Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "How to fight Tigers - Tactics \u0026 Weaknesses" video.

  1. Someone wasn't listening.
    3
  2. Did anyone here actually listen to what Bernhard said? Because from what I'm seeing here, it doesn't seem so.
    3
  3.  @joelhessling4709  :facepalm:
    3
  4. M829A3 APFSDS Can’t do anything about that. Every soldier wishes for better equipment. But the plain fact is that it takes years for that to be effected and in that time your enemy may also have made progress. So you can’t call off the battle because you’re waiting for better tanks. The Germans tried that at Kursk but it didn’t help them in the long run. That’s why you need good preparation, good planning, good training and clear objectives, tactics and timings. Battles are won and lost on these things, rather than muzzle velocities and the thickness of frontal armour. That’s the point of the video.
    3
  5. Ignacio Aguirre Noguez You need to read about the coalition of forces that constituted the Axis forces in WWII.
    3
  6. Military History Visualized Thanks for those links!
    2
  7. steven romero A Molotov cocktail in the engine compartment works pretty well too.
    2
  8. Bear in mind two things. First of all you are comparing Shermans and T-34s, which were medium tanks with Panthers and Tigers which were heavy and super heavy tanks. Secondly, both of those designs were optimised for anti-tank work and were little to no good in other roles, leaving infantry work to older types like the PzKpfw IV and StuG III.
    2
  9. Mr Flibble This is just plain silly. Quoting armour/range/penetration is not an answer to much at all. Besides most people use it the wrong way. These posts are always full of things about what you can’t do. There’s no point quoting the thickest parts of the armour as an example of how a certain round won’t penetrate and then proceeding as though the debate is over. Nobody is going to shoot at that part of the tank, which is what this video is all about. Besides, there are many other ways to combat a tank using mines, tank traps and infantry. Furthermore, as an example, Red Army tank commanders frequently charged German tanks because they understood the advantages and disadvantages. By closing the distance as rapidly as possible, they reduced the German advantages of armour and firepower and could exploit their disadvantages using speed. To be fair, it didn’t always work but I have a photograph of a Red Army tank crew examining the holes made by a 76.2mm gun in the turret of a Tiger.
    2
  10. @Walroos History shows this is very rarely the case. Sure, the Ethiopian tribesmen stood little chance against Italian tanks. But the Eastern Front wasn't Ethiopia and the Wehrmacht weren't fighting tribesmen. Same applied in northern France in 1944, Italy in 1943 and North Africa. Besides, there are many ways to get around overmatch. And please enlighten me as to what you mean by "tech", because from my chair, it doesn't apply. It's one of those words that computer nerds throw around to sound impressive. These days it's just an euphemism for magic ("I don't understand it") and a cover for not reading history.
    2
  11. Jesus... is this crap still doing the rounds?
    1
  12. Tonixxy Well you might have used it as a joke but there are many, many people who believe it.
    1
  13. 2:18 Zaloga notes in "Armored Champion" that the German archives recorded losses differently. An emery enemy tank which had a track blown off but was otherwise recoverable, is recorded as a total loss. On the German side, this was not the case and only those which were completely destroyed were recorded as lost. While Zaloga doesn't attempt to establish a figure (the book is about tanks rather than the Battle of Kursk), he does indicate that Red Army losses were probably not as lop sided as the German records claim.
    1
  14.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  Sorry, "enemy"...
    1
  15.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  As you know, Dr Roman Toeppel has researched this extensively but numbers alone don’t tell the story. The battle of Kursk - in this case, Prokhorovka - should have been recorded as a decisive German victory. In fact the result is somewhat more nuanced and Prokhorovka is merely the high water mark in the German advance. But that implies that the Germans got no further, which is largely true. So while the statistics show a decisive victory, the fact that they got no further implies a defeat. I would suggest further that this was a result of the Soviet lines separating the armour from the infantry, meaning that while the Germans won the armour battle, they did not control the battlefield at the end.
    1
  16. John Cornell Tell it like it was. This had more to do with how they were used and the country they were fighting in than anything else, especially in Normandy.
    1
  17. heldgop And a lost tank is still a loss. At Kursk, for example, the Soviet defences separated the tanks from the infantry so it didn’t matter that the tanks got through. They would not have been able to exploit that situation effectively.
    1
  18. Thom E. How many rounds do you think it’s going to take to hit a moving target at that range?
    1
  19. And what if you haven’t got that? What do you do then?
    1
  20. Yes but the turret ring and cupola are still exposed.
    1
  21. There are many ways to do it besides a more powerful gun.
    1
  22. Mr Flibble I know. I read it. I was making the point that tank commanders knew what they were up against and in most cases, tried to avoid frontal attack... for reasons that should be pretty obvious. If you read enough history, you pretty soon learn that these factoids were instrumental in commanders tailoring their approaches to offset their disadvantages, rather than determinants of the outcome. But all these comparisons are of dubious value anyway. The Sherman was a medium tank which did most things pretty well but was primarily intended for combined arms tactics with a bias toward infantry support. The Tiger was a super heavy tank with a strong bias towards anti-tank work. As an infantry and breakthrough tank it wasn’t very suitable.
    1
  23.  @comradeluke2721  https://youtu.be/LJcLG4rzTLk
    1
  24.  @comradeluke2721  https://youtu.be/LJcLG4rzTLk
    1
  25. M829A3 APFSDS You May have a copy. You may may even have read it. But you obviously didn’t understand it.
    1
  26. M829A3 APFSDS Perhaps you should listen to what Bernhard says instead of talking down to people.
    1
  27. M829A3 APFSDS Because I’m sick of being patronised by people like you.
    1
  28.  @bobwhite5440  I think that came from Zaloga. I've read it too.
    1
  29. @Redvers Battersby "they are extremely unbiased and don’t give opinions just documented facts" No historian works that way. They all have to grade their information according to what, in their opinion, is good and what isn't. Just reciting "documented facts" is not a very good way to present history either. The information has to be presented in a way that's understandable. In other words, the "facts" have to be interpreted so the reader understands them. These guys do it all the time. They have to. They even tell you when they're doing it.
    1
  30. Smoked Oofman What are you babbling about?
    1
  31. There are lots of other options. A Tiger is a tank like any other tank. It is more powerful and better protected but it is still a tank.
    1