: Expensive, complex, resource intensive in mass production in low numbers.
Now guess which design philosophy of the two above modern Main Battle Tanks follow... The Germans were right.
@@jonny2954 you cant compare a ww2 tank to a tank that entered service in 2017? in ww2, one was made for a scramble of the world fighting itself with low resources and desperation, and the other was made by a worldsuperpower with no actual imminent threat with lots of technological advances… a lot of which came from ww2
Speed
Tiger 1 38km
Sherman 37 km
The Sherman was 48kmh though and How long does it take the Tiger to reach that though compared to the Sherman... And that doesnt account for Efficiency Either
Tiger ist stark!
The Tiger I is actually taller at 3.00m while the M4 Ranges from 2.74m-2.97m.
oh
height=high profile
so you are a walking target
Вообще довольно странно сравнивать но все же. У тигра лучше броня, скорость, вооружение, живучесть. Шерман более прост в обслуживании, больше никаких особо серьёзных плюсов нет
Не особо правильное решение сравнивать эти танки, тигров мало, а шерманов куча.
В бою 1на1
Или 1на2 тигр победит легко
У тигра как бы лучше проходимость из за хорошей ходовой
В тиграх были лучшие танкисты Германии, в шерманах обычные танкисты