I love how they were optimistically calling them 45 ton tanks lol. The Tiger 1 was already 52 tons and Tiger II was 68 tons nothing was 45 tones except maybe the Panther. I guess they were just deluding themselves
It wasn't delusion. It was requirement creep. The original Tiger proposal was meant to be 45 tons, however various additional requirements (added by people like Hitler) and iterations of designs by different firms ended up causing the final vehicle's weight to overshoot by twelve tons. The Tiger-II saw an even more extreme layering of needed characteristics, a much larger gun necessitated a much larger turret, chassis needed to be redesigned, armor thickness increased dramatically, etc. In fact in the case of the Tiger-II designs, the VK.45.xx was no longer designation of weight. It was simply nomenclature that evolved from the initial Tiger proposal ( just like the modern Ford Mustang shares little in common with its 1960s forebearer, although they both possess the same name). Requirement creep isn't unique to the Germans, in fact its common in military weapon development with all nations. It's just that the US and the Soviet Union were able to minimize that problem during WW2 with their weapons systems, while the Germans weren't (I would argue largely due to people like Hitler & Ferdinand Porsche).
@@awesom6588 No. 30 stands for 30 ton operational chassis. Not a full vehicle with turret and gun. This is common misunderstanding because VK ( Versuchskonstruktion ) stands for experimental design and people assumed that it means entire vehicle when in reality it's just chassis. Panthers chassis weighs ~32-33 tons. So only few tons over. Tiger I has chassis ~45 tons. Tiger II is where they screwed up with chassis around 54 tons.
Why in the world would anyone who currently had possession of additional blueprints or documents concerning this tank horde them and not wish them released for historical study? I wonder if anyone has the back story about this “private ownership” and refusal to release aspect to these historical documents?
@@larrythorn4715 Probably an attempt to limit the size of the hole in the upper front plate for the hull gun. The steeper the angle, the larger the hole for a given arc of fire. In the end, they were just better off going with a single plate and eliminating a joint in the armor. Easier to make and leaves no joint running across the front of the tank as another potential weakness.
@___MY ZQUAD IZ GODZILLA’z ___ there's more than enough german tanks in WT for anyone with a pair of working braincells to enjoy, and adding more tanks to WT would just make it alot more problematic to balance especially with BVVD and Gaijin's perspective. and please don't try to compare Wot and WT and make it seem the former is any good.
@___MY ZQUAD IZ GODZILLA’z ___ didn't i say not to compare the two? and in regards to your claim of "WoT is better than WT", How is it any better than WoT? WoT is largely an arcade game, and it will never compare to War Thunder being Semi-realistic WoT have an large tech tree of each nation's tanks, Tanks that went into service, Protoypes, Concepts, and even fake tanks but the gameplay is heavily cuffed by the RNG based spotting, ballistics, and armor. throughout the years they even made it worse when they added effects such as Artillery stun, etc... (you already know these since you claim that it's better than War Thunder) it became even more worse when more unbalanced premium and event tanks were added (Chrysler G, Annihilator), they even tweaked the armor profiles of other tanks to make it alot more harder to counter them and in some cases, make them even weaker. throughout the years the game became a husk of its own self, nothing more. War Thunder as said is Semi-realistic, it has aspects of arcade such as reliability of parts and the single player controlling the vehicle, but it is still a lot more grounded to reality in terms of it mechanics such as the armor, drivetrain, and gun and projectile ballistics the gameplay is drastically different, being as said, grounded to reality, there is no need to shoot many times to drain an HP pool nor need to go near just to spot an enemy, if you can see them, you can shoot them, if you can penetrate them, you can kill them, it doesn’t rely on RNG to decide whether a shot is a hit or a miss, and there’s no premium ammo, the tanks can use the ammunition they were meant to use or were planned to use. its raw and it is what makes it unique, you use your senses to find the enemy, both in sight and hearing, you have near full control of your tank, even low tier vehicles can fight and take out high tier vehicles. War Thunder’s tank tech tree may be smaller than WoT, but it makes up with overall feel and gameplay to say that one is better than the other is idiotic, as these two are very different games, if you still argue that “WoT is better than War Thunder”, then I can safely conclude that you’re most likely a lost cause for trying to push your truth to other people who have different truth, if you cannot agree to disagree, then you might as well go out and touch some grass. in regards to "if i kill you in war thunder, that's not good, plus with a german tank" how is killing me in war thunder + with a german tank not good? i'm seriously baffled as to how you think that eliminating others in a german tank would result in them having a bad day, anybody can kill you if they can, regardless of what nation their tank comes from. and also, how did you get to the conclusion that i have the misconception of "And if you think you can play world of tanks not use your brain you’ll die just as fast as you would of war thunder" i said "there's more than enough german tanks in WT for anyone with a pair of working braincells to enjoy" to your comment "Warthunder doesn’t have enough german ww2 tanks for anyone to be the best they can be " if you interpreted that as "players can play WoT with their heads cut off" then i can safely say that your comprehension limited as i know through my years of playing both games, and other of the same theme, that you need to utilize your brain to play the game, regardless of their genre. and to add to that War Thunder's devs and Gaijin is much more inclined to add vehicles that has seen service, or a working protoype or atleast has historical evidence that they have reached the prototype stage, they disregard most concept tanks as there's alot of ambiguity as to how they would perform.
Incorrect use of meme template. The VK 45.02 (H) was the real Tiger II until it was canceled and the Tiger III got renamed. As in, the Tiger II at home was the real Tiger II all along. If anything, you could do a "we have X at home" meme where the kid is a tank enthusiast asking for the Tiger II, but the Tiger II at home is actually a VK 45.03 (H), and then compound it into a "if you know, you know" template. It would be a niche meme, but highly sought-after by those who know the story behind it.
It would have been possible to use the Panther style suspension simply by ugrading it's capacity to carry a heavier load. Keep in mind that the Soviet heavies used a much simpler type of suspension with fewer road wheels. Interesting how the hull designs were simplified for more efficient manufacturing and probably better performance under fire.
The Soviets also designed much lighter tanks. One of the worst things about the Panther is just how space inefficient it is. It weighs several tons more than an IS-2 for less capability and its unergonomic as well.
@@startingbark0356 not true. The T-34 had many ergonomic problems, but notably the IS-2 was far better. I would go as far to say the Panther is not ergonomic for 4/5th of the crew. The gunner has no independent 1x sight (although a very good primary optic), worse fire controls than a Sherman, the driver can't see anything besides directly in front of him through a small periscope with a narrow field of view that is fixed in place, as well as a similar fixed on at a strange angle off to the side, the radio man is nearly blind, with a tiny pitiful mg optic with no FOV, and a periscope that for whatever reason isn't facing forwards, the loader had to retrieve ammunition from the hull as there is no turret stored ammunition nor floor ammunition nor a read rack. Loading the gun is a chore because the breech opening is literally on the opposite side of him and he must put the very long round over or under the breech. The turret ring isn't much larger than a Panzer 4, which is insane considering the panthers armament and weight. The commander could see well and had a good hatch cupola set up. Ultimately the Panther was a pretty bad tank, that had some features that were very good, namely its frontal armor, good weapon and optic. Everything else about it was either not special or downright weird/bad. Don't get me wrong I love the Panther, but it is not a very good tank.
@@startingbark0356 its not? Look at panther loss ratios against Shermans. 2ndly a tank with strong frontal armor and a very powerful anti tank weapon is going to be somewhat effective no matter how bad the rest of the tank is when its in service with a nation that is fighting a defensive war for most of the machine's existence. I would exactly call the StugIII a very good vehicle for general purpose but in the role it was in and in the type of war it was in, it was very good. A bad tank that is strong from the front and has a really powerful gun is often going to win against a much better tank that has weaker armor if you put the former in a defensive position. Thats just how war works. Defensive forces are usually at an advantage at the tactical level. I cant say the Tiger was a great tank either, but since allied tank guns from before 1942-3 were generally weak, the tigers (very poorly designed but quite thick) armor was able to overcome this. Once 85, 76, 17pdr, 100, and 122mm guns showed up in numbers, the tigers armor was less and less relevant.
I have to admit but the first time I see the model rendered, it was messing with the head. I know it is different from the production tiger but it was nagging me until I seen the armor thickness diagram that helped me out knowing the upper side hull wasnt slanted and the front upper plate had an angle in the mid. Great video explaining the differnce between this Tiger vs the final Tiger.
Really.. basic joinery techniques should have been used in every armoured vehicle from the start.... bizare that they weren't actually... given the modern welding capability available ..
would that mean what we know as the tiger 2 would be VK.45.04 H or higher, since the VK 45.03 came before tiger 2, has 100mm of frontal armor instead of 150mm, and has just as many roadwheels as tiger 1 (VK 45.01 H)
Mantlet was an early design, it got a "boars' snout" instead which was much, much better. Only a few of those early turrets were made, then it went to a square-faced design with boar-snout gun mantlet.
Porsche turret had better ballistic shape on sides but TC coupla protrudes and gun mantle shot trap TC coupla in henscel turret was flush with side of turret which isnt as steep angeled as porsche and no shot trap
you couldn't just make the tiger 1 with sloped armor, it would just make it smaller inside and the wight would go beyond what the mechanical stuff could handle, they tried that with the panzer 4 and they saw it wasn't possible.
@@vasopel actually the panzer 4 problem was weight and stress on the suspension, thats it. they tried making the panzer 4 with torsion bar suspension but couldnt make it work without a massive rework of the tank and the fact was the panther was already cheaper than the panzer 4 and the upgraded sloped panzer 4 would be more expensive than the standard panzer 4 so the idea was scrapped.
@@vasopel Thats not true. Extending the frontplate outwards to bridge the step of what would be the glacis and the roof where the normal front plate met would create MORE internal space, not less.
@@vasopel Actually, You could. The "step" in the frontal armor could be turned into a "ramp" and not cost any interior space, in fact, it would add to it. There were plans for making a Panzer IV variant with sloped armor using this method, but it never got a prototype.
I can't understand why did you insist on "UNDERPOWERED" aspect of tiger (all variants) as your EMPIRE wasn't able to launch in battle ANY tank notable faster ot more mobile (in reality, not even closer), but only americans having tanks little bit faster, but waaaaay less protected. I talk about 1941-1945 in the battle field, not just in some projects/blueprints, or AFTER war models.
@@somedudeonline1936 but thats useless against any german gun at the time used, and you will be surprised by how mobile the big german cats in reality are
