Are there many Tiger MKIs or MKIIs left in war museums that are actually working??
Took my wee lads to see the “Jagerpanzer” (sp?) that used to be at Imperial War Museum in July only to be told it had been moved to Duxford War Museum!!![emoji54]
Allied doctrine pre and early ww2 was speed and manoeuvrability which was the essence of armoured warfare,which was why the British concentrated on “cruiser” design’s–fast and light.Early war German tank’s were designed the same which contributed to “Blitzkreig” success in France and Russia.Unfortunately Germany kept on designing bigger an better tanks throughout the war while the allies sat back and relied on huge numbers of cheap,easily produced (and inferior) tanks to overwhelm the enemy,same as the Russian intended to do in western Europe in the event of WW3 kicking off (see any youtube vids on T72 vs Challenger/Abrams/Leopard)
andrew.s:
Baggie:
andrew.s:
Baggie:
Many of these panzerfaust rockets were in fact,ineffective,having been sabotaged during assembly by slave labour, mostly POW’s,mainly from Eastern Europe.Occasionally,I believe,agency workers were also utilised.would you have liked to stood on the wrong end of one ?
agency workers? really funny.how many family members did you lose to slave camps in ww2?Did you not see the smiley/winky thing at the end ■■?
Get yourself down to Specsavers …and try Ebay as well,sense of humours are going cheap at the moment
yes I saw the smiley-very funny,as was the specsavers joke.
like I said,how many family members did you lose to slave camps in ww2? .
perhaps you could look on ebay at how much a sense of decency costs? would it now be funny if I put lots of smileys at the end of my post?
For what it’s worth,when I was stationed in Germany as a squaddie,I visited Bergen Belsen and Dachau,and I can assure you that I wasn’t smiling or winking 
But as someone stated,it was a light hearted thread with a few tongue in cheek comments thrown in (like mine),as is the nature of this forum,so lighten up dude.Without a bit of dark humour,this forum would be as much fun as Mumsnet 
[quote=baggie
For what it’s worth,when I was stationed in Germany as a squaddie,I visited Bergen Belsen and Dachau,and I can assure you that I wasn’t smiling or winking
But as someone stated,it was a light hearted thread with a few tongue in cheek comments thrown in (like mine),as is the nature of this forum,so lighten up dude.Without a bit of dark humour,this forum would be as much fun as Mumsnet [/quote]
hahaha, point taken,i don’t really recall posting all that crap last night.i did go off on one a bit . 
We’ve all done it 
GOG47:
Allied doctrine pre and early ww2 was speed and manoeuvrability which was the essence of armoured warfare,which was why the British concentrated on “cruiser” design’s–fast and light.Early war German tank’s were designed the same which contributed to “Blitzkreig” success in France and Russia.Unfortunately Germany kept on designing bigger an better tanks throughout the war while the allies sat back and relied on huge numbers of cheap,easily produced (and inferior) tanks to overwhelm the enemy,same as the Russian intended to do in western Europe in the event of WW3 kicking off (see any youtube vids on T72 vs Challenger/Abrams/Leopard)
That doctrine only worked in an environment of lightly armed infantry v ‘tanks’.When even the last days of WW1 had shown that the game had already moved on to tank v tank or tanks v anti tank artillery.On that note the Matilda Mk 2 was heading along the right lines regarding the essential combination of protection and,for its time,a reasonable gun.
There’s no real reason as to why the Comet couldn’t have followed on directly from that followed by the Centurion all well before 1945.In addition to the Pershing in the case of American types.All of which would have been a game changer in terms of the casualties taken regarding the North African,Italian and France to Germany invasion campaigns.The main correct point which you’ve listed being that the allies purchasing policy seems to have had a strange fixation on cheapness regarding tanks. Unlike aircraft development and infantry weapons like the Garand rifle and .50 cal heavy machine gun for example.Bearing in mind that quality and quantity don’t have to be mutually exclusive given the right amount of spending.
The idea as always being all about having a gun which can do more damage at longer range than the opposition’s can do in return.The IDF finally proving Brit quality and the doctrine of German WW2 tank design,over Russian quantity,in 1967. 
youtube.com/watch?v=Ugz5pgAWHw0 23.53 -
Crews who were first supplied with the Comet were aghast that the top brass had learnt nothing when designing it,flat armour all round,christie suspension taking up valuable suspension etc,they were not happy
GOG47:
Crews who were first supplied with the Comet were aghast that the top brass had learnt nothing when designing it,flat armour all round,christie suspension taking up valuable interior space etc,they were not happy
fixed that
Carryfast:
GOG47:
Allied doctrine pre and early ww2 was speed and manoeuvrability which was the essence of armoured warfare,which was why the British concentrated on “cruiser” design’s–fast and light.Early war German tank’s were designed the same which contributed to “Blitzkreig” success in France and Russia.Unfortunately Germany kept on designing bigger an better tanks throughout the war while the allies sat back and relied on huge numbers of cheap,easily produced (and inferior) tanks to overwhelm the enemy,same as the Russian intended to do in western Europe in the event of WW3 kicking off (see any youtube vids on T72 vs Challenger/Abrams/Leopard)That doctrine only worked in an environment of lightly armed infantry v ‘tanks’.When even the last days of WW1 had shown that the game had already moved on to tank v tank or tanks v anti tank artillery.On that note the Matilda Mk 2 was heading along the right lines regarding the essential combination of protection and,for its time,a reasonable gun.
There’s no real reason as to why the Comet couldn’t have followed on directly from that followed by the Centurion all well before 1945.In addition to the Pershing in the case of American types.All of which would have been a game changer in terms of the casualties taken regarding the North African,Italian and France to Germany invasion campaigns.The main correct point which you’ve listed being that the allies purchasing policy seems to have had a strange fixation on cheapness regarding tanks. Unlike aircraft development and infantry weapons like the Garand rifle and .50 cal heavy machine gun for example.Bearing in mind that quality and quantity don’t have to be mutually exclusive given the right amount of spending.
The idea as always being all about having a gun which can do more damage at longer range than the opposition’s.The IDF finally proving Brit quality over Russian quantity in 1967.
Isn’t Google a wonderful reference point …just saying like.
An old guy that I knew drove Shermans he told me the German tank crews called them Tommy cookers as they tended to take fire so fast after a hit.
GOG47:
Crews who were first supplied with the Comet were aghast that the top brass had learnt nothing when designing it,flat armour all round,christie suspension taking up valuable suspension etc,they were not happy
Firstly the Comet’s ‘flat armour’ was still better than that of the Sherman.
IE we would/should be comparing the Comet with the Crusader and the Sherman in North Africa and the Centurion and the Pershing with the Sherman from at least the point of the Italian and French invasions.I’d guess that fits in with my comments regarding a pace of development crippled by budget constraints.IE there would have been no complaints from anyone lumbered with a Crusader or Sherman in North Africa ‘if’ they’d have been given a Comet instead.Let alone those unfortunate casualties in Shermans later in Italy,France,Belgium and Germany ‘if’ they’d been given a Centurion or Pershing.
robroy:
An old guy that I knew drove Shermans he told me the German tank crews called them Tommy cookers as they tended to take fire so fast after a hit.
The reason being that their armour was so bad that in most cases any large scale hit on a Sherman meant either the shell was guaranteed to penetrate it or there would be loads of large red hot splinters of armour knocked off on the inside if it didn’t.Which severed fluid/fuel lines and set off ammunition stores in addition to creating a type of chainsaw massacre among the crew.The answer being to make the crews feel better by putting anything they could find like sections of track,railway sleepers and sand bags all over the outside of the thing and apparently storing the ammo in some water. 
if you want arguments/discussion anything tanks try
worldoftanks.eu/
join up and have fun lol
some take it way to seriously