Share.

    26 Comments

    1. ShermanTeaPotter on

      Yeah this is what you end up with when ideology becomes more important than doctrine.

    2. SlickDillywick on

      Were these the ones that the Renault (or was it Pugeot?) factory designed a dipstick that made it look like it had oil, but in fact it was nearly empty?

    3. In defense of German tank design: They did not have the fuel, resources or manpower to spam out cheap, good enough tanks like Sherman and T-34, so they chose to try make fewer, better tanks that could take out more enemy tanks. Unfortunately, they did not have the fuel, production facilities or manpower to make these viable either.

    4. TaxEvader6310 on

      “The tank is good except for all the times it isn’t. Which is a lot of times. Most of the time.”

    5. “Haha, Hans, look, the stupid Americans only have 3 Shermans. This will be an easy fight with our superior gun and impenetrable armo…”

      *76mm punches right through their front plate.*

    6. Spicy_Chicken_Wizard on

      Part of the problem is that *nobody* had the tech at the time to make a 45+ ton vehicle actually work. All of them, from the Panther, to the Pershing, to the IS-2, were all some version of bad, albeit for different reasons, but in common they all had the problem that none of them were capable of large scale maneuver warfare. They simply didn’t have the fuel capacity or logistical support to do the grand maneuvers of encircling and destroying large enemy formations. The Panzer III could do this. The T-34 and M4 could do this. The KV-1, IS-2, Tiger, Panther, Pershing, etc simply couldn’t.

      The only arguable exception here is the Churchill, but even that’s only because the British were extremely selective and careful about when those got pushed out into the battlefield (it likewise wasn’t being used in maneuver warfare). The Churchill maintained mission clarity in a way none of the other “heavy tanks” of the war did (except the Jumbo Sherman, which is a different weight class anyway).

    7. Turns out using slave labor to build the weapons you use to fend off the people trying to free those slaves imposes certain quality control challenges.

    8. Tall_Location_9036 on

      80 years anniversary for these posts. What, Tiger is unreliable? First time hearing about this

    9. The fighting ability of each German tank was inversely proportional to how they were doing in the war.

    10. Silverdarlin1 on

      I went to Bovnington a few years ago, where the last working Tiger is on display, and, big surprise, it was being repaired. The thing is somehow unreliable even as a museum piece

    11. Anxious_Big_8933 on

      I hate discussions about German armor in WW II. It used to be full of people saying these machines were super weapons, now it’s full of equally dumb people saying they were trash. It’s a fitting topic for r/historymemes, home of the dumbest takes about history on the web.

      To those who believe one or the other, try reading a fucking book about it.

    12. BoltersnRivets on

      1. Claims racial superiority

      2. uses Jewish people as slave labour to build over-complicated, over-engineered heavy tanks

      3. to the surprise of no one the Jewish people used as slave labour sabotage the over-complicated, over-engineered heavy tanks, making them even more unreliable pieces of junk than the equivalent sized heavy tanks of their peers

      *Remember, the nazis were the supreme race of humanity, no one could surpass them!*

    13. Objective-Note-8095 on

      Tiger (Panzer VI) was designed and worked well in the original heavy panzer doctrine; limited use break through tank. This fell apart when it was used inpanzer devisions were running around on the Eastern Front containing Soviet breakouts.

      In the Western Front in a defense role, they had to contend with superior coordinatated artillery which made them less effective. These were also a very small portion of the total tanks used and bear a strong resemblance to the Panzer IV which were the most common German tank.

      Panther (Panzer V) with the Tiger 2 were actually more meant to be a super tanks. These should be a separate discussion. With these tanks US doctrine, in specific, has a tough time dealing with because they were not expecting seeing such heavy tanks in the medium and heavy roles.

    14. thelastholdout on

      Don’t forget that it was built by Nazis and its successors were built with slave labor so even if the engineering was good the build quality was shit.

    15. TalkingGuns0311 on

      As someone who actually works on tanks, I’ll say there’s really a formula to this. Armor, firepower, and speed. Adding more to one will almost disproportionately effect the other aspects of the vehicle’s capabilities. For instance, add more armor, and the vehicle moves slower. Add more speed (lighter weight) and less armor is added. Add more firepower? More weight carried in ammuntion and a heavier gun, and so forth. This era of tank absolutely proved that maneuver warfare is based on supply trains, because the lighter, massed produced vehicles won. The lighter, simpler device will almost always win, especially when the bigger complicated one breaks down and barely makes it to the fight. And then when it does get there, it’s outnumbered. If you want a tank that’s all armor and all firepower, just build a goddamn castle, cause that tank ain’t movin’ with a purpose.

    16. BananakinTheBroken on

      The axis was realistically never going to win the war. That being said? Holy shit you people shit all over the memories of your grandparents and people like them when you act like the axis was so truly incompetent that they couldn’t produce anything right, couldn’t plan, couldn’t fight, and could really only kill unarmed civilians. If that were the case, millions of men and women wouldn’t have died fighting them, it would have been a brief footnote in history.

      Edit: in not on

    17. There’s never a need to ever put an apostrophe for a plural unless you’re referring to multiple entities owning something.

    18. Don’t forget its own special train car and requiring changing the treads to a thinner variety because it wouldn’t fit on a regular-size one like a Sherman did

    19. Wehrbs always like to say, “well, if I had a choice crewing a Tiger and a Sherman, I’d crew a Tiger.”

      They don’t realize that, the Sherman’s gonna be well-supplied and have a bunch of friends who, when well coordinated, are greater than the sum of the individual tanks. Or, when the Tiger inevitably breaks down or becomes lost and unrecoverable, they’re gonna be a handed a rifle to join the infantry because there aren’t any spare tanks left. Good luck facing a Sherman when all you’ve got is a rifle and your shirt.

      Meanwhile, the Sherman crew is in a relatively comfortable vehicle with a good chance of survival (though, they might not feel it) and little fear of running out of food, fuel, ammo, parts, or tanks (unless you’re unlucky enough to be at Bastogne or something).

    Leave A Reply