The King Tiger's Replacement - The E-75 Standardpanzer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- The King Tiger is considered one of the most notorious and brutal tanks of the Second World War, however it did have its flaws. It was mechanically unreliable with having a bad habit of breaking down, it was rather underpowered for its huge size and the crews were rather inexperienced who would run the huge tank. However what did German tank designers have in mind to iron out these flaws?
The E-Series of German tanks were planned to create a standardised set of German tanks, and these were designed and planned during the latter stages of World War 2. None of the E-Series vehicles would ever make it to the battlefields, but the E-75 was the vehicle planned to replace the King Tiger.
This was a huge tank, the E-75 would weigh around 75 tons and be fitted with a better engine and gearbox. It would also feature a very powerful armament and more armour and its design hints at many different innovations and designs that would have made the mighty King Tiger/Tiger II rather obsolete. So join us today as we look at the 'King Tiger's Replacement, The E-75 Standardpanzer.'
Thanks for watching! Support the channel by subscribing, liking, and sharing.
Follow me on Twitter: / theuntoldpast
Follow me on Instagram: theuntoldpast
Disclaimer: All opinions and comment stated below in the Comments section do not represent the opinion of TheUntoldPast. All opinions and comments and dialogue should discuss the video above in a historical manner.
TheUntoldPast does not accept any racism, profanity, insults, sexism or any negative discussion aimed at an individual. TheUntoldPast has the right to delete any comment with this content inside it and also ban the user from the channel.
Music by: I am a man who will fight for your honour by Chris Zabriskie
Sure they're superior, but the allies has a thing called fuel lol
If german still use ww2 tanks and use modern tank unti now ?
I think it will be interesting
In modern world maybe ww2 engine will be replace with new engine no need hands to start the engine
@@minhnghiaduong great idea but replacing the engine wont be enough u must change the fuselage system and change the armament and the armor from ww2 era to modern mbt lets change the armor with composit armor generation 4 and switch the gun with 140 mm dont forget the reactive armor, heat protection,night vision etc
@@nazigorfurher4403 i know *if* tigers tanks still use til now and it replace with modern thing i think it will be cool and dangerous
@@minhnghiaduong are you 5? The turret would be changed or if possible just change the gun if it fits and you need to change the armor to newer ones but it wouldn't be a tiger anymore
Germany was running out of fuel. Without fuel, it doesn't matter how many tanks you have.
Fuel and resources...
@@Wassermel0ne and manpower
@The Icelandic Nationalist The strategic bombing campaigns should have concentrated on oil from the start.
@The Icelandic Nationalist Much of the German oil supply came from converting coal into oil. A very expensive process requiring large processing facilities. The only substantial source of natural oil was the Romanian oil fields. Towards the end of the war the strategic bombing campaign concentrated on disrupting these sources. As a result there was a fuel shortage which mostly grounded the Luftwaffe, and was a major reason the ardennes offensive failed.
With more of the standard tanks the operation too take the caucus oil fields too ensure that the fuel would flow may have been successful. Its all speculation. If this or what if that or could've happened this way. Really bad timing, bad choices by a megalomaniac and false superiority complex was even more of the down fall of the first authoritarian socialist regime.
They also improved the sloped armor, mainly on the front, making it an angle wich would have been impossible to pen for years to come.
So why does he say they wouldve been ineffective against the new soviet tanks?
@@noahno Ask him that question, it must be based on assumptions, T44 and IS3 were still behind in key aspects compared to German tanks, IS3 was slow in every possible way compared to German heavy tanks even though those were not fast neither except for the original tiger, traveling speed, reload times, turret turning speed were slow on the IS3, and T44 was basicly a panther counterpart but more compact and therefore without the powerfull gun a panther 2 or E50 would have, add to that the fact that Russia was still far behind in optics quality and accuracy of guns, the models they introduced were totally new and had to be developed further by combat experience, a problem the German did not have because the E line was simply an improvement upon existing, battle proven models, and there you have it why i disagree with his statement.
Nope. Not from HEAT rounds
@@MrShadowofthewind The IS-3 and the T-44 were very cramped, and the turret shape of the IS-3 made the reloading times slow. I don’t think they can fight on the hilly terrain of Germany.
@@noahno king tiger and tiger also were better than russian tanks but when a russian artillery barage takes out your tracks and some russian tanks rush towards you, you lose.
Don’t see how the E-75, 100 could have been better without a engine with a much high horse power just to start
Several bunkers with mounted anti tank guns and trenches with artillery forming a coherent defense line would've been better than using all the resources just to build 1 a nearly immobile tank tbh
they were planned to have better engines later on I think,well if they were to be produced
1200hp turbine engine go vrrrrrrrr
@@zaidanmujahid6567 Maybach had actually built a new engine, but complications meant that the engine never made into production. The Tiger 1 also got a newer Sla. 16 engine which was actually pretty good
Engine power wasn't that important, since the main issue of tanks that heavy, they would easily get stuck even in light terrain and most bridges would collapse under them.
Your closing "tanks flying out of the factories".....if Hitler had heard that....
35,000 tanks? o shit
with the effectiveness of the newer 88mm gun , maybe it would have been better to use the E -75 / King Tiger turrets in the form of turret bunkers
They did that with panther turrets because they produced more 75mm cannons and turrets than tank hulls
Not a bad idea, could be pretty useful if you got infantry protecting them in a battle
Laos Railway: America bombs ... 🤔
ruclips.net/video/RmtHDbe5YU0/видео.html
2:36 That's a WG designed E75 TS, not the real E75...
Funny how in WoTB after the Tiger II you will have to get the E 75
German tank production rate was just fine considering the situation at their hands. Considering the amount of fuel, resources and available crewman they had. I mean... What good does tens of thousands tanks do for you if you don't have A) the manpower to crew them with capable crews. B) the fuel to even drive them.
This argument about production rates is always flawed because it never takes into account the facts that Germany lacked fuel, materials needed for production, industry and manpower. So it was smarter for them to create less, but technically better vehicles.
Actually they do have plenty of resources and they indeed do have manpower but they decided to increase the specialisation in the training and especially in engineering tanks that met the requirements on a broad spectrum except ease of mass production
Germany would have fought to a stand still if they knew how to develop a tank such as panther or something slightly inferior and mass produce those to 20,000 to 40,000 of that variant. I believe they would have lasted far longer than 5 years.
The sheer lack of armored presence from 44-45 really set Germany back and the allies simply had more guns and more tracks on the field to simply out fight, out move and out gun German tanks by concentration of fire
@@ConstantineJoseph This is completely false. The German began experiencing a shortfall in both manpower and raw materials as early as late 1936. In fact, the only natural resource which Germany possessed in large quantities was coal. By the beginning of the war, they were already short of high grade iron ore, bauxite, manganese, chromium, rubber, tin, and oil, to name just a few.
Furthermore, the Germans had already imported significant numbers of foreign labor- primarily from Italy and Rumania- even before the war began.
This shortage of both manpower and raw materials is the single most important factor in the subject of perceived slack in the German economy and Germany's relative unreadiness for war in 1939. German industry was capable of producing more war material than it did prior to the war's outset- but they lacked the manpower and raw materials to do so.
@@ConstantineJoseph When the allied attacked Germany they were already running low on fuel. In fact, big part of tank losses was because the crew ran out of fuel and had to abandon their vehicles. The lack of fuel reduced everything in German arms, from u-boats to luftwaffe. When Germany invaded USSR, their major goals was to capture soviet oil fields simply because they desperately needed it. They were running low on many materials such as cooper. The lack of materials also hindered the Me262 project.
@@ConstantineJoseph and it wasn't because of lack of armor or FVs, it was lack of aerial support. Tanks are extremely voulnerable to aerial attacks if the enemy can pretty much freely bomb your ass. This was the case mostly on the western side of the theater.
The Germans could not even fully equip their panzer divisions with pz3s and pz4s before the invasion on the Soviet Union. The Germans had the manpower and fuel to fully equip their panzer divisions then, they just did not produce enough tanks. So I don’t see the German tank production being “just fine.”
Germany had lost air superiority. It was already Game Over.
In 1940-1941" they were lost already
Bismarck sunk
Battle of Britain failed
They already lost
King Tiger proceeds to become even fatter*
*Obese*
*thicc*
Rate of production wouldn't have mattered, they didn't have fuel for the ones they did produce.
they wasted many resources in "miracle tanks" instead increase the production of way way more reliable, cheap and deadly stugs.
germany was defeated anyways, but they could have a better position with more stug units
If Germany for example has only 8 crew, and little fuel, they’d rather build heavy tanks than expendable stugs. You also need to consider that Germany was short on manpower. High school kids were recruited to man heavy machines like the Panzers
But what if *Tank use wood as fuel*
@@grant8164 Introducing: The steam tiger
@@grant8164 the germans did invent a biodiesel engine to help tackle their fuel problems, in the grand scale of things it still wasn't enough to cancel out the negatives due to their lack of manpower, resources and fuel. The allies where about 70-90%of the world while the axis a mere 10% at most, so going against most of the world's resources, manpower and production is not going to be easy from the start.
@@siegfried2k4 The idea failed miserably. Technically there was an event when a single T-34/85 defeated 40 Tiger IIs, (40!), because most of them broke down before it ever had chance to encounter them. Then the commander of T-34 easily spotted these huge tanks from a distance, while Germans failed to notice the presence of T-34. At Oględów a single T-34 encountered 6 Tiger IIs if I remember and destroyed 4 without even being detected. Then captured another one intact because these heavy machines would get stuck anywhere.
1:00 The Jagdtiger was not the Tiger II. Jagdtiger was a tank destroyer.
But the chasis of jagdtiger was from tiger II
It a Self Propelled Howitzer
@@TheJimyyy yes it but a self proppelled anti tank howitzer
The Jagdtiger was not the kingtiger. It was a tank destroyer based on the kingtiger chasis. Different gun. Just as the jagdpanther was based on a panther chasis.
Yeah the New IS-3s would’ve hunted down These Monstrous Beats in Packs of several IS-3s taking on one or two E-75s,granted the E-75s might have knocked out several of the IS-3s but the sheer number of IS-3s(along with the Thousands of T-34s,T-34-85s and Hundreds of IS’s,and IS-2s). It would have been very terrifying to be a Soviet InfantryMan and witnessing an E-75 try and fend off several IS-3s at a time,it definitely would have been very interesting to see what Tactics the Soviets would’ve employed against these Behemoths(probably a variant of Swarming it with T-34-85s,Infantry or IS/IS-2s/IS-3s or to just call in some Aircraft to Bomb it)
but t34 85 cant penetrate E75 so IS3 and IS2 would be the best option.
Don’t forget the first prototype of the T-54 (the first MBT) was in 1945 so those would’ve had a head start on the E series.
I LOVE HISTORY!! Great video as usual!!
Thanks mate! Some really interesting videos coming out this week!
@@TheUntoldPast Looking forward to it
More tanks would have meant more fuel consumption, that was not a good thing for the Germans
The mighty beast of wotb (in my opinion)
Too bad it never went to production
It would have been devastating!
@@TheUntoldPast I think tiger 2 is already good enough against any of soviet/american tank if E75 is been made the suspension would not hold up these fat boy
The real question though is.....
0 to 100 in how much?
1:03 jagd tiger was a turretless mobile antitank gun like the stugs and jagd panther. It was not another name for tiger II
I doesn't matter how many of what ever kind of tank the Germans would have produced by the fall/ winter of '41 the were all but out of fuel.
it would help a whole lot but, yes thats true more tanks = more fuel consumption, i think that the E series with germany and a plane equivalent woulda made a fighting chance, able to defend factories, oil refineries, u get the gist
Even if they had had plenty of fuel, the US probably would have dropped a nuclear bomb on Berlin if the Germans had still been fighting in late 1945. Tanks don't mean much when one side has nuclear weapons and the other side doesn't.
@AKUJIRULE Did you even read my comment? The nuclear weapon that would have been dropped on Germany was developed in the US, not in the UK or the USSR. You could *maybe* argue that if they had succeeded in conquering the the USSR and the UK in rapid succession, they would have then developed the ability to project force to the US in time to stop the development of the atomic bomb in time to save themselves, but even that is a stretch, IMO.
@AKUJIRULE Again, you are rebutting an argument that I did not make. Where in my post did I claim that Germany did not have a fuel shortage, or that even with ample fuel, they would not have been able to mechanize to a greater extent, or that even with greater mechanization, Germany could not have defeated the USSR and the British? Nowhere. I only claimed that the U.S. would have been able to find a way to deliver a nuclear bomb to Berlin even if the USSR and Britain had both fallen. You lapsed into hardcore fanboy mode with "exterminate any vermin with wings". The U.S. could have launched a phalanx of B-29s from half a dozen other countries and been within striking distance of Berlin. Note: I am not saying that incinerating Berlin would have been a good thing - I'm only saying that the U.S. would have been capable of it and would not have hesitated to do it.
At the end of the day, the fact is that we are both armchair generals operating with the benefit of hindsight. Neither of us can be 100% sure how history would have been altered if this or that condition had been different. If this kind of speculative argument agitates you to the point that you cannot resist engaging in ad hominem attacks, maybe you should find another way to spend your time. Bye.
Bruh, you used the e 75 ts from world of tanks. That’s not the e 75
A supossed turbine motored, lighter variant, of the E75 according to Wargaming's own description, using a Löwe-like turret for the sake of it.
If you ask me, is more of an up-gunnered, more potent engine wise E50 rather than that supossed E75 specially considering in-game usage, but as both vehicles used nearly the same chassis and classifying it as a medium would had made it called as "OP" by the stupid WoT playerbase...
Imagine if they just stuck with mass producing the tiger 1...they wasted allot of time and resources with so many models.
With huge no. Of Tiger Is , they would've a large number of experienced crew and thereby increasing the potential of the crew as a whole.
That's just it, the Tiger Tank was incredibly complex and took up enormous amounts of resources to build. Not the sort of thing that lends itself to mass production. I have read where the argument was made they could have produced multiples of other varieties of tanks for the cost and time to build a single Tiger.
Panther would have been the place to stop.
Panzer IV with the 7.5cm/L48 gun should have been the standard mass produced tank.
At the start of the war I would agree but for 1943 on wards they wouldn't be good, the Germans would have lost more tanks and men, we probably would have won the war faster then we did if they had of mass produced panzer 4s from 1943 to 45.
But the major factors were oil and the bombing campaign, Germany records indicate over 20,000 tanks lost on factory floors in various stages of production, about 90% of that in 1944.
There is no point, the biggest reason Germany lost is because they dont have fuel.
@@brianlong2334 The massive Soviet Army had something to do with it as well...
@@jacksons1010 Yes but it wasn't massive compared to the German's, operation Barbarssa stop because of oil not the Soviets however they did help a little, then the German's saved up more oil for more pushing in later years however it was more a stalemate however they still made gains till 1944 when the Germans had to send a large amount of equipment and men to fight the allies, if there was no allies German's would have probably won the war, the allies held up 5million German troops 1million KIA 4 million POWs, about 10,000 tanks and 40,000 aircraft.
Soviet were struggling when ww2 ended, when the Japanese surrendered the Soviet had about 20,000 tanks and 30,000 aircraft left, Stalin had on multiple occasions ask the allies to open up a new front to take pressure of the Soviets...
@@brianlong2334 Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The Soviet Army was much bigger than the Wehrmacht and they stopped the German advance in December 1941. Pick up a damn book before posting such nonsense! For one thing, the Soviets were an Allied nation...DUH!
German Panzers was in the Time High Modern Cars but they was like today VW Diesel Fraud failure.
Even if the Germans made simple to produce tanks they still would have not been able to mass-produce them on the scale of the M4 or T-34 because Germany didn't have the economic resources of the USA or USSR.
I just call it the light tank and fast medium tank magnet or "get circled of death slowpoke"
Great vid and info, luckily they didn't listen to there generals advice or the outcome may have been very different.
Watch out, you may get wehraboos coming to whine about your comment. 😂
2:32 thats an E-75TS
Conclusion : E-75 is just a Tiger 2 10,5cm
i think the E75 would've been the king of the hill if it faced T44's and is3's !!!
dont forget how bad the crew conditions and how bad the build quality of the soviet tanks were !!
also soviet commanders were gaining experience but they still lacked way way behind germans especially in anything that didnt involve rushing in and hoping you didnt get hit
i think if the E75 made it into production then the soviet would rush the is7 .... then the Germans would be in trouble
I remember one time I bought a model of an E-100 and the model wasn't an E-100, it was an E-75
Perhaps the box also contained an E-25 model
@@kwkfortythree39 nope
The main reason Germany's didn't mass produced tanks was fuel, the second was they didn't mobilise there economy and resources behind the war till 1944 far to late.
Germany produced about 20,000 tanks of all type's in 1944 out of a total of 49,700.
German records indicate 300 tiger 1s lost to the bombing campaign on factory floors, over 600 tiger 2s and about 8,000 panthers all in various stages of production, with 12,000 other tanks type's also destroyed thanks to bombing.
Didnt they produce over 400 Tiger II tanks?
@@darnit1944 Just under 500, with over 650 lost on factory floors, so total would have been over 1,150, they only planed to build 1,500.
This was so unnecessary I mean the tiger 1wasnt fully tested when it was rushed into battle they were come to find out later the mayback was underpowered and there were many electrical problems the thing was over engineered and it needed specially trained people to service the tiger all that came out in the middle of battles , the king tiger 2 wasn't fully tested when they came out with this monster . (The mayback turned out to be perfect on the panther though but this is all the meddling of god dammed hitlers incompetency like the me262 worlds first operational JET fighter hitler was insisting on it being used as a bomber an airplane made and designed and cut as a FIGHTER
had they standardized their tanks in mid 1930s , they won't be have the most breakdown tanks in entire WW2 history
In this video there is no picture of an E-75. While there are drawings of the E-75
Something between a Panther and a Tiger 2 would have been Ideal. Work out the problems. Make it modular with easily swapped mission based turrets and load outs.
By the time the Germans released the Panther they had already lost. After 1943 it didn't matter what they produced.
@@matthewpaine6908 i mean germany could never had won they didnt have enough manpower, fuel, and resources in general
@@neffels8768 If they didn't Invade the Soviet Union and Never Declared war on the USA, they could have won. However they might have been able to beat the Soviet Union if they ignored Stalingrad, captured Moscow, and the southern oil fields. However they still would have lost when the US invaded.
@@matthewpaine6908 thats the thing neither of those things could have happen for them to happen hitler couldn't have been the leader of germany because that was his plan that he was never going to give up
@@neffels8768 Live by the Dictator die by the Dictator.
If the war continued for much longer Germany would have seen the sun more than seven times a week.
Why do the ones with the least amount of oil dream of building the biggest and heaviest tanks???
Survivability, why build 10 tanks that uses more fuel when you can build 5, that saves on resources and time but more importantly you building a tank to outlast your enemies.
The Tiger 1 and 2s lost 1 tank to every 6.5 enemies, however if you remove abandonment and brake downs it's 1 to 12.6
However the Germans needed all there tanks to do this not under 2,000.
They still did extremely well 110,000 Russian tanks, 16,000 British empire tanks, 10,000 American tanks, and about 5,000 other tanks mainly French, for a total of 141,000 losses to the German's 46,700 tanks.
Edit: also should add in Italy they didn't have good tanks but still about 3,000 lost.
But the allies still had about 120,000 tanks left when ww2 ended and the Soviet about 20,000.
@@brianlong2334 Russians were just untrained with their often superior T-34. Germany had defense advantage, i.e. waiting in ambush and scoring first hits while the enemy is trying to figure out where you are. There are way too many reports of Tigers and Panthers breaking down and being destroyed by their own crew because they were simply too heavy to support their delicate transmissions. Moreover, most battles were not tanks vs tank but tanks supporting infantry. Yes, they had great armor and guns but that caused them to break down and be a maintenance nightmare. You want many tanks that work and can support the infantry and are mobile not super tanks that can be stationary and take out a few enemy tanks before they are taken out themselves. More of those reliable and tested Panzer VIs would have served the Germans better for sure.
@@sctm81 They were average reliability for there day they weren't much worse or better then Soviet tanks, or British, in most cases they were slightly better.
The stug is considered the most reliable German tank of ww2 it had a reliability of 65% at its best.
The T34 by comparison had below 50% till after 1942.
The king tiger managed to get to above 50% reliability that's impressive for it's size.
The American had an abundance of spare part's the Germans had scarcity mainly due to allied bombing campaign.
A lot of new German tank crew ran away when there tanks weren't damaged or had throwin a track or were easily repaired, in the western front.
A lot would ran away when allied air craft would hit them however the tanks were normally in working condition.
But in 1944 allied airpower destroyed something like 90% of Germany soft skin vehicles, that makes support and supply much harder, it's quite impressive that the Germans did as good as they did.
Hiding in ambushes only works the first time, after that you have to move the Germans had a lot of defence networks but they were normally well know about.
The Germans had almost the same number of AT gun as tanks on the western front so not many.
You have to remember if you out number the enemy and have overwhelming fire-power then that hidden man/unit going to get a lot a fire coming on you.
The Russian's had some impressive defensive set up but did do that well a great example of this is in the pacific were the Japanese had the advantage of surprise but the USA had overwhelming fire-power yet the American KIA 2x what they lost but total casualties were about the same.
The Germans also did far better on the offensive then the defensive, and they basically were fighting defensively against the allies, they did try counter attacking but it was more like ww1 on the western front and the Germans didn't have the men equipment and resources to fight like they did on the eastern front, don't get me wrong there was a lot but only something like 20% of the German military/equipment fought against the allies.
Edit: You don't want to have 10,000 tanks that can't move because they have no fuel or ammo, you want 5,000 tanks that can do the same job with less that's basically what the Germans did, it didn't work all the time but it was far better then the alternative they had, it's pretty basic stuff tbf even though some people don't seam to understand it.
You can't fight a numbers war if you don't have the numbers, that's why you get quality over quantity, you mite build 70,000 tanks let's say but they only can take out 2 tanks but the enemy can build 150,000 now you have a problem, they have equipment you don't.
@@brianlong2334 The Panther was notorious for breaking its own transmission if you look at reports and statistics. Often it didn't go a full tank without suffering a break down. Did it perform well in combat head on? Certainly. However, operational readiness was extremely low compared to western allied tanks. Yes, you are right regarding spare parts but German tanks were also not very good at being repaired in the field. The Panther was not supposed to be that heavy in it's inception but Hitler demanded that it be protected by that amount of armor, making it 48 tons, way too much for its transmission to handle. In a fight it was a very formidable opponent, that's beyond dispute, but as a part of a mobile force to be counted on it was lacking compared to other tanks including the Panzer IV.
@@sctm81 Sorry we use proper measurements not the imperial system 44.8 ton, its original weight was to be the 30 to 35 ton class, the Sherman was originally 30 tons later models were 38 tons, Panzer 4 was original 16 tons and eventually it was 25 tons, the panther was also rushed into service it was also designed in about half the time this also help contribute but it wasn't that bad.
Was it that bad at first yes at 36% but this is 1943 not 44 and 45, the rate increased over time to 54% in mid 1944 so not that bad pretty average in reality, a lot of brake downs were easily fixed this would indicate that had spare parts been more available there rates would have been a lot higher.
The Panther did better then the Panzer 4, the Panzer 4 was comparable to the Sherman and t34 the panther was better then all of them however it wasn't as good as vs infantry as it was basically almost a dedicated tank killer, however still could do the job.
Would not have made a difference, came down to manpower and training time, something Germany were sadly lacking in 1944 to 1945 along with lack of resources.
'sadly lacking'
Hmmmm
The Allies had the T26E4 Predator (Tiger Killer) 😈
So funny that German started planning this standardpanzer in near end of the war
Crazy that all the tigers we see from these films were destroyed in combat
a lot of them were disbanded and blown up by their crew
And pratically is the same thing! ( a lot of them were lost for lack of fuel, as in the Bulge, or simple mechanical failures)
Thanks for talk about my Lovely Tank :3
Its only blueprint, so no argue
German Tank Production was so inefficient during WWII; that even the British - whom have always prioritized our Navy over the Army - outperformed them for production.
Losing the Battle of the Atlantic & the race for Oil though, made Germany's defeat inevitable, irrespective of what Tanks they possessed.
The British produced 35,000 tanks of all type's Germany 49,700..
If we only included main battle tanks its more like British 10,000 to Germany 25,000.....
Germany didn't have the oil it needed nor did it mobilise its economy and resources behind the war till 1944 far to late.
^ False, as aforestated.
In 1940 the UK was producing more Tanks than Germany, and in 1942, production had geared up so much - by more than 40% - that the UK achieved double the German production figures.
The Germans Never had enough Oil to meet demand, and by all meaningful measures had lost the war by 1943, with the only question being whether they'd last long enough to be the first axis power to get nuked.
The USSR protecting their Oil from the Germans prevented a wholesale Russian collapse, but they Still requested the allies send them oil, suggesting they still had shortages thereof.
Oil is also useless to a country without hardware to put it in; which the Russians were desperate for the allies to send them, and we did.
In four years the UK sent the USSR, among other material:
Over 4,000 Trucks
Over 5,000 Tanks
Over 6,700 Aircraft
& 12 Warships
There was also no such thing as the "Main Battle Tank" (or Universial Tank) during WWII. Said paradigm came after, rendering most Tanks from the war - including all the "Heavy Tanks" - doctrinally out of date.
Statistics sourced from the BBC, War Factories S1, and the ONS.
(rather than out of thin air)
@@jimtaylor294 We all read discussed this your number are not correct, such as tanks are more like 2,500 the other 2,000 were Canadian, so have to be taken with a grain of salt.
As all read discussed the best year the UK in 1943 produced 10,000 tanks at its best the Germans built almost 20,000 in 1944 in the hight of the bombing campaign, the UK 26,000 aircraft in 1944 there best year and Germans 40,000 in 1944 again in the hight of the bombing campaign.
Total production aircraft Germany 120,000 to the UK 130,000.
Tanks UK 35,000 to Germans 49,700.
Carden loyd tankette=450
Vickers all types=1,882
Tetrarch=177
Cruisers all type's=13,042
Comet=1,186
Matilda all type's=3,127
Valentine=8,300
Churchill all type's=7,368
Total under 35,500.......
If you wonna include the 22,000 tanks from lend-lease from America of which 17,000+ were Sherman's and almost 5,000 Canadian tanks, your going to still be taking thing out of context to fit your claims.
USA suplyed almost 20,000 aircraft to the Soviets and they suplyed almost 40,000 to the British.
The Brittish most produced truck was only some 10,000 unit's with the next few having 1,000 or less the majority of truck came from Canada who produced 850,000 second to Americas 1.2million.
Universal carriers some 57,000 produced by the UK with the other half built by USA 30,000, Canada 20,000, Australia 5,000 and new Zealand 1,300.
The UK built a bigger navy yes but as mentioned 1.2million metric tons of steel Germans put in there navy compared to 1.8million metric tons in the British.
The Germans were short oil, but they had a lot Germany used under 300million barrels of oil in ww2, Russia 900million, USA and UK 7billion barrels about 6billiin of that was used by America and 500million by UK, the USA also suplyed the British with about 40million to 80million more barrels.
British got the majority of oil from Iran and some more from Iraq.
Germans estimated they needed over 340million barrels so they were short 1 year and 6mounths of oil in ww2.
The Japanese had a total of 35million barrels and were basically out of oil in 1942, they estimated 35million a year to fight both the USA and China, the navy alone needed 17million barrels yet never had more then 7million a year Italy about 10million barrels and were total out in 1942 I believe there was a reserves of some 900,000 barrels in 1943.
Edit as all read stated the Russian's received 20million barrels of oil form the USA it was mainly aviation fuel, but yes in 1942 the Russian's were short of oil.
Main battle tank was used as a term as people like you like to claim all German TD and SPGs as other vehicles yet don't do the same for eney other nation to inflate numbers, I just prepared my self for a come back I assumed you would try and start before you even said it.
I would also argue heavy tank are not out of date we just have no full scale war, hence we don't need them heavy tank were brake though tank's, all nations built them, the Russian's more then anyone the Germans just reacted to the changing war conditions not real a revolution but for you more then likely.
The TD were all but dead after ww2, the 10,000 or so took out some 2x there number 20,000, yet only one nation built them after ww2 and only stopped in what the 80 or 90s....
We build tanks for all rolls now, a jack of all trade's and if there is a ww then you find the return of all other type's, SPGs are still present in small numbers in most of the top 10 most powerful nations doesn't mean there obsolete just there not much need for them so only a few hundred are needed.
As stated you can go see on youtube (Tik) and (military history Visilised) to see as out of a book or document is not your strong point.
^ Ah doubling down on tired germanophillic gibberish; crutched with ad homeniem & dishonesty.
Good job discrediting yourself further though XD.
For a less OSK limited refutation though:
""your number are not correct""
*Ironic* XD
""Main battle tank was used as a term""
False, because no such doctrine existed.
""people like you""
Ah; pigeon holing. Cliche much? XD
""like to claim all German TD and SPGs as other vehicles yet don't do the same for eney other nation to inflate numbers""
Projecting your hypocrisy onto others now?. Pathetic.
""I just prospered my self for a come back I assumed you would try and stated before you even said it.""
That doesn't even make grammatical sense XD.
"I would also argue heavy tank are not out of date"
Because of course you would XD.
Heavy Tanks faded out after WWII for two primary reasons:
1. The Shaped Charge - and Square Cube Law - made simply having thicker RHA steel armour no longer worthwhile. A cold war era TOW missile for instance, could punch through RHA Steel over 1ft thick, far beyond what a practical Tank can heft. MBT armour trends reflected this reality, particularly with AMX-30 & Leopard 1.
2. WWII proved that Heavy Tanks were too impractical. Armies like being able to traverse bridges without them collapsing, cross ground without sinking in the mud, and not require double or triple heading by tractors during battlefield recoveries.
""The TD were all but dead after ww2, the 10,000 or so took out some 2x there number 20,000, yet only one nation built them after ww2 and only stopped in what the 80 or 90s""
Questionable stat's aside; casemated self-propelled guns were generally the result of wanting larger guns on hulls too small to mount them in turrets, thus saving on development time, resources & money. WWII ending removed this raison d'etre, and there were few other reasons for such vehicles postwar, besides being able to fit large guns on relatively light chassis'. Neither the British nor the US bothered fielding one, with most R&D examples being for niche purposes.
""We build tanks for all rolls now, a jack of all traids""
Let me guess... Spell Checking's for nerds? XD
""if there is a ww then you find the return of all other type's""
I could refute this in quite a few ways; but I think the simple fact that WWIII will never happen without a nuclear exchange renders the entire topic moot. Standing Armies are no match for split atoms.
""SPGs are still present in small numbers in most of the top 10 most powerful nations doesn't mean there obsolete just there not much need for them so only a few hundred are needed.""
A handful of casemated SPG's isn't going to spontaneously turn into thousands, for pretty self-evident reasons. There's also no indication of any 1st world country having considered one in decades. MBT's are the paradigm.
And again; name dropping two YT channels you clearly haven't actually watched as a crutch for unsourced word salad, isn't a substitute for putting a verifiable source, as I did, and you ignored because it was inconvenient to your narrative.
At about 1:03 when you say it was designed to "replace the Jagd Tiger or Tiger II" I am not sure if you are using those two vehicles interchangeably or if you are saying it was designed to replace one or the other. If the former, the statement is incorrect as the Jagd Tiger was a Tank Destroyer and the Konig Tiger is the Tiger II tank.
They used the same chassis, the Germans had a pretty reliable practice of building a new tank hull and then building both a tank ans TD version because hulls could be built faster than turrets.
It a howitzer
@@titakristengco No it was a tank destroyer. the only howitzer germans created was the bar sfi or the sturmtiger.
Tattooing doc price
hbyj price
The two biggest oil producing countries in the world in 1940 - the United States and Soviet Union, The little Austrian corporal picked a fight with both.....the outcome was never in doubt.
Did not matter No fuel no drivers. Too few.
The Germans had more tanks than they could fuel and crew. I believe one of the reasons why they chose to build large well armored super tanks rather than mass production of average tanks is that they were desperate for fuel and manpower. They were going to be outnumbered no matter what, but having 10 tanks that are capable of holding up against 80 tanks save gas and troops. They had plenty of steel and coal, but fuel and manpower were in very short supply. This issue makes the Maus an the Ratte look less silly, until you have to cross a bridge to fight. They were counting on capturing the oil fields in the caucuses and enslaving the vanquished to solve their problems - it didn't work out.
'This issue makes the Maus an the Ratte look less silly'
No, it doesn't. They're ridiculous designs that only gained approval because Hitler liked big tanks.
They would have been potentially useful in the first world war, but in the second - just massive targets for aircraft. It doesn't even matter how thick the armour is, you need only disable the vehicles movement to effectively knock it out. Check out Chieftain's talk on the Maus, he's a former tanker and cringed when he saw the top section of track is inaccessible. If (when) the tracks were knocked off a Maus, it meant rebuilding the damn thing just to sort it out! Madness!
The reason was that Hitler was an idiot. Tiger II was so heavy because Hitler 'improved' the design himself.
Yea unlike the panzer iv which is more effective and reliable than the tigers and panthers
2:30 is just WGs fail to make sth new, picture after is the real deal.
that's the e 75 ts a premium version of the e 75 if you didn't know
@@Commander_35 LOL
*cries in stug*
The truth is good enough for the job, does the job, the Germans over thought everything, the would have done better with Russians on the drawing boards, a Russian will give you something that will work and something you can fix when it stops, T34's were leaving the factories sometimes not even painted, sometimes with holes in the welded seam's, but they left the factories in vast numbers,
Take a look at any German made tank in a museum or as a wreck, the welds are perfect, if a it wasn't good enough it didn't leave the factory, in Russia if it drive and fight it was out the door as soon as possible,
Gudarian's tactics called for massed firepower at a critical point, they needed all the tanks they could get, not works of art to win a beauty contest or compliments from your enemies, far better for the Allies scoff at German workmanship, but fear the endless numbers of tanks that were just good enough but in numbers which couldake a differences
By late 44 only an idiot or Adolf Hitler could actually believe any outcome other the unconditional defeat of Germany was possible. Germany still had a few surprises in store but lacked the raw materials, oil, production capacity, manpower, and implementation time necessary to bring a serious game changing weapon system to the fight. Lots of brilliant ideas on the drawing boards but they were all pipe dreams.
Excellent ideas and Engineering. But all this R&D and fighting a war on two fronts was obviously a bit much.
They never learn, do they? Sadly the L71 8.8cm couldn't be fitted onto the Tiger 1 or the Panther.
Panther II was equipped with the L/71 88mm gun.
@@darnit1944 Panther II doesn't exist.
I think there were too many problems(oil ,resources, manpower, airpower,... ) to pinpoint it just to one reason(not enough tanks)
Jagdtiger and king tiger are 2 different tanks
yep. I think this channel is also stealing mark feltons clips
Already outdated design comparing with what the Soviets are building.The E-series is a fix of Tiger II but the Tiger II design is already flawed. I doubt these would stand a chance against IS-3 that’s joining the war on V-Day
Or even the is7
@@MTTC-me5dj man IS7 is ahead of its time. its even more op than cold war tanks like m103 and the conquerer.
Your voice is messed up
I dont think it was just the fact that they could not produce as many as the Soviets. Germany tanks first off were no were cheap. Plus german tanks kept changing their parts. Especially their transmission, so when I tank breaks down out on the battle field. They maybe cant fix it due to the newer parts dont work on it. Compared to the t34 which the Soviet Union built with the only idea in mind that it will last 3 to 6 months. They kept everything the same.
The soviets has millions of people ready for combat. If 80 T-34s get destroyed, who cares? Send the new troops to their tanks.
*Koenigstiger
They had other problems more pressing than this tanks shortcomings like getting destroyed and knowing the end was so near .
King Tiger Tank
Tiger 2 nor E-75 have bogey suspension.
They technically weren't supposed to start the war until 1945 .hitler got too ambitious.
Never heard of this particular one before. Interesting
How come they never mention the fact that the Germans did not have the gas to run these tanks.
These tanks wouldn't have made any differences, by the end of the war the Allies had fieled the Centurion and Pershing, they were powerful MBTs, especially the Centurion
lol centurion and pershing powerful MBTs? man the pershing and centurion were underpowered in terms of armour and firepower. anti tank guns only could kill the king tiger . the super pershing or 1958 centurion mk 7/ 1 could beat the tiger 2. and standertized E 75 would eat your pershing from @ 1500 meters.
During WW2 Germany produced more than 1000 U-boats (submarines) each weighing some 1000 tons. That's 1.000.000 tons of high quality steel and WW2 high tech. With that amount of material if would have been possible to produce more than 10.000 Tiger I, II, E50, E75...
The Soviets were able to mass produce the T34 but not the IS-series tanks.
tank production would not have saved the germans, their loss was inevitable without an effective anti-air capacity, and without the ability to engage targets across the atlantic and the urals.
And a lack of fuel and oil
We didnt had enough recources thats the problem. Hitler wanted the oil in russia and the Kaukasus thats why germany attacked Stalingrad.
Without oil you cant build enough.
The U-Boots were very lethal, at least until 1943, the real waste of resources was the building of big & worthless battleships, without aircrafts & lesser vessels to support and escort them they were litterally trashed by the RN and RAF.
The germans, not only Hitler, had this obsession with big, overengineered and worthless weapons. Today we call them "missile's magnets"
@@near--zero If the Germans took the Caucasus then the war would have eventually come to a German victory in the east soon after, then not to long after that a peace deal on the western side, the allies would have had no hope vs the fully fuelled Germans and there lesser allies, with the majority of there forces ready and available to fight the allies it's pretty impossible for a victory.
The Russian's only had about 60million people living on the other side of the Urals, the majority of them not even Russian, about 20million+ Siberian people's, and the same number of Asian stan peoples.
Not to mention the USA produced 6billion barrels of oil in ww2 the allies alone used 7billion, this would mean more strain on nations to pay for oil, and time and resources spend getting it from other parts of the world, time they don't have at this point.
Without air superiority, tanks are too vulnerable, regardless of size.
Actually bigger and slower are more vulnerable.
Germany had a crippling lack of fuel and resources to build these weapons. They actually had a sufficient production of Panther tanks, but they lacked the fuel to transport and use them
Just chuck in E10 fuel
1:11 i hope there is a war thunder skin for it
Were German tanks really better than the allied tanks if they didn't fulfill the role they were intended to...winning the war? After all, the Maus had thicker armor and a more powerful gun, but that doesn't make it better than the Tiger I.
Alot of the german tanks had technical problems. Problems that get worse with every new 'VunderVeapon'.
The ferdinand(Elefant) have been known for the engine to be massively underpowered for that weight of vehicle to the point it would spontanestly combust before it even reached the combat zone.
complicated designs coupled with material shortages, manpower shortages, the bureacracy and the techical brain drain(alot of the top engeneers were either defecteing or dying due to the war) made the production and maintenence a absolute nightmare.
From a technical standpoint, Im know im going to get flak for this. I would say NO the big cat tanks(tiger, king tiger, panther) were not very good.
If you want to make a good military vechicles, "Make it bigger, put more armor on it, bigger/more guns". Thats exactly what the germans went with when designing these vechicals, is something that a small child would say. Lets just face it, that Maus tank is stupid even if they did get it to work. Too big a target, too expensive to maintain and too gas consuming. Right when Germany is in a fuel crisis. Not a fuel shortage, A fuel CRISIS.
While Tiger phobia was a thing. The reason why the tigers got their reputation was because Tiger crews were typically on the defensive(with experieanced crews) and waited in one hidden spot to ambush Allied tank columns.
I heard a commsion after the war, investigated tank on tank combat came to a conclusion that the winner was usually the one who shot first. That was usually the Germans.
When the Allies on both fronts started to fit their vehicles with 76mm guns. Even the tigers (famous)thick armor wasn't going to hold up.
Man that would have been great in war thunder
See, there lies part of the problem. Germany already had a superior tank from a combat standpoint compared to the allies, but the machines were overly complicated and thirsty for gas. They didn't need concentrate on making bigger and stronger tanks. They needed to make existing designs less likely to break down and easier to manufacture.
The Panther was very reliable near the end of the war. The last variant, Panther G’s transmission and engine were sturdy and can last up to hundreds of kilometers.
They always like to rush things.
So tiger 2 is now e75?
waste of manpower,effort should have copied the T-34 in 1942 still wouldn't have won against the Military Industrial Complex of the Allies
One problem. Germany had no oil left
@@royalteluis623 they had a decent amount of oil up until the Romanian oil fields fell and the synthetic oil refineries were bombed, even with that they still didn’t have enough fuel but it was enough to keep fighters in the air and tanks moving
5:25 E 75 would have totally wrecked IS 3s and t 44s even if it wouldn’t have been mass produced
yes and many historians say that the IS3 was worse than IS2, i know it sounds weird but thats what i herad from a russian historian.
@@iaminyourwalls479 IS-3 was cancelled because the cast turrets had a nasty habit of cracking, so yeah, they were worse.
Well at least this thing is a beast in wot
E 100 was better :) it was impenetrable x)
but slow and too much heavy.
Germany should have just mass produced the Panther tank...
I would say the Panzer IV. But more tanks was not the solution as they where already short on fuel and their logistics overstretched (in the east).
@@markusz4447 The reason germany didnt mass produce the Panzer IV was the T-34
@@SweatyFeetGirl good point. Against the mass shermans the PIV would of been just fine
@@markusz4447 The Panzer Iv was very outdated, it was from the 1930s, and it was fitted with a very large gun, more armor yet the hull didn’t change.
The Panther would be a better choice, since the late Panther variants were very reliable
@@siegfried2k4 I agree. The advantages of the p4 lie more in its reliability than in tank v tank capabilities
*Germans* "We need to mass produce this"
*US & Soviets* "really? You guys haven't sorted that yet?"
UK, USA & Soviets* ~_^ .
(despite not being the senior service, the Army was rarely short of Tanks post-1940, and exported a decent number to the Russians when the latter needed a production stopgap)
Typhoon and P47 would have smashed them
Its extremely hard to hit a tank fom the air using rockets, and a heavy tank is more or less imune to splinters and bullets. What you can do is shoot up the heavy tanks "soft" suport, like the suporting infantery and fule trucks, widout them the tank is neuter.
@@kirgan1000 note falaise gap, latter part of Bulge
There are barely any tanks knocked out by planes. It's more psychological than effective
Still no mach for the T34, one shot German go boom.
T 34 has never seen the battlefield...
@@alkoholisierterpfandsammle4205 it almost did, and it would’ve been in Germany if those Russians weren’t so effective
German tanks: terrible engines and transmissions
Germany: hey let's make even heavier tanks lol
Indeed. Square Cube Law was apparently beyond the NSDAP's understanding XD
@@jimtaylor294 ha nerd spotted
Well; the pay is good to be one these days ;-) .
@@jimtaylor294 it's not even that good of a pay I literally could not care less for you nerd shit that I barely inderstand
>Yawn<
That didn't even make grammatical sense XD.
That one World of Tanks artwork is the E 75TS.
only the first one
@@emmanuelsv6061 yes that’s what I meant
There is something very STUPID about a STANDARD PANZER being a 75 ton vehicle. This is especially true when 35~40 ton Soviet tanks are better armored than 75 ton King Tigers because the Germans insist on bloated vehicles with a lot of armored volume and an inefficient use of space.
The reason german tanks were very large was because they had the transmission in the front of the vehicle. The shaft goes all the way under the vehicle, creating unnecessary height. The Sherman and the KV had this problem too.
@@siegfried2k4 Which is exactly my point -- inefficient design and bad use of space (aka armored volume). To make matters worse, it is not like the Panthers and Tiger IIs have excellent crew ergonomics and serviceability. They don't. Crew ergonomics in a Panther is dubious at best and the gearbox on both vehicles are practically unserviceable (the removable panels on top of the hull is not big enough for actually removing the transmission in one piece). It's all retarded German engineering 101.
--
For all their fame and notoriety, NOBODY used their drivetrain layout after the war. Everything is either rear engine rear sprocket or front engine front sprocket.
There was also a Panther replacement called the E50, far more practical, also an E25 tank destoyer, and just for fun an E100, which was to replace Maus lol.
My E-75 in WT: get hit by SPG 3 times and lose 1000hp before reaching enemyline
Just like it would have been in real life
Remarkable design thoughts just not finished. Basic hull design like the lower frontal armor in this case you will find on any modern tank. If German designers would finish that design way and would cancel the upper frontal armor they would probably save weight and increase frontal protection to today standards.
The E-100 was to replace the King Tiger. The E serece of tanks was to be a standard of parts
nobody will ever know if the standardpanzer would have turned out any good, however, finding somebody delivering the commentary using "standard English" would have definitely improved the overall quality of this video.
You're better be e75 tanks in there TwT
Image if germans had the Leopard 2 plans in the 1930's, WW2 would have gone in a very different way
Nope. You can't make a futuristic design with substandard materials.
Also: the Leopards' were the result of Germany finally adopting features of UK, US & Russian designs, that'd been ignored during WWII.
If the Germans had focused on building pz-4s and StuG and put as many of them as possible on the battlefield the war would have been very different. The Tiger and King Tiger were terrifying but not as scary as 10 Panzer 4s with their 75mm would have been in place of one Tiger. Glad that didn’t happen in all honesty.
Soviets had KV-1 Tanks which the germans could simply not penetrate with their 75mm guns. KV-1 tanks could only be penetrated by 88mm guns or by stuka divers.. thats why they didnt produce more pz-4
@@SweatyFeetGirl Which 75mm? They replaced the howitzer 75mms with long 75mms that can reliably penetrate the KV series.
@@siegfried2k4 that came way after it
It doesn't matter.
In the end they had more tanks than tankers capable of operating them.
Lack of manpower and fuel was the main problem