The Superior King Tiger

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
engagements with the King Tiger.
Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor. Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
enemy armor engaged. There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.
You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.
You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.
IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.
And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!
You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
temporarily shut you up.

Rob

From: (robert arndt)


http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
engagements with the King Tiger.
Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor. Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
enemy armor engaged. There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.
You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.
You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.
IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.
And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!
You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
temporarily shut you up.

Rob

Please note this is a military aviation NG, not a place for you to crow about
the "accomplisments" of a failed system. I can't believe you are bragging about
the Nazis "laying waste" to their neighbours.You are neither an expert on
military aviation or armour, nor have you ever served in any military.

Please throw your tantrums elsewhere.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!

Do you mean "historical" US victories in
Grenada,Panama,Iraq,Somalia,Serbia,Afghanistan and Nowhereistan?

In message , robert
arndt writes
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

Hence the way it won the war...?

If it's too heavy, too unreliable, too thirsty and too hard to produce,
it's a loser even if the handful that make it into combat are
individually dangerous.

Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor.

A *good* design would have taken more account of those problems, rather
than merely wishing them away. Indeed, the Tiger II comes under the
heading of "losing" or "failed" designs precisely because it failed to
cope with the reality of its situation.

There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.

And if a bull had an udder it would be a cow. But precisely because the
Tiger II was a heavy, complex, expensive and thirsty beast, it couldn't
be built in numbers, moved to the fight, or kept in fuel and ammo while
fighting.

You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.

And despite those incredible machines, they still lost the war. Funny,
that.

IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.

Oh, please. Your next paragraph suggests that these German tanks are
barely superior to Soviet-era armour.

And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

I'll take that fight if I have to. I'll certainly take proven equipment
in experienced hands over a force that can't afford to buy new kit,
can't afford to pay its troops and can't maintain what it has.

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test. If you rely on
"well, the Russian tanks might be okay when they're on home ground
fighting outside their capital city with total air supremacy" then they
aren't really that good, are they?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's next?
Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

....as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

hahahaha That was a good one!

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
next?
Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com


Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what a wonder
weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it really was?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

First of all, are you insane?

What is with you? Do you sit up at night and wish Hitler had won or
something?

Anyway....

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
engagements with the King Tiger.

And yet, at the end of the day, all those mass-produced-pieces-of-****
managed to beat the crap out of just about anything that was thrown at them.
What does that say about Germany?

Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor.

Isn't that an indication of the overwhelming stupidity of the German war
planners? Here they were, using limited time and resources building an
enormously thirsty, complex and maintenence-intensive piece of equipment
while in the midst of a fuel shortage and lack of crewmen to operate and fix
these beasts properly; thus ensuring that whatever few made it out of the
factory would not be used to their full operational potential, then promptly
break down with no hope of repair.

Yep, it sure was a recipe for success.

Perhaps the Germans would have been far better advised at that point to
build smaller, cheaper and easier to operate tanks in greater quantities, so
that maybe they would actually be around for more than one fight. I'm sure
that with their obvious technical prowess, they would have been able to
construct a simple, light tank that would have been slightly better than the
Sherman (which is really all it had to be), and could be produced in good
enough numbers to close the tank gap to maybe 5-to-1, and be user friendly
enough that inexperienced tank crews could effectively operate it. Now that
could have made a real difference.

Then again, that is just not the German style. Simplicity and
user-friendly-ness are not exactly on the top of their list; why build
something semi-practical when you can build a crazy, over-engineered
behemouth for the world to marvel at? As the owner of three Mercedes-Benz
auto's I can personally attest to this philosophy. Only a german would
design a car that has the power doorlocks somehow routed through the
transmission. Or make it so that if you want to replace a gearshift knob,
you have to take the entire transmission out.


Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
enemy armor engaged.

And exactly how much Allied armor, percentage-wise, did 1,800 tanks engage?
My guess is that it's in the single digits.

There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.

But that's the point; they were a hopeless endevor. They were certainly fine
machines for the time; nobody really denies that. And given a few more years
of development to work out all of the bugs, and a larger industrial base to
produce more of them, and a better infrastructure and resupply system to
keep them fueled, and more trained specialist mechanics to keep them
repaired, and more trained crews to operate them, and a better rail system
to get them around, and an overall better tactical doctorine, then yes, they
would have kicked some serious ass.

But they didn't.

You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.

Yep, they kept fighting...for Hitler...even when they knew it was over. How
admirable.

You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.

Absolutely. But it was a fools errand. The Germans wasted time and resources
just so they could have bragging rights on the baddest tank around.

IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.

LOL.... nobody is saying that the Leo's are bad tanks. I haven't heard one
person say that at all. They are fine tanks. German's are great (if somewhat
overzealous) engineers. What we are saying, however, is that the Leo's are
totally unproven in combat, and that all final judgements regarding any
weapons system is contingent upon actual combat experience. The M1 series
has plenty of combat time under it's belt, and has performed, by all
measures, splendidly. It is a combat proven system and is a better tank than
the Leopard. It has better armor, excellent targeting systems, and it fires
a better round. Period. You need to get over it.

As for it being 'Europe's premere MBT', what do you expect? It is probably
better than the LeClerc (another parade ground princess), and pigs will fly
before the protectionist European governments buy big-ticket items from the
USA (and they don't need to; their domestic defense industries are
adequate), but you have to understand that the military just isn't a
priority there in Europe. The military is in fact on the bottom of their
list. So you cannot expect a nation which takes a 'military-last' attitude
to produce equipment superior to the USA, which actually may need to use the
stuff at some point.

And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

One tank against the entire russian armed forces? Sure, what the hell....

But seriously, you are just being an idiot now (moreso). The scenario you
just described is pretty much EXACTLY what the M1 tank was designed for. And
you are also assuming that we would not have achieved air superiority before
sending our armor in; which we would havem being that it is the US tactical
doctorine to only send in ground forces after the air is secured. And the
only bigger joke than the Russian army is the Russian air force (well maybe
it's tied with their navy). We don't fight wars with just tanks.

No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts.

LOL... 'confined'... whatever you say. And I'm not so sure that the modern
Russian tank crews are any better trained than the Iraqi's were. Our armed
forces are a total and complete overmatch for any other armed force on the
globe. Period. It's not even close.

Whom do you suggest we attack next? Germany? LOL......

Most impressive- NOT!
You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
temporarily shut you up.

Hahaaa.... so what's it like feeling so inadequate and bitter that you need
make crazy and inflammatory posts on usenet just so that people pay
attention to you?

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what
a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it
really was?

Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some
time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You
might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite
often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45
time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time
and resources that they needed in other places.

A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had
with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites
(the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188
tons of weight in the damned thing.

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.