A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Superior King Tiger



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old May 8th 04, 06:07 AM
David E. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby

Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs,

destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them

after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and

support.

Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what
a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it
really was?


Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some
time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You
might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite
often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45
time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time
and resources that they needed in other places.

A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had
with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites
(the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188
tons of weight in the damned thing.

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm


I wonder what the rough field performance was? Max speed for mobile warfare?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some new photos of the 2003 Tiger Meet (Cambrai) Franck Military Aviation 0 January 2nd 04 10:55 PM
Airman tells of grandfather's Flying Tiger days Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 October 11th 03 04:55 AM
1979 Tiger for Sale Flynn Aviation Marketplace 65 September 11th 03 08:06 PM
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality ArtKramr Military Aviation 131 September 7th 03 09:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.