Originally Posted by Doppleganger

It could knock out all Allied tanks at almost all ranges and was safe from almost any Allied tank at most ranges.

The Russians had no problem knocking out the King Tigers sent to attack their bridge head (See above link.) This was perhaps aided by half of the huge tanks breaking down before they could drag themselves the short distance to the fight and the King Tiger's slow turning turret. The British 17 pounder (same as the US 76 mm), the Russian 85mm, the US 90mm and the Russian 100mm, 122mm and 152mm guns could knock out the King Tiger.
Some penetration test:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...id=123&lang=en



Knocked out by artillery in Operation Konrad


Tanks can be used on the defensive but are by their nature, more suited to offense. If a tank can't crawl more than a few miles without breaking down, why not spend the money on a good cheap pillbox? Germany would have been better served purchasing more Panthers, aircraft or even towed antitank guns than buying the expensive King Tiger that was lucky to get to the fight.

The King Tiger may have cost the Germans their Ardennes offensive and Operation Konrad due to their lack of mobility and gas guzzling. This is over and above the fact that resources were used up on a tank that couldn't win battles instead of buying equipment that was useful.

The Firefly
The 17 Pounder (76.2mm) gun was a British weapon which, with some difficulty, was installed in the American Sherman tank. It was not renowned for its accuracy but, with a muzzle velocity of 3950 feet per second, firing Sabot ammunition, could penetrate 135mm of armour at 1,800 metres.

Originally Posted by 2dold4this

The Russians had no problem knocking out the King Tigers sent to attack their bridge head (See above link.) This was perhaps aided by half of the huge tanks breaking down before they could drag themselves the short distance to the fight and the King Tiger's slow turning turret. The British 17 pounder (same as the US 76 mm), the Russian 85mm, the US 90mm and the Russian 100mm, 122mm and 152mm guns could knock out the King Tiger.
Some penetration test:
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...id=123&lang=en



Knocked out by artillery in Operation Konrad


Tanks can be used on the defensive but are by their nature, more suited to offense. If a tank can't crawl more than a few miles without breaking down, why not spend the money on a good cheap pillbox? Germany would have been better served purchasing more Panthers, aircraft or even towed antitank guns than buying the expensive King Tiger that was lucky to get to the fight.

The King Tiger may have cost the Germans their Ardennes offensive and Operation Konrad due to their lack of mobility and gas guzzling. This is over and above the fact that resources were used up on a tank that couldn't win battles instead of buying equipment that was useful.

I've seen the above link before but what needs to be remembered is that the quality of german ore deteriorated in quality towards the end of the war. There is some debate as to how much this affected the quality of German AFVs but it is reasonable to say that it did have an effect. As your link stated the quality of German welding seemed of good quality on the captured King Tiger but the actual metal used wasn't of as high quality as earlier German tanks.

I agree that the Germans wasted valuable resources on development and production of the King Tiger but that was Hitler for you. He was obssessed with the gigantic. And it was underpowered and not properly developed, with later versions not having the same quality steel as earlier versions had. Those are all issues with the rapidly worsening economic and industrial situation faced by Germany herself, not the actual design of the tank, which was very good. This is why it's unfair and utterly wrong to call it a crappy design. The implementation of the design was poor, given Germany's worsening situation, not the actual design itself.

I don't think the King Tiger caused the Ardennes Offensive to fail. It was an ill concieved idea that never had much hope in the first place. It only did so well to begin with due to the element of surprise and the bad weather that hampered Allied aircraft.

not the actual design of the tank, which was very good. This is why it's unfair and utterly wrong to call it a crappy design.



I'm not calling it a crappy design. I'm calling it a crappy tank. While it may have had an inspired design (that is debatable as a good designer takes into account the materials he must work with), it's the finished product that counts. The soldier does not care if the flaw is in the production process, the materials, the concept or the design.

Originally Posted by 2dold4this

not the actual design of the tank, which was very good. This is why it's unfair and utterly wrong to call it a crappy design.



I'm not calling it a crappy design. I'm calling it a crappy tank. While it may have had an inspired design (that is debatable as a good designer takes into account the materials he must work with), it's the finished product that counts. The soldier does not care if the flaw is in the production process, the materials, the concept or the design.

Fair enough, but I'd still say the tank, particularly the ones made in 1944, were still formidable, assuming they didn't break down or run out of fuel first. There are many more crappy tanks to choose from than the King Tiger.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

M60A2 wasn't bad, the M551 was worse. The only problem was the Gun/Missle Launcher on the A2.

Yes, it was bad

when you can get off two aimed shots in a minute. there's a problem.

Well, I think during WWII there were these tanks that were flame-throwing tanks? I think those were ridiculouS

It is good idea to throwing flame. Imagine, you are on Okinawa, you are an officer of the platoon, you saw a Jap's bunker with 4 deadly machine guns in about 30 yards. It is impossible to send flamethrower to there. You need a Sherman with flame thrower to send that with armors. Then, Sherman burned them up. Understand?

Well, Only on certain mission those tanks are useful, else they prove to be deadly! Those huge fuel tanks they tow behind can cause a great explosion!

Zander0633......Those Churchill Crocodile Tanks used on D Day and beyond were a great success, the Germans feared them so much that if they captured a crew from one of those tanks they were shot on the spot. Towing the fuel behind the tank made it far safer for the crew as if it went up the crew were often far enough away to not be hurt, also you you could carry a far larger supply for the flame weapon than you could if it was inside the tank. America turned the offer for these tanks down for d D Day but went on to convert the Sherman for use in the Pacific conflict