Give me your opinions on this sexy piece of metal

probabaly becuase tiger worship reaches insane levels that its mystique far surpasses its actual performance

it was a very specific tool designed for a relatively small niche, destroying many tanks
its large logistical footprint, high cost to make, and impractically large size makes it very inefficient at its job

its easy for people who take "logistics wins wars" seriously to hate it due to its massively inflated reputation due solely to its psychological effects and its tactical influence, when so few were made it did crap all to win the war
tiger worship encourages people to look too closely at irrelevant minutiae like tank to tank combat and individual performance being a good standard rather than important considerations like how the heck do we transport it

its the FF7 of the tank world
more famous for being famous rather than something that actually forwarded the industry

>destroying many tanks

But I love it anyways.

Attached: 1520657837308m.jpg (717x1024, 141K)

This Tiger took a lot at Kursk.
>youtube.com/watch?v=raAx57MHH7k

Attached: image.jpg (4092x2893, 2.31M)

tanks would be better with cute pantsu

Excellent for its intended purpose as a heavy tank, where it would be used to smash a hole in defenses for lighter vehicles, then be pulled back for repair and maintenance.
It wasn't suited to being used as a medium tank where it would spend much longer in combat, exacerbating it's reliability issues.

Excellent breakthrough tank.

Where ever the Germans needed tactical success to translate to the operational level, they sent in the Tiger I heavy tank battalions.

Between 1943-1944, there was really no force on the battlefield that could stand against these Tigers with their Panzergrenadiers and attached artillery/CAS.

They were sent against the Kursk salient, rings, after rings of defenses, kilometers deep, the best prepared defenses in the history of warfare. And the Tigers advanced and broke through, where all the other German units failed miserably.

Jow Forums doesn't like the Tiger I because they are racially inferior mongrels and brain-washed ZOGpuppets.

Attached: 1483900914001.jpg (1525x1672, 1.04M)

More tank porn. Jagdpanther.
>youtube.com/watch?v=wwaCkaxw7So

Attached: image.jpg (800x980, 134K)

>When you could have had 2-3 Pz4s with the bigger gun for the same cost... Waste of previous resources.

And yet 2-3 Panzer IVs could never achieve what the Tigers could.

The survivability of the Tiger meant it could actually take hits from ambushed AT guns and carry on and neutralize them.

Any hit above 45 mm caliber against a Panzer IV meant instant death to half of the crew.

Medium tanks were death traps, this goes for the Shermcuck and Slav Coffin-34.

Attached: 1478991899683.jpg (1012x776, 447K)

This is my favorite tank. I know about its many flaws in design and in use but I love it anyway. Good for deserts of africa, hidden just outside od towns, and big flat area of russia. Its better used as a snipee to outgun the enemy rather than brawl with it.

Attached: 1561015475824.png (500x335, 195K)

>it was a very specific tool designed for a relatively small niche, destroying many tanks

Imagine thinking you're right, but being this hilariously wrong.

>. Its better used as a snipee to outgun the enemy rather than brawl with it.

And yet it was used as a spearhead machine, used to directly fuck-up the enemy and press deep into their rear.

The only problem was that the Panzergrenadiers could barely keep up with the advancing Tigers, especially under artillery.

germans were perpetually on the defensive, and the tiger was almost never concentrated into an armored fist to break through enemy lines

it was always sent a few at a time to defend a strong point against enemy attack, and in this role it suceeded tactically, it could hold well, but failed strategically, it was too heavy to move around from point to point to respond to every threat and many tigers were falling to pieces from having to drive on their own tracks so often

>germans were perpetually on the defensive, and the tiger was almost never concentrated into an armored fist to break through enemy lines

Jesus, that's almost 100% wrong. You can't even fucking ensure 100% certainty on anti-microbial disinfectant, yet here you are, wrong to the last fucking molecule.

All I can say is:

Read Books

Have sex

Attached: 1549569322415.png (450x352, 114K)

based opinion

Will check thread later and will see berlin rape stories posted for sure lol

obsoleted by a drunk welder that put armor plate at an angle

>Give me your opinions on this sexy piece of metal.
It's sexy

One of the genetically deformed mongrels will surely post something related to the RAF.

I'm thinking of spending 10 minutes and developing an Amerimongrel/Slavshit/Britslamic Bingo.

It's fat. Its younger sis is outright obese

Low test faggot.

>And yet 2-3 Panzer IVs could never achieve what the Tigers could.
a single tiger would only be better than 2-3 panzer IVs in a very specific and narrow niche, which is acting as a break through tank, and even then 2 panzer IVs are much better at doing fire and maneuver then a single tiger

panzer IVs are also able be moved around the battlefield quicker and more often to react to threats, whereas a single tiger will only be able to hold a single spot and by the time its moved to the next spot it will need too much servicing to be useful
a single tiger would also be total crap at either cavalry action, and inferior to 2 panzer IVs at infantry support
3 panzer IVs just have much better utility overall than a single tiger

it would have been better overall to build 3000 more panzer IVs than 1000 tigers, especially after 1943 when the defensive nature of the war meant machines were constantly running around meeting enemies, exacerbating the extreme weight of the tiger, as it is not suited to being moved around so much

>inferior to 2 panzer IVs at infantry support
until one or both of the panzer iv's are knocked out by shit the tiger can survive

while armor is nice to have, having infantry support is far more efficient at keeping your tanks alive, and 2 panzer IVs can do much more to support infantry than a single tiger can

like basic bitch 3 inch guns?

That would waste their fuel, tank crews and mechanics even faster.

It's sexy I'll give you that

until one or both of the panzer iv's are knocked out by shit the tiger can survive

>a single tiger would only be better than 2-3 panzer IVs in a very specific and narrow niche, which is acting as a break through tank

Umm, breaking through was the important German tactical maneuver all up until 1945, since the counter-attack was one of the primary defensive attributes of the Germans. So you're wrong.

>panzer IVs are also able be moved around the battlefield quicker

This is also wrong. The Tiger I had a better power to weight ratio, a lower ground pressure and the same road and cross country speed as the Panzer IV.

Maybe pick-up a fucking book fir the first time in your life instead of spreading chan memes?

>a single tiger would also be total crap at either cavalry action, and inferior to 2 panzer IVs at infantry support

This is so retarded it's difficult to address. You've somehow given me diarrhea, please excuse me for a few minutes while I shit myself.

>3 panzer IVs just have much better utility overall than a single tiger

This was never true, and Panzer IVs were never used to offset Tigers in their most critical roles.

Tiger Is were so valuable, entire OFFENSIVES relied on their presence and performance, being personally directed by Hitler.

Please, READ BOOKS, and HAVE SEX

I implore you.

Attached: 1483900914004.jpg (1600x1034, 772K)

Explain to me what the infantry support does.
"We need to advance on this railway"
"Camouflaged AT guns open fire"
Panzer IVs get penetrated and explodes while the Tiger shrugs them off and fires back disabling the AT guns.

>inferior to 2 panzer IVs at infantry support
good thing the germans invented the assault gun expressly for infantry support so that their tanks didn't have to be fucked with it

You really like living in this lie, don't you?
German armor plate was crap and the tiger was extremely vulnerable to any shot other than head-on shots. Avoiding crossfire in a rare tank at the front is a tall order and tigers would regularly get shredded by stationary AT guns from beyond its engagement range

based tank

>the tiger and panzer iv had equivalent armor
ok

Forget it, that dude is a retarded summerfag. He picked up some memes on here and thinks he has deep historical insights.

I'm sorry, but you can't feign knowledge, you have to READ BOOKs.

Start with Otto Carius, an actual user of the tank and he wrote a book:

amazon.ca/Tigers-Mud-Combat-Career-Commander/dp/0811729117

He has no excuse to be this ignorant. Even the dirtiest, shit-smeared poorfag can scrape together 25 bucks and read a book.

Attached: BldF3b6.jpg (981x766, 111K)

considering that the tiger has twice the maintenance staff as a panzer IV, and used up nearly thrice the towing equipment as a panzer IV, and ended up moving long distsnces on its own track anyways, the tiger isn't saving as much men or material as you think

turns out 2 panzer IVs will keep your infanry alive better than a single tiger, and those still alive infantry will keep AT guns away from your panzer IVs

combined arms with infanry will always be more effective than a bigger tank
and 2 panzer IVs are gonna be better at keeping infanry alive for mutual support

>turns out
oh i see. thanks for the evidence to back up your claims

hey didn't want to creat a thread just for this, what type of turret is on the pic?

Attached: p1731996_main.jpg (752x423, 107K)

>This is also wrong. The Tiger I had a better power to weight ratio, a lower ground pressure and the same road and cross country speed as the Panzer IV.
tiger was much heavier, needed special trucks and tracks to carry it, and needed more people working on it

with low strategic mobility, its actual road speed is not a significant factor

United States Army's Ballistic Research Lab (BRL) study in 1946
In total, the study recorded a total of 30 armor vs armor engagements fought between M4 Shermans and the Mk V Panther. The M4 Shermans had a 3.6 K/D

...

hey user thanks for the irrelevant bullshit

>German armor plate was crap and the tiger was extremely vulnerable to any shot other than head-on shots

Excuse me, but go FUCK YOURSELF.

I'm going to take the word of an actual combat operator of the vehicle over some Zoomer faggot on the internet.

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=v-EQJTc-UZs

Attached: Tiger.jpg (1600x1154, 274K)

Claimed or confirmed?

>He has no excuse to be this ignorant. Even the dirtiest, shit-smeared poorfag can scrape together 25 bucks and read a book.
Heh I pirated it. That's the book that made me realize how silly the "just produce panzer IV's" idea is. Every time he wrote about a shell bouncing I was thinking that would have killed an IV and he just took three hits earlier.

>shit everything else
protection was ok, optics were great and mobility a lot better than most seem to think

Attached: 1291180332298doggo.jpg (400x400, 88K)

Those were just fragments from HE and 7.62! Believe me!

Confirmed. Why would they lie?

>Every time he wrote about a shell bouncing I was thinking that would have killed an IV and he just took three hits earlier.
But if there were 5 times more friendly tanks none of those enemies might've even been able to fire on him at all

good for its time but now totally obsolete

for current state of the art tanks see MERKAVA

best tanks on planet earth from USA & Israel

Attached: merkava.jpg (616x347, 38K)

the P.IV was up-armored to at least not get humiliated by AT rifles; both tanks were vulnerable to the most common AT guns on the both the west and east front. One of the tiger aces got blown up flanked by tank killers beyond his engagement range, ffs. Stop spreading your lies and cope, the tiger was not used in combined arms ops because it sucked at them, which is why the StuG existed. The tiger gun was overkill compared to the up-gunned P.IV while its armor, despite being technically thicker, did not offer survivability against greater threats than what the P.IV could brave

Hey, that's a great useless trivial shitpost. Thanks user.

You can head back to Rebbit now. Be sure to HAVE SEX

US victory at the Bocage and Soviet victory at Kursk are your proof, wehraboo

>US victory at the Bocage
yes that certainly showed how the tiger i was inferior since so many were in use against the us in the bocage. i'm checkmated!

>its armor, despite being technically thicker, did not offer survivability against greater threats than what the P.IV could brave
of course. penetration is binary and no increase in armor is necessary over any distance or any angle until you get to user's artificial threshold that will then confer additional protection.

Well lets see they always drove the Tigers in pairs of four. So you want to send 16 panzer IV's against a target. Sounds great if you're fighting in wide areas in africa but they're going to get toasted driving down a normal road with trees and boulders blocking shit.

Imagine being this wrong.

Fucking GREAT gun to say the least.

EXCELLENT tactical mobility and speed, better than shitty-ass Death Box IV.

Frontal armor that gave it protection against most of the Allied AT weapons until 1945.

Excellent crew ergonomics, and automotive handling.

The Tiger I, was unironically the best actual combat tank of WW2.

Pic related. The hilarious bad (((Alllied))) attempts at a similar vehicle. The Britslimes came up with something that was barely an improvement over the WW1 tier land barges.

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-362-2211-05,_Dieppe,_Landungsversuch,_englische_Panzer.jpg (786x498, 80K)

Another (((Allied))) attempt at a heavy tank. This one was marginally better in that it wasn't an outright disaster.

Attached: 1472511623134.jpg (1500x956, 343K)

The US forces went against AT guns and MG nests protected and concealed by heavy foliage, many times having a cross-fire arrangement ready. They won with Sherman tanks and combined ops tactics. Meanwhile, your precious wehrmacht couldn't surmount the same threat at the battle of the bulge and was repelled. Arrogant German tankers at Kursk pushed through without infantry support and either got picked off or had to abandon their armor and flee. No amount of armchair commanding will wipe away history - most of the tigers tested at Kubinka were seized after their crews fled their out-maneuvered fat iron pigs

>US victory at the Bocage

Considering the US faced exactly ZERO Tigers, that's a great fucking point.

Based retard.

Now go ask the Brits how much they liked their encounters with the Tigers around Caen.

They're not so happy, because those Tigers literally held them up for 3 months and murdered literally 10,000 of their soldiers and a few hundred tanks.

Read up on Hill 112 and Operation Epsom.

Also:

READ BOOKS incels

Attached: 1414387023049.jpg (620x414, 95K)

You think those are the only two options? Are they confirmed from German reports too or are they just from US reports where they might have actually counted same Panther multiple times or they didn't count kills for a Panther because US forces didn't see what it was?
Jow Forums is too often shaming Tiger for being soo heavy while these things existed.

>The Tiger I, was unironically the best actual combat tank of WW2.
it wasnt even the best weapon in the german arsenal
its slow turret traverse meant it could not perform infrantry support very well
while the tank was individually tough, it needed a massive pool of support personnel to maintain it, and if these were attacked in anyway the tiger dropped in actual performance rapidly
it needed 3 recovery tanks to pull it out of a crater for isntance

and despite its good tactical mobility, its 55 ton weight meant it was an absolute chore loading into and out of combat, limiting how quickly it could respond to threats

user has crafted the perfect comparison with every variable accounted for, no false equivalence here!

>They won with Sherman tanks and combined ops tactics.

But mostly naval artillery and Zerg-like replacement reserves.

Also, having 70% of the German armed forces in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Italy, Scandinavia and elsewhere, other than France probably helped as well.

Attached: cheauxraurayg1.jpg (680x423, 73K)

>it could not perform infrantry support very well
kek who gives a fuck how the durchbruchwagen does at infantry support?

read Your T-I-G-E-R-S and panthers failed where "plebeian" tanks like the Sherman, T-34, and even the P.IV passed with flying colors

Keep dreaming of your ideal encounter where a lone heroic tiger sits in an open field against a perfect NPC file of first iteration shermans without armor piercing ammo stowed and with no tactical support. Never happened, wehraboo retard

>proof

tank technology is worthless without effective commanders

>its slow turret traverse meant it could not perform infrantry support very well

You just made that shit up, lmao.

> it needed a massive pool of support personnel to maintain it

All good tank units had field repair workshops, including the Allies. The fact Germans were able to recover their tanks multiple times and put them into battle despite losses and being numerically outnumbered are all BONUS points to the German war-fighting capabilities.

The rest of your points are trivial non-sense. All tank units had to be deployed by rail.

You think tanks were supposed to be marched for thousands of kms on their own power?

You do realize the wehrmacht had local numerical superiority in every battle everywhere apart from the final weeks of Stalingrad, and still managed to lose the war?

.
>But mostly naval artillery and Zerg-like replacement reserves.
>Also, having 70% of the German armed forces in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Italy, Scandinavia and elsewhere, other than France probably helped as well.
on average the Us only needed a 2-to-1 tank advantage to guarantee success, which is actually below the conventional logic of needing 3 to 4 to guarantee success

and there are numerous battles where the US got into a brawl with german forces with relatively equal amounts of armor, and even without local air power, the US would trade evenly if not better than their german counterparts

initial battle numbers for ardennes had relatively equal numbers of tanks on both sides, with the king tiger and panther on the german side and no air power on the US side due to fog, and yet US traded roughly 1:1 with the germans

>Sherman, T-34, and even the P.IV passed with flying colors

You mean zerg-rush tactics and catastrophic casualties?

I see you come from the Stalin school of thought.

>yet US traded roughly 1:1 with the germans
and the numbers when we isolate the tigers are...? because those are the only ones relevant to this discussion

You keep demanding stats for a hypothetical "1v1 fite me irl" that never happened. Outside of your imaginary encounters, the tiger was a patently incapable tank. The British landbadge someone else hated on ITT made for a great bridgelaying and sapper support vehicle. The taygrr, not so much

We're talking about the Tiger I you absolute faggot, not some conscripts in Hetzers being BTFO.

>You keep demanding stats for a hypothetical "1v1 fite me irl"
no, i'm demanding numbers that aren't confounded by vehicles that we're not discussing. otoh, numbers keep being introduced purposely for encounters not involving the vehicle under discussion because those numbers are more favorable to user's position

>You keep demanding stats for a hypothetical "1v1 fite me irl" that never happened.

Yeah it did.

Tiger I units squared off in formations with numerically superior but well matched British formations in 1944 and got absolutely BTFO.

And this was with overwhelming artillery superiority and air cover for the Allies. And ability to replace all losses in days.

Attached: SHzHiKD.jpg (1000x750, 240K)

meant to type the British got BTFO

>m4a3(76)w
>British formations

Pic is also somewhat related.

Represents a typical encounter between a medium tank and an AT weapon.

But MUH ESCAPE HATCHES
MUH 1.3 casualties per tank!

>So you want to send 16 panzer IV's against a target. Sounds great if you're fighting in wide areas in africa but they're going to get toasted driving down a normal road with trees and boulders blocking shit.
Or you could have those extra 12 guard your left and right rear flank at Stalingrad Revisited :)

Attached: 10671354_599831650146631_8277081994151585265_n-png.187016.jpg (575x761, 123K)

Canadians got them, so did the Russians

Infact my brain is telling me that’s a picture of a Russian Sherman

That's clearly from the Russian front, dipshit.

Doctrine. Throwing mass swarms of tanks at infantry without friendly infantry results in a lot of dead tanks.

So your anecdotal evidence trumps statistics?

>You think tanks were supposed to be marched for thousands of kms on their own power?
This was one of the main reasons why Soviets couldn't have effectively fought the Western Allies.

>extra 12 guard your left and right rear flank
Actually scratch that, send them to flank the enemy!

looks like an -a3 rear deck to me

>Russian Sherman
>Russian front
>British formations

>But MUH ESCAPE HATCHES
>MUH 1.3 casualties per tank!
it dropped to .75 per tank with the addition of wet ammo racks in 1944

and AT guns were the ones actually at a disadvantage against tanks, because even if they drive back the enemy locally they may still be forced to abandon guns anyways due to dangers of being flanked by a loss elsewhere
hence the focus on TDs during the war

>.75 per tank

correct