Looking forward to the Maus chat.

That one you'll be waiting for a long time. The only surviving Maus (Of a grand total of 2 hulls and 1 turret built), is not at Bovington. It's sitting in Kubinka tank museum a while away from Moscow in Russia. As the Maus is not in driving condition, moving it would be quite bothersome.

Jokes aside, many buses in Europe use the system.

F1 cars use hybrid technology with the ERS (Energy Recovery System). Porsche is concidering a role as engine supplier to F1 in 2021.

Richardsen No copper shortage these days.

@@insomniacbritgaming1632 The Pershing was about as good with many of the same faults. The Russians were building a heavy tank as well.

cmkwan59. Yeah. The bloody thing looks like it wants to kill you.

Yeah, until the transmission breaks

@@Bobobo-bo-bo-bobobo just like their cars nowadays. Nothing has changed.

@@dwightehowell8179 Although the Tiger II was more heavily armored, both tanks were quite similar in performance.

@Bres Do you mean... the King Tiger, or are you here to spread the word of religion? And I think you mean... knee, not knew.

@Bres :)

right and about 1200 Tigers and 400 Kingtigers fought nearly 2,5 years with success against 80.000 enemy Tanks.

@@hubsi5263 Yep!

I wish it faced is-2 or is-3.

And deadly. Don't forget what they are actually made to do. To kill other humans as effectively as possible, which is kinda retarded of us.

Even today, almost seventy-five years after they were first produced, the King Tiger is still a fearsome sight and impressive tank. I've seen one up close in person - and they are awe-inspiring.

I would really like to see one in person.

Filip, where do you live? If Europe is closer, Bovington Tank Museum in the U.K. has one. If the U.S. is closer, the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox, Kentucky is probably your best bet - or possibly the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Maybe some other readers can help with other museum sites to recommend as well. Good luck.

I'm from Serbia. Southeastern Europe. There is also one in Belgium. I guess that's the closest one to me. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lZ-Bg9uBqZ2XZ6s.html this is it in case you haven't seen it.

Suprisingly enough thats less than a leopard 2a6 or m1a2 which cost 5.74 million (2a6) and 6.21 million dollars (m1a2). All those electronics must be pretty expensive.

@@paskovalokki6589 True, but you do get a lot more bang for your buck with these modern tanks

geez that's really damn expensive even for the germans

Paskova Lokki it’s mostly the depleted uranium shells and armor that are very costly in the m1a2

@@riseld4 if you take into account the efficiency gained, I don't know, can a "cheap" t54 take out an Abrams if used properly?

He probably thought it was a king tiger. Most gi saw a tractor and thought it was a tiger lmao

Bruh absolutely not​@@dinkelheit88

@@dinkelheit88yeah definitely a tank that doesn’t move

The problem wasn't "design a better engine" - the issue was the needed materials, manpower, and production capacity simply weren't available without negative impact on production of existing engines already in short supply. Same problem for the DB601 and Jumo 004 aircraft power.

@@T1mbrW0lf Most of the weight of the King Tiger was armor, not engine; I doubt materials for a bigger engine were limiting with regard to heavy tanks.

@@psychohist r/woosh

An engine is a complex beast. One can always add more armor, but you can't add "more engine".

@@acceptablecasualty5319 And I do understand that caveat. But my point here is that years of effort went into this vehicle with multiple prototypes of various sizes and complexity with hundreds of engineers and researches and laborer's, with most of that effort seemingly going into what are essentially un-important design details such as turret shape and bickering over the length of gun, track width etc. When it should have been obvious, especially given previous vehicle design failures over the course of the war that the transmission and engine were obvious fail points of their inventory at the time, and that maybe instead of spending time improving parts that are already overly sufficient for the type of war they are fighting, they should focus on engine development if they really wanted to go through with these massive tanks. But this I think highlights the seemingly obvious problem. Germany understands that they don't have the resources to fight an attritional war with several super powers, so they focus on larger more qualitative types of vehicles to offset the numbers of vehicles the allies have, but in doing so means they need large amounts of resources to fund these types of programs and stay ahead of their enemy. Leading to a lack of infrastructure for very important development in things like engines/transmission/differentials etc. and making a huge mess of the supply chain, hence why the allies avoided this type of production in the first place ultimately winning the war.

And the jagdtiger

ghgg no different from what the USA does right now

@Andy Blue Under good conditions like a long Range engagement in open Terrain yes

@ghgg not really, since you can compare the price of a Mauser rifle, Stug III, King Tiger etc. So Yes, a King Tiger was worth 8 late 109, 2 Tiger I etc.

Andy Blue not really, if each say every 4th sherman was a 76, then thats 7 75’s and 2 76’s, they could easily ambush and destroy the tiger by barraging with HE or even AP on the aides.

@Andy Blue you are so wrong bud, 3 Sherman tanks with limited experienced crews can take out a king tiger with experienced crew.

according to teeboos nowadays, no german tank realy ever moved because breakdown. Also Shermans are the best tanks at least some teeboos say that...allied vets,who called their trashca....ahm tanks coffins for 5, got an other opinion back then it seems, but hey lets rewrite the history right?

imagine being a foot soldier seeing that thing waltzing through the city...and you don't have any anti tank gun...

@@drachenoger7635 its only right to rewrite history when its revealed that the initial understanding was flawed. Damn wehrboo....

@@drachenoger7635 The same tank crews kept insisting the tanks they came across were Tigers, when they were almost always Panthers (Shermans were confirmed to have fought a Tiger I once in all of the European theater, and the Shermans won.) They also could have used the 1000 upgunned, uparmored Shermans waiting in Britain for Normandy, but the tankers didn't want them because it made the supply lines tricker and hey, the basic Sherman worked fine right? Then they got there and whined about not having the better tank. Just because they were there doesn't mean their opinions are right.

@@bubbasbigblast8563 the reason why we didn't hear any horror stories about allies tank from surviving German crew is because there isn't any, German tank has a habit of trapping it's crew when the armour gets penetrated and the tank start burning, German tank is even more of a death trap than Sherman is.

I'm holding back tears, this comment is so powerful!

amen

the german tank crews spoke english ?

trycoldman23 *ze

Better than Hans, wir stehen in Flammen.

Vincent Loparo III I acree because the tiger 2 drinks just to much fuel

Yes, that's the joke.

It's clear to me that you don't know much the tiger 2 did drink the fuel tanks of in totaal 860 liters (227 gallons ) give it max range of 110-120 km (68-75miles ) on road an 80 km (50 miles) cross-country so hire,s your answer

skull of HELL there's

Jawul wats los

The cost of Adolf Hitler's vanity project

That's why Shermans were crap 😄

@@themollusc i read somewhere where a single tiger took out a 10 Sherman tanks.

@@emancoy A single Tiger once also took out close to 30 T-34. Problem probably wasn't so much the Tiger itself but continuing to produce bigger and pricier tanks.

@@emancoy But you can't be everywhere. They'd just bypass, wreak havoc on softer targets and destroy you with other weapon systems which they had plenty of.

He is.

I'm in agreement as well.

until something broke.

@@johnbrinsmead3316 That doesn't mean for a second it was a bad tank they had such a deadline to create a "better" tank and they did it the engines were very underpowered for the weight of the tank they had upgraded transmissions and engine parts but only the best tank commanders could have access to them. This tank was scary it could knock a Sherman out with one shell from 2000 yards and it usually wasn't that far. So it could easily destroy anything the allies had. I don't glorify natzis but the Germans made such an impressive machine for the time too big maybe, but powerful and effective non the less in the right situations.

@@gingerbaker1785 It was a good tank if you were a Captain, it was a bad tank if you were a General. Too unreliable and expensive to maintain, too difficult to move strategically, too much fuel to consume. Overall too expensive.

@@johnbrinsmead3316 jealous teeboo ?

@@gingerbaker1785 look, you'll totally rule the lesser allied tanks in world of tanks with one of these bad boys, but as others have mentioned these tanks are logistics nightmare. the common fate seems to have been either breaking down or running out of fuel. they certainly didn't stem the tide on either front.

Yeah they had Hugo Boss design the Uniforms...

@@davidstarr3566 yes

@@davidstarr3566 and some 1000++ other brands lol

@@davidstarr3566 No, they did not: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/edFxitaTyZuamWg.html

@@okayboomer3292 gonna have to strongly disagree with that Statement

Avalon Hill ruled the 70s !

It might seem strange but I found exactly the same problem in Company of Heroes 2. The Tiger 2 is so slow and often gets ganged up on quite effectively by more maneuverable enemies. But it is a very cool tank.

Yes...saw it. There is also a small museum there. Amazing experience

While it's not necessarily exclusive to economics, the_chieftain (Nicholas Moran) makes a pretty compelling argument that the Sherman was the best war winning vehicle by using economics, reliability, and versatility. His talk lasts a while but here it is if you want to check it out: www.c-span.org/video/?433629-2/design-history-m4-sherman-tank-world-war-ii

This is probably one of the better economic lecture on WWII. About 30 minutes but worth it to watch to see why different countries had different production numbers and what their production philosophy was. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hJyof7CGzszGqIU.htmlm20s

Good luck trying to stop the Allies on both fronts with Sherman tanks.

Well it didn't work with any of the German tanks so I feel like they would've been willing to give it a try

how much did a T-34 cost to make?

Hands down thee best "Tank Chat" yet !! WELL DONE !

Check out "Think Tank" on The Chieftain's channel =)

That said the masses wouldn't say no to another "Think Tank" session with or without WoT backing.

yes yes yes :)

A sexy beast.

Yeeeeeess

Best kind of kitty cat

An absolute unit

thiccc with 3 c's

*THICC*

or those hips

@@alexanderneumann6587 yes typical Venutian behaviour watching and waiting.for the right time to make his move

The tank has him scared to move! :)

he doesn't walk, HE LEVITATES

It is a little known fact that he has tracks for feet. So he pulled up beside the big cat and put his parking break on.

David Fletcher?

Ian Davidson Nope, David is the other guy

He is David Willey. It's underneath Tank Chats in the intro.

@Ian Davidson: David Fletcher MBE

Cant find his name? Jesus, his name was put up in the video in the first minute or so.

And killed people - which is what gets conviniently forgotten, of course, in these 'history' conversations. Meanwhile banging on about British mispronounciation of overseas trade names. How dare we?! Easily, we're just not very good at it. I worked in Germany in the 1970s, knew very little of the language and discovered if I listened carefully it was possible to pick up local pronounciation of common trade names (our industries used the same equipment). I don't remember people being so uptight about whether we knew their language perfectly or not, just that we got on with the job. And had fun. Modern Europeans I notice these days get so worked up about accurate use of language now. The only thing I got upset about in the 70s were young Germans who insisted on using English so they could improve their language skills. Of well, back to the elegant lethal tanks.

Yes it does.

It's RAW

@@alstokesveteranfilmmaker913 "and killed people" Oh you mean like that Crime against humanity the British did at Dresden?

invisibility mhmm

Lol, thanks for pointing it out.

Re: "In one engagement against Russian armored forces he counted over 30 hits on his King Tiger tank, none of which penetrated." If memory serves, Otto Carius, another one of Germany's greatest panzer aces, had a similar experience in a Tiger I - in one engagement against the Soviet army, more than one-hundred hits from various caliber/type of guns were scored on his tank, without any of them penetrating or otherwise severely damaging his tank or harming his crew. Carius remarked on what a feeling of security and safety such a tough tank gave them.

Not sure I'm buying the claim that he really experienced 30 hits from bonafide anti-tank weapons. Maybe small arms fire, sure. And even if none of them penetrated, there's still the concussive effects inside to the crew. At the very least, Knispel and his crew would have been stone cold deaf. And I believe they'd have bigger problems than mere deafness.

No, he counted 30 tank round hitting his tank. There are actually several of these stories, specially those who faced shermans as the sherman could not penetrate a tiger 2 head on.

Tigerphobia

There’s more to a tank than 1v1

The Panther and Tiger series broke down all the time, what’s the point of a tank if it can’t get to where it needs to be most of the time

Weird because Shermans with the longer 76 could and did knock out the first Tigers, although they were extremely rare and most people never saw one. The offensive during the Bulge effectively ended when they all ran out of gas. Shermans completely wiped the floor with Panthers as they were so poorly crewed.

They were engineering disasters. The interleaved wheel system was a disaster in snow and mud. They were very difficult to service in the field. Breakdowns were frequent and in the winter the mice and rats got into the works and ate the coveting off the wiring rendering them useless.and they consumed massive amounts of fuel which the Krauts were short on.

Just to bug you, the turret of the Panther is off-set too, and not only that, the gun is off-set relative to the turret to put it on the centre-line of the hull.

@@ZETH_27 I built scale models of both these as a kid and never noticed. Now I hate you because I can't go back and check my long lost models.

The turret on either the Panzer III or Panzer IV (I can't remember which one) is also slightly offset.

@@ericamborsky3230 Think it's the Pz.IV. It's so that the engine and the drive shaft can function properly.

But then you got the caveat that most of the crew from those nine Shermans would still be alive where as the tiger 2 had a far lower crew survival rate. meaning that when that tiger is brought to unfavourable combat your probably gonna loose most of your experienced tankers.

While i agree the tiger 2 can probably take out 9 Shermans, especially if they are armed with the 75mm gun. However you can’t support an infantry company with one Tiger 2; you can however with 9 Shermans.

Hell, the Tiger 2 where never meant to support infantry. On the contrary, it was meant to support the tanks supporting the infantry from long range.

I'm sure the Koingstiger is intended as a breakthrough vehicle. It's gun may be effective at longer range than contempories of it's day - But the intension of the Tiger series is a breakthrough vehicle much like the Panzer IV was in the initial blitzkrieg doctrine. So I do agree with Patrick above, a single Koingstiger is limited in it's ability to support an entire infantry unit moving, a squad perhaps is effective - like in the footage of the Ardennes offensive however ironic that the Koingstiger's main flaw was tied to that of the entire Ardennes failure: *fuel*. That being said, the concept of having a vehicle with superior firepower, more than necessary protection to defeat incoming rounds - though the mobility lacking - That's something all the allies took after the war into the MBT concept. The King Tiger is effectively the modern MBT but without mobility or fuel supply reliability, and as mentioned - the air superiority and *Artillery* superiority of the enemy (More guns than the Wehrmacht - not whether individual howitzer models were superior to another) - The King Tiger was successful at localised offensives/defences - nothing more than delaying the enemy - they could not change the inevitable - collapsing front lines, with lost vehicles abandoned or destroyed by own crews. Of course I'm an armchair enthusiast like others - I'll happily step back to recognised historians whom can confidently reference material to reinforce their statements as I have provided none. :)

David Briggs i dont think so man, you can look at german doctrine. Tigers where really adamant on providing fire support from range.

Wouldn't be so bothered about it, if it wasn't in an educational style of video.

Except owners of Porsche cars, who are usually very finicky about saying "Porsch-uh" as two syllables.

It's annoying that English speakers cannot learn how to or intelligent enough to pronounce other language words correctly! I grew up in the USA but from a German community and it's annoying listening to them mispronounce German names my family names etc. Einfach idioten!

@@thof8287 then u can IMAGINE how annoying it is to hear ( some) Americans mangle the English language! And as my brother in law is German i can assure you( as a teacher of English) that HE also makes many mistakes! However i respect ANYONE attempting to learn another language and English is not easy for them. Perhaps you might consider adopting this same attitude? PS: he HAS however greatly improved my ability to swear in German! :-)

@@thof8287 I wouldn't worry mate Americans butchered the English language. E.g. aluminum...

Sir there are tigers in the French museum of war, you gonna rob it or what?

@@notalemon2899 you applying all cat person is that obsessed with cat?

Indeed

YES! I'm a sucker for turretless assault guns/tank destroyers.

Cheek The Breek qAQi1@Qqa1ŷggny55

Please the t34!! One of my favorite tanks!

I'm sure such chats may be in the works.

Just been for the first time and I only live 2 hours down the road!

*Panzerlied intensifies*

fellow GuP fans? :D i gotta say, Erwin takes the cake, Stug life. but the best scene was Miho and Maho cooperating to take down the centurion

UND DAS HEIßE! EEEERIKA!

Martin Rößner fellow man of culture

Boem boem boem.... ERICA!!

I suspect this is outside of David Fletcher's expertise. He seems to focus mostly on the WW2 British tanks and other allied tanks.

Admiral George Rodney bcdchx

Which one ? There are loads !

No cupholders?? Glove box?

Lmfao doesnt have a pen holder in the center console, 0/10

Best comment of the thread.

Who knows how Kursk would have ended without Hitler making one costly mistake after another. They probably would have still lost in the East but those mistakes had to pile up. The overwhelming military power of the Soviets shows IMHO that the plan to attack Russia early wasn't entirely flawed though. If it was supposed to succeed, it had to happen years before they were at full strength.

Thank god the armour is buffed in wot blitz

@@nickryan6787 it's played and modeled correctly 1:1 armor and firepower wise in War Thunder.... but their (Gaijin's) way of gameplay balance facing this beast is up-teir. So you almost always face cold war-era armor. Because nothing else is feasible from long/medium and even shorter distances.

It's buffed next patch tho

@@killerriot22 no I mean that Tiger II's armour is so crappy in wot blitz (before update 6.7) and it is still crappy wot. So I don't think that it would be balanced if Tiger II is given to fight to the cold war era armour. It would be more feasible if you said that the Tiger II is given to fight with other tanks weaker tanks from WW2 with its crappy armory. This would eliminates the option to buff the armour. You statement is the opposite?

@@killerriot22 unless you're 6.3 US or below lol

5 more terror-inducing words: "Hans, ist das ein Thunderbolt?"

@@TheSaturnV allied tank didn't scare anyone

Jingle Jangle lol who cares? Allied air superiority would’ve taken care of these tanks with ease

@@ElectableDane not everything it seems...

@@TheSaturnV kill claims from Typhon and Thunderbolts are overexagurated by pilots them self.............. 1.st no accuracy 2. it would have to be DIRECT hit to ROOF of turret 3. pilot barely knew difference between Tiger to Panzer IV ............ 4. Pilots claming tank kill even when the tank was not even hit, they just saw smoke, or something and they claimed kill, german tank crews were taught to stay inside the tank during air strike because there was only a little chance that rocket would destroy tank