While broken down at the side of the road, as the French and Germans zoomed past? 
He was also a creepy wanker that rarely drove and never drove his own carâŚ
He did have a thing about big stuff, the âMausâ being a prime example of misuse of his authority thereâŚ
Like-wise, Churchill took a personal interest in cross-channel artillery, gigantic trench cutting machines &
unfortunately he did have a buffoon as his chief scientific adviser.Perhaps my copy of Tiger Tanks at War [ co-written with J.D. Brown] is an updated/revised edition,
& those quotes provided/posted are in it, I didnât make them upâŚ
It probably is. He indeed had bizarre fetishes, but I donât believe he went into specifics nor do I think it was âhis ideaâ to mount the 88mm, as planners were already reacting to problems associated with the meetings of French armor such as the Char BâŚ
From sit-reps Hitler knew that the 88mm provided the âshort-stopâ for the Matilda, when regular AT failedâŚ
As far as I know, the T-34 had not been used in combat prior to Barbarossa, so his insistence on the 88mm
in a tank [ earlier Henschel designs could not mount it] predates T-34 encountersâŚ
Yes, but so did everyone else in the Heer! The T-34 wasnât used in combat, but the encountering it along with the KV1 gave impetus to the project. The first Tigerâs didnât even go into action until August of 1942, despite âMr. Hitlerâsâ wonderful epiphany in May of 1941, and despite there had been an ongoing heavy tank project since 1937âŚ
The L/71 88mm fitted to Tiger B was a generation ahead of the Soviet 85mm/U.S. 90mm, performance-wiseâŚ
Which 90mm gun? The one on the Super Pershing T-26E4 that destroyed a Tiger Royale in their only encounter? The Army had planned about 1000 of those, and unlike Germany we actually could have produced them without using shit steel given to spallingâŚ
& you do realize that âgas turbineâ refers not to âgasoleneâ but to fluid dynamics, since water, steam & exhaust turbines had been in use for decades prior.
Actually, I was wondering if you knew that since you keep pointing it out as an example as to why gasoline engines are superior to diesel ones in AFVâsâŚ
Leccy,
âTank Menâ records that the Tiger [disabled by non-killing 6 pdr shot, & abandoned by its crew] & captured intact in Tunisia had been thoroughly evaluated in the U.K., demonstated to armoured troops & put on public display in LondonâŚ
all well before D-day!Stalin was tardy with sharing intelâ re German weapons development with the West, but they can hardly have expected
that a Tiger B utilizing Panther-tech would not be pendingâŚIt is true that Churchill tank crews were grateful for the extra resistance to penetration/burning over the Sherman,
but they well knew that they were out-matched by the German heaviesâŚ
Again, you keep repeating these idiotic myths that have been debunked over and over to âproveâ some stupid point. Youâre intentionally restating misleading and false information over and over again. The later Shermans in Normandy DIDNâT âburnâ, at least not like the âRonsonsâ before it. That was a problem due to faulty ammo storage that was alleviated by instillation of extra armor plates and wet stowage! You keep going back to the same points that have been discussed and addressed before. Youâve been told this at least twice and that U.S. Army research showed that it was rather rare for Shermans to quickly âbrew upâ once they had wet stowage.
Youâre on my last nerve with this pedantic argument trollingâŚ
As for the AMX & Leopard 1 being âMBTsâ, I 'll bet the Brit Chieftain crews in Germany during the `70s had a lot of fun in
pointing out that fiction⌠to their allies so equipped, when facing down the Warsaw Pact juggernautâŚ
You seem to share the Fuhrerâs bizarre fetishes for big pieces of over-engineered crapâŚ
@Nickdfresh - re. argumentative trolling, there are worse sorts, but I am still surprised that you have put up with it so long. Really not a good idea to feed them âŚ
Best regards, JR.
Still not produced your definitive requirements for a modern MBT (and what MBT do you class as modern since most have their genesis in deigns started in the 1970âs).
Maybe a much earlier tank can be shown if you do produce your requirements or maybe the Tiger does not really fit.
Written By J.A.W. : "What some seem so resistive to accepting is the glaringly overt status of the Tiger as a concept model of the MBT⌠"
Its perfectly fine to hold that thought as a personal opinion, which anyone is certainly welcome to do.
The fact is though that the Tiger I is little more than an upscaled P-IV, and as has been pointed out before, meant for breakthrough utility. (much like the Sherman Jumbo) Aside from its transmission which is not so enlightened a thing due to the vehicleâs great weight, and there being no suitable transmission on the shelf, one would have to be cobbled up. Just making an older good design much larger, is not going to imbue it with the Ambrosia of being the genesis of Present day MBTâs. This anymore than the Tank Gewehr 1918 was the genesis of late 2nd. war A.T. guns. In plain fact, it was just a much larger, single shot turnbolt M-98 Rifle.
In the end, no one much accepts the premise of the Tiger I being the âconcept modelâ of the modern MBT simply because it is not. It was contemporary in every aspect right down to its flat sided Hull, and Turret, and rear mounted gasoline engine with front drive. It had extra room true, but that, (as has also been pointed out earlier) is due only to its needing a larger Turret Ring to hold the gun without tearing the Turret loose. This particular pocket full of Posies has been around the rosey ring enough times, move on to the Panther again.
according to my osprey literature, the 88 was put on because it was a compromise between existing guns that do a lot of damage and the guys at Krupp that needed âa piece of the pieâ with their 88 flak. It was a dictatorship after all, keeping all the minions happy 
Perhaps you can explain why nearly every piece of construction equipment from bulldozers, to off-road end-dumps, to mechanical diggers are all diesel powered with no gas turbines (actually, jet-fuel turbines in reality)?
Thatâs all LOW performance they keep telling
Indeed: diesels are easy giving torque (and therefor power) at low reving, preventing stalling.
gasoline in all big things at sea is impossible.
One doesnât expect performance from most small cars in Europe and those diesels are now becoming available in the U.S. market, despite it being expensive to have multiple engine options for each car in the U.S and the popularity of hybrids.
I should also add that BMW, Audi, and Mercedes are now all making turbo-diesel performance luxury sedans here and VW has had a diesel cult for decades hereâŚ
After all, performance is a relative concept, as you mentioned above 
and there was this: mercedes benz - AMG C30 Cdi : a top notch tuned 5 cilinder turbodiesl in the peformance version of the C class coupe
I think that is a very clear, honest and true view on things.
Perhaps the misunderstanding is there where the Tiger might be top notch (angst, firepower,âŚ) of the âOld schoolâ panzers, where the Panther was a start.
And it did have some dominance on the lang-distance battle fields on some east front campaigns, but pinned down in 1943: just a bit after relase and a short while. After that , it was just another needed panzer that gave a hell of a shot in the Allied direction.
But believe me, no allied soldier was laughing and jumped ahead to the bullets when he saw it was âjustâ a Panzer IV. It was still a war.
I agree JR*, but it is not all up to me and it isnât my boardâŚ
I donât think JAW is a troll
He just sees some things wrong according to many
History is not about âbelievingâ, yet he still does believe
some time ago i made this comparison table with some panzers.
I agree this is the points given by me, but it explains the point of view.
I made a tactical comparison (on field), which favoured the heavy cats and added points first maintenance and then economy (= total strategic comparison).
One can discuss the point system, but its clear that the high score shifts from the heavy cats (small scale) to the panzer IV (strategy âbig storyâ). And thatâs exactly where âhigh commandâ makes decisions.
All well and good. Such isnât a problem on the board, but when someone knows that nobody agrees with them and has been given endless reasons and still keeps repeating themselves / just wonât drop it that behaviour starts to edge towards trolling. Itâs probably the repetition that sets alarm bells off - if the argument is evolving then even if itâs fairly bad tempered (as seen above) without descending into abuse then itâs just acceptable robust debate.
Moderating a forum is a judgement call - there are no right or wrong answers, which is why actions on here (excepting spammers and obvious Nazis) are by consensus.
To gove more food for thought about the origin of the Tiger; project VK3001, derived from the panzer IV in search for a âheavyâ panzer. Heavy was seen in terms of armour and weight rather than firepower. As you can see, the interleaved wheel system are introduced. Return rollers were dropped eventually in the Tiger, giving more stowage space in the overhanging sponsons.
Panzer IV next to the VK3001 (here equipped with a 75mm/48 long gun, which would have been a normal evolution). Notice the resemblance and the easy way to make a Tiger out of the VK3001 (even wider tracks, big Porsche turret, sponsons, âŚ).
The Tiger was indeed a heavy, big mark IV in all design concepts, with a big gun and turret from the Porsche tiger.
+Ausf+B+046.JPG)
One of the features that make the Tiger the âintimidatingâ way it is, are the extreme wide tracks, which were omitted on asphalt and other means in order to have lighter and easier transportation (together with the outer interleaving discs)
As seen in factory picture here (and which scales it down more to a big IV to the eye)
VK3601(H) = heavier version of the 3001, without return rollers, the main visual difference. Now it really starts to look as a Tiger, no?
On a good day, when it was in the mood, the tiger I was an asset. no one denies that, it is the assertion that the tiger I was the âconcept Modelâ of present day Main Battle Tanks that is the particular bone of contention in this case. Very different things.
Of course⌠Tiger is quite the opposite IMHO of the MBT doctrine. It was ment to be the heaviest of the family, have the biggest gun and simply become the best (or look that way) as spearhead of surrounding lighter pieces. MBT is the result of the conclusion that the evolving medium tanks are simply the only real good overall investment, capable of doing almost anything from light to heavy work.
Actually the acceptance of the medium tank as workhorse came along with the acceptance that tanks should not be primarily designed to be invulnerable, but to be in numbers, standardized and reliable and âup to speedâ with the enemy.
In that way, the Panther has much more in common with the MBT doctrine than the Tiger. It was for starters easier and cheaper to produce. That is for starters more MBT thinking⌠Perhaps the fact it was used more and more as reconnaissance tank as well as battle tank alone makes it the closest call. But it is still a very quick thought.
The American and English units were very diverse in models and the MBT role was far from present troughout the war (strict splitting of tanks and anti-tank role). The Russians however played the T34 card in such a way that itâs begging to get the price for proto-MBT.
It is astonishing that in nowadays modern peace time (catalysed by Cold War) Germans actually do make the best tanks in the world. And they are recognised for it by all Allies. They even deliver gun systems and ammo for the American tanks.
Quite the contrast with WWII, where they had an âimageâ they held high, but the image only reflected the personel, not the machines.
Still, a MBT doctrine doesnât rely on being âinvulnerableâ. It relies on âbeing goodâ design or even the âbestâ design. Not invulnerable.
Leopard I was a better German design than most of WWII.
& the Tiger B?
An up-scaled Panther?
About the same size as a current MBT?
I.M.O., would be witch-hunters ought to ask themselves why they are so keen to squelchâŚ
As an aside, I saw an interesting artefact in the National War Museum in Canberra a couple of days agoâŚ
A Centurion main gun [20 pdr] barrel that had been in action in the 'NamâŚ
The troop had been on an infantry support mission taking out V.C. bunkers with H.E., when an R.P.G. hit the
muzzle end, creasing/distorting itâŚ
They fired a solid shot which blew the damaged end off⌠& resumed the H.E. pounding!
The end came âclean offâ as âDirty Harryâ would put itâŚ
Squelch what JAW
Still waiting for you to come up with your definitive list which \i have asked for four times not and you have not produced
List all the points that you think a modern MBT has so we can compare the KV in 1940 and the Tiger at the end of 1942 with a modern MBT
That, and the fact that the Russians knew the German plans for Kursk ahead of time and launched a pre-emptive strike that pretty much negated any element of surprise they thought they had.
Leccy you canât have it both waysâŚ
I cop flak for repeating my points⌠so I refer you to a previous summaryâŚ
[in a nut shell, Tiger/M.B.T. commonalities are, a large powerful heavily armed/protected vehicle that both provides a reasonable level of practicable crew ergonomics & is capable of taking on, with a good prospect of success, battlefield opponents⌠[ another thing those Centurions were used for in the 'Nam, deliberately rolling over minefieldsâŚ]
As previously stated, there is a distinction between the machine & its employmentâŚ
It is not the fault of the machine if it is mis-employed⌠or not produced in sufficient numbersâŚâ800 per monthâ!
Certainly, the lessons of Kursk for the British in NATO were NOT to build thousands of T-34 analogues was itâŚ
Theyâd been down that track with âexpendableâ medium tanks, & it was a costly mistakeâŚ