Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "Насколько эффективным был Тигр на самом деле?" video.

Zaloga stated: "in looking at it in both German records and US records, I’ve only found three instances in all the fighting from Normandy to 1945 where the US encountered Tigers. And by Tigers I mean Tiger 1" https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/ OK the US hardly met tanks of any sort until the Bulge. That is known except to many US historians. The British destroyed about 90% of German tanks in Normandy, with the Americans doing primarily an infantry role. But I find Zagola's finds incredible. The US met a number of Tigers 1's at the Bulge. Whether he means tank v tank I am not sure. So I put a question mark (?) over Zaloga.
4
Look at the KV1 and tanks of other countries in the late 1930s. The KV1 stands out.
4
@anhchinhluong9279 The Soviet KV1's had no radios (or few had) with very poor battlefield control. If the Soviets had the control they had in 1945 in 1941 the Germans would have been defeated very soon. The Soviets had a large number of KV1's, which the Germans admired as they were well armoured with an effective gun. Then the T-34 came in around October 1941. The KV1 was an advanced tank for its time. Torsion bar suspension, the V-2 diesel engine, the lot. It lacked in some areas but overall the best of the early war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctAv5RafuWw&t=2s
3
@DC9622 What is the great Swan? Tiger B? Is that King Tiger? I think Chieftain maybe using Zaloga as the source.
2
@DC9622 The British and Canadians took on 90% of the German armour in Normandy. Eight Panzer Divisions and 3 Tiger battalions: 21st Panzer Division (117 Panzer IVs). Panzer Lehr Division ( 101 Panzer IVs, 89 Panthers). 2nd Panzer Division (89 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers). 116th Panzer Division (73 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers). In reserve just behind the front. 1st SS Panzer Division (98 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers). 9th SS Panzer Division (40 Stugs, 46 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers). 10th SS Panzer Division (38 Stugs, 39 Panzer IVs) . 12th SS Panzer Division (98 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers). Tiger Battalion SS101 (45 Tigers). Tiger Battalion SS102 (45 Tigers). Tiger Battalion 503 (45 Tigers). Sources: Panzers and the Battle For Normandy by Georges Bernage. Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness by Niklas Zetterling. In Normandy the Americans only faced one battalion of 40 assault gun in June (Stugs of 17th SS), apart from a few insignificant early war obsolete French tanks, and only one panzer divisions (2nd SS) in July. The only time the Americans faced tanks in any numbers in Normandy was during the August Mortain counter-attack. Even then, the panzer divisions had been reduced in strength after engaging British forces around Caen being nowhere near the strength they were when fighting around Caen.
2
The Last tank Battle of WW2. King Tigers devastated American armour in the last few weeks of the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t11hGZvvTLg Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubhf96HSA9c Part 2 The King Tiger was a devastating tank. It was well designed as well. The engine and transmission were not up to it being too small and temperamental. After the war the British assessed all German tanks. They even had the factory make a few new Panthers to assess. They compared the Panther, Tiger 1 and King Tiger to their own Centurion. The British did not adopt anything from German tank design concluding that their own Centurion was better than the German tanks. The King Tiger at Bovington Tank Museum was to be analysed. As it was laying about over the years the engine and transmission were taken out, probably to be used for something else or broken down for parts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuDuBwAhRa4 The Chieftain and the Challenger tanks were all extensions of the Centurion.
2
MrCraigfarrow "This might also help explain the proposal to go with the artillery option." Artillery can be towed by horse, but they were running out of horses as well. A motorised artillery unit with a 4x4 tractor can be deployed very quickly with well trained crew. Not a replacement for a tank, however more effective in many situations. The British 6-pr and 17-pdr guns were effective and cheap to a tank, in rapid deployment towed by a dedicated Morris tractor that accommodated the crew. Much more cost affective. http://worldwar2headquarters.com/HTML/transport/British/morris.html
2
@DC9622 Tiger 131 was knocked out by a Churchill jamming the turret. The engine was fine. Yes, the Germans wanted a fast tank, being impressed by the speed of British cruiser tanks and the T-34, hence the desire to have a fast Panther like tank with less armour. Hitler ordered more armour on the Panther and Tiger (King Tiger). The Leopard is only going back to what the German army wanted in the first place in WW2; a fast lighter tank with a good accurate gun, excellent range finding with excellent crew ergonomics.
1
The LA85 is sorted. The US paras used it in training with the British in Latvia. It is ideal for that use. The British had a better tank gun. They just kept improving it. The Defender is a multi purpose general vehicle that was highly adaptive and highly reliable. The US Rangers use them. No new Defenders are being ordered by the British army as times move on. You are making things up.
1
H&K were owned by British Aerospace at the time. The SA80 range of guns are excellent. The best standard issue gun of any army. The British can make anything as equal if not superior to anyone.
1
This is just anti British garbage. I do not have to put up with this, so PISS OFF.
1
@jarink1 The SA-80 is a top class gun. End of story.
1
@seth1422 Rambo, the L85A3, superb.
1
@seth1422 Rambo, yes. I know British paras who have no problem with this gun.
1
Donald Hysa The Germans were impressed by the speed of Cruisers. Cruises were meant to be fast. The Cromwell was a cruiser as was the Comet as was the Centurion. Well the Centurion was a Universal tank based on cruisers. Prior to the Universal tank, the British had fast and slow tanks, depending on the role they were to do.
1
@MrCraigfarrow Britain was not running out of materials, she was running out of infantry. The British Army had enough armoured units. At a push they could have taken men from the British Indian Army which was 2.6 million strong. The USA was running out of men because of their ill thought out Lorraine and Hurtgen Forest defeats (they were German defensive victories), with over 50,000 and 34,000 casualties, and then 100,000 at the Bulge. They poured men in from the USA that were destined for the Far East they were losing so many. All unnecessary if they had listened to the British. Hence the British had more men on the ground than the Americans against the Japanese.
1