Try looking for their gaijin studio in Budapest. Its literally sanction evasion Mop closet. Most likely they are still situated in russia. Not to mention gaijin celebrated VDV day after hostomel raid.

Warthunder looks like a cool game, any tips?? Im looking to try it soon with this link!

@@dukenukem8381 I don't care.

@@Lykyk You are free to have no morals.

@@dukenukem8381 I'll contemplate that in heaven.

If you end up producing 900 more than the 400 first ordered it is probably a sign that it was not a bad first try. You have to ask if Henschel wanted to make the Tiger II due to other reasons (profitability, ease of assembly, etc.) rather than its field performance. As for Hitler wanting the longer barrel, who cares? The top leader of the country picking the gun for a tank is ridiculous, it should be selected by the military's head of tank production. The shorter barrel seems to have done a pretty decent job. It was not perfect, but it was not a bad interim solution.

Perhaps the Char B would be more relevant as an opponent originally, but I'm only guessing.

Panther is the reaction of course. We all know this.

For sure, the failure of the Tiger series was never the tanks themselves, but the inability of German doctrine to cope with ever more resilient opponents on a strategic level. Be it the Red Army, the US Army or whatever, all of Germany's opponents in 1943 were just better at organizing themselves to absorb and wear down German offensives before they got somewhere strategically vital. For example, Tigers performed exactly as intended at Kursk, breaking gaping holes through most every Soviet line they were sent against, but it didn't matter because the Red Army of 1943 had the organization, communications, and reserves to contain the breakthroughs longer than the Germans could sustain the attacks.

@arden1894 Wehraboos are to the WW2 historical discourse as the Tiger IIs were in the Western front. Phantoms. Both were present in their respective environments but are by no means common. Wehraboos in particular is much rarer post 2010s. In some case the pendulum swung the other way and its popular to bash anything German.

It’s actually crazy to think Molotov died at 96 years old of natural causes considering how much of a bumbling idiot he was. Imagine if he had just kept his mouth shut at that moment, as any good ambassador should have?

Soviet army was aware of German heavy tank development. And, as a matter of fact much overestimate it, so much so, that main anti-tank gun, went to production before war had been 107mm gun.

Why did UKposts delete my comment calling Molotov a moron?

​@@elkpants1280 Because they know and they don't like you commenting about it ( i think so , but you ARE right ).

​@@Pgb622 its more of a word. Mock without any "excesses" (For youtube) and the comment should not disappear I call out on a BS on economics(not a left/right problem. But a regional problem) and have it shadowbanned

Yeah, I referenced that information in my script, but during the recording at the museum I was not aware of it yet.

Sounds like an ammunition supply nightmare if I think about it too much lol

@@tacomas9602 dunno why they couldn't have had a armaments deign board, run by someone like Speer, make all the designs, and have the companies make all stuff using the blueprints.

France Is Bacon

hahahahhahahahaha

Lazerpig when someone says tanks other than US and British ones are good.

TBF he is right most of the time.

@@naamadossantossilva4736 when not telling bald-faced lies or spreading poorly researched nonsense.... Which is very rare.

@@naamadossantossilva4736 He is mostly a moron, and few other times is wrong 😆

I do agree on Lazerpig's video stating that T-34 (all versions) were crap, and that the Panzer III was one of the most successful tank designs of the war.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Well, KV-1 was already there in Winter War, so what was the reaction is a bit murky 😁

@@aleksazunjic9672 there is not a piece of evidence that indicates that Germany knew about T-34s or KV-1s before June/July 1941, maybe they knew and evidence will still show up, but until then, based on total lack of evidence, we can safely say that they didn't know about them.

@@aleksazunjic9672The Germans did not know about it, pay attention.

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized That is your opinion, not a certified fact. Germans maybe did not know the name and all the specs of the tank, but it was certain from Finnish reports that Soviets indeed had much heavier tanks than usual T-26 or BT series. KV, SMK and T-100 prototypes were used in later parts of Winter war, KV proving to be the best thus selected for production. There were also reports of up armored T-28s, so there is that.

its not

It’s literally a bigger Pz4. Very similar designs.

@@Serplex000It’s a bigger Pz III. They are equally square and both use torsion bar suspension.

@@Serplex000 Nope. Pz IV concentrated armor on the front, especially later versions. Tiger I had pretty much evenly spread armor (slightly ticker front) .

Yall drunk. Its clearly based on Pz 1 which ate way too many pies.

So real that both German and English speakers can't understand him 😜

I love the way this guy talks! I'm English speaking, but understand some German, and it's true bilingual people sometimes mix 2 languages together, it's really funny when a Japanese American college student gets drunk on Jagermeister at a party and nobody can understand what he says after a couple hours...omg...good times!

Translated via Google Translate: _"I just think it's good that you have this audible accent in your videos and that you keep using German terms and that you even sometimes mix German and English (one thousand five hundred). This makes your videos refreshingly different and you come across as real. As always, the content is excellently researched and presented."_ .

Wow when you think you know something about German armor development something new pops up to inform you. So the Tiger I was an intermediary vehicle until what was to be known as the Tiger II could be developed. As tough and effective as the Tiger I was, its hard to think it was a stop gap design. Fascinating. Thanks for this.

​@@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785I can't read German but I love the to see it typed out with the English translation. And yeah the German guy talking about German armor really adds to the video. Got to love the accent and proper pronunciation of the German words, really adds a authenticity to the presentation.

Good point, people above all discussing T34, but first time Germans had to repurpose their flak "acht acht" was against Matildas in the Somme 1940. Don't think in practice Char Bs were ever deployed with material success. De Gaulle surely tried something but Char Bs were just too few and too scattered.

The Big Katz were all Very Pretty 😍 despite shortcomings...

​@@jonowens460my favorite is the Jagdpanther. There is just something so pretty about that angled block with a cannon

The Centurion was superior in every aspect, vastly so in many, and it looked much prettier too imho. What you suggest about using modern technology to build something similar is exactly how tanks have evolved - what we have today in the west are basically evolutions of the Centurion.

I dont quite see how a leopard one is an evolution of a centurion @@iangreenhalgh9280

If you built a "tiger" from scratch with modern components and technology you would just have a Leopard II.

Glad it was helpful!

There are actually two, Vk (Versüchskonstruktion) and VK (Vollkette). The change in use of these words happens about the start of the war. My own theory is that, with breaking the Versailles Treaty openly, there was no longer a need to hide designations (like how both the Panzer III and IV were commissioned as "Begleitwagen")

@@shockblaster1201 sounds plausible. Thanks

Versuchs Kraftfahrzeug, originally VsKfz, (experimental motor vehicle), or fully tracked, (Vollketten).

VK = Versuchskonstruktion. Any other meaning doesnt reallt fit in German military, design and construction nomenclature. If it supposed to mean "Vollkettenfahrzeug" all halftracked vehicle designs would have had the prefix "HK", meaning "Halbkettenfahrzeug". As far as I know this wasnt the case.

Yes. And 88 became a thing against those yet in 1940

Firstly a 88mm gun fires larger high-explosive shells, which were about 90% of the ammunition used by tanks anyways. Most tanks were destroyed in WW2 by anti-tank guns and aircraft, some by artillery and infantry, and the rest by attrition, lack of fuel and spare parts. Or in the case of France, by jumping out and running away without a fight. Secondly, a larger caliber 75 is exactly the 88, which is what the number means. Caliber 75 means the diameter of the gun. Perhaps you meant a longer 75 ?

The Germans thought ahead to not only deal with what was then expected to be encountered but to also be effective against the expected subsequent generation of allied tanks, which the Tiger I did on the whole, still knocking out IS-2, Pershing and Comet in 1945.

Vollketten, fully tracked.

Not at that range.

Well, idea might be not "unreasonable". Back in 1940. Like idea of 107mm anti tank gun in soviet service. Execution of that idea in 1944 though was unreasonable - when it was no real targets, that demanded that additional power.

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 What? IS-2, ISU-152, Churchill VII, Pershing, Sherman Jumbo, more than enough, plus for foresight incoming very closely Centurion and IS-3, and if Siegfried line wasn't dismantled western allies would deploy T28 and Tortoise. How are there no heavy targets in 1944?

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 While I have to say that was partially true, where the Germans forces weren't having much troubles with armor penetrations unlikely in early war, and vice versa the Allies forces didn't really feel safe in their tanks against German AT, However, like arms development is something akin to business development, it never plan to just meet the current demands, but to anticipate and prepare the future demands as well. Soviet IS-3, being more resistant than any existing Soviet tanks, debut in 1945 though the war ended bit too soon for it, but it proved Allies and Soviet tank development were always ongoing, so it was only sensible for the German Anti-Tank development to be as well. The original 88 mm L/56 was starting to become obsolete in early 1944, as the newer 75mm Pak 42 outperformed it slightly in penetration, while 88mm did carry around 30% more HE power, given the Germans were on defensive and mainly fighting Allied AFV attacks rather than trenches or bunkers, it was not the most useful advantages. So it made little sense to keep producing both 75mm and 88mm L/56, and German leadership faced two choices, one to completely retool the 88mm L/56 production for 75mm Pak 42, or simply upgrade their existing 88mm to Pak 43 L71, which could to a limited extent still use the old 88mm shells. Naturally, with economic consideration in mind, they chose the latter option.

@@sthrich635 Well, I like BMW, but I am driving Hyundai. Can you guess why? Yes, because Hyundai at least 2 times cheaper and doing all what I really need. May be one or 2 times a year if would be nice to have something like Ford F-150, but I will not buy it because of that - not enough justification. It is nice to have the best possible - for free. Usually it is not for free though. And in particular case German army paid enormous price for that really limited advantage - which had about no practical application at a time. Not only in price of machine itself, but in other vitally important characteristics of that machine. For example - it ability to get to a buttle 😁 BTW ii is a misconception, that 75mm Pak 42 superior in armor piercing than 88 mm L/56. Not true, it is actually other way around. What is true, that 75mm Pak 42 can outperform 88 mm L/56 in case it use discarding sabot with tungsten penetrator. Which practically was not offered for 88. And tungsten was in really short supply in Germany at at time? so much so it was cheaper discarding sabot with still penetrator developed for 75

@@czwarty7878 Out of all mention, only IS-2, Pershing and Churchill VII did provide some protection against 8.8 cm KwK 36 (Sherman Jumbo had partial turret protection) wile only Churchill VII was really protected from the front at all distances. Fantasy about IS-3 and Centurion has no relation to reality. So you would get that a bit better - in whole war it is known for sure only 2 (two) cases direct fight between Tigers and IS-2 and it was like 3800 IS-2 produced. May be in reality it was more cases - like 4 or even 6 - but, I think, you got an idea.

Hi, du hattest im Video erwähnt, dass es auch nach längerer Spielpause einzulösen wäre. Weißt du wie ich es dann einlösen kann? Vielen Dank für die Videos, über einen Deutschen Zweitkanal würde ich mich freuen, bei den Videos in denen du nicht zu sehen bist müsste der Aufwand ja überschaubar sein aber kann natürlich sein, dass sich das überhaupt nicht lohnt.

@@fredib7990 Müsste eigentlich automatisch via den Link gehen, aber ich hab das selbst nicht probiert. Sonst hatte noch niemand diese Frage. Der Aufwand ist leider ziemlich hoch und nochmal dasselbe "machen"/sagen ist auch eher nervig. Ich kann www.youtube.com/@MTGJW empfehlen, da bin ich auch manchmal Gast und viele grafische Elemente sind von mir bereitgestellt. Hier noch ein deutsches Video zur Frage: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rJlniq2rZ2qkuKs.html

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ich hatte mich in einem anderen Fenster im Browser auf der WT Seite angemeldet und dann wurde mir nach dem neuladen des Links mein Konto vorgeschlagen. Vielleicht fragt es ja jemand anderes auch mal nach. :D Bei Herrn Wehner hab ich schon alles gesehen, hat mich auch gefreut, dass du da zu Gast bist. :) Falls Ihr mal über Thumbnails sprecht oder du welche erstellst dann bitte kein rot verwenden, da sieht man den "gesehen" Balken schlecht :D Vielen Dank für den Link und deine ausführliche Antwort.

Glad you enjoyed it

I'm not correcting him because his English is *far* better than my German, and I grew up with my Dad occaisionally dropping into German around the house, as well as taking it in high school. 😂

Not really, thanks. Maybe you got used to it?

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized You have a nice accent:)

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Maybe 😀

Probably just a easier to confirm and manage serial number, since they had contracts they had to make 500 Tigers 1, and couldnt stop until they were all made. Maybe a number in the hundreds was easier to confirm considering production rate and storage facilities + shipment schedule (train carts available) etc.?

501: 5th company, company XO vehicle. 500,: company chef's vehicle. 511, fifth company, 1st platoon, 1st vehicle. Etc, etc... Vehicle identification numbers were quite lengthy and occurred at the manufacturer.. Painted on vehicle numbers were stenciled and decided by BN staff.

I don't know if superior design and konigstiger should be in the same sentence. While the Tiger and Panther had technical issues, they could and were ironed out of worked around. The Tiger 2 though would have never worked, too heavy.

source?

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I was in Armoured Cav and we were taught the reasons pro/con for how tanks are designed. German and American tanks overall had more room, while British tanks were cramped. Russian tanks were a mish-mash inside depending on position. We were taught sloped armour requires more steel and lessens interior space unless the tank is made larger, which requires even more steel. Look at the Panther compared to the Pz4. Same crew configuration and interior size, but the Panther is much larger in every dimension. The US Army teaches things that seem to work on paper.

@@HeinzGuderian_ but that is post-hoc rationalisation and explanation what worked in hindsight. @MilitaryHistoryVisualized video showed you source where it's clear Germans wanted sloped armor from the start, just couldn't do it fast enough

@@czwarty7878 still doesn't negate the fact that sloped armour requires more steel in order to maintain interior room, which Germany did not have in vast quantities. The turret ring would also have to be smaller if the rest of the tank wasn't made larger, making either a smaller interior or using smaller guns. Designing doesn't happen overnight. They knew the pros/cons of sloped/flat armour long before 1936. The costs weren't worth the effort. Most countries opted for flat armour for the same reasons. The T34 had a 4 man crew. The TC was doing double duty and wearing himself out. Everyone else used a 5 man crew, and when the Germans made the Panther it was huge compared to the Pz4. It was 3 ft longer, 1.5 ft wider, 1 ft taller. Interior room was comparable. It was also 20 tons heavier albeit much of that was from thicker armour, not just the additional dimensions. Sometimes you have to compromise. Angle the tank or angle the plate. Both ways work. We don't bother with either of those choices today.

thanks, the issue is I heard so many "interesting" and also read plenty of them over the years, yet, when I got back into the original sources, a lot of time, it turns out to be that the various statements were just (utter) hogwash. Germany did not lack steel btw. they lacked a lot of other stuff, steel was not really among it. Additionally, the amount of steel used for tank production for quite some time was rather low as well.

The KwK43 L/71 didn't fit in Tiger turret, so it would need Tiger II turret (this was basically what VK4502H was)

The Tiger Is gun caught up with the Panther's in AP at around 2,500 metres and was better and more accurate at very long range. When Panthers and Tigers worked together it was the Tiger that was chosen to do the very long range sniping at 2,500 to 3,000 etc metres. Tiger I's high explosive round was considerably superior to the Panther's.

ah yes square with another square on it

The tiger is the best looking tank in history I’m sorry this is just a fact

I think it was also well known the Germans that they were never going to outproduce the combined industry of the allied powers, so they took an approach that would maximize the effectiveness of each individual unit produced. Quality over quantity. Whether they succeeded in that is debatable.

It's not as if SMK, T-100 or KV weren't everyone's secret. They've been tried during Winter War and there was enough cooperation between Finland and Germany.

why would the germans assume they would never be able to match the allied forces industrially? they were not at war, nor expected to be at war, with the united states for most of their weapons developement. and pre-ww2 heavy industry levels of german and the USSR were almost the same in terms of number of workers, and german industrial output was more than twice that of the USSR due to greater productivity per worker (note that the german workers were in tern less productive per worker than american workers). Soviet military production in ww2 was only greater due to earlier full mobilisation aswell as a more rationalised system earlier. If germany had adopted a similar scheme of industrial war mobilisation they would have achieved an industrial output significantly greater than the USSR. Even After the US joins, the Americans are still bottlenecked by haveing to ship their equipment across the ocean (hence why their forces were small despite a manpower and industrial advntage over germany). [source: The Soviet Defence Industry Complex from Stalin to Khrushchev, pp. 99-117] furthermore German designs could often be better suited to mass production than allied counter parts. a good example is the panzer 3, which took a meer 4000 manhours initally, and just 2000 manhours by the time they ended production, to build. compared to about 25 000 manhours for most shermans or most T-34s, the infamous rushed T-34s from factory no 183 still took over 5000 manhours to build. another example is the 75 manhours for an MG42 vs the 120 manhours for a bren gun. the allied advantage in manpower is also overstated. but even if it wasn't they could have simply had more mechanized units and less leg infantry. the vast majority of the war was fought by infantry and artillery. no manpower was not the limiting factor. the actual reasons for SOME of their designs being overcomplicated to produce is that most of those designs were intended for specialised tasks, not standard armament. The exceptions are more a result of rushed designs and poor opimisation than specific "quality over quantity" thinking, infact the top down decision making was constantly pushing for increased quantity at the cost of quality and this push is why the panther was rushed for example. and their overall industrial output in the war was a result of a failure in mobilising their industry to war, infact when hilter introduced policies in 1939 aimed at mobilising more industry to war production war production, it failed to produce results as productivity decreased compaired to soviet mobilisation that saw an increase in productivity alongside an increase in the % of industry involved in war production. The reason for this was the soviets had greater pre-war plans for war mobilisation and thus were able to do it more quickly and efficiently. german failures to mobilise were so bad that it was orginally thought that they deliberately chose not to mobilise between 1939 and 1941, but we know now from german archieves this is BS. they tried and failed due to poor planning.

@@SamuraiAkechi There wasn't enough coordination between all of the Axis members; as shown in the recorded meeting between Hitler & Mannerheim, where Hitler was shocked that Finland knew the USSR had 30,000+ tanks produced before his invasion yet his own officers never brought that up during planning.

​@@dalel3608it's as if Finland was allied with the allies despite being allied with the axis

all gzmes are western biased. in ukraine you can see normal t72 kills abrams easy and ood russian planes own nato missles and defences.

I've read the tigers had a ratio of about 5hrs maintenance per 1 hour fighting (not just driving, fighting)

@@bamspam23 It gets worse. The engines are supposed to have interchange parts. Some of the parts they found out only work with replacements made from certain factories so if a replacement part didn't come from the same factory the tank was built, there was only a 1/3 chances the damn thing would work!

This was the issue with basically any tank, especially heavier tanks (just as much Tiger as Churchill, Pershing and IS-2) and the more tanks are used the more service they need, and as most important assets the heavy panzer battalions were used basically constantly. This was not problem of the tank, this was problem of a country losing the war. Somehow this simple concept is hard to comprehend for some people.

They still had a better than 70% overall average operational rate in 1944.

I heard this as well, several times, but I have not seen a legitimate source. I heard it, that it should have made the German suspicious, but didn't.

​@MilitaryHistoryVisualized it's from Panzer Leader by Guderian. I only have the kindle edition, so I'm not sure what the page number is, but it's in the background section of chapter 6.

@@orgunthanks the problem is that that memoir is full of wrong information in so many ways.

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized yeah

Maybe it would restrict traverse of the MG and driver visibility? Or maybe it would strain the vehicle too much with more weight. The armor was still pretty viable from long range for the majority of its service and maybe it was seen as good enough. It would be cool to see the performance difference in simulations though if additional armor kits were made similar to maybe like a Panzer III’s kit.

Sloped plate is also heavier. You can simple do thicker vertical plate instead - and that likely will be much simpler. Unless you can use additional space, but that require quite a bit of addition work. As you can see as a result Tiger 2 became just ludicrously heavy.

Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II used pretty much same engine. So would T-34, KV-1 and IS-2 . But IS-2 was actually slightly lighter than KV series, while German fat cats become even fatter .

There was a project for this, but it would require introducing big changes to Tiger production lines, stopping current production, and delaying Tiger II production even further. As said in the video, they wanted sloped armor from very early on, and this is basically just what Tiger II is.

Tigers were notorious for blowing transmissions due to being overweight. Adding more weight would not fix anything

none, both tigers were super expensive and taxing on the german economy and were designed for what hitler wanted and not for what the army needed, hence why most german tanks werent tigers and very few were build.

@@mitchellcouchman6589 huh? What was their purpose then? it wasnt something the army needed it was just another Hitlers wonder weapon which he had to have. What does it have to do with the tank being too expensive for the economy to handle and using resources germany didn't have like fuel, tungsten. You could make more panzer 3 and 4 for the cost of one tiger. Just the price not even the manhours, resources and others. If germany made 2 000 tigers it could be like 10 000 panzer 3 or more. That's basicly the point, they were making expesive stuff they couldnt afford instead of producing one tank the whole war like america.

The Germans already had Nashorn and Ferdinand which were two very succesful vehicles carrying that gun. Jagdpanther should have been the most succesful tankhunter of the war but the allies bombed that factory that made them because they did not want to let that to happen. Personally do I think that this gun was a bit overkill and thus a bit unecessary. If you really have to kill the biggest allied monster tanks from 3000 meters away then would a crappy panzer IV chassi be enough for that job. Nashorn was liked and had an excellent combat record, but the Germans never seemed to wanna mass produce this vehicle on a large scale.

The Tiger II. People complain about its per unit cost but ignore Germany's massive fuel and manpower issues. Large numbers of low cost tanks were the absolute last thing they needed. Just because it made sense for the US and USSR doesn't mean the same strategy would work for everyone.

@@sayerglasgow115 you asume that they did it for efficency... No they didn't they build tanks like that because Hitler wanted them. Just look on their navy, their air, the wonder weapons... All junk and useless waste of resources. They were completely clueless of what they were doing.

The 75 was chosen to maximize anti-armor performance, the 88 was a better all rounder gun. The Panther would need an entirely new turret to mount the 88 and it would inevitably add weight to a tank that was already struggling with an over strained transmission. Putting the 75mm on the tiger would be feasible but would downgrade it's high explosive shell and have only minimal benefits for its anti armor abilities.

To be honest the long 75mm gun of the Panther was way better in anti tank performance, but there wasnt any particular reason as to why it should have been the standard tank gun, both the 88 and 75 could penetrate all T-34 variants frontally from at least 1km and one thing that its always forgotten is that shell size (mass) is far more important than it seems, the 75 shell had an incredible muzzle velocity, but was relatively small and this didnt allow it to just bypass "slim" armour like the 122mm shell of the IS-2, wich was ridicusly slow but could penetrate anything by sheer brute force

@@alexvonrom7942 The 122mm D-25T had a muzzle velocity of 806 m/s. The Tiger I's KwK 36 had a muzzle velocity of 780 m/s for its APCBC round and 930 m/s for its APCR round. It's not an exceptionally high velocity gun, especially not if you're comparing it to something ridiculous like the KwK 43 with it's 1,130 m/s, but its definitely not low velocity.

@@sayerglasgow115 oh, I saw somewhere that by the time it had made 1km the velocity dropped to 600ish meters, might be wrong tho, thanks for the correction :)

@@alexvonrom7942 I don't know about the velocity at 1000 meters distance but given the weight of the projectile velocity dropoff wouldn't be that high. I think the reputation for soviet guns having low velocity might come from the 152mm howitzers on vehicles like the KV-2. It could also just be a reputation the 122mm got because of the comparison to the 100mm that was also considered, which is indeed higher velocity, but that's more of a testament to how good the 100mm is than anything to do with the 122. The 122 was considered a bit suboptimal as an anti-tank weapon, but that was more because of fire rate than range, accuracy, or velocity, all of which were fairly good.

Panzer 4 front plate as side armor

@@BloodyCrow__ Part of it yeah. But the design is basically similar to..... The Pz IV!

But that's exactly how it was. The Tiger I was just a stop gap solution. They originally weren't called Tiger I and Tiger II, they were called Tiger A and Tiger B. Ralf Raths (director of the german tank museum) has a very long video about the development process of the Tigers.

@@HaVoC117X "Stop gap solution" in whose mind and when? I had seen recently a very good video that Boeing 737, which producing for 56 years now, had been "stop gap solution" for Boeing back then in 60-th. Other part of which newer materialized. Clearly "King Tiger" was not a useful option and newer been with it mass in 68 ton and mechanical disabilities yet at middle 1944.

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 "Stop-gap solution" only implies that it is something designed to fill a specific direct need or niche by an organisation until they can get their vision off the ground. If such a solution proves sufficiently reliable, you just keep using it. So if Boeing thinks they need to put a medium-sized airliner in the market to compete while working on their next "miracle project" and Lufthansa buys 24 outright and is happy, leading to more sales, then the market has dictated that the stopgap solution is perfectly sufficient to meet the market requirements and whatever vision of the "future miracle" is a step further than is necessary. There's also little point in spending extra money to retool a production line to sell that market something else you first have to convince them they should want more than the thing they're already satisfied with. In the Tiger's case, the Wehrmacht had already recognized that they needed a 'breakthrough vehicle' of some kind in the late '30s. When war erupted probably a little bit earlier than everyone was expecting and suddenly they learnt that a 3.7cm which they had already selected for its supposed armor piercing capability really isn't all that capable as an anti-tank tool, they came up with new specs for the project and as the video shows those specs were, very mildly put, wildly optimistic. The Tiger II was definitely the intended target; there was just not enough pushback to convince everyone that the initial target was a flight of fancy. The only real addition that the invasion of the USSR brought was the realization that the gap needed to be filled quickly and that since the KwK36 L/56 fit in the Krupp turret, they should probably just go ahead and get that out there while working on their L/70 gun. As it turns out, the Wehrmacht was sufficiently satisfied with the L/56 for the interim and finally having a gun out there that was effective against heavy armour was 'good enough' that making sure there were as many of those out there as Henschel could muster took priority. The continuation of the project with everyone wanting to have editorial power AND have their cake and eat it too meant that the Tiger II suffered badly from feature creep and mostly lack of logistical oversight on things like "can we still get all the required steel, rubber and tungsten in two years time", "just how much weight can the average bridge in Europe actually handle" or "perhaps an unskilled slave laborer isn't the best at making precision-machined parts and might hold a grudge and commit sabotage". If that seems odd, then all you need to do is look at the US adopting the 40ish-ton M10 Booker "light" tank mostly because they have had 40 years of experience with the M1 Abrams growing in weight from a 'mere' 54 tons to a stately 66.8 tons and that occasionally leading to "logistical problems". Or the Dutch who had finalized contracts for new Gryphus transport trucks with signatures and all, only to then realize that those trucks were too tall to be road-legal and now have to account for not being able to fit under some viaducts if they run their tires at max pressure and then had to have the factory update the software accordingly.

@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 you offer no substantial arguments for what you claim, you just got that idea that Tiger II was a bad tank as a dogma and can't shake it no matter what, and treating it like base axiom you go forward with your opinion. With zero thinking whether maybe what you believe is not entirely correct.

@@czwarty7878Well, if you think Tiger II was a good tank - you probably would have no problem to bring a couple examples, where it has any notifiable success in use, right? At the end it was noticeable number of those made. You would not have a problem to do so with Tiger 1. Now I do know from a documents, that 2 soviets had a very big problem to even ring 2 captured summer 1944 Tiger 2 to a train station on distance like 12 km - those brakes up multiple times on a way. In testing they also been unable to speed up Tiger 2 on a good road faster then 31 km/h. It is also pretty clear known from history that nobody till this day made a tank of such a mass - 75 year later. May be there are some reasons to that 😁

Haven't you heard of the Luftiger

Not the exact Me 262 engine, but there were some plans to make gas turbine engines for Panther (instead of King Tiger)

Since T2 was so underpowered I figured it was logical to choose it. Kinda like a Tiger / Abrams lol.

@@jamesoneill8901 Turbine technology at the time wasn't advanced enough to make a good tank engine, and especially wasn't suitable for Germany at the time, with their fuel shortages and the Tiger II already being unreliable. Even if they could build a completely modern turbine engine that didn't burn out in a matter of hours (which they couldn't), it would need an entirely new and much more complex transmission, which is the last thing the Tiger II needed. They already had a plan for a more powerful engine in the form of the Sla. 16, which they installed experimentally on a jagtiger but never got into production.

Nah, the Jagdpanzer IV - the Panther was automotively very poor, it had the same under-engineered, fragile final drive as the Tger, it weighed too much for it's engine, the suspension was too complex, it was very time consuming and difficult to maintain the Panther, it just wasn't a good tank in many ways and the Germans would have been far better off never bothering with it and instead improving and evolving the Panzer IV.

@@iangreenhalgh9280 the Jagdpanther weighs 45 tons, and with the resources not being used to building another Tank like the King Tiger, can be used to workout the bugs that plagued the Panther.

@@evilfingers4302 nope, germayn couldnt afford to build tanks like that, they had even issues supplying fuel to them. Autside of panzer 3 and 4 most tanks very kinda bad for them as their economy couldnt handle them. Also there is the issue of allies having absolute air superiority so even if germans could make 10k tigers, they would get bombed to pieces and would be just a junk.

@@jarvee9407 and yet, the Germans built how many King Tigers and Jagdtigers that both took massive amounts of resources to be made.

@@evilfingers4302 500? Combined. That's nothing and their economy was dead at that point, also no fuel.

No.

Usually the calibers go back "ages", as far as I know the 88 goes back at least to WW1, if not before.

Not really. It was supposed to be a breakthrough vehicle whose tactical role was done once a defensive line was broken, after which the medium tanks would pour through the breach and do the mobile exploitation bit that is the traditional strength of armoured warfare. It only really ever got a chance to do something like that during Operation Zitadelle, which was so balls-out that Tigers had to stay in the line and keep punching at Soviet armoured counterthrusts anyway. When it comes to predecessors for the MBT, the Panther is a much better fit: The punch and frontal armor of a heavy tank with the mobility and side armor of a medium - provided all the parts worked as intended. However it was still very much mired in earlier thinking on tanks and the first true MBT'esques were things like the T-44 and the Centurion Mk.I, as they were slowly refined into that role.

@@DiggingForFacts "It only really ever got a chance to do something like that during Operation Zitadelle" this is not true, sure in late war they were primarily "fire brigade" but in earlier years there were many cases of Tigers being used in that role. "Swinging the Sledgehammer" is a publication on heavy panzer battalions which has a nice summary of early Tiger units breakthrough operations

It certainly did and was the first battlefield dominating super tank. Very much like the MBTs of today yes. Low in production, highly expensive, state of the art huge, heavy and and complex.

the tiger was not a good counter breakthrough tank. yes that is how it was used, but its a poor design for such a task due to limited range and high maintenance. as well as slow strategic speed.

A stug-like construction is quite severely inconvenienced in an offensive role from the lack of a turret.

​@@juslitorsure, he was referring to defensive role

And you are quite correct.

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Well, I would think that a heavily armoured not that mobile tank that had a big long range gun would be the ideal anti-breakthrough tank because it would be used in defensive roles shooting from prepared positions, unless you're talking about using highly mobile tanks to counter attack the flanks of a breakthrough?

The answer is very simple Neither The requirements for a heavy breakthrough tank were made before the war kicked off

@@looinrims Germany was planning for a longer war against France. They had many designs in the 1930s including a Henkel Jet Engine in 1936, the Condor "airliner" and the "Ural Bomber" project started in 1933. Some came to fruition, most didn't. Germany planned Barbarossa around the short barreled PzKWIV for infantry support and the PzKWIII E,F (37mm) and some G (50mm) as their primary tank. The Panther was a response to the T-34. It's need was not foreseen before encounters with T-34 and KV tanks.

It was a few KV-1 used in vintner war. Quite unclear how much Finn new themself.

I would like to see such photographs. The T-34 tank was accepted into service on December 19th, 1939. At the moment not even a prototype of the tank had been built, only its precursors (A-20 and A-32). The A-34 were built early in 1940 and tested in March-April. The T-34 only entered production in June of 1940 and began to be issued to troops in the fall, a full year after the end of the campaign in Poland. Editing to add that the "Mickey Mouse" turret was not even put into production until December of 1941. Until then, all T-34 tanks had one single hatch that spanned the entire width of the turret.

Ratiod

"Rest of the world historians" as in the pop-history pulp and internet memes that you feed on as the sole source for your opinions? Okay.

@@czwarty7878 No? That's what you hear from people who had a chance to sit in one and from historians which really cefully studied how german tanks where defeloped (including boring material science that moust skip). Both panther and tiger 2 used complete parts engineered around 1938-40 when material scarecity was diffrent than when thoose bois rolled out- and as a result of that it was impossible to assmeble them correctly using quickly swapped material substitutions ( usually 2 or 3 substitutions drastically altering targeted properties of the part manufactued from them) - when correct anwser was to change shapes to fit availiable materials - which etremely is time consuming process in pre-cad pre-digital-spreadsheet engineering. You can add to that volountary economic isolation of germany from the world started by big H himself on presumption of "shrinking markets theory" which accelerated process of makling alloying additives scareser. Add to that mission creep caused by needs to resis stronger enemy AT units with degrading quality of armor (once again due to lack of alloying additives) and you have a tanks that are underenginnered, over weight and built to unachivable in curret economic conditions standards. Compare it to T1 which was built to fit actuall human beings through extensive testing of components, and with semi-realistic economic conditions of 1940-1941 (which doesn't mean it didn't face same problems, but it's far harder to add neeedless bloat once things are rolling out of "production lines"). Like it had usable gunners optics ( unlike panther's constant 5x magnificaltion which forced commander to target quite precisely where he want's to shoot before gunner could have vaguest idea what he supposed to target), it's tactical reuirements where strict but it had chance to work properly if you didn't overextend it too much. Yes it wasn't what army wanted - but it was from period in time when what they had wasn't wildely outside of what spec said- but that also skips german (or perhaps even prussian) metality of "my thouguths trump reality" which later caused multiple engineering/political disasters of modern times like diesel gate, pump-injectors fiasco or german politics towards russia in period of 1995-2022- and propably much more examples I as a material engieer have no clue about.

@@radosaworman7628 you wrote a wall of text with zero on-topic arguments I still don't know what "historians" you refer to, after ridiculing the video which is based literally on primary sources

@@czwarty7878 ryszard kawalec, norbert bączyk when it comes to desighn aspect (they have excellent podcast called "wojenne historie"), and Chap which name's aludes my mind but has great chanell called "TIKhistory" when it comes to ideolo-economical aspect of shrinking markets and honestly any topic when to comes to nazi ideology. Ibelive thoose two sources should be sufficient both in accesability and ease of consumption for you. Analysys of primary sources must be taken with extreme care as depending on culture we can get lies, wild exaguration when it comes to narritive, but if noumbers they collect are not openly made up or touched up- you might be capable with getting to the bottom of the topic. And nazi germany is a place where you lie to survive so everyone lies a lot. Sorry but when it comes to topics of historicall machines, created with from hundres of components, which are created with hundreds of parts by means of roughly hundred of operations each then you get explanations that are "walls of text". I'm very sad about your inability to comprehend that- but with bare minimum effort you might change that.

The German military never wanted something like the Sherman. How do you even come up with that.

I mean they left Belarus and Russia Should they be rejected purely for their nationality/ethnicity? That’s exactly what Russia accuses everyone of

Dude is out here just being openly racist and thought he'd get away with it.

There are good reasons to dislike Gaijin, but disliking the Gaijin team just because they happened to be born in russia even after they left is just straight up racism

Do they pay taxes in Russia? No. Then it is ok.

Cool. Let's boycott all germans, Italians and Japanese for ww2 while we're at it. Who cares that they had absolutely nothing to do with!?