Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Soren

Derfman,The only real problem plagueing the Tiger II was the lack of spare parts & fuel, the lack of which meant that the bulk were abandoned and blown up by their own crew.

That and the overstressed engine; the PzkPfw VI Ausf. B used the same Maybach petrol engine as the Tiger I, which was not overpowered to begin with. Add another 15 tons, but no more power, and you've got an engine that's operating at it's limit.

The Tiger II was, however, superlative in the defensive role; the only weapon the Allies had that could hope to take out a King Tiger was air power. Allied tanks didn't stand a chance against it in a 1-v-1 (or even 2-v-1) engagement.

[Soren]

The engine wasn't overstressed, the transmission often was however when an inexperienced driver was behind the wheel - a big problem in late 44 to 45.

A more powerful engine would've been nice no doubt, but it was unnecessary, 700 HP was enough. A better transmission would've been great, although extremely non-great for the Allies.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Soren

The engine wasn't overstressed, the transmission often was however when an inexperienced driver was behind the wheel - a big problem in late 44 to 45.

A more powerful engine would've been nice no doubt, but it was unnecessary, 700 HP was enough. A better transmission would've been great, although extremely non-great for the Allies.

However, I understand the transmission was excellent, in terms of maneuverability, with it's regenerative steering; the King Tiger was as maneouverable as a much smaller tank thanks to it's advanced (though, apparently, weak) transmission.

Soren: I know they installed a very successful diesel engine in the second PzkPfw. VIII Maus prototype, a Daimler-Benz MB 517, with 1200 HP (895 kW). Do you think that engine would've worked in the King Tiger, or was it too big?

I know they were also, just before the end of the War, working on a "boosted" version of the Maybach HL230, with direct fuel injection, that would've put out close to 1,000 HP (736 kW); that would've been a big help (but that would have also meant designing a new transmission, probably).

[Soren]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

However, I understand the transmission was excellent, in terms of maneuverability, with it's regenerative steering; the King Tiger was as maneouverable as a much smaller tank thanks to it's advanced (though, apparently, weak) transmission.

The transmission was an engineering marvel, no doubt, but it was designed for a 45 ton tank, not a 70 ton one. Thus while a truly great design, it wasn't rugged enough to survive the punishment delivered by an inexperienced driver for any long period of time.

Soren: I know they installed a very successful diesel engine in the second PzkPfw. VIII Maus prototype, a Daimler-Benz MB 517, with 1200 HP (895 kW). Do you think that engine would've worked in the King Tiger, or was it too big?

It was sadly abit too big. Would've done good in the E-100 though!

I know they were also, just before the end of the War, working on a "boosted" version of the Maybach HL230, with direct fuel injection, that would've put out close to 1,000 HP (736 kW); that would've been a big help (but that would have also meant designing a new transmission, probably).

Yes, this engine would've done the Tiger II good but what was really needed was a more rugged transmission, and a new and more powerful engine wouldn't have lessened this need.

[Soren]

Had the war lasted another half a year then this beast would've been facing the Allies:





Notice that 128mm KwK44 L/60 with muzzle brake, not even a IS-3 could've felt safe at 3km from that gun.

[Derfman]

On the King Tiger

I know for a fact that a number were abandoned on both east and west fronts, in situations where more mobile armor was able to keep up with mobile forces in retreat.

I also know that in the battle of the bulge, they did contribute much at all, again, due to poor mobility, and "on top of that", were abandoned at the end (for fuel reasons in that case).

To be clear: I've no doubt that the Tiger II had the mobility to move around a battlefield, but I seriously doubt its ability to "reach an active battlefield in time to be meaningful" during "fast paced" offensive action.

[Soren]

Again the battle of the bulge ran to a stand still because of a lack of fuel, not because the Tigers were too slow. The Tigers that were abandoned were so because no fuel was available or because they had broken down, and thats a fact.

In terms of mobility the Tiger Ausf.B was excellent, only being trumpfhed by the Panther. So the myth that the Tiger Ausf.B was immobile is just that, a myth.

[Derfman]

Originally Posted by Derfman

I also know that in the battle of the bulge, they did contribute much at all, again, due to poor mobility, and """"""""on top of that"""""""", were abandoned at the end (for fuel reasons in that case).

To be clear: I've no doubt that the Tiger II had the mobility to move around a battlefield, but I seriously doubt its ability to "reach an active battlefield in time to be meaningful" during "fast paced" offensive action.

x

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with the King Tiger nay sayers here.

The Tiger and the Panther were superior to anything the allies had out there or atleast were good eneogh to get the job done.

The Germans should have upped production of the Tigers and Panthers instead of wasting there time on the King Tiger when it was clearly not needed.

[ToughOmbre]

Superior numbers and superior tactics were the only way American tankers could achieve success on the battlefield against the Panthers and Tigers. It's an indisputable fact that the Germans had the best tanks in WW II; fortunately the allies had the most tanks.

TO

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Superior numbers and superior tactics were the only way American tankers could achieve success on the battlefield against the Panthers and Tigers. It's an indisputable fact that the Germans had the best tanks in WW II; fortunately the allies had the most tanks.

TO

I agree and that is why I say there was no need for the King Tiger or for any of these other crazy designs such as the Maus, etc...

[Denniss]

The Tiger II Königstiger (Bengal Tiger is correct english translation, King Tiger would be König Tiger) was OK, they should have dropped the Jagdtiger and the monster Maus and the even heavier types.

And even upgunning the Königstiger was not needed at all, the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was powerful enough to punch holes in the IS-3.

Edit: And the germans should have phased out the Panzer IV as tank in late 1943 but continue using the chassis for self-propelled guns like StuG IV or Jagdpanzer IV. The Panther had much more value in many aspects (gun, mobility even in rough terrain and especially armor protection.

[Derfman]

Apologies for derailing the thread

But its not a very bad derailing, just mildly off "exact" topic.

Having said that....

The Tiger II did have SOME mobility issues. It was not a complete mobility failure like the Maus, nor was it an almost complete mobility failure like the Hunting Tiger, but it DID have mobility issues, especially when trying to keep pace with mobile offensive operation.

When I say "Mobile offensive operations" I am NOT talking about driving around an active battlefield.

When I say "mobile offensive operations" I am talking about making a 300 mile blitz.

For the record, the Tiger II was outstanding for the situation Germany was in during 1944/1945. If the enemy comes to you, you don't need Blitz mobility.

The Panther, on the other hand, was the best tank of WWII, unless you count the ease of production for the 85mm armed T34. (I'd give the M26 and the Centurion and even the Panther II honorable mention, but they were to late to really count).

[Soren]

And even upgunning the Königstiger was not needed at all, the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was powerful enough to punch holes in the IS-3.

Indeed it was, however not frontally at 3km like the 128mm KwK L/55 & 60

But your right the 88mm KwK43 L/71 would still be more than enough to deal with the IS-3, being capable of penetrating its frontal armour way past the 122mm D-25T's effective & accurate range. And therefore the KwK43 wouldn't be phased out any time soon, it was afterall a far superior tank mounted AT gun than any the Allies had produced.

[Denniss]

KwK43 and KwK44 should be equal at about 2.5 km, the KwK 43 is better on shorter ranges and the KwK 44 at longer ranges as it's mass hold the energy better.

KwK44 has L/55 caliber length, the L/61 gun was the 128mm FlaK that was not used on tanks unless on two prototype self-propelled guns (Sturer Emil).