Talk:Tiger II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Unless there are objections, I'd like to merge this with Tiger I Oberiko 13:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably too big for a merge, but it might be good to change Panzer VI to a page that briefly mentions both and then links to the articles, rather than redirecting to Tiger I as it does now. — B.Bryant 11:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge. They are distinct vehicles. Megapixie 09:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The Tiger One and the Tiger Two are different tanks. Too different to be merged into one article.
Agreed. The Tiger I is more like a gigantic Panzerkampfwagen Mk. IV while the Tiger II is more like a heavier version of the Panther. 209.221.73.5 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Daddy's got a Porsche

Are any of the Porsche Tiger II's still around, or were they all destroyed, or stripped for parts, converted etc? I imagine a Porsche Tiger would be the crowning jewel of any tank museum. Presumably the modern-day Porsche distances itself from this kind of thing, although the kind of people who buy Porsche cars would probably enjoy the association. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There were no Porsche hulls produced, or at least none that saw service; I am not sure why the article says there were. The 60 or so "Porsche" turrets were used on standard hulls. DMorpheus 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? I thought the experimental Porsche hulls were used to create the Jadgpanzer Elephant anti-tank vehicles. Maury 20:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The Tiger I Porsche hulls were used for Ferdinand/Elefant but not the Tiger II Porsche hulls. --Denniss 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Porsche... This is the first time I've seen mentioned that there were 60 Porsche turrets produced, rather than 50. Any idea where this number comes from? --Martin Wisse 07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It comes from my error, evidently. Looks like 50 is the correct number. The article could use a major edit to clear up the whole "Porsche" design issue that seems wrongly stated in the current version. I don't know the development history well enough to do it. Isn't it correct to say that Krupp designed both turrets; both were built by Wegman; the first type (the so-called "Porsche turret")was used on all the early design studies; and the second turret type was adopted because it was much easier to manufacture? Neither the terms 'porsche' nor 'henschel' turrets make much sense. DMorpheus 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If my memory is correct from the 80's, and I am positive it is due to the anger I felt at seening it chopped up, there was a Porsche KT at the Patton Museum @ Fort Knox, Kentucky. At some time in the past, they had sliced off the armour of the left side of the turret and left side of the hull to show the interior of the tank. They replaced the armour with glass/plexiglass... That was some time ago (1988?), and I thought I heard rumors that the tank was recently shipped back to Germany for 'rebuilding' and that it was to be returned with a firing of the gun... Again, that was an informal rumor I heard from an ex-military source.

Harry Woods 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox states 2 or 3 MGs. Weren't these tanks deployed with two machineguns (coax and hull ball mount) only? I may be incorrect but I thought that when they needed an AA weapon mounted on the commander's cupola, they removed the ball mounted gun and moved it up to the cupola. DMorpheus 15:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It probably depends on who did the modification and when. --Carnildo 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
They probably kept the third stored inside the tank itself and took it out when needed. 209.221.73.5 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the tanks were issued with two MGs, and the hull gun was mounted on the turret cupola when they were doing road marches or in other situations in which an AA gun was needed. DMorpheus 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah. Besides, taking out the MG from the hull and mounting it on the turret cupola would've taken way too much time and by the time they manage to mount it, the tank would have been severely damaged. It would've been much simpler to carry an MG in the hull or making an improvised mounting on the turret itself. 209.221.73.5 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless that is exactly what they did. The MG was not taken out of the hull mount when they saw an airplane; it was taken out when a road march was planned, so it would be available for AA defense if needed. This can be confirmed by taking a look at an actual AA MG; the MG has the armored sleeve used in the hull mount, not the standard MG-34 perforated barrel sleeve. DMorpheus 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see on a specific book about tanks, the Tiger II had a coaxial gun, a front gun, and optionally a top, anti-aircraft, gun. If the latter was installed, there were three, not two, machine guns on the Tiger II. Interfree 17:53, 26 April 2006 (CEST)
Yes, but the means they used to obtain the AA MG was to remove the hull MG. They did the same thing on the Pzkw-IV. I don't doubt that a few enterprising crews stole extra MGs occasionally, but that's not the standard fit. DMorpheus 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, so the book must be wrong. Anyway, i'm going to translate the sentence for reference. "Machine gun: this tank mounted three MG34 7.92mm machine guns: one on the right side of the front, another one coaxial to the cannon, and the third for anti aircraft role, that could be mounted on a carriage around the tank's commander dome". Moreover, in the same page, there are four pictures of four different configurations of the tank (Ardennes 1944, Hungary 1945, Danzig 1945 and Kassel 1945), and the third picture (Danzig, March 1945) is the only one that shows the third MG. Maybe there were indeed some configurations (i'm not talking about the enterprising crews of course) that installed the third MG. Interfree 19.15, 26 April 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Incorrect translation

Königstiger means Bengal Tiger, not King Tiger. Königs Tiger means King Tiger.

Kurt.

  • Whilst I agree that Königstiger translates to Bengal Tiger I think that the current use of Bengal Tiger in the page is confusing. I have never before heard anyone call this a Bengal Tiger and I think it is unhelpful to use a translation to a proper noun. I think that the answer is to provide a small paragraph with references to explain all of the naming issues. There is a good article at http://www.panzerworld.net/facts.html that covers this.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 10:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
König Tiger means King Tiger. Königs Tiger means that the family König has a Tiger.
And Königstiger means Bengal Tiger.... so what's the point ?--Denniss 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Even as Königstiger and Bengal Tiger refer to the same animal species, I think the literal translation "King['s] Tiger" helps to explain why this tank got this name in the first place as any word with "King (König)" certainly sounds something powerful... Hookoo (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number built

This article contradicts itself on how many were built (as well as German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II). —Michael Z. 2006-05-22 14:28 Z

[edit] Comparison With Tiger I

With so many mechanical,logistical and combat problems, would it be right to say that the Tiger II is overall inferior to the older Tiger I??--chubbychicken 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Both were mechanical lemons. The Tiger II, however, had an extraordinarily powerful gun; the 88mm L/71 is quite a bit more powerful than the 88mm L/56. DMorpheus 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of Soviet specialists who tested captured Tiger Is and Tiger IIs was that the Tiger II due to its deficiencies, not only in mechanics, but, surprisingly, in armour as well, concluded that it was decidedly inferiour to the Tiger I. Once we are on the subject, I recently atempted to introduce a section dealing with the Soviet take on the Tiger II as presented in the website The Russian Battlefield, only to be reverted, by a certain partisan German, whose handle is Deniss, on grounds that are laughable without being truely funny that this site may not be quoted when discussing "enemy tanks". Is it realy official policy that articles dealing with the Wehrmacht present nothing but unalloyed and narcissistic German self-perception. If so I am delighted to be the first truth telling heretic. Hopefully I will not be the last. Indeed so many articles dealing with the Wehrmacht tend to be love fests devoid of any critical thinking, especially those concerned with the Nazi-Soviet front. Should we not be rid of this bias. Soz

The problem is that the Russian Battlefield's articles are of suspect neutrality (the T35 article, for example, claims that the T35 was not in any way influenced by the Vickers A1 Indenpendent) and the test carried out on the Tiger II at Kubinka have arguable validity anyway. As such, although their conclusions can be included in the article, to try and elevate them over other, more reputable sources [i]is[/i] laughable. There is a great deal of reliable, non-partisan research material about the Tiger II which contradicts the Russian Battlefield article. Why should we ignore them because one website gives us an alternative view? Getztashida 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger II vs IS-2

I know that the IS-2 on the whole is a MUCH better vehicle but which had a stronger gun (in terms of armour piercing and HE)?chubbychicken 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IS-2 on the whole better than Tiger II ?!? Highly questionable. For the other part of the question: better HE on the soviet side but better AP as well as far better optics to hit at long ranges on the german side. --Denniss 09:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It would help to clarify in the article that the gun had a very flat trajectory and so a high hit probability even at long ranges, like the Panther's, but unlike most Soviet tanks. Also, optics and ergonomics were good, again unlike the very cramped IS-2. Soviet tanks always look good on paper (so many millimetres of armour and main gun calibre), but that is not all that significant if you can't see anything, can't hit anything and can't work in the turret. Leibniz 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was wrong about IS-2 being MUCH better but think about it: IS-2 isn't as mechanically troubled as the Tiger II, it's logistically easier to manage and it's cheaper.chubbychicken 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The IS-2 is nearly 25 tons lighter also. Each tank could destroy the other and there is really no way to answer this question. But adding 25 tons of weight is bound to create some advantages. I would argue that thick armor and a big gun are significant at any range and are the primary factors. Ergonomics is a secondary factor - unquestionably significant, but not enough to ignore firepower and protection except in extreme cases. DMorpheus 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Adding 25 tonnes of weight may or may not be indirectly related to some advantages, but in and of itself is a serious disadvantage. Heavier tanks require more resources to build, take more trains to transport, use more fuel to move, cannot cross more bridges, require a larger engine and greater track area for the same battlefield mobility, put more wear on their mechanical parts, and may have a larger, easier to hit silhouette. All else being equal, fewer heavier tanks are likely to show up at the fight, and more of them are likely to get stuck while in combat.
Just to abstract the idea to a ridiculous extreme (this would be in the category of damn lies): since a Tiger II was 52% heavier (!) than an IS-2, we might guess that 52% fewer of them would be able to make it to a particular battlefield which was not of the Germans' choosing. To compensate, it would have to be 52% more effective than an IS-2, just to even things up—a very wide margin. Or 52% more of them would have to be built and fielded, but each one is already 52% more costly to build and support. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 14:35 Z
[Damn lies: the Tiger II was 52% heavier, but of course that means the IS-2 was 34% lighter —MZ]
There you go, bringing up genuine, important issues again ;) . You're right of course, the logisitcal 'footprint' of a tank is too often ignored. I was thinking in much narrower terms - adding 25 tons of armor and firepower, for example. Likewise, one of the ways the IS-2's weight was held down was by keeping it small, which left it with only 28 rounds of ammo. But your point is valid. It's unfortunate there are no good statistics (at least any I'm aware of) regarding reliability, operational vs. under repair states within units, etc to demonstrate the folly of building vehicles like the Tiger II. DMorpheus 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've mostly read about Soviet AFVs, and it doesn't take long to see that their development of MBTs was maniacally aimed at reducing size and weight, the main advantages being in production, logistics, and efficiency of armour layout.
The T-44 had essentially the same weight and mobility as the T-34, but was slightly smaller and significantly better armoured. This was achieved by reducing internal volume: replacement of Christie suspension with torsion bars, removal of the hull machine gunner (who had also been radioman before the T-34-85), and adoption of a novel transverse engine mount. The T-64 replaced another crewman with an autoloader, which, along with efficient turret design, has allowed gun calibre to increase from 85mm to 100, 115 and 125mm, without a significant increase in the tank's size. During the Cold War, there was an upper height limit on Soviet tank crewman (don't know if that's still the case). The T-80U's gas turbine was very space-efficient, but a dead end because it sucked fuel like a sailor on leave—the T-80UD achieved similar power with a conventional diesel. The Soviets also concentrated on reactive armour and active protection systems, which increase protection without a proportional weight increase. This isn't the only approach to tank design, but it certainly has its advantages.
It's still tempting to see the 48-tonne T-84 and 63-tonne M1 Abrams in light of the WWII Soviet and German tanks.
Now the Ukrainians have apparently increased volume by putting a modern turret-bustle ammo compartment and new autoloader on the T-84 Oplot, but the Russians seem to be toying with expanding the Black Eagle tank closer to the size of Western tanks, but possibly increasing gun calibre to 152mm.—Michael Z. 2006-08-11 15:47 Z
Well, T-95 is already out, here is a link with video

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/17088/cat/3071

most of the things about the tank are unknown, but what is known is that it is accepted in service and will be shown during 2007, the calibre is increased compared to usual russian 125 mm, and frontal armor is said to be impenetratable by any modern tank's gun due to thickness, the crew is said to be either 2 or 3, it will be low, wide and longer than usual chassis of T-72 or T-80. Completely new design. It is said to have radar (maybe). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.218.153 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Then how about we all agree that the debate of whether the IS-2 or Tiger II is better is a near unanswerable question (as mentioned earlier)?chubbychicken 08:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. They were designed for quite different roles. Leibniz 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
How were their roles different? —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 16:02 Z

IS-2's were mainly for supporting infantry assaults and blasting fortifications (but they could still destroy German panzers if needed). Personally, I'm not sure about the Tiger II but I think it was more of a tank-killing kind of tank - if you know what I mean.chubbychicken 04:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


The IS-2 is even lighter than the Panther...

I'm not sure.....you're probably are right but I always thought the Panther was just that slight bit lighter.chubbychicken 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Panther carried an L/70 (barrel length is 70 x caliber) gun, which launched its shell at an extreme velocity. The IS-2's gun isn't even L/50. Even though it has a much larger bore, it does not mean better armour penetration; the Panther could fire the shell through more armour than the Tiger I (L/56, 88mm) could. Of course, this does not mean the IS-2 would've been completely hopeless against the Panther, just pointing out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.183.205.213 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

In terms of raw statistics, the IS-2 was actually better than the Panther due to higher production numbers and better general HE/AP rounds, as well as armor protection. But they could be considered on par with each other, if the Panther was equipped with the tungsten-cored rounds. 74.112.49.141 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you draw those conclusions. The IS-2 was produced in smaller numbers than the Panther (about 6,000 or so Panthers vs. about 4,000 IS-2s). The IS HE round was far better, having several times the explosive force of the Panther's "puny" (Zaloga's term) HE shell. I didn't know there were any tungsten-core rounds for the Panther's gun. Certainly its AT capabilities were sufficient to take on IS-2s; each tank could destroy the other. DMorpheus 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh, I must've forgot. Oh well. But it can be said that tactically, the IS-2 was much more useful than the Panther, minus the small ammo-capacity and the semi-fixed shells. The IS-2 also has a smaller silhouette.AllStarZ 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to insult anyone here, but I assume that most people here are from western countries, where a lot of engagements of King Tigers against Is-2 are not known, for that reason I would like to give this site for studying:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=44

a very usefull site, which shows some inconsistencies in straightforward comparison of armor and armor-piercing shells, for a simple reason that standards of respective countries were different, you will find more information in the link I have given.

Also, somparing IS-2 and King Tiger is not really fair, since King Tiger weighed more than 20 tons than Is-2. I would assume that most people here would be interested in tank duel between the two. In a tank duel, I would say that IS-2 was superior (if not greatly superior). In tank duel tanks have to assume a better position, move, quickly turn, and King Tiger was not that good at those things, for a simple reason of it's weight. As was poited out here allready, IS-2's gun has better HE capability, while Tiger's gun has better Penetration capability. Since for penetration round range is of huge importance, because penetration rods slow down greatly with distance, and with it, the penetration capability of the round. For HE round, it does not have as much of an importance, since HE round depends more on the explosives inside the round and more on the calibre. The significant point about HE rounds is that they are not as good at penetrating the frontal armor, but are very good at damaging vehicle's turret or chassis. For example, SU-152's HE round was capable of ripping turrets off the hull of any tank of WW2, because the round was 152 mm in calibre, and for a tank to take that hit between turret and hull and to keep it's turret was almost impossible. Same holds for 122 mm HE round that IS-2 were using, but in smaller degree of course, because of the smaller calibre. Tiger had better penetration capability, but with range it deteriorated, and IS-2's HE rounds suffered less penalty with range, so, although KT could shoot penetration round at longer ranges, IS-2 could counter it with HE rounds. For close range combat KT was not as effective as IS-2 because of smaller degrees of manueverability, and although it's gun had a lot of penetration at close ranges, catching IS-2 would be a big problem because of speed and manueverability of the latter and slowness and unreliability of the former. Finally, IS-2 was simpler design, which meant less breakdowns, a thing for which KT is noted is it's breakdowns, because of huge weight of the tank, and bad reliability of transmission. In general, in defensive position KT was a marvelous tank, however, whne it came to attacking, King Tigers were a disaster, because of breakdowns. King Tigers were definitely a very powerful tanks, with whom not too many vehicles could go in to head on engagement (only maybe self-propelled howitzers, no tanks definitely), but in terms of manuevering and tactics, it was worse than IS-2 and Tiger I tanks, because of lack of speed and reliability. Anyway, this is only my opinion, coupled with some facts.

I hardly know where to begin. Most of your conclusions are simply not valid.DMorpheus 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The effect of HE against tanks probably isn't all that great (I don't know, never got hit by one myself). The "ripping the turret off" thing is most likely true, but it is not stated against which tank (=could be a Panzer III which has quite a small turret) and it was done by an SU-152. The gun of the IS-2 is 122mm and it's now facing the King Tiger instead of any German tank of the time. I remember reading about an engagement of an M-26 Pershing and a King Tiger (can't remember where, so I understand if you don't believe me) where the pershing fired a high explosive shell at the Tiger with no results. Of course, the Pershing's gun is smaller than the IS's.
So, considering that HE shells, far as I know in the least, have little effect against tanks (apart from tearing their tracks etc.) and the King Tiger could knock out the IS with a single shot, the Tiger would emerge as the winner for me. But, of course, imagining things has little to do with reality and luck greatly affects tank combats. Both tanks could destroy each other, and I'm satisfied with that. 62.183.205.191 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You guys don't seem to understand the difference in effect between a penetrating round and a HE round. Penetrating rounds attempt to put pieces of shell into the crew by punching a hole in the armour. What is interesting is that during WW2 they were not always used when engaging armoured targets as against certain designs it was found HE was more effective. High Explosive shells would destroy any poorly protected parts of an AFV as well as cause spalling (turning the opposite side of the armour into shrapnel). Spall liners came as a result of experience in WW2 but certain design advantages could reduce this effect and the Soviet designs often incorporated these features ... some argue by chance. Meanwhile the Germans tendency to over complicate their designs and then not be able to come up with the right kinds of metals meant that their tanks spalled a lot. So Russian tanks would regularly have a large amount of success using HE. The problem though is that you rarely see the effect this has internally. There is no visible hole in the armour and until you inspect the tank you can't tell if the crew have been killed by the spalling. However on some tanks there were more visible effects. The early Panthers for example would often come to a halt with small fires coming out of the armour as a result of poorly protected oil pipes and the like. The Tiger 2 was reputed as VERY bad for spalling and therefore VERY good to shoot big HE rounds at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.253.10 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That "ripping of turret thing" is stated in many russian sources as happened with Tiger-1 specifically. Also i read in Katukov's memoirs about 152mm HE fired by SU-152 shells immobilising a whole platoon of Panthers caught on the road on one occasion (some tanks were even burned down, others abandoned). Germans also mention SU-152s as a major threat to their Tiger-1 (until introduction of IS-2 and T-34-85), with both its HE and AP shells. Also russian firing tests on captured Tigers suggested it's ammo may sometimes detonate after non-penetrating side hits with large HE shells. 195.218.211.12 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sagging springs in the lead photo

I notice the Tiger II in the Munster museum seems to have tree stumps holding up its hull. I'm guessing this is so that the springs don't sag, like they appear to have done in the Gleize, Belgium example. Although I like the outdoor setting, perhaps we should swap these two photos, so that the lead is more natural-looking? —Michael Z. 2006-11-12 21:37 Z

[edit] Wehrmacht worshipping bufooneries

The so-called "combat history" section is nothing but the usual megalomaniacal ferrytales about fearless cool-headed German troopers annihilating Soviet tanks and simple-minded soldiers by the hundreds. Eagerly accepted fake anecdotes are not a proper account of a weapon system's combat utilisation. It is generally regrettable that Wikipedia has allowed iself to become a shrine to the glorious Wehrmacht that never was. I propose that , unless someone can produce a less infantile coverage of the subject, that the section be deleted! Soz

100% agree comerade! It`s more like of bufooneries of Otto Carius/Rudel/Hartmann.

Whilst I agree that this section does not represent "combat history" so much as a few unrelated anecdotes involving Tiger II's, as best as I can make out the individual events describe are more or less factually correct. Unless you can prove otherwise I don't see much need to replace them. It may pain you to admit, but the Tiger II was a very powerful weapon system and could do a great deal of damage when positioned correctly. Getztashida 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

doesn't account for the fact that the majority of king tigers were total battlefield failures while the combat history implies otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.24.194 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
Can you back up that claim in any way? Getztashida 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just read that book that was given in the reference... (Sledgehammers) It seems that the writer did not. (adonaszi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.137 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively read "German Heavy Tanks" by Chamberlain and Ellis, of the Osprey New Vanguard title on the Tiger II written by Jentz and Doyle - all highly respected authors on the subject of WWII Armour - they do not agree with you. Getztashida 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Combat history section has now changed from a positeve bias to a negative bias, which is no better. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay lets face it, if we are to include stories of Tiger IIs defeating dozens of enemy tanks, we also have to include that in certain situations the Tiger II performed poorly. If we are to include combat reports, we need to include both ones that demonstrate the power of the Tiger II and the weakness of the Tiger II. No battle in WWII was (5 kills for every 1 Tiger etc etc), it just did not work out like that. It needs to be shown while the Tiger II was an extrememly powerful tank capable of killing many enemy tanks, it was also used at times poorly suffering losses while inflicting few.

69.157.73.60 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

People sometimes tend to focus too much on certain aspects of a vehicle, and completely overlook others qualities.. In the study of any combat tank, you must consider all aspects: mobilty, speed, armour, gun, combat range, weight, ground pressure, ect... While the KT did have thick armour, and a powerful gun, it lacked in many of the other attributes. A KT that is broke down due to an overloaded drive train is a useless tank. A heavy tank that cannot operate where the enemy is because of a soggy plain, due to high ground pressure, is a useless tank. While the IS-2 does have some limitations reguard ammo storage, and optics, the designers, IMHO, made better choices in balancing all the attributes to arrive at a tank with tremendous power and protection, BUT at 46 tonnes and still capable of easy movement... Also, I have seen video on youtube of some KT commanders commenting on how great thier vehicles where, but I did notice something in common: The commanders all fought in the western front. I have yet to hear from a KT crewman that fought on the eastern front. I wonder why.

Harry 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Analysis

While I think this is an interesting a valid addition to the the article, it seems to based almost entirely on the article from the Russian Battlefield website "Was the King Tiger really King?" [1]

If that is the case, I have doubts about it's accuracy, as some of the articles found on that website are of arguable neutrality. Furthermore, the article in question is directly contradicted by British and American post-war research. whilst I'm happy to accept that late in the war German industry had difficulty manufacturing high quality armour-plate and the TIger II may have suffered as a result, there is plenty of evidence that Tiger II's could shrug off all manner of high velocity shells with little or no damage to the frontal armour.

Additionally, the section made casual reference to the "Mechanical hopelessness" of the Tiger II chassis. I have removed this comment. As some of you may have noted, I a have several times attempted to moderate the traditional myth that the Tiger II could barely move under it's own power with the more modern interpretation that the German heavy tanks far more more mobile than they were given credit for immediately post war. This view is based upon German wartime documents and is supported by many reference works such as "German Heavy Tanks" by Chamberlain and Ellis and the Osprey New Vanguard publication on the Tiger II. Whilst it is undoubted that the Tiger II was nowhere near as reliable as the Sherman or T34, anyone who has visited the Tiger II in La Gleize and taken a moment to appreciate that it got there under it's own power (and on unmetalled roads during the harshest European winter in living memory) will realise that the Tiger II was far from "mechanically hopeless" Getztashida 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Again; why put a book in the references, if you don't read it? The KTs -according to the reference- were unable to leave most of the roads due to their enourmous weight. The bridges were usually off limits, and their speed was so slow that the front usually passed them before they had a chance to catch up. Very effective as a tactical weapon if you ask me. If the Sledgehammer... book is on the reference list, at least refer to it. (Or read other, similar studies. Unfortunately the "acthung, panzer" webpage is far from unbiased.) It's really aggrevating to see this glorification of everything German. (Funny, by the way, that according to wikipedia the KT was almost as fast as the T-55...) (adonaszi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.137 (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One shouldn't take this Soviet analysis too seriously. It contradicts itself, e.g.: "but the welding was also despite "careful workmanship" extremely poor". The welding was carefully done but nevertheless poor? Huh? Well, one picture on battlefield.ru shows hits numbered up 65. No armour can be good enough to withstand. Or to put it the other way round: What would any Soviet tank look like after having been fired at with German 65 AP and HE shell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.13.8.14 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
the "careful workmanship" refers to the precession and the cleanness of the wields but that they were of poor strength. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.24.194 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Penetration ranges

I removed "The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to kill the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at respectively 2500m, 1800m and 1200m." as the ranges are nonsense, and I could make up anything informative about the Tigers performance, These kill ranges are probably counted against glacis plate of the vehicles in question, and are not very informative as, oddly enough, tanks can be taken out by shooting at other places too. --UDoWs 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it again, forgot to write an explanation to the explanation summary the last time. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For example: IS-2 turret front around the gun is ~100mm thick rounded cast steel. If we look at the Tiger II Ausf. B at Achtung Panzer! KwK 43 L/71 penetration values for Pzgr. 39, we can see that at 2000m at 30 degrees from vertical, penetration is still 132mm. So a perpendicular hit at the ~100mm armor (which is cast armor, not rha) could penetrate from 2000m and even from longer distances. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet cast armor (unlike western) was in fact as strong as RHA (if not stronger) due to metal composition and very powerful press machines. 195.218.210.141 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The validity of the other penetration ranges stated in the article should be checked too. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "My tank is all-powerful and all-mighty" antics

Right now the whole tone of the article is "we had this supertank". Wikipedia has those kinds of antics in other armour articles, but it doesn't excuse them in this article. The article tries to degrade and minimise any criticism of the Tiger II and completely avoids the countless reports of mechanical failures in combat conditions. It also avoids the basic design flaws which the Tiger II had, along with many other German tanks. The interlocking wheels made for good flotation but they froze together in the winter on the Eastern front. They also got stuck in the mud, more than any other kind of wheel arrangement, both in the Eastern and Western front. This made the tanks sitting ducks for Soviet artillery in the East and Allied fighter-bombers in the West. Bad design! Terrible consequences! Choosing a gasoline engine instead of waiting for the diesels that German industry could have built meant that when a Tiger II (and its cousins) was hit (usually by Soviet artillery on the Eastern front and by Allied fighter-bombers on the Western front) it blew up or burned up instantly. Diesel oil doesn't burn in those conditions and that's why so many of the later allied tanks had diesel motors. The Tiger II was a death trap for its crews. Bad design! Terrible consequences! --AlainV (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is wrong. The Tiger I was the one with problems related to interleaved roadwheels and the II has significantly fewer such problems. It was one of the most mechanically reliable German tanks, with a greater availability rate than either Tiger I or Panther and comparable to the Panzer IV. Problems due to airstrikes is a silly point; if your enemy has total air superiority, even the best designed tank in the world is going to get knocked out, regardless of what the engine burns. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)