The German Panzer: " Tiger Tank " 5/6

Let's just say Germany beats Great Britain in 1940/41. Then what for the rest of the world? Germany would have control of the eastern Atlantic, all of Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Middle East (with all the oil).

What are the Soviets or Americans going to do about it with no Royal Navy and no RAF to call on???

Britain surviving and not being defeated was one of the most CRUCIAL aspects of the Second World War. It's idiotic to argue otherwise.

""If 'Panzer III and Panzer IV' was as mobile as T-34 - then you don't have slight clue about tanks!""

I never said that. I said T34 was mobile, so was PZ 3 and PZ 4. I didn't say they were the same. READ PROPERLY.

Are you arguing that the PZ 3 and PZ 4 were not mobile??? If you believe that, then you have no idea about tanks.

By the way, the Tiger I and Panther were surprisingly mobile for heavy tanks. Better than KVs and the IS-2.

""Best' tank is up to debate....
Seems that you have too much nationalistic paranoya in every comment.""

I would say that Great Britain has CONSISTENTLY been the ONLY country to CONTINUE to be in the forefront in tank design and quality these last 60 years. Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger 2. 60 years of being the best, or amongst the best.

Name another country that has done that???

High numbers of Soviet T34 industrial output came at cost of poor workmanship and massive losses of inferior tanks. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

If T34 was so good, how come 50,000 were destroyed? T34 wasn't a superior tank. Like the Sherman, only numbers made it a winner. Small comfort to the the hundreds of thousands of T34 crews who died in those inferior tanks.

""or was it necessity because of number of breakdowns, huge fuel consumption and lack of bridges to support the weight of the Tigers and Punters?""

Hang on a minute? You don't think KV1s, KV2s and IS-2 and ISUs suffered the same as the Tigers and Panthers? They were the same weight more or less and had even more mechanical problems.

Stop believing only Germany had 'heavies' or only had problems with heavies.

""And stop posting BS....""

No, YOU should stop pisting BS. You have claimed the IS-2's 122mm gun was more deadly than 88mm L/71. Nonsense. Even the Soviet 100mm was deadlier than 122mm. You have claimed 'best armour is up for debate' in King Tiger vs IS-2. Nonsense. King Tiger's armour was thicker and higher quality. No 'debate' about it.

It is YOU who should stop posting BS.

""'Russia wasn't in it until mid 1941'?
Realy? And who helped Germans to sumbdye Poland?""

Irrelevant. Germany would have still taken Poland without the Soviets.

""Who took Baltic? Who fought Finns?""

You mean who got their arses kicked by Finns?

You miss the point. I was referring to the fight AGAINST Nazi Germany. The Soviets were not fighting against Nazi Germany until mid 1941.

""without american support english offensives would stop somewhere between Egypt and Libia...Forever.""

And without the RAF, Royal Navy and Great Britain as a base for offensive operations the U.S.A couldn't have done a single thing about Nazi Germany.

Most of the ships and planes at D-Day were British.

EACH country made a significant impact. Without the Soviets, Germany would have won, without Britain, Germany would have won, while without the U.S.A's industry neither would have won.

without american support english offensives would stop somewhere between Egypt and Libia...Forever.

True different tanks perform well at different situations.However, tank is an offensive weapon.Yet,German heavy tanks advantages mostly known for their defensive actions...

now is very easy to see Germans mistakes but you have to remember that you need diffrent tanks when you are in offensive and diffrent when you need to defend some areas.Pzkw3 was great in 1940 1942period,later they really needed Tigers to delate these waves of t34 so they reacted well.

It's funny how you reply withour even reading through - again 'best armor' of German tanks came at the cost of mobility,
high fuel fuel consumption and poor reliabilty of automotive components.
German automotive tech simply could not catch up for desperate attemps to make
'supertank'! Historical facts you know...

'Best' tank is up to debate....
Seems that you have too much nationalistic paranoya in every comment.

'Russia wasn't in it until mid 1941'?
Realy? And who helped Germans to sumbdye Poland? Who took Baltic? Who fought Finns?

If 'Panzer III and Panzer IV' was as mobile as T-34 - then you don't have slight clue about tanks! At least take a look on suspension of Panzers vs T-34 and use logic.
Then find out what moved T-34 - DIESEL...
And stop posting BS....

'While it was preferable and ideal to be near railroads'
- or was it necessity because of number of breakdowns, huge fuel consumption and lack of bridges to support the weight of the Tigers and Punters?

British invented tank,Mosquito,sten and Spitfire.And radar.Germans changed panzer crap in real deal after meeting with T 34.But everywhere where germans allies forces were like 1 to 1 allies were beaten and Hitler made army like this in less than five years.

"",maybe to learn how to make good tanks ""

Britain has consistently made the best tanks since WW2.
First there was the Centurion.
Then there was the Chieftain.
Now there is the Challenger2.
No other country has kept in the forefront of tank quality and design these past 60 years like Britain.

""Americans and Russians won the war ""

Without the British and Commonwealth, the Germans would have won. That's a fact. The war was won by ALL THREE (Britain/Commonwealth, Soviets, U.S.A). America wasn't even in the war until almost 1942, while Russia wasn't in it until mid 1941.

If Germany took Britain, then the Med and Africa/Middle East would have followed and I'm sorry but Russia would have been screwed.

""Has it ever occured to you that German tanks had to fight close to railroads?""

Not true. While it was preferable and ideal to be near railroads, even heavy German tanks could fight a long way from them. All the Tigers in Normandy got there via road marches, not via rail. The Tigers raod marched almost 150 miles to Normandy and then they took a heavy toll of allied armour once they got there.

""With German tanks it was always at the cost of mobility""

IS-2 wasn't exactly nimble. It had it's own mobility and automotive problems.

T34 was mobile, so was Panzer III and Panzer IV. The heavier the tank, the more problems. That also applied to Soviet heavy tanks like the KV and IS. It wasn't restricted to the German tanks and in fact the Panther and Tiger I were more mobile than the KV and IS.

""Best Armor' is up to debate.""

No it's not. King Tiger's armour was thicker and better quality than the IS-2. The thickest armour on the IS-2 (the gun mantlet) was penetrated in combat by Tigers. No gun ever penetrated the King Tiger's front glacis armour in combat.

""King Tiger gun was most accurate while IS-2 gun was deadliest.""

Not true. The King Tiger's 88mm L/71 had the best armour piercing of any tank of WW2.

The IS-2's 122mm gun was significantly inferior. In fact, the 100mm gun from the SU 100 was the best Soviet anti tank gun of the war and was better than the 122mm gun on the IS-2.
That is a little known fact. Gun size doesn't mean it's the best. Panther's 75mm was far better than the T34's 85mm.

""There was also incident when single T-34/85 knocked out 3 King Tigers...""

Yes, ambushed on the flanks during the first time the King Tiger debuted on the eastern front.

It rarely happened again, if at all.

King Tiger gun was most accurate while IS-2 gun was deadliest.'Best Armor' is up to debate.With German tanks it was always at the cost of mobility.Has it ever occured to you that German tanks had to fight close to railroads?