Anyone watch the History channels program on the Tiger Tank?

[SUBMAN1]

That was a good Heavy Metal episode! :up: Records of one Tiger taking over 200 hits from T-34's and it still limped back home over 40 miles away.

-S

[A Very Super Market]

No, I didn't watch it, but its a wonder it even got to the battle!

Tigers were notorious for breaking down, and more of them were lost to mechanical failure than enemy tanks! And somehow I doubt that the Soviets didn't manage to get one T-34 to flank and shoot his rear. Ah well, maybe it got lucky.

[Hylander_1314]

The King Tiger was the one with the most mechanical problems. The Tiger itself was something to behold. There weren't too many of them built, around 1,200 total production, but the legend of it's durability and the respect it commanded from the US Armoured forces is commendable. The guys driving the Shermans were told not to take on the Tiger or Panther tanks unless they outnumbered them 5 to 1.

[Fincuan]

No doubt some of the History Channel stuff is visually great, but I have a hard time taking them seriously after watching a couple of episodes of "Dofights" :lol:

[Bewolf]

No, I didn't watch it, but its a wonder it even got to the battle!

Tigers were notorious for breaking down, and more of them were lost to mechanical failure than enemy tanks! And somehow I doubt that the Soviets didn't manage to get one T-34 to flank and shoot his rear. Ah well, maybe it got lucky.
That is not entirely correct. Mechanical faults were sorted out over the course of the production run, the same as with the Panther.
The later models were much improved over their earlier designs. Both never got to the same levels of reliability as the Shermans, but they were certainly better then their reputation suggest. Later on the tanks biggest flaws lay in a detoriation of armor quality due to wartime material shortages.

The Tiger certainly was one heck of a tank, it's reputation amongst its oponents well founded. Going for quality instead of quantity was the only way Germany had against the huge material advantages the allies had.

[A Very Super Market]

Well yes, perhaps I have a rather low view of the Tiger. But I never understood why they didn't slope its armour. The Panther was more maneuverable, and could escape those 5 Shermans after it because it was so much lighter. The Tiger weighed to much to have that luxury, and though it could definitely take punishment, it wouldn't be able to take the P-47s the Shermans would inevitably radio in.

[AntEater]

The Tiger was a way earlier design than the Panther, first Tigers were in use in Summer of 1942, in very limited numbers though.
The design was much older as well.
Also, Tiger and Panther do not really compare.
Tiger was never intended to be a standard tank, rather a special weapon for seperate battalions and companies, mostly at army level.
Some divisions (Großdeutschland and serveral Waffen-SS) had organic Tiger companies, but that was the exception.
Panthers were designed as standard tanks for the Panzer Divisions.
Also, one workaround was the "dinner time" doctrine, meaning that in a defensive position, you positioned your Tiger in such a way that the 11 or 1 o'Clock position pointed towards the enemy.
The armor was much more effective that way.

Second, Shermans could not "radio in" anything.
If somebody could, it was the forward air controller, who most likely was NOT sitting in a tank.
In WW2, the forward air controller was still a rarity and even if they were there, accuracy was not so great.
Airpower had a great effect in WW2, but taking out point targets was something relatively rare.
The "disable that single Tiger tank there and there" kind of thing simply did not happen.

[August]

Airpower had a great effect in WW2, but taking out point targets was something relatively rare.
The "disable that single Tiger tank there and there" kind of thing simply did not happen.

You're right. Most of the Tigers destroyed by air power were attacked as they traveled to and from the battlefield by roaming aircraft.

[Bewolf]

Well yes, perhaps I have a rather low view of the Tiger. But I never understood why they didn't slope its armour. The Panther was more maneuverable, and could escape those 5 Shermans after it because it was so much lighter. The Tiger weighed to much to have that luxury, and though it could definitely take punishment, it wouldn't be able to take the P-47s the Shermans would inevitably radio in.
The Panther had the benefit of beeing influenced by captured russian T34s during it's development, the Tiger was not that lucky. That said, it's a bit unfair to have a go at the Tiger for that anyways, as by far most tanks used in WW2 didn't use sloped armor.

Nevertheless it's armor was up to the task, even if this was achieved by the most brutal method in just adding more and more armor. The Tiger was not the most modern tank by a wide shot, but it was a feared and very effective tank given the right circumstances.

Btw, airpower in regards to tank kills in WW2 is grossly overestimated. British tests conducted of tank remains in Normandy and Falaise showed a roughly 5% hit percentage by rockets and bombs. Aircraft nevertheless were responsible for the ineffectiveness of the german tanks by hitting logistics, soft targets transporting fuel and spare parts, making the panzers unserviceable. Many had to be abandonded without getting hit once.

[AntEater]

Killing tanks is generally not the same as shooting down aircraft.
In most circumstances, a plane shot down cannot be used again, except for maybe a belly landing with minor damage.
With tanks, it is very well possible to restore most knocked out tanks.
So basically, if you're in command of the field, you can recover most of the tanks you lost.
So if you lose territory, you lose more tanks than those that take the territory.
After repelling an attack on the retreat, german troops mostly tried blowing up the enemy tanks knocked out in front of their position.

[A Very Super Market]

Bleh... I feel rather stupid now. Guess I need to touch up my tank knowledge.:oops:

Now, I thought that of all countries, the US would have standard radios in their tanks.

But I still don't think the Tiger was that good a tank. I don't have any idea of how many were made, but I'm sure there was very little. I've read about Villers-Bocage, and how a Tiger stopped an entire tank column. Germany had lost at about the time the Tiger came into operation, but its dwindling Luftwaffe could have been of more use (Kreigsmarine was too small :( ). Then again, Germany never would have matched the output of the US, let alone all three major allies, so......

....Bah, I've contradicted myself. :doh:

[August]

Now, I thought that of all countries, the US would have standard radios in their tanks.

A lot of them did, but back in those days there wasn't much direct communication between aircraft and the ground. It's more than just radios and frequencies, it's the training doctrine and procedural knowledge of how to direct the aircraft strikes to maximum effectiveness and also minimize friendly fire incidents.

As the war progressed a lot of progress was made in these areas though. The US Marines in particular did a lot of the pioneer work in close air support doctrine, at least in our military.

[Hylander_1314]

Just watch Kelly's Heros.

Actually, until the US got up to speed with war production, there weren't enough radios to go around in the tanks, so the average grouping of 5 tanks, would have one tank with a radio, and the other 4 would follow the lead of the one that did have one.

[Bewolf]

Bleh... I feel rather stupid now. Guess I need to touch up my tank knowledge.:oops:

Now, I thought that of all countries, the US would have standard radios in their tanks.

But I still don't think the Tiger was that good a tank. I don't have any idea of how many were made, but I'm sure there was very little. I've read about Villers-Bocage, and how a Tiger stopped an entire tank column. Germany had lost at about the time the Tiger came into operation, but its dwindling Luftwaffe could have been of more use (Kreigsmarine was too small :( ). Then again, Germany never would have matched the output of the US, let alone all three major allies, so......

....Bah, I've contradicted myself. :doh:

"good" is relative and dependant on the situation. During most of the Tigers existance period Germany was on the retreat. For this the Tiger was almost perfectly well suited. Think moving pillbox, a concept that was later stretched over the limit with the King Tiger. Around 1300 were built. And you refer to Wittmans actions I suppose?

The Luftwaffe never really had a shortage of planes, despite the heavy bombing. What the Luftwaffe lacked foremost were propperly trained pilots and fuel for the last stages of the war, preventing the usage of these aircraft in any meaningful way.

[AntEater]

"Moving pillbox" does not really cut it, though.
This was the doctrine of Panzerjäger and the likes.
Tigers were in fact used one the move, whenever possible.
Villers Bocage was a textbook east front operation, on the west front.
Enemy breaks through, the Tigers attack before they consolidate.
So Tigers were operationally a defensive weapon, but were used offensively on tactical level, at least when everything was going according to plan.
A tiger unit was too valuable to be tied down defending a static objective.
I must admit that my only Tiger source is a not very scientific book, but the way Tiger operations are described there, Tigers hunted offensively.
At least experts like Otto Carius or Wittmann did so.
But offensively does not mean driving on the field guns blazing, but rather to "move like the river floats", meaning to archieve hull down firing positions whenever possible and staying on the move. This is still german tank doctrine: No matter how well amored your tank is, it is always better not to get hit at all.
Tiger crews were usually selected from experienced crewmen of regular tanks, so their skill in handling the vehicle tactically might have played a great role in the success of the tank.
The crews simply knew what they were doing, something not too common in german tankers in 1944-45.
The average tiger crew had learned to fight successfully in inferior tanks, and now had a superior vehicle.

[HunterICX]

No doubt some of the History Channel stuff is visually great, but I have a hard time taking them seriously after watching a couple of episodes of "Dofights" :lol:
Any Documentary with the Hollywood flavour I dont watch...

-narrated by some deep trailer voice
-too much CGI that replaces footage
-re-enacting scenes, then I go watch a movie if I want to see that kind of stuff.

HunterICX

[Bewolf]

"Moving pillbox" does not really cut it, though.
This was the doctrine of Panzerjäger and the likes.
Tigers were in fact used one the move, whenever possible.
Villers Bocage was a textbook east front operation, on the west front.
Enemy breaks through, the Tigers attack before they consolidate.
So Tigers were operationally a defensive weapon, but were used offensively on tactical level, at least when everything was going according to plan.
A tiger unit was too valuable to be tied down defending a static objective.
I must admit that my only Tiger source is a not very scientific book, but the way Tiger operations are described there, Tigers hunted offensively.
At least experts like Otto Carius or Wittmann did so.
But offensively does not mean driving on the field guns blazing, but rather to "move like the river floats", meaning to archieve hull down firing positions whenever possible and staying on the move. This is still german tank doctrine: No matter how well amored your tank is, it is always better not to get hit at all.
Tiger crews were usually selected from experienced crewmen of regular tanks, so their skill in handling the vehicle tactically might have played a great role in the success of the tank.
The crews simply knew what they were doing, something not too common in german tankers in 1944-45.
The average tiger crew had learned to fight successfully in inferior tanks, and now had a superior vehicle.

Thanks for the elaboration on the topic. Tank combat had never been a priority on my list, though it is a highly fascinating subject.

[Bewolf]

No doubt some of the History Channel stuff is visually great, but I have a hard time taking them seriously after watching a couple of episodes of "Dofights" :lol:
Any Documentary with the Hollywood flavour I dont watch...

-narrated by some deep trailer voice
-too much CGI that replaces footage
-re-enacting scenes, then I go watch a movie if I want to see that kind of stuff.

HunterICX

I stopped taking these "patriotic" documentaries seriously for a looooooong time already. These imported shows usually are aired in the middle of the night on second rate channels over here. They do have some entertainment value, though.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I thought it was a great injustice that the Tiger was not featured on the Military Channel's "Top Ten Tanks", which I just saw last night. I mean, for God's sake, the Sherman and the Centurion were in the top ten. Even the 15-ton failure that is the M551 Sheridan made it. The S-tank made the list despite not strictly being a tank at all!

The Tiger, I or II, should have been included if for no other reason than being the most intimidating tank of WW2. The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger. For that matter, if they're going to include turretless vehicles like the S-tank, the Jagdpanther and the Stug III should have been in there as well. I found the whole thing to be a complete mockumentation by someone completely unfamiliar with the philosophy of good tank design.

Oh well, at least the Leopard 2 and the Panther made it.

[Bewolf]

I thought it was a great injustice that the Tiger was not featured on the Military Channel's "Top Ten Tanks", which I just saw last night. I mean, for God's sake, the Sherman and the Centurion were in the top ten. Even the 15-ton failure that is the M551 Sheridan made it. The S-tank made the list despite not strictly being a tank at all!

The Tiger, I or II, should have been included if for no other reason than being the most intimidating tank of WW2. The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger. For that matter, if they're going to include turretless vehicles like the S-tank, the Jagdpanther and the Stug III should have been in there as well. I found the whole thing to be a complete mockumentation by someone completely unfamiliar with the philosophy of good tank design.

Oh well, at least the Leopard 2 and the Panther made it.

True, but these US comparison shows are odd anyways. In one, the Sherman made first as the best tank of WW2 place because it's ease of production and logistics. You just gotta bend the criteria until it fits your design.

For some reason me thinks the tankers inside these would reconsider such judgement when facing a Tiger or Panther.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I thought it was a great injustice that the Tiger was not featured on the Military Channel's "Top Ten Tanks", which I just saw last night. I mean, for God's sake, the Sherman and the Centurion were in the top ten. Even the 15-ton failure that is the M551 Sheridan made it. The S-tank made the list despite not strictly being a tank at all!

The Tiger, I or II, should have been included if for no other reason than being the most intimidating tank of WW2. The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger. For that matter, if they're going to include turretless vehicles like the S-tank, the Jagdpanther and the Stug III should have been in there as well. I found the whole thing to be a complete mockumentation by someone completely unfamiliar with the philosophy of good tank design.

Oh well, at least the Leopard 2 and the Panther made it.

True, but these US comparison shows are odd anyways. In one, the Sherman made first as the best tank of WW2 place because it's ease of production and logistics. You just gotta bend the criteria until it fits your design.


edit- and if any tank should have been the best for ease of production and logistics, it should've been the T-34. Even the Germans learned something from that nasty little beast. It is a testament to the incompetence of the WW2 Soviet war machine that so many were lost, despite being clearly superior to the Panzer III and IV, and outnumbering them, no less!
For some reason me thinks the tankers inside these would reconsider such judgement when facing a Tiger or Panther.

I suppose that would depend on whether you asked the one Sherman crew that survived or the four that were killed. As proud as I am of my American heritage, I am ashamed when I look back at the way our military threw so many hundreds of thousands of lives away in the World Wars. D-Day and the ensuing battles were little more than a side-show compared to the Eastern Front, and even in Korea and Vietnam the U.S. military failed to provide a significantly advanced tactical doctrine or equipment to our troops. Only in the years since we adopted German-style tactics and equipment (early 80's) have we developed a war machine that rivals the efficiency of the Germans in the last century and a half.
Even then, with the war on terror, we insisted upon fighting the last war, woefully underprepared despite the lessons we learned from the British and the Soviets during their occupations of those regeions.

If German martial tradition has one claim to fame, it is that German military thinkers have been among the most effective and progressive of any in the world. German generals and strategists, collectively, are unequaled by any other nation in modern history. When I report to my unit for duty, I don a modern woodland digital-camouflage pattern that is directly derived from late 44' Waffen SS camouflage. I wear a helmet that is patterned after the German design of 1915, albeit made of Kevlar. My weapon is a machine gun that is a direct descendant of the MG42, the M240G. The weapons of my comrades owe their design to the MP44, the M16A2, with a few American innovations:D . Our combined-arms doctrine was purchased at the cost of untold thousands of American lives on the Western Front. And that's to say nothing of Germany's contributions to jet, submarine, and rocket weapons.

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, I suppose. Even if certain "documentaries" of questionable worth pervade our media, the truth is evident in the machines, methods, and tactics we employ.

[A Very Super Market]

I watched the documentary, the Sherman was tenth, the Panther was fifth, and the T-34 was second.

The Panther was in a completely different class from the Shermans and T-34s. They didn't make enough to make a difference.

When you say the the Western Front was a sideshow, yes it was smaller in scale. But the main reason for it was that Stalin wasn't the most trustworthy of allies. Had there not been a Western Front, Stalin may have made a separate peace, or gone through all of Europe, leaving only Britain as a "Western" nation.

[Bewolf]

I thought it was a great injustice that the Tiger was not featured on the Military Channel's "Top Ten Tanks", which I just saw last night. I mean, for God's sake, the Sherman and the Centurion were in the top ten. Even the 15-ton failure that is the M551 Sheridan made it. The S-tank made the list despite not strictly being a tank at all!

The Tiger, I or II, should have been included if for no other reason than being the most intimidating tank of WW2. The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger. For that matter, if they're going to include turretless vehicles like the S-tank, the Jagdpanther and the Stug III should have been in there as well. I found the whole thing to be a complete mockumentation by someone completely unfamiliar with the philosophy of good tank design.

Oh well, at least the Leopard 2 and the Panther made it.
True, but these US comparison shows are odd anyways. In one, the Sherman made first as the best tank of WW2 place because it's ease of production and logistics. You just gotta bend the criteria until it fits your design.


edit- and if any tank should have been the best for ease of production and logistics, it should've been the T-34. Even the Germans learned something from that nasty little beast. It is a testament to the incompetence of the WW2 Soviet war machine that so many were lost, despite being clearly superior to the Panzer III and IV, and outnumbering them, no less!
For some reason me thinks the tankers inside these would reconsider such judgement when facing a Tiger or Panther.
I suppose that would depend on whether you asked the one Sherman crew that survived or the four that were killed. As proud as I am of my American heritage, I am ashamed when I look back at the way our military threw so many hundreds of thousands of lives away in the World Wars. D-Day and the ensuing battles were little more than a side-show compared to the Eastern Front, and even in Korea and Vietnam the U.S. military failed to provide a significantly advanced tactical doctrine or equipment to our troops. Only in the years since we adopted German-style tactics and equipment (early 80's) have we developed a war machine that rivals the efficiency of the Germans in the last century and a half.
Even then, with the war on terror, we insisted upon fighting the last war, woefully underprepared despite the lessons we learned from the British and the Soviets during their occupations of those regeions.

If German martial tradition has one claim to fame, it is that German military thinkers have been among the most effective and progressive of any in the world. German generals and strategists, collectively, are unequaled by any other nation in modern history. When I report to my unit for duty, I don a modern woodland digital-camouflage pattern that is directly derived from late 44' Waffen SS camouflage. I wear a helmet that is patterned after the German design of 1915, albeit made of Kevlar. My weapon is a machine gun that is a direct descendant of the MG42, the M240G. The weapons of my comrades owe their design to the MP44, the M16A2, with a few American innovations:D . Our combined-arms doctrine was purchased at the cost of untold thousands of American lives on the Western Front. And that's to say nothing of Germany's contributions to jet, submarine, and rocket weapons.

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, I suppose. Even if certain "documentaries" of questionable worth pervade our media, the truth is evident in the machines, methods, and tactics we employ.

*COUGH*
Though you are probably right, I am not sure if to take that as a compliment or with a shudder. There is this saying over here, stating "Death is a master from Germany". And Death is what war and all the tools and machines are for, after all. So I am kinda torn between this realisation and the ages old fascination for war in general, within which Germay indeed has a place.

It all boils down to accepting war as natural human behaviour that can't be avoided and thus propperly recognized or fight it in the name of idealism and the hope of improving humankind.

Anyways, so much to the philosophical aspect of this. I wholeheartly agree to your assessment of the T34. It was a nasty surprise for the Germans in Russia and was very influential in the development of the Panther, which is considered to be the first modern concept MBT by some.

I also agree to the short sightness of the american leadership, namely Patton, who did not see the need for the by then available Pershing, instead putting his money on the Sherman. Though not a bad tank per se, intended to fight in combination with infantry and tank destroyers, the old phrase "no plan survives enemy contact" became too true for the Ronson. Especially if "enemy contact" was defined by "heavy tanks".

But I suppose every army has a lesson to learn here and there. For the germans this lesson was the T34. For the western allies it was the Panther and Tiger.

[August]

The Germans did have some very quality weapons but not all of them were superior to their allied counterparts. Compare the bolt action Mauser to the Semi-auto Garand or the B17 or B29 to the He111 or Do17, The Stuka to the Sturmovik, even lowely "deuce and a half" to the Opel truck, never mind in naval technology, there are lots of areas where the Allies were just as good or better than what what the Germans fielded.

[Bewolf]

The Germans did have some very quality weapons but not all of them were superior to their allied counterparts. Compare the bolt action Mauser to the Semi-auto Garand or the B17 or B29 to the He111 or Do17, The Stuka to the Sturmovik, even lowely "deuce and a half" to the Opel truck, never mind in naval technology, there are lots of areas where the Allies were just as good or better than what what the Germans fielded.
Well, a more fair comparison between for the B29 would be the amerika bomber concepts and the He177. The B29 nevertheless and undoubtly is the pinnacle of WW2 era level bombers and was way ahead of any german design at that time. That aside it simply is a beautiful design.

The Stuka and the IL2 don't really fit either. The equivalent to the IL2 would be the Hs129. The IL2's main advantage was it's quantity, not nessecarily it's qualitites. They were shot down en masse. I do not think the russians employed a dedicated one engine dive bomber. The japanese Val and the american Dauntless and Helldiver are the only directly comparable aircraft coming to my mind.

A field where the allies really were way ahead of the germans were Radar technology (Magnetron) and code breaking. The naval field in general is debateable, Radar and tactics were the US biggest assets in this area (aside pure quantity), though US carriers were the best in the world without a doubt.

[Schroeder]

The Germans did have some very quality weapons but not all of them were superior to their allied counterparts. Compare the bolt action Mauser to the Semi-auto Garand or the B17 or B29 to the He111 or Do17, The Stuka to the Sturmovik, even lowely "deuce and a half" to the Opel truck, never mind in naval technology, there are lots of areas where the Allies were just as good or better than what what the Germans fielded.
Well, don't forget about the FG 42, the Kar. 43 and Stg 44;).

The designs were there, they were just not fielded in large enough numbers.

Besides as Bewolf already pointed out the HE111, Do17 and JU 87 are pre war designs (o.k. so is the B17) but comparing them to the B29 is a bit unfair isn't it?;) Btw. the He111 and Do 17 were designed for accuracy not for spreading tons of bombs from 30,000+ feet.:know:

[August]

the HE111, Do17 and JU 87 are pre war designs (o.k. so is the B17) but comparing them to the B29 is a bit unfair isn't it?;) Btw. the He111 and Do 17 were designed for accuracy not for spreading tons of bombs from 30,000+ feet.:know:

Fair enough. So how about the B-25 Mitchell as a comparison to the Heinkel and Dornier then? Better defenses, slightly faster, carried a lot more bombs and had a lot longer range.

[August]

And comparing the stats of the Dauntless vs the Stuka i'd say the Allies had the better aircraft in that category as well.

My point is though that while Germany did have some really innovative weapon designs as did the Allies, neither side should claim an overall superiority.

[MothBalls]

My point is though that while Germany did have some really innovative weapon designs as did the Allies, neither side should claim an overall superiority.Unless one side has an atom bomb.

[AntEater]

The Dauntless wasn't really faster than a Stuka (at least not as the contemporary D version), less stable in a dive and could carry less ordonance.
It was carrier capable, which accounted for this lesser performance, but from all dive bombers really used in WW2, the Stuka was the best, except maybe for the Ju 88 when used as a dive bomber.
Problem was that dive bombers simply didn't fare too well against fighters.
The Vultee Vengeance was maybe the best dive bomber but it was used so rarely it hardly matters.
Real comparisons for the Do 17 and the He 111 would be the B-18 Bolo and the Martin Bomber, both not exactly stellar performers.
Contemporaries of the B-25/B-26 would be the Do-217 and the Ju 188, both excellent aircraft.
Problem with german bombers was simply that from 1942 on there was no way german twin engine bombers could be usefully employed anywhere in daylight due to allied superiority in numbers, not only in numbers of planes, but also in numbers of well trained pilots.

[Bewolf]

My point is though that while Germany did have some really innovative weapon designs as did the Allies, neither side should claim an overall superiority.Unless one side has an atom bomb.
unless it required german scientists and captured fissil material to build one :know:

[A Very Super Market]

Hm... I think I might be right this time.

The Stuka was a very good dive bomber, which causes the consequence of it being slow, a big target, and extremely vulnerable to fighters. Poland's airforce was destroyed on the ground, the French were completely suprised in the Ardennes, and the convoys in the med had no fighter cover either. The Stukas lost their effectiveness as soon as the Brits replaced their biplanes in North Africa. .Course, the Eastern Front was still useful for Stukas, the Soviet air force wasn't one to behold

[bradclark1]

The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger.
Kurt Knispel was the biggest tank on tank ace with 168 kills. Wittmann had 138 tank on tank kills. Wittman was actually something like 3rd or 4th.
(US)Staff Sergeant Lafayette G. Pool is credited with 258 enemy vehicle kills, by type is unknown.

The M60 was a direct desendent of the MG42, the 240G is a totally different animal. All your choices are "in the family of" choices. Thats like saying the M3 submachine gun is derived from the MP40. It isn't but it's in the family of.

The doctrine in the early 80's was tailor made to deal with the soviet machine. There is zero German style WW2 tactics. The officer corp during our military rebirth were the junior officers of Vietnam and they swore that Korea and Vietnam would never happen again. From the ground up the doctrine and tables of organization was designed for what our mission was at the time. It sure didn't incorporate WW2 doctrine. I will agree with you that thousands of lives were thrown away due to ignorance and stupidity.

[August]

...captured fissil material to build one :know:

This part is intriguing. I'd like to hear more.

[SUBMAN1]

Sounds like I need to upload the Tiger program.

-S

[Bewolf]

...captured fissil material to build one :know:
This part is intriguing. I'd like to hear more.

Just do a google search for U-234, you'll find tons of material.

[AntEater]

Maybe the M240 is different, but the Bundeswehr and many others still use the MG3, which is basically an MG42 adapted to NATO caliber.
I handled it myself during basic training (navy has to do the "green stuff" as well), but was glad not to be assigned machine gunner of my squad, as the thing weighs three times as much as a G3.
I'm not a weapons expert, but interested in weapons history (if I would live in the US I'd collect historical military arms), the simplicity of the thing fascinated me.
Somehow you could tell that this was a weapon that was designed by soldiers in wartime for war, not for some defense bidding process.
Shooting the MG3 was an experience, was more precise than I thought, even with me aiming it, and the ammo was certainly gone very quickly.
Even if the MG3 has a "NATO brake" (Bundeswehr urband legend) reducing rate of fire.

[XabbaRus]

IL-2s were shot down on masse not because of their design but due to the fact that that early in the war German pilots were of better quality and battle hardened, Soviet pilots not so.

At the beginning young Soviet pilots would run away from the Germans.

The IL-2 was a bugger to take down..best place was to hit it from underneath.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Maybe the M240 is different, but the Bundeswehr and many others still use the MG3, which is basically an MG42 adapted to NATO caliber.
I handled it myself during basic training (navy has to do the "green stuff" as well), but was glad not to be assigned machine gunner of my squad, as the thing weighs three times as much as a G3.
I'm not a weapons expert, but interested in weapons history (if I would live in the US I'd collect historical military arms), the simplicity of the thing fascinated me.
Somehow you could tell that this was a weapon that was designed by soldiers in wartime for war, not for some defense bidding process.
Shooting the MG3 was an experience, was more precise than I thought, even with me aiming it, and the ammo was certainly gone very quickly.
Even if the MG3 has a "NATO brake" (Bundeswehr urband legend) reducing rate of fire.

The M240G medium machine gun is an adaption of the earlier M60 machine gun,, which is directly patterned off of the MG42. The M240 was intended to be a lighter replacement for that weapon, using plastic furnishings and thinner steel, but the functionality is essentially the same. Still, both weapons share much in common with the MG42.

I only got to fire a G3 once, but I must say, if the weapon has any faults it is that it is a bit too fast and a bit too accurate. A proper machine-gun burst needs to spread out a bit , imo, to achieve the effect of a long-range shotgun blast. It does no good to hit a single target with 8 rounds when 1 will do the trick.
In American weapons, the lower rate of fire helps achieve this aim because the recoil forces you off-target a litte bit. With the G3, I practically had to wiggle the barrel to spread the rounds out. I exaggerate, all I had to do was loosen my tight grip on the weapon,something which comes from years of training with "bumpier" weapons. Overall, an excellent medium automatic rifle, though.

[Schroeder]

Overall, an excellent medium automatic rifle, though.
Has been replaced with the G36 by now.:D

[August]

You too could have your own Tiger tank!

http://dvice.com/archives/2008/12/mind-blowing_re.php

http://dvice.com/pics/RC-550-lbs-King-Tiger-tank.jpg

[antikristuseke]

The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger.


The M60 was a direct desendent of the MG42, the 240G is a totally different animal. All your choices are "in the family of" choices.

Errr, unless my memory fails me the M60 was more based on the FG42 than the MG42.

[Dowly]

The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger.

The M60 was a direct desendent of the MG42, the 240G is a totally different animal. All your choices are "in the family of" choices.
Errr, unless my memory fails me the M60 was more based on the FG42 than the MG42.
Dont know about the history of M60, but it would seem strange to base an Machinegun to an paratrooper assault weapon/very light MG than an "real" MG, i.e. the MG42.

EDIT: I stand corrected. FG42 it is.

EDIT2: Well, let's say I kneel corrected. It's based on FG42, but there's few things like the belt feeding mechanics that is taken from MG42.

[bradclark1]

The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger.


The M60 was a direct desendent of the MG42, the 240G is a totally different animal. All your choices are "in the family of" choices.

Errr, unless my memory fails me the M60 was more based on the FG42 than the MG42.
Half right or close enough.
The design included features that had been successful on earlier designs (most notably the German MG42 & FG42), as well as improvements of its own.

[UnderseaLcpl]

The best tank ace in the world, Wittman, commanded a Tiger.


The M60 was a direct desendent of the MG42, the 240G is a totally different animal. All your choices are "in the family of" choices.

Errr, unless my memory fails me the M60 was more based on the FG42 than the MG42.
Half right or close enough.
The design included features that had been successful on earlier designs (most notably the German MG42 & FG42), as well as improvements of its own.

I had forgotten all about that. I guess I need to go back to infantry school:oops:
Well, at least I wasn't totally wrong

[Hylander_1314]

This has a cool collection of model tanks. Scratch built from plywood, steel and aluminum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0xG_30mzXk&feature=channel

[August]

This has a cool collection of model tanks. Scratch built from plywood, steel and aluminum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0xG_30mzXk&feature=channel

It's difficult to get a sense of scale in that video. Are these the same folks that built the king tiger i posted earlier?

[Hylander_1314]

No this guy is an independent. Search for witchitatankman as there are more. But some of the videos are poor in quality, or the adio sucks. But the sound of the treads and wheels, and engines are cool. His tanks weigh in close to a ton. They are anywhere from 1/6th to 1/3rd scale.

[August]

No this guy is an independent. Search for witchitatankman as there are more. But some of the videos are poor in quality, or the adio sucks. But the sound of the treads and wheels, and engines are cool. His tanks weigh in close to a ton. They are anywhere from 1/6th to 1/3rd scale.

Will do thanks! :up: