Jump to content

King Tiger tank engine starting


Recommended Posts

I'm going to call a bull here. :v

Other nations were just as capable of developing a similiar tank to the Tiger II. However, due to different ideas on how a tank has to operate, they didn't.

 

I'm going to make a claim here by saying that the M4 Shermans and, in some ways, the T-34s were much more effective on the strategic level. (And the strategic level was the most important level in WWII.)

 

Also, great guns and armour don't mean everything. :v

Evidence of that can be found in the early part of the war when the, in terms of guns and armour, inferior German tanks managed to beat the heavily armoured B1 Bis and Matilda IIs, tanks that were armed with pretty powerful anti tank weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to call a bull here. :v

Other nations were just as capable of developing a similiar tank to the Tiger II. However, due to different ideas on how a tank has to operate, they didn't.

 

I'm going to make a claim here by saying that the M4 Shermans and, in some ways, the T-34s were much more effective on the strategic level. (And the strategic level was the most important level in WWII.)

 

Also, great guns and armour don't mean everything. :v

Evidence of that can be found in the early part of the war when the, in terms of guns and armour, inferior German tanks managed to beat the heavily armoured B1 Bis and Matilda IIs, tanks that were armed with pretty powerful anti tank weapons.

 

It's almost universally agreed that the tiger tank was superior to the Sherman and T34. The armour & 88MM gun was definitely superior. It was pretty unreliable and more difficult to produce than it's counterparts on the opposing side... but if you're talking about a straight up like for like comparison; the Tiger was superior. ;)

 

You can make more of the shermans quicker and cheaper than the tigers and therefore strategically, yes they could be considered more effective in a war enviroment, that does not mean that it was a better tank though.

Edited by Shnappz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was most certainly supperior to the Sherman and T-34 in arnament and armour. However, that's not all that matters. I'll make a comparison on what I think is most important to a tank design. For this I will be comparing the Tiger II with the Sherman 76mm and T-34/85. I will note down points from 1 to 3 for each vehicle on different subjects.

 

 

Gun performance:
Tiger II - 8.8 L/71
3 points

T-34/85 - 85mm S-53
2 points

M4 Sherman - 76mm M1
2 points

Protection:
Tiger II - Pretty damn good
3 points

T-34/85 - Alright at first, not that great at the end
1.5 points

M4 Sherman - Alright at first, not that great at the end
1.5 points

 

Mobility:
Tiger II - Sluggish despite the high top speed and wide tracks
1 point

T-34/85 - Very good
3 points

M4 Sherman - Good
2.5 points

_________________________________________________________

Reliability:
Tiger II - Pretty damn terrible
1 point

T-34/85 - Alright
2 points

M4 Sherman - Really good
3 points

 

Ease of maintenance:
Tiger II - Bad
1 point

T-34/85 - Easy
2.5 points

M4 Sherman - Really easy
3 points

Transportability:
Tiger II - Not great
1.5 points

T-34/85 - Easy
3 points

M4 Sherman - Easy
3 points

Crew comfort:
Tiger II - Great
3 points

T-34/85 - Terrible
1 point

M4 Sherman - Great
3 points


Controls:
Tiger II - Pretty easy
2.5 points

T-34/85 - Unusual
2 points

M4 Sherman - Easy
3 points


Life expectancy (Has to do with upgradability):
Tiger II - Bad
1 point

T-34/85 - Alright
2 points

M4 Sherman - Great
3 points



End Result:

Tiger II
17 Points

T-34/85
19 Points

M4 Sherman
24 Points

 

Remember, a tank is not only made by the ''golden three'', Armour, Firepower and Mobility. A lot of other stuff is involved as well.
Also note that part of the King Tiger's as well as the Tiger's success lies with the good crews and the fact that they were introduced when the Nazis were already on the defensive. It is obvious that you're going to get better battle results while on the defensive.

EDIT: Missed the ''Situational awareness'' and ''Radio'' parts. Although I don't think it would have made much difference. Especially for the Tiger II vs M4 contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while the golden three aren't the only things that make a tank effective, you've assigned and *equal* value to all of the other points you've listed, that isn't neccesarily accurate...

 

1 tiger Vs 1 Sherman = Sherman dies, that is undeniable.

 

While reliability and life expectancy are

Important, maybe they're not as important as, firepower, defence and mobility ;)

Edited by Shnappz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

while the golden three aren't the only things that make a tank effective, you've assigned and *equal* value to all of the other points you've listed, that isn't neccesarily accurate...

Could you elaborate?

 

1 tiger Vs 1 Sherman = Sherman dies, that is undeniable.

Overal, yes, the M4 will, most of the times, lose. However, see below.

 

While reliability and life expectancy are

Important, maybe they're not as important as, firepower, defence and mobility ;)

Well, if we go back to the golden three, the Sherman only wins in mobility which would make the King Tiger a better tank, no? If we follow that logic, the Maus must have been one of the best, if not the best tank of the war. Think about that one.

 

The thing is, the golden three might decide a skirmish, but if you sacrifice a bit of the golden three in favour of the, often overlooked, ''soft'' stats, you will most likely end up with a design that may decide strategic fronts.

 

If a tank is not as powerful as its opponent in raw combat is able to make up for it on the strategic level, then that tank is going to contribute more to a war winning victory than the other vehicle. A tank that has a bigger impact on the course of a war is, in essence, the better design, even if it is going to lose in a head on confrontation with its enemy.

 

It's basically the same as to how the T-55 is just as good the Leopard 1 even though the Leopard wins in most golden and soft stat contests. Both tanks are able to contribute more to the war than, let's say, a T-10 or M103 would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ease of maintenance:

Tiger II - Bad

1 point

 

T-34/85 - Easy

2.5 points

 

M4 Sherman - Really easy

3 points

I'm pretty sure the T-34 beats the Sherman in this category. There are stories of broken down T34s being repaired by nearby farm vehicles and the tank itself was so reliable that some armies today are still using it. The same can't be said for the Sherman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the stories about the T-34s being repaired by nearby farm vehicles is true, there are other things one has to consider. :v

Maintaining the Christie Suspension was a pretty hard job.
Switching out a broken road wheel for a Panther one was pretty easy, just as easy as it was to unbold a broken bogie and to bold on a new one.

Also, accessing the engine was harder on the T-34 than it was on the Sherman. :v

 

As for reliability, it was, apparently(?) more common for T-34s to break down before reaching the battlefield than it was for M4s. Although that has most likely got something to do with the manufacturing quality. I could up the score a bit for the T-34 in this area.

 

Also, you're wrong about the Sherman not being used anymore. While it is true that the T-34 will most likely outlive it as an active service vehicle, the Sherman is still in service. From the top of my head I can say that Paraguay still has a couple of them in active service and I know that some other nation is still using (Super?) Shermans. Most nations that used M4s beyond their expected lifetime still had them in service in the '90s, Argentina with their Fireflies and even the Shermans that fought in the balkan wars.
I think that the reason both tanks survived this long in the armies that still use them today/used them until recently is that the nations either couldn't affort better vehicles or simply didn't have a need to replace the vehicles.

(Random fun fact of the day: IIRC, Peru used Panzer 38(t)s in active frontline service until the 1990s.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol... you have serious tank knowledge...

 

TBH i really didn't know what i was talking about and pretty much was going on information obtained through a few google searches... although i think i held my own... you win, i take my hat off to you Nodlied, you know a SHED load about tanks. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JapTank

 

WaveForceArtillery_RA3_Art1.jpg

 

I must say, I don't know a great deal about tanks. But man I could look and drool over them all day long :v:

This has RA3 stereotype tank written all over it, the only way we can be sure though is if you can zoom out and get a picture of the suicide bombing planes and the giant sword wielding robots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...