Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
Presented at 1:45: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgj3liaDdaY
The theme is to bust some myths about why the Tiger 2 was created and answer some of the common questions and criticisms about it. Hopefully it will be recorded for Youtube.
The theme is to bust some myths about why the Tiger 2 was created and answer some of the common questions and criticisms about it. Hopefully it will be recorded for Youtube.
Last edited by tracks031 on 14 Jul 2020, 21:24, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
Time to start learning German, I guess.
Re: Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
Youtube's translation software can work very well though, I guess when translation has been pre-selected. When it translates on the put it's seems very inaccurate and mostly just a mess.
Re: Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
Here's my attempt at giving an answer to these questions about Tiger 2.
T2 was not made for propaganda purposes or by crazy politicians as some kind of vanity project, it was a serious design meant to fill a role in the military as good as possible. The politicians had a small influence on the design however: IIRC they demanded that the 88mm l/71 gun was used when there was some resistance, due to its size and weight (I don't know if there was enough resistance that the gun wouldn't have been used otherwise), and they demanded that the frontal armor was increased.
About its weight, while it was unusually heavy for a tank in service in WW2, but not unusually heavy for a heavy breakthrough tank design in late WW2. Both UK and USA had heavy breakthrough tanks around the weight of or heavier than T2, like the Tortoise, M6 with an upgraded turret, T29. It's true that T2 was a little heavier that it could've been due to frontal transmission and, to a lesser extent, the welded hull and turret (as cast armor can have the most effective shapes and use of armor).
About its reliability, I was told on a different forum by someone, who seems very knowledgable about US and British armor, that their tanks of a similar weight were most likely not any more reliable than T2. The technology didn't really exist to make it better. But as a heavy breakthrough tank its likely that this wouldn't have been an issue if it was used correctly in its little niche role, where it doesn't have to do much movement aside from a short-depth attack. Also, T2 was probably not the worst example of an overweight tank acceped into service in WW2 - the KV-1 was probably far worse and ended up considered too unreliable to do its job. Based on a few pieces of information I've come across, I'd guess that T2 could on average do around 500 km before something falls apart, and significantly higher or lower than that depending on terrain. I'm told KV-1 could do 200-300 on roads and as little as 50 km in difficult terrain. If it performed just good enough to be accepted into service in testing and performed unacceptable in service, if their jobs was similar we can guess that T2 was above the line of what's unacceptable for a heavy breakthrough tank. Furthermore, it seems that the German maintenance units were able to keep T2 togheter with Tiger 1 in similar or close readyness rates as Panzer IV's.
About its mobility, despite its weight T2 had better floation than many tanks of WW2, for example the Sherman with the early tracks, thanks to its wide tracks and the large, overlapping roadwheels. There's conflicting information on its overall mobility though, but my impression is that it was a mixed bag of good and bad. According to German tests T2 had "as good or better maneuverability than most German or Allied tanks". It had an expensive steering system aswell, making it able to make much sharper turns than most tanks. HP/T ratio meant it was underpowered however, especially if the engine was restricted from the highest 3000 RPM to 2500, and this gave it slow acceleration - something important in combat. The often quoted maximum speed of 42 km/h is wrong I'm told. The "road speed" of 38 km/h is what the tank was able to reach on a smooth surface, while "maximum speed" means the highest speed that the transmission allows - it can only reach that speed if it rolls down a slope. If the governor was installed top speed was 33 km/h.
About being overengineered, I've read that it was less so than T1 and easier to produce, but as was common with German designs it was probably still overengineered to some extent.
In conclusion based on what I know now I'd estimate that T2 was perhaps a good or just okay heavy breakthrough tank of the era, and probably could've done its job if used correctly in the small niche it was. I guess points drop because for the possibility for a lower weight with the same armor if a rear-mounted transmission and a cast construction was used instead, and how depending on how overengineered and overly expensive it was compared to similar tanks of the time.
T2 was not made for propaganda purposes or by crazy politicians as some kind of vanity project, it was a serious design meant to fill a role in the military as good as possible. The politicians had a small influence on the design however: IIRC they demanded that the 88mm l/71 gun was used when there was some resistance, due to its size and weight (I don't know if there was enough resistance that the gun wouldn't have been used otherwise), and they demanded that the frontal armor was increased.
About its weight, while it was unusually heavy for a tank in service in WW2, but not unusually heavy for a heavy breakthrough tank design in late WW2. Both UK and USA had heavy breakthrough tanks around the weight of or heavier than T2, like the Tortoise, M6 with an upgraded turret, T29. It's true that T2 was a little heavier that it could've been due to frontal transmission and, to a lesser extent, the welded hull and turret (as cast armor can have the most effective shapes and use of armor).
About its reliability, I was told on a different forum by someone, who seems very knowledgable about US and British armor, that their tanks of a similar weight were most likely not any more reliable than T2. The technology didn't really exist to make it better. But as a heavy breakthrough tank its likely that this wouldn't have been an issue if it was used correctly in its little niche role, where it doesn't have to do much movement aside from a short-depth attack. Also, T2 was probably not the worst example of an overweight tank acceped into service in WW2 - the KV-1 was probably far worse and ended up considered too unreliable to do its job. Based on a few pieces of information I've come across, I'd guess that T2 could on average do around 500 km before something falls apart, and significantly higher or lower than that depending on terrain. I'm told KV-1 could do 200-300 on roads and as little as 50 km in difficult terrain. If it performed just good enough to be accepted into service in testing and performed unacceptable in service, if their jobs was similar we can guess that T2 was above the line of what's unacceptable for a heavy breakthrough tank. Furthermore, it seems that the German maintenance units were able to keep T2 togheter with Tiger 1 in similar or close readyness rates as Panzer IV's.
About its mobility, despite its weight T2 had better floation than many tanks of WW2, for example the Sherman with the early tracks, thanks to its wide tracks and the large, overlapping roadwheels. There's conflicting information on its overall mobility though, but my impression is that it was a mixed bag of good and bad. According to German tests T2 had "as good or better maneuverability than most German or Allied tanks". It had an expensive steering system aswell, making it able to make much sharper turns than most tanks. HP/T ratio meant it was underpowered however, especially if the engine was restricted from the highest 3000 RPM to 2500, and this gave it slow acceleration - something important in combat. The often quoted maximum speed of 42 km/h is wrong I'm told. The "road speed" of 38 km/h is what the tank was able to reach on a smooth surface, while "maximum speed" means the highest speed that the transmission allows - it can only reach that speed if it rolls down a slope. If the governor was installed top speed was 33 km/h.
About being overengineered, I've read that it was less so than T1 and easier to produce, but as was common with German designs it was probably still overengineered to some extent.
In conclusion based on what I know now I'd estimate that T2 was perhaps a good or just okay heavy breakthrough tank of the era, and probably could've done its job if used correctly in the small niche it was. I guess points drop because for the possibility for a lower weight with the same armor if a rear-mounted transmission and a cast construction was used instead, and how depending on how overengineered and overly expensive it was compared to similar tanks of the time.
Last edited by tracks031 on 16 Jul 2020, 04:49, edited 5 times in total.
Re: Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
You say the T2 was easier to produce than the T1...how is that measured? By materials used? Or By man/hours per production? If so, I'd be interested to know these figures for construction.
Prof Ian Holloway on Quora answers that a T1 took an average of 54,000 man/hours, but varied between 117,000 and 28,000 at different times. The T34 took about 8000 in 1941 down to about 3500 in 1943.
Prof Ian Holloway on Quora answers that a T1 took an average of 54,000 man/hours, but varied between 117,000 and 28,000 at different times. The T34 took about 8000 in 1941 down to about 3500 in 1943.
Re: Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
I'm very sure I've seen it said numerous times on Armchairgeneral's forum, by people who seem serious about only taking their information from good books, that early German tanks were much more overengineered and slow to produce than their last tank types, including T2 compared to T1.bam wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020, 00:20You say the T2 was easier to produce than the T1...how is that measured? By materials used? Or By man/hours per production? If so, I'd be interested to know these figures for construction.
Prof Ian Holloway on Quora answers that a T1 took an average of 54,000 man/hours, but varied between 117,000 and 28,000 at different times. The T34 took about 8000 in 1941 down to about 3500 in 1943.
Re: Daz Panzermuseum has a lecture coming about Tiger 2
Turns out TII required roughly as many man-hours to produce as TI, and though the hull's shape had fewer welds and a simpler shape overall, it would be false to claim it was easier to produce.