The Superior King Tiger

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

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
engagements with the King Tiger.
Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor. Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
enemy armor engaged. There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.
You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.
You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.
IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.
And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!
You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
temporarily shut you up.

Rob

From: (robert arndt)


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

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion). Russian T-34/85s and JS-2 tanks were even
better than American ones and even they didn't fare well in
engagements with the King Tiger.
Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor. Only around 1,800 of the Tigers were
produced (489 King Tigers) yet they took a tremendous toll on the
enemy armor engaged. There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.
You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.
You criticize the King Tiger when historically the Allies that
actually met it in combat gave it the name "Royal Tiger" out of fear
AND respect. It WAS a formidible machine.
IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.
And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.
No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!
You guys are pathetic. Guess it will take ANOTHER 9/11 incident to
temporarily shut you up.

Rob

Please note this is a military aviation NG, not a place for you to crow about
the "accomplisments" of a failed system. I can't believe you are bragging about
the Nazis "laying waste" to their neighbours.You are neither an expert on
military aviation or armour, nor have you ever served in any military.

Please throw your tantrums elsewhere.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

No takers?... didn't think so since the M-1A2 is confined to attacking
puny nations with poor import stripped armor of the FSU crewed by
sand-dwelling conscripts. Most impressive- NOT!

Do you mean "historical" US victories in
Grenada,Panama,Iraq,Somalia,Serbia,Afghanistan and Nowhereistan?

In message , robert
arndt writes
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

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

Hence the way it won the war...?

If it's too heavy, too unreliable, too thirsty and too hard to produce,
it's a loser even if the handful that make it into combat are
individually dangerous.

Key weakness for the Tiger series was engine hp and transmission
problems; even so, they were introduced at at time of round-the-clock
Allied bombing, fuel shortages, lack of properly trained crews, and
outnumbered 11-to-1 in armor.

A *good* design would have taken more account of those problems, rather
than merely wishing them away. Indeed, the Tiger II comes under the
heading of "losing" or "failed" designs precisely because it failed to
cope with the reality of its situation.

There is NO DOUBT that if they had sufficient
numbers even at that late stage of the war the Tigers (along with the
equally impressive Panther) would have decimated Allied armor.

And if a bull had an udder it would be a cow. But precisely because the
Tiger II was a heavy, complex, expensive and thirsty beast, it couldn't
be built in numbers, moved to the fight, or kept in fuel and ammo while
fighting.

You guys that keep attacking German technology conveniently "forget"
how one nation layed Europe and Russia to waste and built incredible
machines under the harshest conditions at a time when everyone knew
the war was lost.

And despite those incredible machines, they still lost the war. Funny,
that.

IMO, Germany has continued the fine tradition with the Leo I and II
series. They are highly successful and increasingly the choice as
Europe's premiere MBT. Get over it.

Oh, please. Your next paragraph suggests that these German tanks are
barely superior to Soviet-era armour.

And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

I'll take that fight if I have to. I'll certainly take proven equipment
in experienced hands over a force that can't afford to buy new kit,
can't afford to pay its troops and can't maintain what it has.

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test. If you rely on
"well, the Russian tanks might be okay when they're on home ground
fighting outside their capital city with total air supremacy" then they
aren't really that good, are they?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test.


I always thought it would be a kick if the USSR ever tried an air
assault or landing on the US. IF they think there's a lot of guns in
the Middle East. . .

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test.

I always thought it would be a kick if the USSR ever tried an air
assault or landing on the US. IF they think there's a lot of guns in
the Middle East. . .

The fun part would be when the commanders realize that a few hundred
*thousand* US civilians would qualify as "snipers" in the Soviet armed
forces.

We have people who buy mile-range rifles for *fun*.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:46:19 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test.

I always thought it would be a kick if the USSR ever tried an air
assault or landing on the US. IF they think there's a lot of guns in
the Middle East. . .

The fun part would be when the commanders realize that a few hundred
*thousand* US civilians would qualify as "snipers" in the Soviet armed
forces.

We have people who buy mile-range rifles for *fun*.

I know a somewhat "touched" individual who got himself a few old 30mm
barrels off of a GAU-8 Avenger cannon. :-) We keep talking about
making one of them into a potato gun (rifled and all). And he's got
himself an AR-15 and wants one of those Barret Arms .50 Calber rifles.
And he doesn't even hunt. I know *many* people who hunt deer and elk
around here and none of them have just *one* gun. I've often
wondered, how many guns are in a city like LA or NY. Could you
imagine the turnout if they put out a bounty of $10k for each head of
an enemy soldier? Of course there would be friendly fire like the
world has never seen but hey, it's a thought :-)

Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's next?
Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?

hahahaha That was a good one!

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
next?
Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about nebelwerfers?

"DavidG35" wrote in message
news:f7Wmc.85177$Jy3.21686@fed1read03...
hahahaha That was a good one!

That would shake stuff up - Knit one, pearl two, FIRE IN THE HOLE! FOOM!

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
Robert, you win the award for starting the "Most OT post" today. What's
next?
Planning on posting something on Rec.Arts.Needlepoint about
nebelwerfers?