Kubinka Tank Museum - German Pavilion 

Андрей Сергеевич Good english bro.

HachiZenki Pfft no way...Russian Standard Imperia...that shit will double the size of your testicles...

Snakebloke Actually I speak three languages. These are german, russian and english. So fuck off you little child go and grow up.

Gulo gulo You're just an angry little German nerd on the internet looking for someone to make fun of, because that's the only enjoyment you get out of life. Like I said, the guy was trying to be nice and you make fun of his English. Using the excuse that your English isn't quite as shit as yours, is not a sufficient explanation for why you're such an evil little troll. The ironic thing is, the only Germans I have ever met that fit the stereotype are the ones on the internet like yourself. How is it that every German citizen I met in Munich/Augsburg/Leipzig was lovely; yet you are the type of person that has to represent your country online. People say Russians are not friendly, yet it's the Germans that seem the least friendly to me. Stop embarrassing your countrymen and disconnect your internet until you reach puberty.

+Snakebloke he's ukranian, they tend to pick on anything russian, and they speak russian and other languages, i've noticed in on internet in the last couple years they are bitching about everything russian

at least spell it right

wtf ist porsch ? i know porsche

Marco Na Klingt auf jeden Fall besser, als wenn es ein Russe gesagt hätte. Die Russen verunstalten generell jedes nicht russische Wort. Zum Beispiel nennen sie Glühwein- Glientwien, oder Geländewagen - Gelenwagen oder Gelieck, zu Wurst sagen sie Wjürsst. Ich meine das jetzt nicht als Akzent, sondern wie sie es unter sich auf Russisch sagen. Scheußlicher kann es nicht mehr klingen.

haha hab ich mir noch nie angehört

Gulo gulo Same for any foreign word in other language. Reporter does not even pronounce word "Kubinka" properly. Yes, that annoys me. : ]

Marco Na Ja, auch sprechen die Russen praktisch jedes deutsche Wort, das mit H anfängt, mit G aus. Zum Beispiel: Hitler - Gitler, Heinrich - Geeinriech, Hamburg - Gamburg, Hannover - Ganover usw. Ich verstehe ja, das manche andere Nationen Schwierigkeiten haben solche Buchstaben wie Ö Ä oder Ü auszusprechen. Aber was soll daran schwer sein ein H auszusprechen? Klingt alles ganz lustig, aber wenn ich das höre, treibt es mich jedes mal bis zur Weißglut. Übrigens weiß ich das alles, weil ich ein Spätaussiedler bin, das heißt ethnisch gesehen bin ich Deutscher, meine Muttersprache ist aber Russisch.

Marco Na German constipation=Farfrumpoopen

JG4_Karaya It did make a terrible first impression at Kursk, but that was more due to the terrain and tactical failures than the vehicle itself. On the harder soil of Italy, working in a defensive line, it did indeed raise hell.

laurensreinds It got a pretty high kill ratio even at Kursk. The gasoline/electric powerplant really lets the machine down, though. A good Maybach HL 230 could have worked really well here.

Well I mean of course it would have a high kill loss ratio when there where only like 20 feilded (exaggeration but you get the point)

@@Pepsi_Mig that is broken math. A ratio is not based on total numbers fielded but whether how the numbers fielded stacked up by proportion compared to other tanks. Whether they were able to kill tanks or not would not be enhanced by their few numbers. The gun was great and given the chassis had been intended for a tank it was good there, too. But as only 20 were fielded there was no logistics train to keep them in the field with spare parts and they used a special kind of engine so essentially when it broke down it was done for. Overall it was however never a serious model, but just that if you have a running vehicle and you are in a shooting tank war, you stick a gun on it and drive it out to fight tanks. So you have rejected prototypes outfitted to be used anyway because they existed and ran at least their one tank fill.

@@mangalores-x_x no what I'm saying is that the ratio doesn't matter because when you have so few units, each individual kill counts way more to the ratio than with something like a stug that have 4000 fielded or whatever so you can't use a kill loss ratio to judge the effectiveness of a tank like the Ferdinand that had less than a hundred units made And also the chassis literally caught on fire as soon as trials for it's tank version begun it was a terrible chassis for a tank that was way over-engineered to ever be effective

Well truth is, the Tiger didn´t suck and Elefant/Ferdinand didn´t suck but German resources were already too limited to get them out in significant numbers. The thing becoming famous as "Maus" never even made it to a full proto stage. Some say to please Hitler they ran a full size model made out of wood but the hybrid drivetrain failed and it caught on fire. Real truth is the only thing we know closest to a prototype is the one that´s in Kubinka. It doesn´t help that the myths surrounding it are even more diverse than the ones around the Tiger I. It´s known that Hitler was obsessed with display of power and a tank THAT size was surely one especially with the weight of 188 tons being an empty hull with no ammo, fuel and engine. It is estimated that this thing would combat ready weigh in at about 250 to 300 tons.

How about you help us by correcting them or just shutting the fuck up?

Historical inaccuracies? Fucking absurd??

+Jānis Sprudzāns And Tiger H1 was quite agile for its size.

It's also not called H1. IT was more commonly called E by everyone except Waffen Pruf 6.

+Loco Musikbox Hah, you've never heard, how Americans "torture" Russian language in their movies))) Sometimes they don't even bother with Russian inscriptions and tipe random set of cyrilic letters, or there was one time, when they showed Russian engine specifications sign, which sayd "I hate George Bush")))

+TCArmory There are hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles and non armored extroordinary tech from whole over the world and history, including prototipes, WWI tanks and many other stuff, he showed very-very little

What a bullshit. I'm Russian and i like almost everything German, so i supposed to be a nazi?

German tanks wtf are you some type of nazi or something

T-34-85 did well.

The Tiger was initially made to counter KV-1's because the Germans found them difficult to counter. They were only able to defeat them defensively using their Flak 36 88mm gun, other guns did not work nearly as well. The only other way they were able to counter them was to catch them in an encirclement and force them to surrender. The Soviets took much longer to develop tanks capable of countering the Tiger and Panther, in 1944 they came up with the T-34/85 variant and the SU 100. They weren't on par with German tanks, but Soviets used tanks differently than the Germans. German strategy was to develop tanks specifically to overpower enemy tanks, to defeat them head on; Soviets had a principle similar to the Brits. The British principle was that the tank was a supporting unit for the infantry, they used Churchill tanks to advance with the infantry when they could and the tanks would take out strong points and infantry would advance; a good idea in theory. But later in the war, the Brits and the Canadians developed the Sherman Firefly with a 17 pounder gun that was easily capable of defeating the Tiger at a longer range than Soviet guns. Don't get me wrong though, this is simply based on armour penetrating capability. Even before that time the Soviets were using self propelled guns such as the SU 152 and later the ISU 152 which fired a 46kg HE projectile that killed the crew of any enemy tank it hit. Difference with Soviet strategy was that instead of using heavy tanks for such a role, they used light tanks which would advance too fast for the infantry and be cut off. It was around the same time as the Brits that the Soviets developed armour penetrating-specific vehicles and weapons such as the T-34/85 and SU 100, and the 100mm BS-3 gun. IS-2 was made with the same principle as the Churchill, an infantry support tank. People often confuse this, because they just look at it as a heavy tank, which it is, but look at the gun. It's 122mm, however the ammo load inside, each IS-2 had many more HE rounds than AP. This means it was intended to take out enemy fortifications that halted infantry advances.

@@Unit987654321 The Tiger started planning in 1936. Weapon programs need years to be done and the planning for a large breakthrough tank were already formulated back then. That is why the Tiger still uses the box scheme in armor setup because it was favored for better layout and there were actually some engineering aspects that made a box shape more resiliant than trying out a sloped armor. The Panther was the weapon platform meant to have large upgrade potential, that is why it had so many teething problems. It was the actual jump ahead into the next generation of tank models. The Tiger I was the last iteration of the first batch of German tanks and its weight class due to its specific role as breakthrough tank aka needing heaviest armor and main gun to overcome the enemy defensive lines to give medium tanks the opening to push through and outflank.

+Lars Sassen Not cross-country.

+Lars Sassen actually it did. but drank fuel like a train while doing it. drank almost 3 gallons to a mile. which makes it less mobile thanks to the german fuel struggle.

try to run with that speed on Russian land, they even said Russian roads defeated German tanks. In the spring in Russia, ice melt and turns ground into mud, 55tons steel war machine just stuck right in mud, and Germans had to abadone it.

u don't know your history? don't u?

Tell me what's not true then.

The point of the elefant was to sit way back from the immediate front and snipe at tanks from far, which is did well. Most were lost to mines and mechanicals. The 11 Elefants at Kursk knocked out over 320 Soviet tanks.

I think it may have had the Royal Tigers 88mm - more powerful than tiger 1's. (Royal/Bengal tiger is the more correct translation of the name "Konigstiger", King tiger came about post ww2 anyway)

WurbenHurgenGamingChannel Indeed it did, the 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 88 mm. Could penetrate 132mm of steel angeled at 30° at 2000 meters. Wich also means it could penetrate any russian heavy tank or tank destroyer of WW2 from well over 2km out.

They were crap because they were expensive, heavy/easy to brake down and fuel monsters. Also ferdinands moved slowly without machineguns which enabled russians litteraly to put mines infront of it as it moved. Also it was very stupid to use turretless tanks when it comes to mass counter attack like in Kursk, You can only snipe few tanks untill mass of tanks comes in minutes over those 2 k and flanks you like they did.On paper ferdinand is good in actual war its garbage.

@SCP 096 what mg3 mg 4 mg5 all made im germany

@SCP 096 but its a german company it doesent matter were its build

@SCP 096 i think thr mg5 is build in germany or the most parts

@SCP 096 No, they're not built in Australia. I'm not exactly sure where you got this from. The MG3 is made by Rheinmetall, a German Company, the Australian division of Rheinmetall doesn't even support rifle and sub-rifle calibre weapons, it focuses on cannons and explosive weapons. Lithgow Arms is the premier arms manufacturer in Australia, and manufactures civilian weapons, and the EF88 and F90 for the Australian Defense Force. We don't manufacture any German weapons here, they're all manufactured in Germany by Rheinmetall or under license by other users.

@SCP 096 I am aware that the MG42 and 34 were made by and in Nazi Germany. I'm saying that the current weapons of the Bundeswehr (if I spelt that right off memory) are not outsourced in Australia, as you've claimed. Australia does not manufacture the MG3, MG4 and MG5 machine guns, nor any other German firearm except those that we may be producing UNDER LICENSE for ourselves.

it was not even a failure as it was never a real production model. The Wehrmacht just strapped guns on it because those 20 odd vehicles had running engines and could be thrown at the enemy in the same way the Wehrmacht made large use of captured vehicles and tanks from France and the Czech Republic to fill up their inventory with something that drives and something that can shoot. It was rejected as a production model and beyond the prototypes no additional ones were produced because they were kit bashes of excess material, not equipment that passed the requirements, intentions and trials of the procurement bureau that planned how the German Army ought to be outfitted for the war.

HUNG BULLDADDY The "damn russkies" lost over 25,000,000 soldiers in the war. They defended Russia/Eastern Europe alone, and still made it to Berlin and the top of the Reichstag before we Westerners did... Show them some respect, they deserved the 'spoils of war'...

you let us? you ran like school girls in school uniforms right after stalingrad.

Earlier-yes but T-34-85 and KV-85 fought Tigers well

The made two prototypes, one with a turret and one with a dummy turret to simulate the weight of the real turret.

+Андрей «TheProudCat» Герман They did not see battle, one did not even have a turret and the other one was not ready for any battle and they were both blown up by the Germans at the testing site they were kept at. The battle marks you say are damage scares from Soviet testing.

+darksoul1381 If Soviet sources are accurate, Tigers and Panters had many engine problems, so many were captured, because tankers abandoned them while retreating, there are many photos of this tanks just left on the side of the road.

Андрей Герман That one looks surprisingly intact though. Were the crew in a real hurry?

darksoul1381 Of-course, they didn't wanted to get in Soviet POW camps.

BRITANNIA RULES! I was thinking that, and the Yanks were too arrogant to admit that we Brits had a better gun to fit on their paper tanks that they gladly sold to us as they sat and watch all the horror going on in Europe...

BRITANNIA RULES! Firefly could take it from the front, only with sabot rounds. Flanking shots were something achievable by everyone ("only" 80 mm on the sides of the Tiger VI B)

BRITANNIA RULES! 17pdr APDS goes through the Tiger II turret front like a hot knife through butter, just like 76mm HVAP does up to a couple hundred meters. However you wont hit jacked with 17 pdr APDS beyond 500 yards.

TheZansibar Careful! 76 mm HVAP will only go trhough the front of the turret, which is a relatively small target. Aiming at the lower glacis could do the trick, but it is also a very difficult target.

Richardsen Just like i said. Lower glacis is a very unreliable place to aim with HVAP since it has a chance to bounce on slopes. Turret front is the most reliable place to aim for albeit a small one.

Maus aka dive-bomber target practice

killbop Yep. People who say the M4 was bad either believe History Channel BS or the book Death Traps. Entertaining, but ultimately worthless as a historical document. Also, I just remembered this- iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/ Leaving this here for anyone to read.

strilight no, Sherman's nicknames "Ronson" and "Tommy Cooker" were deserved. There's plenty of interviews with veterans here on youtube that confirm it. But it's not entirely flaws of the machine - crew experience, tactics and type of engagement matters. In a duel or ambush scenario M4 had really very little chance of survival against Tiger with skilled crew. in that book you linked there are few accounts of Tigers destroying Shermans when the fight was on their terms.

killbop The whole "Lights the first time, every time" phrase wasn't created until after the war, "Tommy Cooker" was named because the British in North Africa, who weren't used to the roomy interior of the M4, decided to stuff their tanks to the brim with ammunition. Which makes sense when you think that in the desert, the nearest supply depot might be miles away. The fact that the Germans had a policy of shooting until the tank started to burn also helped. A burnt-out tank cannot be patched up in the field. Overall, the M4 burned just as much as any other tank did. Yes, crew experience does matter. I'm not going to argue that. "In a duel or ambush scenario M4 had really very little chance of survival against Tiger with skilled crew." I'm also not going to argue that. But in an ambush situation, the tank that gets jumped is most likely going to lose, no matter if it's a Tiger or a T-26 that gets attacked. Getting shot at, even if the shell doesn't penetrate, is going to shake you up bad, and the fact that you weren't expecting it makes it worse. The person who is calm is doing the ambushing, meanwhile the person who is panicking is being ambushed, and panic causes people to make mistakes. And no tank will survive with a panicking crew.

test

It was a very short barreled 75mm, completely obsolete by the time the Maus project began. So much so, ammunition was scarce and out of production. Its the same gun as the early Pz4, but with a longer barrel to keep the muzzle blast out of the radiators. It wasn't even rifled all the way due to limitations of the rifling machine they had available. It might have been ok lobbing HE shells at infantry, but even then...

xt6wagon the 75 mm was just a range finder so as not to waste a 128mm shell. it would never be used for direct fire or close defence

Yes correct

on flat and good ground only, on Russian land in WW2 there were terrible roads, bad weather, too much mud, many German war machines were destroyed by those things, even more devastating than Russian weapons.

One of the parameters of the tiger, was that it had to go where ever an allies tank could go, meaning that if it was chasing you in your T60, you have to hope it breaks down before you get stuck ;).