RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

I just read top tanks of ww2 by Steve Zaloga. He does a good job pointing out top tanks from various view points-tanker-commander and what could be considered "best" at various points in the war: T-34, Late Panzer IV, Tiger I, Panther, Pershing. He covers the importance of radio communication, crew training, tactics, maintenance and a lot more. So very comprehensive on all fronts.

He though dismisses the Kingtiger as a "ponderous monster" prone to breakdowns. I agree that it really was pushing the weight limit
for the engine and transmission but have read it had an improved transmission, suspension, wheel configuration and that with a trained crew was very mobile, had gas consumption on par with many other ww2 tanks, good speed etc.
While all of this is ultimately subjective to some degree or another; the Kingtiger does seem to me to be one of the better late war tanks.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthrea ... vy-Post%29

I agree that the Tiger 11 was a brilliant Tank but introducing it into production with all the engineering challenges incorporated within it when Germany had massive problems in production and fuel supply and had lost air superiority on most fronts was an indication that common sense had been replaced by Mr Hitler's megalomania, The Tiger 1 was still at this time an immense problem for allied armour and it's failings had by then been pretty much resolved.
shaun

I've read quite a bit about the KT as well and it would seem most authors deem it break down prone and to be a waste. However there are a few who look at it a little different, when a tank of THAT size is built no matter what country built it they have "teething problems" and the KT was no different. When they were first fielded they all had a mechanic from Henchel on board with the crew to take care of any problems they had. The transmission turned out to be its weakest link ,go figure right! However after those initial issues were sorted out the KT was no more break down prone to any other heavy tank fielded by anyone in WWII. The Pershing was prone to just as many break downs if not more then the KT when it was first built yet everyone looks to that tank as being great, odd isn't that? There was only so much they could do back in the 40's with something that big and heavy as tanks that size were pushing the limits of the engines, transmissions, suspension, and hell even the steel itself.

Nope after the transmission issues were more or less sorted out in its early deployment the KT was just as reliable as any heavy tank back in WWII. Being built so late in the war it suffered mostly from running out of fuel as its main break down problem and with it being SO heavy it drank gas like it was going out of style and Germany didn't have the gas to keep them running.

Also a LOT of BS tails were told in order to get ally troops to even attempt to engage such a beast! The Tiger I is another good example of war time propaganda BS told to troops by the allies in order to try to get them to fight those tanks. Hell Winston Churchill himself ordered no more stories of the Tigers battlefield prowess be printed in newspapers to try to stop what was coined as "Tigerphobia" and to hopefully get the troops to stop fearing the Tiger and engage it in combat.

Which is why in regards to the Tiger I and Tiger II its best to do a little more digging then just believe the first few things you read as most authors don't bother to do the research themselves they just parrot the BS stories because its still after all these years easier to continue the lies rather then dare say the German tanks were FAR superior to anything fielded by the allies in the war. Its never easy to admit your enemy has you bested in any regards let alone something like a tank!

I wish I had saved the links to what I had found out about the Tiger I and Tiger II but I never thought to which now I regret.

Great points on the Kingtiger. The idea, as with the Panther was to incorporate the latest designs like sloped armor, a top notch gun, wide tracks to handle the weight etc. It seems to me as good of a design as there was at time but the upper limit for weight and size. In the less open areas though I can see the advantages of a Panther,Pershing or Sherman. Not top speed but just maneuvering around in those tighter quarters. Though to your point in terms of stats it didn't fall through bridges, break down more or was slower than other comparable tanks. Gas consumption was high at 4.9 liters/Km but the Pershing was close at 4.3/Km.

This is a good summary of some key facts
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthrea ... vy-Post%29

Tao, thank you that was one of the articles I was referring to that tells unbiased facts about the KT as well as comparing it to other heavy tanks of the time which proves it wasn't nearly the POS that most claim it was.

I like the part where a Sherman tank crew member tells about his tank being taken out by a KT and the other 5 Shermans with his opened fire each hitting the KT 5 or 6 times and all the shells just bounced off and the KT got away. So doing the math that KT was shot 25 to 30 TIMES by Shermans and it DROVE AWAY! THAT right there is why they were bad asses!

I have no bias for or against one tank being good or bad it's just that I appreciate a discussion based on facts and an open mind- willing to change if the facts lead in another direction. What is disappointing is that an armor historian like Steve Z who would be so flip and almost dismissive about one of the great tanks of late WW2. He pointed out that Dr. Porsche was a harmful influence towards larger and larger tanks and while the final design of the KT while did push the limits of weight and size it didn't in my view, cross that line. Modern tanks that are designed to fight in Europe are about the same size and weight.

Tao, I agree I like facts better then an authors opinion regardless of who that author is. I've found that many of such authors even if they are highly regarded just can not seem to keep their own opinions or bias out of what they write.