It had a large enough turret ring to mount the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm gun or even the Rheinmetall 120mm gun as well as store modern ammunition.
Its engine could also be replaced by a turbocharged diesel or even a gas turbine engine.
In fact, the Germans already had several engines developed for the Panther II such as the 900 horsepower Maybach HL234 fuel-injected gasoline engine operated by an 8-speed hydraulic transmission, and the BMW 003 aviation turbojet-derived, GT 101 turboshaft jet engine with 1,150 shaft horsepower output and weighing only 450kg without its transmission, only 38% of the weight of the Panther and Tiger II's standard Maybach HL230 V-12 gasoline engine.
yes, yes, you're an expert on tanks because you play WoT and watch GuP
Justin Hall
transmission, roadwheel interlocking, gearbox, solid steel armor. the turret ring might not be able to handle modern ammunition as well as you might think. upgraded engine doesnt help if it breaks anything connecting it to the road. and armor wise would be a disaster with the advent of composite
Michael Turner
The L7 is a lighter gun. And you're assuming the transmission and gearbox wouldn't be upgraded. And the steel armor argument is shit considering the M60 also had steel.
Robert Kelly
But at that point, it’d be cheaper and more effective to just....design a new tank
The thing is it is massive and heavy even if you upgraded the engine it would still be slow. The frontal plate is somewhere around 190mm effective armor while the turret is around 100. The armor is rolled homogeneous steel. Even with reactive armor packs it would still have a turret that isn't good hull down and will be penetrated by any kinetic penetrator round made after 1960. That gives it a very short shelf life.
Jace Sanders
>It had a large enough turret ring to mount the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm gun or even the Rheinmetall 120mm gun Most retarded thing I've read on Jow Forums in quite a while
Gabriel Gonzalez
>what if Now you have an outdated heavy tank that cant do anything better than the competition and is more expensive than the competition for no gain whatsoever
Jack Scott
It was too slow, big, and heavy to be an effective tank, especially past WW2 when it would be facing HEAT, APDS, and HESH. Sure you could add spaced armour and shit which would help, but then you are just making an extremely heavy tank even heavier.
There is a reason the Soviets never used the IS-7 which was a far superior concept and design for the 1950s than the tiger II.
Joseph Allen
panzer vor!
Caleb Murphy
> not mentioning the experimental, x shaped, air cooled, 16 cylinder, twin turbo, 1300hp, diesel motor that porsche tested for the king tiger.
Robert Myers
And what if you also modernize battleships and bring back gliders while you’re at it
Jack Peterson
It would be a shit tank by modern standards that could perhaps pose a threat on a third world battlefield. Think t55s in use by mudslimes. If you're aiming to upgrade it to the absolute max then it would still be worse than even a decades old leo2/m1/chally ect. while likely being far more expensive. In short it wouldn't work well, but it's still a big lump of metal with a big gun that will pose a threat to infantry/fortifications.
Jack Nelson
Too tall and its running gear wasn't likely designed to cope with higher speed.
The amount of work required to turn the Tiger II into a functional peacetime tank alone would be more then making a new tank. Wartime German and Soviet tanks were built to very low standards as they simply were not going to last very long. Look at the post-war experience of IS-2 and Panther, they broke down far too often to be a reasonable tank to keep in inventory for longer then a few months. Tiger II would be even worse.
The entire hull was overkill RHA, you would have to replace virtually every part of it to get the weight down to acceptable levels. Sure, engine would be no problem ut the TANK part of the tank was hideously outmoded for modern warfare.
Levi Perez
>20 unique replies all crushing you do you feel bad yet for making your post?
It would have fared better against the M-51 than the T-55. Aside from countering one really specific type of tank, it would be worse in almost every other metric, as the Tiger II's armor layout was pretty bad, which led to it having heavy weight for comparatively middling frontal armor and heavier than average, but still useless against modern ammunition sides. For anything except against a Sherman.
Julian Gonzalez
I could think of only one combat function. Parking the Tiger 2 along the iron curtain as part of a neo Maginot line in westGermany Don't treat it like a tank but as afortified position instead. Okay you can shit on me now.
>Frame and suspension can't handle modern diesel engines >Turret ring would shatter with modern ammo >Can you even put a 120 on a tank designed in 43?? >Transmission is still fucked >Gearbox is just fucked >Short of re casting the entire body in modern composite, the armor would get pierced by high grade anti materiel rifles of today, say nothing of SABOT and other fun things
Carter Ortiz
>It would have fared better against the M-51 than the T-55. the sheer weight, low range, and low reliability makes it a terrible choice for the vast expanses of desert combat
if logistics are a millstone in normal combat, they would be shackles in the sinai desert
Gavin Howard
Brits were using hesh already in WW2
Ayden Sanders
Replace it with composite
Xavier Campbell
Composite what, dumbass. Particle board is a composite material. Are you saying we should make wood composite Tiger IIs?
Luis Gomez
Composite armor nigger, you know exactly what I mean and you know exactly what OP means. It would follow the same progression other tanks underwent.
Gabriel Wilson
At that point you might as well invest in a more modern MBT design.
Matthew Lewis
it's not as simple as "replacing" the armour with composite. If you look at leopard 2/cr2/m1 armour profiles you can see that the composite they use takes up an enormous volume. To bring the tiger II anywhere near to their levels of protection it would take increasing the size/weight of the tank enormously and potentially sacrificing internal space (bear in mind you'll need new ammo stowage and space for fire control systems ect.). A composite armour pack like on the leopard c2 or some of those isreali m60s might be a way forward, but even then the issue would remain and I doubt it would be enough to protect against modern KE in any case. The most effective way to increase protection would probably be ERA addons, which would give it some protection vs modern shaped charges but still no KE protection worth mentioning.
In short there is no way to effectively bring a WWII design up to modern standards in terms of protection.
Dylan Parker
You are right but I assumed OP meant logical progression and redesign while still in the same platform. Like the m26 evolving into the m46 then the m47 then the m48 and finally the m60. It's not unthinkable that they might scale down a tiger into an mbt instead of the Panther.
Noah Allen
the king tiger distributes its armour in a bad way
>Short of re casting the entire body in modern composite, the armor would get pierced by high grade anti materiel rifles of today.
Hah, No.
Asher Lee
He's right, not that it matters since AMRs are pretty rare compared to bog-standard AT weapons.
Kevin Gutierrez
OP is a retard, but you're pretty close yourself. A King Tiger upgraded post-war would be used in the 50s and maybe 60s, not the 90s. ERA and composites are a non-issue. Any attempt to keep them useful post war would be all about making them less of a logistical nightmare. The real answer is that even Germany would have figured out that MBTs were the future, and created something akin to the Leopard 1.
Lincoln Diaz
The only tanks of WW2 vintage that could conceivably be brought to modern standards in anything resembling a cost effective manner would be the E8 Sherman, the Pershing, the Centurion, and the T-55 (which really wasn't WW2 era anyways).
Anything German is either too heavy and complex or too small for a modern gun. Pershing could probably accept versions of M60 upgrade packs, but would still just be a shittier platform. Israel proved the Sherman can mount a 105mm gun, it would be alright against lighter tanks, armored cars, APCs and the like. Add some skirts and ERA, maybe Trophy if we're going full meme. Still can't fight other tanks, but more useful than a King Tiger with similar upgrades. Centurion pretty much gets a pass because it's already an MBT chassis, and stayed in service into the 90s with some countries. No reason you couldn't dig one out, slap ERA on it and send it to fight T-55s in Africa. Centurion and T-55 can both be upgraded to a fairly modern standard of B-list tank.
Kayden Powell
Why would a King Tiger be any better against an M51 than a T55?
Carson Parker
So we all agree that if you took a Tiger II after the war and proceeded to replace every single piece of it with a better, more modern version of whatever the fuck it was at a cost far in excess of just designing a new tank from scratch you could eventually turn it into a completely different tank while still calling it a Tiger II and that would make OP happy?
Who said Jow Forums couldn't agree on shit?
Charles Jackson
People get caught up on the tiger II because it looks like a semi modern MBT
Ryder Parker
Well chances are it would progress into something resembling the leopard 2. When you look at all modern western mbts they have all converged towards a pretty similar design philosophy overall, and the difference between them is fairly superficial. In any case a "modern" tiger II with armour, gun, engine, running gear ect. all replaced would essentially be an entirely new tank.
Daniel White
That's true but the models that got it there and the final product would be unique and kino aestheticly which is the reason im assuming OP even started this thread.
Alexander Hall
The double roadwheels kill it though. By the time all the necessary upgrades are made, it’ll be an entirely new tank. Tiger III doesn’t have a bad ring to it. Give it a traditional torsion barred roadwheel setup, powerpack, cutouts for a coincidence rangefinder, even throw ammo stowage into the turret rear and throw in some blowout panels for the sake of it. So all the fun stuff for the time period
Nicholas Baker
Like the m60. You’re onto something here
Isaiah Nguyen
I suppose, but even with the example you gave (m26 to m48/m60) the end result barely resembled the starting point even visually. So really who can say what we would have ended up with aesthetically if germany for whatever reason pursued the tiger series as their mbt post war through to modern day instead of the leopard.
Owen Cook
The frontal plate is 150 mm angled at 55 degrees. I cba to do the maths but I think that's well over 200mm effective vs a lot of rounds. Turret was 185mm flat not 100. Nonetheless that would be nowhere near enough to defend even against 1950s ammunition.
Nathan Cook
I used that line because it looks similar while changing, the same could be Russian mbt evolution from the t34. Has a distinct visual style that while being entirely different still somehow captures the visuals of the previous versions. I think the main turret shape and a few other aspects would live on in newer models. But you are right it's all speculation on what could have been and I think that is what the OP is looking to discuss.
Samuel Rodriguez
Friendly reminder that post war Western tanks are all really descendants of the Tiger concept so you don't really have to think too hard about "what if the original Tiger 1 or 2 was iterated upon?". Only the Slavs have tanks that resemble their own WW2 designs, everyone else has a modern incarnation of good old Nazi Engineering (plus bigger engines).
Lucas Anderson
Literally what Tiger concept
Ethan Long
Big tank Big gun Focus on quality over quantity Then people today put big engines in them so they aren't slow, creating the MBT.
Hunter Myers
>M26 to M48 >Cromwell to Centurion Most nations kept iterating on their own designs and ignored Tiger. The only ones who seriously attempted to adapt the Tiger design was the French, and those projects fell through in favor of lighter designs.
Michael Murphy
>Friendly reminder that post war Western tanks are all really descendants of the Tiger concept the centurion was based on the creation of a heavy cruiser tank capable of withstanding an 88mm shell while still retaining mobility this idea was created independently of the tiger
the M26 pershing was a refinement of the T20, which was intended to make a replacment for the M4, and which they were looking for as soon as the first M4 rolled off the assembly line the M46 patton was iterated on from the M26 from the adoption of a greater engine
the only thing the tiger has in common with post war tanks is that it has a big gun, decent mobility, and can function as a break through tank all ideas people would come up on their own from the experiences of world war 2, rather than copied from the germans indeed, not much of the tiger survived to later tanks
Xavier Watson
>this same fucking post a day ago on war thunder r*ddit You got torn to shreds over there you stupid faggot. What the hell did you think this post was going to get you?
>Tiger was the first tank with a lot of armor and a big gun If your argument is that modern MBTs are descendants of breakthrough tanks, and that the Tiger was the first breakthrough tank, you're an idiot. I mean, you ARE an idiot, but that would make you more of an idiot.
that's literally what everyone has been doing since tanks were invented
Landon Morales
>Char 2C is a breakthrough tank
>the Sturmgewehr wasn't the first salt riffle because a few other designs aimlessly stumbled onto something similar before, even if poorly!
Henry Murphy
All tanks are breakthrough tanks, it's literally why they were invented
Luke Richardson
>Char 2C is a breakthrough tank I mean that's the entire point of the Char 2C, and pretty much every other "heavy" tank, many of which existed long before the Tiger (Char B1, Heavy Tank M6, A1E1 Independent, Neubaufahrzeug, SMK, T-100, T-35, KV-1) >the Sturmgewehr wasn't the first salt riffle because a few other designs aimlessly stumbled onto something similar before, even if poorly! Nice strawman, fag. But yeah, that's still how it works. That's what "first" means. If you want to move the goalposts all around the field then go ahead, but when you're talking in simple, objective terms, first means first. Not "first fielded" or "first well done". First.
>All tanks are breakthrough tanks Well, no. The FT-17 and Medium Mark A were designed to exploit breakthroughs, not make them. The whole "cavalry" and "cruiser" tank concepts were based on this. >it's literally why they were invented this is true
It would not fit the doctrine of literally any military at the time.
Also it'd get fucking shit on by everything in the 1950s.
Thomas Evans
No, every single modern tank is descended from medium tanks, or cruisers if you're a filthy bong.
Connor Thompson
Actually you could argue light tanks, since British cruiser tanks and Russian cavalry tanks both evolved from Christie light tanks.
Levi Davis
Hi
im Syrian army Panzer IV tank. There are 120 of me and i fougth off a series of skirmishes with Israel on the western slope of the Golan Heights. In 1965, Israeli M4 Shermans inside Israel exchanged fire with the Syrian Panzer IVs but the outcome is inconclusive.
>1965 >german guns still killing Jews Well I'll be
Angel Green
>Munich, 1972
Gabriel Jackson
It has a retardedly complex and inefficient suspension and wheel train composition, is way heavier than other countries' tanks with similar protection and firepower, and that's just the issues that are inherent to the design, as there are hundreds of other problems, but these can be solved through further development of the platform - shit quality steel, underpowered engine... But let's suppose that what can be solved has been solved. You still have a complicated wheel train that is heavier than its counterparts and gets clogged by battlefield crap faster. Plus, replacing one of the wheels from the last rows is a punishing experience for the crew. Just this disqualifies the Tiger II from being a viable platform after the war. Even the Germans themselves realised it was bad and went for different designs on their post-WW2 AFVs. Then, there's the issue of weight and size. It's as powerful and less protected than an IS-3 while weighing 20 more tons and being one metre higher. Hell, in 1946, the Soviets started building the T-54, a 36 ton (almost the half of the Tiger II) MEDIUM tank with equivalent to superior protection, similar firepower, while being lightyears ahead of the KT in terms of speed and reliablility.
You'd need to be one hell of a thick headed retard to punish yourself, your army, your national budget and your industrial capacities with King Tigers after 1945. Fortunately, you seem to be one, so that's OK.
Jacob Turner
>the king tiger distributes its armour in a bad way
By having everything the same armor thickness no matter the angle?
Jace Wood
>By having everything the same armor thickness no matter the angle? what did he mean by this?
Nolan Cook
The Tiger II has only 180mm of effective armor on the turret and a whopping 300mm on the hull. This is absolutely idiotic considering 85% of hits occur on the turret in actual combat.
