I think you could write a book on all of the Tiger II's flaws, not just an essay! However, you can't exactly fit the endless flaws of that vehicle in the space allotted by Palpatine's speech, so just go for the easiest, most concise thing.
True.
Don't forgot Porsche the Retard preordering 40 turrets that were already outdated when he ordered them. The tiger 2 project is one big tribute to German exceptionalism.
Oh my god, I loved shitting on low tier tanks with P-47s the few times my friends could drag me into combined. The absolute howls of rage from German players when you wreck their shit made suffering through that garbage game mode worth it.
Posrche Tanks were in general absolutely rehtarded, not only the Tiger II but also the Ferdinand/Elefant or his version of the Tiger I Prototype (VK 45.01)P)). I'm not even starting about the Jadgtiger with the Porsche suspension or the Maus, both the most worthless waste of resources and development time in tank design history.
No. CAS was a big deal once D-day happened and the USA got airfields up and running. Even if a tank wasn't knocked-out it could be at least disabled. IRL a blown track or wrecked bogies or a jammed turret is just as much of a mission kill as an ammo detonation. There's statements from Wehrmacht forces about Brit CAS strikes completely preventing offenses since all their tanks needed to be repaired after 3" rocket strikes. There's also artillery such as in Italy, which was frequently 8" and larger shells from the US side. The 240 mm Howitzer M1 (also known as the Black Dragon) was frequently used to snipe dug-in tanks with indirect fire there.
Hey. The Tiger (P) is a perfectly fine tank. Just as long as it doesn't get caught in the mud... or it begins overheating... or the electric drive catches fire.
Artillery is obvious, but CAS doesn't appear to have played a very big factor outside of British operations, and even then, it wasn't their focus as much as the usual operations for bombing and escorting. It's true that there was air superiority, but some of it seems exaggerated, at least in discussions I have had with other people who research them more than me.
The effects of CAS are greatly exaggerated, going by official squadron logs that have them knocking out more tanks than existed in-theater at the time in a single run, but even so its disruptive effects as opposed to direct kills aren't really up for debate. There's a reason the Germans preferred adverse weather for their counter-offensives following the breakout in Operation Cobra. Arracourt in Sep. '44 is the prime example of the use of CAS, and the historical accuracy of the lack of situational awareness of German mains in WT.
Oh absolutely, I agree with you. Although the USA isn't exactly a good metric for reliability since they basically didn't push anything until they made sure it was extremely reliable. It worked for the Sherman, but by late war they dropped the ball way too badly. Luckily, air superiority and a horde of pissed off slavs ensured it didn't matter in the long run.
By late-war you mean the Pershing, right? That's less to do with design and testing and more to do with failures of intelligence regarding the Panther (we figured it was a new heavy tank given its size, armor profile, armament, and extremely limited numbers in the West) and McNair pushing hard for TD's and the 3-inch gun. So, a complete lack of R&D focus on the Sherman's successor lead to us rushing something that could be cobbled-together from on-hand designs to Europe with inadequate training and supplies. The fact such a design was "only" as reliable as the Panther is a testament to American engineering.Oh absolutely, I agree with you. Although the USA isn't exactly a good metric for reliability since they basically didn't push anything until they made sure it was extremely reliable. It worked for the Sherman, but by late war they dropped the ball way too badly. Luckily, air superiority and a horde of pissed off slavs ensured it didn't matter in the long run.
I think way too much is discredited from tanktists like Porsche, Christie, and Straussler. They were forward thinking if anything. If you want to go for someone who should have gotten executed in his first go, it was Edward Grotte. You might know him from gems like the P.1000 Ratte and this abortion.
Not just the Pershing, but the entire heavy tank debacle. I wouldn't say the Pershing is a testament to anything, actually. The 90mm guns the US had were pretty shitty all things considered. It could stand up to the Panther, but even then they steered to the long 90mm pretty quickly. The only reason the Pershing is seen as more reliably is really just component accesibility and spare parts. Which factors in, sure, but it's not a miracle, it's more just things taken into consideration since the days of the M3 (Lee).
If we are also going for one off autismfests but for planes, War Thunder already has the Morko Morane. Which speaking of, is one of the best planes I ever used when I was able to play the game. Equip cermet core rounds and you can instakill everything.
The heavy tanks that were more proofs of concept than anything else? Even so, you seem to have overlooked the T32, which was a King Tiger with more armor and less weight. And the 90mm guns were let down by poor ammo made of relatively soft steel. The late-war T33 that was heat-treated in the fires of Mount Doom let the short 90mm tear through the Panther's UFP at over 900m. And with APCR its penetration was only marginally worse than the long 88's APCR performance. The performance of US shells in WT is so hilariously abysmal compared to IRL it isn't even funny.
Yes, I'm talking about the 90mm M3 generally, but the "heat treated T33" thing is a myth made up from what I can tell by either Laurelix or some other exceptional US report, because T33 has the same velocity and shell weight as other M3 shells. It's physically impossible to squeeze enough penetration from it to penetrate the Panther UFP using just full caliber AP rounds, unless you factor in faulty later war armor. The T30 HVAP is fine, sure, but APCR wasn't readily available for any country and it's an extreme case.
You legitimately have no idea what you're talking about here. Relative hardness has always had a substantial impact on penetration. The entire reason face-hardened armor was used was because it would cause a softer round to break apart on impact (hence the development of AP caps). Conversely, a high-hardness projectile would cause the armor plate to break apart upon impact. I have no idea who this Laurelix person is, but here, have a snip that should help:
No, you have no idea what you are talking about here. That's the exact asspulled table where Laurelix gets his extremely wonky figures from, where he claims the T33 is some holy grail round, and he is ridiculed for the exact same reason: it's not a trustworthy source. You can read about some of their failures here.
