Last firepower shown by the Germans : Tiger II Tanks 

The bore diameter is indeed 88mm. And the barrel length is 71 caliber. Look it up.

MAUS was 100mm

​@@ShadeRaven222Maus was 128mm and 75mm (it had two cannons). It also was completely infeasible for use in any way, shape, or form, weighing 3 times as much as a modern fully upgraded M1A2 Abrams.

8.8 cm is 88mm

Caliber refers to the barrel length being 71 times the diameter of the bore, which is slightly over 20 feet.

I'm more and more annoyed by how people churn out these terrible videos with unsuitable titles, monotonous AI voices, wrong photos and misspelled subtitles. What do we have to do to stop the algorithm from ranking them high? Maybe give them a dislike?

@@jankutac9753 Don't forget the blatantly wrong facts that anyone who ever read a book about tanks wouldn't make.

@@stejer211 yeah

Common annoyed Americans

@@amm_hk do you mean "annoying" by any chance? And why Americans? 😂

"kaputt"

@@Thunder.Oli. Wir haben die meisten von ihnen getötet, ... aber wir haben keine Munition mehr!

"HANS! WIR HABEN KEINE TRANSMISSION!" "Kein problem"

​@@Runha240einfach. der Kannone benutzten :)

I don't think the transmission is the problem but fuel was a nightmare the panther have shitty gearbox

it is not true, it was always planned to put the engine of the tiger I inside it

Both the Tiger I and II needed a heavy duty Diesel engine or dual fuel engine. These type of innovations including turbojet airplanes, advanced subs, etc needed to be developed in peace time… let alone nukes. Germany lacked resources and time during a war.

​@salviat7751 Hi Salviat. One of the engines I was referring to was known as the "HL234 Upgrade Project." It was to have a much bigger bore along with fuel injection compared to the Tiger 1's HL230 engine which was carbureted. The 234 engine would have exceeded 900hp. With supercharging? 1200hp! (The HL230 engine was rated at 690hp at maximum revs) This engine, the HL234... was just what the Royal Tiger needed. 🐅

@@jerryjeromehawkins1712I actually didn’t know that, I had thought they settled with the tiger 1 engine regardless, thanks for the info

Impressive German technology far advanced then than any other country at that time

Yeah, cause by the time the first Tiger two rolled out of the factory, Germany was already fucked with America on one side and the USSR on the other

@@M48PattonBrawlStars well that too, but I jsut mean like all the money that went into R&D and by the time they actually were producing them they were so expensive to where they couldn’t get them produced in any meaningful numbers. The biggest influence they had was just the intimidation factor. But on the flip side they were so outnumbered that even a swarm of Sherman’s taking one out was probably a big morale boost for the allies. It is a great example of OVERengineering whereas the T34 were perfect examples of quantity over quality with the Sherman being a good balance of both. The Germans didn’t need “perfect” tanks I mean they were practically hand made and perfectly engineered whereas t34s would have poor workmanship jsut trying to get them out of the factory as fast as possible but as long as they got the job done that’s what mattered. And for a country as short on resources as Germany (especially around the time the T2 came out) it was jsut so not practical. And that doesn’t even take into account all the maintenance and logistics issues associated with the tigers on the back end. For example the tiger I (I’m not sure about the t2) jsut to get them on rail they had to manually put on rail treads because the normal ones were too wide to fit and then they had to manually put on the normal ones when they arrived at their destination. So lots of hiccups like this along the logistics and supply chain routes jsut cost valuable time and human capital. And with maintenance they had so many high end crazy parts that were cutting edge technologically but with so many crazy parts the chances something would go wrong were higher. And it required special engineers to make these repairs whereas the Sherman’s and t34 crews for most issues could jsut hop out and make the fixes themselves. Many Tigers were abandoned for this reason.

​@@jager894prawdę ci powiedział

​@@matts5247how come you say jsut instead of just

@@Ruskot2008 lol funny you ask. It’s JSUT (that time was intentional lol) that for whatever reason my iPhone jsut doesn’t correct that word and I type fast on stuff like this, jsut being RU-vid comments rather than a professional correspondence, so as long as people get my meaning then it’s jsut not really worth the time to go back just to fix it 😉

They were so heavy therr were many bridges they could not cross as well.

@@balancedactguy yup

Why nobody reads reports about the KT? Early tigers had those problems, but they were fixed in 1944 sept.

Then in that case, they should have stick with stationary artillery weaponry that had the Tiger's firepower. Nazi's really underestimated the logistics and resources to maneuver and prolong the operation of these tanks.

@@josephusaquila5439 "Nazi's really underestimated the logistics and resources to maneuver and prolong the operation of these tanks." No they are NOT. They had NOT enough resources for that.

Trotzdem sind die Amis,wie immer,davon gelaufen.

@@ringoburger8937Tell me again, which side won the war?

​@@ringoburger8937Trotzdem hat Deutschland verloren.

Most German AFVs suffered similar operational loss rates.

​@@matthewjones39The fact you people sponsored both sides with whatever you could, so they can kill each other as much as possible and when the germans were at the brink of exhaustion you chose to ,,bring freedom,, in Europe. Which made you part of the ,,winning side,, that gave you even more benefits and influence throughout whole Europe. The Soviets, the Brits and the French are the real winning side, not you, vampires. You live on other people's suffer and misery, draining them to the last drip. Too bad this comment will be taken down soon or won't see any world ever

lmao

I always get uptiers 😢

Tal vez no, pero el nuevo Panther KF51, quizás si. Incluso a los actuales, ya que es tecnología Alemana reciente.

Sherman's and T-34's were still in use during the Korean War ?

Tiger ll proceeds to die from a camper hitting the back turret

And not imperviou to to the free roaming rocket firing allied fighters

@@RyansuBikeAre you serious?

@@MW-ur9on Rockets could destroy them.

@@balancedactguy Rockets can destroy nearly every tank.

​@@MW-ur9on Isn't that what I said?🙄🙄

That applies to almost every tank.

Air to ground kills accounted for a very small percentage of tank losses in WW2 and were always drastically over reported by pilots.

​@@adamtennant4936indeed most tanks were destroyed by anti-tank guns or infantry bazooka or enemy tanks most of the time, aircraft were just a small part of the overall causes of losses

it was 68 tons

And the Germans declared war on the US. Such was the suicidal idiocy of the Nazis.

The turret plate was 185mm

Bunker busting gun can destroy a tank???? How could this be!!!!1

​@@motleyzadot6867He is right though, they did use lower quality materials to make Tigers II

@@motleyzadot6867 Yep. A large enough howitzer (not a 105mm) could destroy even a King Tiger by blast effect with a direct hit. A two inch British mortar destroyed a the first Tiger II at Normandy when it struck an ammunition vehicle next to it. Completely dislodged the turret. At the time the lines had not settled and there was some fluidity in the area where troops were intermixed. A British mortar crew found themselves near two Tiger II's being rearmed and took out the ammunition vehicle probably because they knew the mortar was useless against the tanks. One Tiger II escaped the massive explosion, one did not. War was just not tank vs. tank.

Also later war Panthers had the same issue. Glancing blows by even 75mm guns could crack the turret sides.

Reminiscences of the Tiger II among senior U.S. officers aided the T43 program. But the Tiger II wasn't so indestructible. It was quite vulnerable to plunging artillery fire and side hits, and, of course, prone to mechanical breakdown.

True but the nazi fan boys will shout at you

Also they had run out of the various metals required to make the right alloys for the Armour and the thick armour was softer than spec. But it been built as designed in a perfect Nazi world, it would have been an OK heavy tank

I’d disagree that it was a stupid idea for a tank as it was the first of its kind being a heavy tank with a big gun, it greatly influenced modern tanks today. The presence of these tanks struck great fear into the allies. You comment as if this was the only tank Germany produced.

Saying it was a stupid idea for a tank is just plain stupid thing to say. When those tanks were seen in a group, you better pray for your life. It's armor was capable of withstanding up to 20 rounds without damage and one could easily take out 5-8 tanks of any kind with its 88mm gun.

Well we see the Sherman's won in the end...

Source?

Proof? Patton was satisfied with the 75mm Sherman. No question the US would have had use for a heavy tank to lead assaults, but they compensated with the M4A3E2 Assault tank

If the third Reich and the allies had the same industrial output, making it a fair comparison, then I am pretty sure you wouldnt say that.

Honestly, I feel like the Sherman wins both in quantity AND quality... Just better reliability and more useful tank. Honestly any nation can build a giant tank with tons of armor and a massive gun. However, minmaxing those specific qualities that make for a tank that is actually useful, easy to maintain, fix and supply, and that offers good survivability to its crew, is a whole other thing

@@andresgagge6977 The Americans were losing 4-5 Shermans to kill one Tiger tank. The Germans couldnt afford to lose 16-20 tank crew men and didnt had the fuel for thousands of tanks. The production of the Tiger tank was more expensive and time consuming, but it was much cheaper to fuel the one Tiger tank and train the one Tiger tank crew than to supply and train 5 Sherman tanks. In the situation of the Germans, the Tiger was the way better option.

@@TheKamiran85 I partially agree, except that tanks aren't like they are represented in videogames like war thunder, where, bigger armor and bigger gun = objectively better tank. There's SO MUCH more to a tank that makes it a good design, for example, intended role; and in this category, I honestly struggle to see what the German heavies were really meant to achieve: too slow for a mobile offensive, too big which made them easy aerial targets, too reliant on logistics for maintenance and overall unreliable and almost impossible to repair... I'd rather have an army with 100 Shermans than 100 Tigers. They're easier to fix, are flexible and can cover many roles, and have a high crew survivability rate. I don't quite care if 1v1 the Tiger wins every time, the Sherman simply isn't designed for that (although some are like Sherman Firefly), artillery, bombers and antitank infantry weapons can take care of that, if not ignore altogether and just go around them.

AI bot said "71 calibers gun", I assumed the gun was made out of 71 empty Kaliber beer cans.

88mm/L71. Barrel length was 71 times (the bore of) 88mm. Namely 6.248 meters or about 20 feet and 6 inches long.

You mean 1800 km to Moscow

The Soviets would have been letting there Designers smoke crack look at the KV-7 and other heavy prototypes they where overthinking some of the absolute garbage things the Germans would eventually send in

Germany could never win against the UK, stalemate maybe... the royal fleet Capital ships outnumbered the Germans 20:1, submarine warfare was a lost cause as soon as UK intelligence cracked the enigma code. There is the Luftwaffe, but they never recovered from the battle of Britain. What remains is the extremely overrated, although COMPETENT ground forces, the mighty Wehrmacht. However, the terrible logistics and scarce resources of Germany meant that they were essentially always only going to be an overstretched glass cannon... Once the British put a competent general in charge in Africa for example, Rommel lost EVERY SINGLE BATTLE. Also, it's very likely Barbarossa happened in the best possible moment: the soviet army was in disarray after Stalin's genius army purges. Also a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviets was inevitable, the question was who was going to start it and when? Stalin was caught with his pants down, TOTALLY UNPREPARED, and still the red army stopped, and eventually pushed back the invaders. And finally, Nazi weapons are ridiculously overrated. Look at the mighty Bismarck, it was crippled by a ww1 biplane and spanked by a 15.000 tones lighter and 14 years older royal battleship with bigger guns and better somehow more modern armor and armor scheme: HMS Rodney.

@@andresgagge6977 do you realize how many years it need to crack the enigma code?and how thr britain rely heavily on their sea route transport while the wolfpack crawling on every corner possible for britain shipment,britain already exhausted all their resources after ww1 they lost many amount elite units.their fleets maybe outnumbered the german but like you said their supply line too depend on seaborne vessel and deep within uboat grasp,the only reason they survived because usa joined the war because their industrion keep pumping new vessel everyday so doesnt matter how much u boat sunk they could build much more and dont forget the v-1 rocket campaign that rocket give morale damage to peoples on the land and i said focus on their weaponry was this,if german just stay focus on 1 enemy they could pour everything they got and blast britain unto submission and if hitler push aside his feeling and become ally with soviet they could get any resources they want and poland divided by 2 then,if they allies and doesnt consider soviet peoples second rate human they got everything to goes full scale potential.many humans and natural resources mean superior on everythings and if german more focused on britain they could finish britain troops at the dunkirk

@@emendewo3387 So much nonsense Submarine warfare had a much smaller impact than you might think. Despite everything, shipping tons only increased throughout the entire war. On the other hand, every single U-boat lost by Germany was a MASSIVE loss they simply could not afford because Germany ALWAYS HAD A RESOURCES PROBLEM. They were poor in oil and steel! After they lost the battle of Britain, for example, the Luftwaffe simply never recovered. Tank crews would abandon their King tigers on the side of the road after they ran out of fuel. Gneisenau was scrapped for steel after Bismarck and Scharnhorst were sunk. And what about the US? Yes, the UK had massive support from the US, so? How does this change anything? Germany had massive support from their friends and allies (Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Finland..) and yet still couldn't beat her into submission despite the UK fighting on their own against Germany and Italy for almost a year! And wtf is this about a Nazi Germany and Soviet Union alliance??? Saying that if they had allied they might have won is like saying that the sun would be cold, if it were the moon. I mean, do you even know who the Nazis were??

Having a kill death ratio of 10 while being defeated on all borders speaks for the Tiger 2 and it's concept. If the allies hadn't such an overwhelming superiority in numbers, especially in air, the number would be even higher, so taking the real numbers isn't a fair comparison.

German tanks have excellent kill scores for offing themselves

no, it was reused Pak 43(anti-tank aknon), so it was an anti tank gun.

@zhonglan The Pak 43 came after the KwK 43, and though it fired the same AP round the sights, mounting system, aiming system, and loading/ejection system were different. It is a chicken or the egg argument, but the fact that the King Tiger used the KwK 43 as a multi use cannon and the Pak 43 was designated an AT gun tells the story.

Henschel because its the H variant

Porsche is the P variant but it was shit

@@444Magnus Common misconception. The P stands for prototype not Porsche. Porsche never had anything to do with the design or manufacture of the Tiger II.

My friend....I believe you have lost your way. I'm assuming you were watching another video and commented here on accident lol I'm assuming you were causing RU-vid shorts

bro that's propaganda, Germany saw that "oh there's a tank we can credit for killing everything, let's do it so people are proud" plus the reliability issues, what 2 km gonna do when your a slow walking target for attack planes, or when a 75mm punches a ammo carrying vehicle next to you and your turret decides to disappear.

No the P51 was not known as the Tank Buster

88mm

Lmao 88cm. That's a naval cannon sir

@@EdenYisrael its gustav's cannon

The barrel was 71 calibers in length.

You dont understand what the word caliber means do you?

Correct it wasnt 7 caliber

@@ganndeber1621 When the KwK 43 is referred to as 88mm 71 calibers, the 71 calibers refers to the barrel being 71 * 88mm in length.

8,8-cm-KwK 43 L/71

Es gab gar nicht genug von diesen Panzers!!

@@balancedactguy Da hatten die Alliierten Glück gehabt.

@@RitschRatsch1 Die Wehrmacht und Hitler waren dumm.