--- title: "FOUR 'Great' WWII Tanks That Were Actually Terrible" description: "We aren't in the mood to faff about today folks, so to those of you who clicked on us intentionally today, not only do you have excellent taste in videos, but you also know EXACTLY what you are in for! And to those of you on autoplay, firstly, welcome, and secondly, it's a video all about overhyped WWII tanks.\n\nThat's it. Introduction Over. Let's go!\n\n## The Tiger I\n\nLet us begin with a tank that we are sure will be familiar to basically all of you: the German Tiger I. And since we're on the debunking hype today, let's get something fundamental out of the way before we start discussing its underappreciated flaws; that being that it was NOT conceived as an answer to the T-34 and KV-1 as you may have been told otherwise. Its development actually goes back to January of 1937, over four years before the invasion of the USSR, when Henschel was tasked with developing a new heavy breakthrough tank that would eventually become the Tiger I, and further to that, the final specs of the Tiger I were finalised on the 26th of May 1941, 27 days before go-time on Operation Barbarossa, with it finally entering service the following year. So yeah… the Tiger I was NOT developed as a response to the T-34 and KV-1 – it was just a happy little coincidence.\n\nAs for what the Tiger I actually was, it featured a mighty 88mm KwK 36 cannon that could happily penetrate basically everything the Allies had, and at significant ranges too. This was complemented by VERY thick armour, with the front of the hull and the turret offering 100mm and 120mm of the finest Krupp steel respectively. Further still, despite coming in at a portly 54 to 57 tonnes, the Tiger I had a decent set of legs on it, as it could easily reach speeds of 45kph on the road, and 20 to 25 kph off road – basically comparable to the Allied Sherman, that weighed in at a FAR lighter 35(ish) tonnes.\n\nSafe to say then, this all makes the Tiger I sound like a bit of alright, doesn't it? Unfortunately, however, there is far more to a quality tank design than simply producing an impressive Top Trumps card, there are a thousand other aspects of design that cannot simply be surmised with a quickly recited figure or two, and instead require a nuanced explanation to fully appreciate. Unfortunately for the Tiger, in many of these areas, it simply fails to cut the mustard.\n\nFor example, first is the fact that the Tiger I was nothing short of a logistical nightmare. Its weight of up to 57 tonnes meant that many European bridges simply could not take its weight, which as a result often necessitated taking a longer route to a more substantial bridge, the construction of a VERY substantial pontoon bridge, or wading through the river with snorkelling gear if it was shallow enough; all of which took A LOT of time – whereas the Tiger I's younger sibling, the Panzer IV, could have just popped over the bridge in a matter of seconds.\n\nBut that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to logistical issues however, because the Tiger I was not only heavy, but it was also wide; 3.56 metres wide to be precise… which is about half a metre or so wider than the loading gauge of German railways, i.e. the maximum width a rail vehicle can be before it starts bumping into things alongside the track. The wrinkle brains at Henschel did think of a solution to this problem however, as every Tiger I was also provided with a set of thinner 'transport tracks' that allowed it to happily squeeze onto a flatbed, but fitting them took A LOT of time, time that a thinner Panzer IV could have spent hurtling down the tracks towards the enemy.\n\nBut wait, there's even more logistical issues still to address, because thanks to the Tiger I's heavy weight, and the VERY large 23 litre V12 Maybach HL230 engine used to propel it up to those surprisingly decent speeds, it was also a rather thirsty beast. How thirsty you ask? Well, rounding it down a smidge for the sake of a nice and easy figure, a Tiger I had a fuel consumption of 5(ish) litres per kilometre on road, and 9(ish) litres per kilometre off road. For reference, a Panzer IV drank about 2(ish) litres per kilometre on road, and 3.5(ish) litres per kilometre off road. This not only necessitated far more regular fuel breaks, with the Tiger I able to manage just over 120 miles of pure road driving compared to up to 200 miles on a Panzer IV, but all of this extra fuel also had to be transported to the front, necessitating a vast and complicated logistical chain just to support a single Tiger I.\n\nAnd further still, what do you do if a Tiger I gets knocked out or breaks down? Struggle, is the answer it turns out, because actually, there was remarkably little that the German Army had that could actually tow one. If you were really lucky, you'd have a Bergetiger knocking about; an armoured recovery vehicle variant of the Tiger I that had its gun swapped out in favour of a whopping great crane. Failing that, the manual called for using TWO Sd.Kfz. 9 'Famo' half-tracks, themselves each weighing 18 tonnes. And if neither of those solutions was available, or if enemy fire around the knocked-out Tiger I was too heavy to facilitate recovery, more often than not it'd just be abandoned, completely wasting the VAST quantity of resources that went into its construction.\n\nAnd speaking of the vast resources it took to construct a Tiger I… that's another drawback too! Because it turns out that a Tiger I was so heavy, so vast, and so complicated, that it took over TWICE the amount of time to produce one as it did a Panzer IV, in addition to it also being twice as expensive, with a Tiger I coming in at RM250,000(ish) compared to RM100,000(ish) for a Panzer IV. Such a crushing burden was this on German industry in fact, that come the war's end, only 1,349 Tiger I's had been made, as compared to roughly 15,000 Panzer IIIs, 13,000 Panzer IVs, and 6,000 Panthers.\n\nSo yeah, we wouldn't want to condemn the Tiger I outright, as one could still argue its merits easy enough… but it suddenly doesn't look as wonderfully perfect as that hyped up Discovery+ documentary would have you believe, does it?\n\n## The Panther\n\nLet's keep the ball rolling by now having a look at another German tank we mentioned in the last chapter. Not the Panzer IV mind you, that was an absolutely belting tank in our opinion, and has no place in today's video besides as a point of reference to show how it should have been done. No, instead we refer to the Panther, which, in our opinion, is VERY overhyped indeed.\n\nAs for what it was, it was a medium tank that actually was designed as a response to the Soviet T-34, a tank that, despite having its own flaws that we will get to later, turned many pairs of standard issue Wehrmacht underpants a fragrant shade of brown thanks to a perception that it perfectly balanced firepower, armour protection, and mobility in a way that German tanks simply did not.\n\nProduction of it finally began in 1943, and it rolled out of the factory sporting a 75mm KwK 42 cannon that, while certainly lacking the extreme punch of the Tiger I's KwK 36, was still more than capable of penetrating thick armour at respectable distances. As much as we are arguing that the Panther overall was overhyped, the cannon was one bit that the Germans got VERY right… shame about the rest of the tank!\n\nAs for armour, the Panther also made heavy use of sloped armour; that being armour that is literally mounted on a slope and thus increases the effective thickness of the armour. The actual thickness of this armour varied, with the front armour plate (usually) being 85mm thick, and the side armour (usually) being 40mm thick. In addition to that, it also carried a 100mm thick glacis plate up in the front of the turret, and a 110mm thick mantlet in front of it.\n\nWhen it came to performance, a typical Panther could happily reach speeds of 55kph on roads, and 30kph off road, which was afforded to it by the same HL230 engine, albeit with some slight modifications, as we saw in the Tiger I in the last chapter.\n\nSo then, what's the problem? Because much like the Tiger I, at face value this doesn't sound too bad really, does it?\n\nWell, first there was the weakness of its side armour. The eagle eared amongst you will remember that we said 40mm of armour, and that, REALLY wasn't a lot all things considered, particularly given how generous the armour complement was elsewhere on the tank. This 40mm would be just about enough to fend off some of the lighter anti-tank weapons of the day, think like your British 40mm 2-Pounders or American 37mm M3, but against anything larger, such as say the American 75mm M3 shoved into most Shermans, or the Soviet 85mm ZiS-S-53 that was put in later production T-34s, and yeah… basically no chance.\n\nThe 85mm on the front however, and the absolute mass of armour on the front of the turret, that was a VERY healthy amount indeed. If you are wondering how this ridiculous spread of armour came about, it was the result of direct intervention of the Austrian armband enthusiast himself, a man who among his many negative qualities could count being rather tricky to say no to. So when he booted his way into MAN's offices one day and demanded that all the armour be piled to the front, instead of being met with a reply of \"what have you been smoking you utter simpleton that's a ridiculous idea in a turreted tank which is meant to be all about mobility,\" he was instead met with a reply of \"champion idea boss man our tank crews are getting tired of being alive anyway,\" and thus the Panther's perplexing armour spread came to be.\n\nThe worst issue of all however, that would be the Panther's simply atrocious reliability. This was largely caused by its VERY rushed design phase, as this rush left a whole manner of minor kinks that in a normal design cycle would have been detected during extensive prototyping, and subsequently ironed out.\n\nThe two most standout weak points caused by this rush were the final drive system and the cooling system, both of which broke, all the time, and thus took otherwise perfectly serviceable tanks out of action. In regards to the former, if you were LUCKY you'd get 200km out of it before you broke, potentially meaning the final drive had to be changed more often than the Panther had to be brimmed with go-juice, and in regards to the latter, not only were overheated engines seizing up a CONSTANT problem – but it was so bad that Panthers could even just outright burst into flames.\n\nSo horrific was its reliability in fact, that it is estimated that half of all Panthers lost were lost due to mechanical breakdown rather than enemy action.\n\nSafe to say then, that although one could still argue to the contrary, just as we freely admitted with the Tiger I, there is no getting around the fact that the Panther's reality was rather different to how many hype it up.\n\n## The T-34\n\nSo, with that done, let's move on to have a look at the very tank that inspired the Panther, which, as we teased you with earlier, also had no shortage of problems.\n\nThe T-34 was a medium tank in the truest sense of the word – one designed to strike the perfect middle ground between mobility, armour, and firepower. It was equipped with either a 76mm F-34 cannon on the 'normal' version, or an 85mm ZiS-S-53 on the beefed up 'T-34-85' version, hence the name. Both of these were powerful enough little pieces for their day, although it has to be said that the 85mm cannon REALLY packed a punch.\n\nAs for power, that came from a 38.8 litre Model V-2 V12 engine, that afforded the typical T-34 a speed of 53kph on the road, and 35kph in the muddy stuff – figures that weren't hurt by the fact that one usually weighed in around 25 to 30 tonnes. Armour was 'only' 45 to 60mm across it, but it was HEAVILY sloped to increase its effective thickness.\n\nSo, what's the problem then? After all, a big cannon plonked on top of a reasonably nippy and not entirely terribly armoured chassis – what's not to love?\n\nWell, the first issue was that it was made really, REALLY badly, with the engine and transmission system being particularly regular points of failure. These weren't intrinsic to the design per se, and indeed, post war models were MUCH better made than their wartime siblings. Instead, the unreliability was the result of the absolutely mad rush to pump them out of the factories following the German invasion, with factories, ever eager to meet their ever greater production quotas, often delivering them straight from the production line without testing, and often times missing non-critical components; or at least those that were deemed non-critical in the heat of the moment – with some T-34s having been reported as missing everything from seats, to optics, and most terrifyingly of all, any heat treating to their armour, making it about as effective a means of stopping enemy fire as a big lump of butter.\n\nThis proved particularly problematic when winter came to the Eastern Front, as the harsh conditions often pushed the poorly made components to their breaking point. Engines, for instance, would frequently crack or suffer from fuel system failures, while transmissions would just fall to bits as the biting cold did all manner of damage to the plethora of brittle teeth within.\n\nBut while those issues would all be resolved post-war, something that WAS an intrinsic and unfixable flaw was just how damned cramped its interior was; something that affected not just crew comfort – but efficiency in combat operations. This was the result of the heavily sloped armour, so certainly, it was a well-intentioned move by the designers, but good intentions don't change the fact that it was an utterly horrific environment to have to work in even for diddly and malnourished Soviet men. Take loading a shell for example; rather than a nice smooth motion from rack to breech, as the loader in a Panzer IV would have, Soviet loader accounts near universally speak of the process being an awkward, janky, and above all else, slow one as they manoeuvred themselves around the tight as a coffin interior.\n\nAnother issue that would be solved post-war, but that was a monumental pain in the posterior for wartime tank crews, was the gun, because while it might have been a big boy that packed a decent punch, whatever type it was, all the other gubbins that attached to it, even when all there, was just a bit, well, crap to be honest. The sights, for example, were crude and rudimentary, and just didn't have the precision necessary for reliably making accurate long-distance shots. Most of the wartime produced models also had a MANUAL turret traverse, which was slow, exhausting to use, and rather imprecise – although this one issue was fixed in the summer of 1944 when an electrically powered traverse was rolled out.\n\nThen there's the armour, which, even when properly heat treated at the factory, wasn't exactly the best, because it turns out that the Soviets were dreadful at heat treating; treating their steel for way too long and at way too high temperatures. This, admittedly, did make it exceptionally hard, but it came at the cost of making it exceedingly brittle and liable to completely cracking apart when a particularly meaty round was flung at it. Further still, this excessive heat treating also made it VERY prone to spalling, i.e. the flaking off of armour fragments upon impact – essentially turning the armour of a T-34 into a fragmentation grenade that went straight for the crew. As a result, even non-penetrating hits could completely wipe out the crew.\n\nAs we've said, most of these issues would be fixed come the Cold War models of T-34, but for the wartime models, there is no escaping the fact they had some REAL problems.\n\n## The Tiger II\n\nWe REALLY wanted to throw in a British or American tank here for balance, but unfortunately for us, we soon found that all of their legitimately horrific stuff, think like the British Covenanter, or the American M6 'Heavy,' has already generally been labelled as horrific by the historical zeitgeist, and thus, we find ourselves with no hype to be able to tear down.\n\nAnd so, we find ourselves, once again, at the absolute font of the fluffed up that is German tank design, to have a little gawk at our first entry's younger brother – the Tiger II.\n\nAt face value, it may well look like we've utterly lost the plot with this entry, because when you look at its 'Top Trumps' sheet, the Tiger II legitimately looks like a bit of a monster: an 88mm KwK 43 cannon that could penetrate basically ANYTHING the allies could field at 2,000 metres, armour that peaked at 180mm thick – what's not meant to be good on this beast?\n\nCertainly, contemporary Allied tank crews agreed, as generally speaking, the mere thought of encountering a Tiger II inspired abject fear in them, and, to be fair to them, they weren't wrong to think so, because regardless of the flaws we are imminently about to lay out for you, if a Tiger II put you in its crosshairs and let rip – odds are you were going home in a bin bag.\n\nBut all that ACTUALLY says is that it had a bloody good cannon… it takes no heed of the fact that because it weighed a dumbbell shy of 70 tonnes, its Maybach HL230 engine, which we are now VERY familiar with, struggled to push it up to any speed greater than 40kph on the road, and 20kph off road. It naturally also absolutely ruined the fuel consumption, and made a Tiger I look like a Prius in comparison, but annoyingly, we can't give you an exact figure for it, because the book we consulted for this chapter, *Tiger I and Tiger II* by Anthony Tucker-Jones fails to mention one, instead just saying words to the extent of \"yeah yeah trust me bro it was more – heavier init!\" And of course, in addition to just the fuel consumption, whatever it was, this vast weight also brought with it all the exact same mobility issues as suffered by the Tiger I.\n\nAnd further to just that, the Tiger II's weight also created a unique series of problems for the HL230 engine – because 70 tonnes was just too much weight for it to deal with. So overstressed was it in fact, that transmission issues were a CONSTANT problem, so much so in fact, and admittedly we are hyperbolising a bit here for the sake of making a point, but a driver could basically flip a coin every time he opened the throttle as to whether or not the gearbox would tear itself apart. The double radius steering gear also wasn't terribly happy about the Tiger II's girth – as it too enjoyed reducing itself to scrap worryingly often.\n\nAnother MAJOR problem was the significant quality control issues during production. Because the war wasn't exactly going well for Germany in 1944, when the Tiger II was introduced, there was a crippling shortage of direly needed strategic materials, the German's response to which was to say \"sod it, be reet,\" and push Tiger IIs out of the factory made from whatever crap steel they had lying around. These steels, lacking essential alloys, BIG TIME compromised the integrity of many Tiger IIs, leaving them prone to spalling and cracking – much like the T-34s we looked at earlier. These crap steels also didn't particularly like being welded, and so they would sometimes just totally split at the seams when fired at.\n\nSo yeah, while it might have had quite the scary cannon, between being an absolute logistical nightmare, breaking down all the time, and having armour that actually isn't quite what it was cracked up to be, pun intended, we think we're safe in chalking the Tiger II up as being rather overhyped!\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- The German Tiger I tank was not developed in response to the Soviet T-34 and KV-1.\n- The Tiger I had significant logistical issues due to its weight and width, affecting mobility and transportation.\n- The Panther tank, designed to counter the T-34, had severe reliability problems, often breaking down due to rushed design.\n- The Soviet T-34, while innovative, suffered from poor manufacturing quality and cramped interior design.\n- The Tiger II, despite its powerful cannon, was overhyped due to its weight causing mobility and reliability issues.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### Why is the Tiger I considered overhyped?\n\nThe Tiger I is considered overhyped because, despite its powerful 88mm cannon and thick armor, it had significant logistical issues, high fuel consumption, and was difficult to tow or recover if damaged. It also took twice as long and cost twice as much to produce compared to the Panzer IV.\n\n### Was the Tiger I developed in response to the T-34 and KV-1?\n\nNo, the Tiger I was not developed as a response to the T-34 and KV-1. Its development began in January 1937, and the final specs were finalized in May 1941, before the invasion of the USSR.\n\n### What were the main logistical issues with the Tiger I?\n\nThe Tiger I's weight and width made it difficult to transport over bridges and railways, requiring longer routes, pontoon bridges, or snorkeling gear. Its high fuel consumption also necessitated frequent refueling and a complex logistical chain.\n\n### What problems did the Panther tank face?\n\nThe Panther had weak side armor, atrocious reliability due to rushed design, and frequent mechanical breakdowns. Its final drive system and cooling system were particularly problematic, leading to many Panthers being lost due to mechanical issues rather than enemy action.\n\n### Why was the T-34's interior cramped?\n\nThe T-34's interior was cramped due to its heavily sloped armor, which increased the effective thickness of the armor but made the interior tight and difficult to maneuver in, affecting crew comfort and efficiency.\n\n### What issues did the T-34 face with its armor?\n\nThe T-34's armor was often poorly heat-treated, making it brittle and prone to cracking or spalling upon impact. This could turn non-penetrating hits into lethal fragmentation grenades for the crew.\n\n### What were the main problems with the Tiger II?\n\nThe Tiger II had mobility issues due to its weight, frequent transmission and steering gear problems, and significant quality control issues with its armor, which was prone to spalling and cracking.\n\n### Why was the Panther's armor distribution considered perplexing?\n\nThe Panther's armor distribution was perplexing because it had very thick front armor and turret armor but very thin side armor, making it vulnerable to attacks from the sides.\n\n### What was the impact of the rushed design on the Panther's reliability?\n\nThe rushed design of the Panther led to numerous minor kinks that were not ironed out during prototyping, resulting in frequent mechanical breakdowns, particularly with the final drive system and cooling system.\n\n### What were the production challenges faced by the Tiger I?\n\nThe Tiger I took over twice as long to produce as the Panzer IV and was twice as expensive. By the end of the war, only 1,349 Tiger I's had been made compared to thousands of other German tanks.\n\n## Sources\n\n- [Original Side Projects video: FOUR 'Great' WWII Tanks That Were Actually Terrible](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgJuACxoPqE)\n\n## Related Coverage" url: https://sideprojects.pub/article/four-great-wwii-tanks-actually-terrible.md canonical: https://sideprojects.pub/article/four-great-wwii-tanks-actually-terrible datePublished: 2026-06-25 dateModified: 2026-06-25 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://sideprojects.pub/author/simon-whistler publisher: Side Projects image: "https://media.sideprojects.pub/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,height=900,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/GgJuACxoPqE/hero.jpg" type: NewsArticle contentHash: a232e5666f727180e2a1b61e7cbb59e7eba6371ba9adfa5d5cfac04796c16a59 tokens: 5778 summaryUrl: https://sideprojects.pub/article/four-great-wwii-tanks-actually-terrible.md.summary.md --- We aren't in the mood to faff about today folks, so to those of you who clicked on us intentionally today, not only do you have excellent taste in videos, but you also know EXACTLY what you are in for! And to those of you on autoplay, firstly, welcome, and secondly, it's a video all about overhyped WWII tanks. That's it. Introduction Over. Let's go! ## The Tiger I Let us begin with a tank that we are sure will be familiar to basically all of you: the German Tiger I. And since we're on the debunking hype today, let's get something fundamental out of the way before we start discussing its underappreciated flaws; that being that it was NOT conceived as an answer to the T-34 and KV-1 as you may have been told otherwise. Its development actually goes back to January of 1937, over four years before the invasion of the USSR, when Henschel was tasked with developing a new heavy breakthrough tank that would eventually become the Tiger I, and further to that, the final specs of the Tiger I were finalised on the 26th of May 1941, 27 days before go-time on Operation Barbarossa, with it finally entering service the following year. So yeah… the Tiger I was NOT developed as a response to the T-34 and KV-1 – it was just a happy little coincidence. As for what the Tiger I actually was, it featured a mighty 88mm KwK 36 cannon that could happily penetrate basically everything the Allies had, and at significant ranges too. This was complemented by VERY thick armour, with the front of the hull and the turret offering 100mm and 120mm of the finest Krupp steel respectively. Further still, despite coming in at a portly 54 to 57 tonnes, the Tiger I had a decent set of legs on it, as it could easily reach speeds of 45kph on the road, and 20 to 25 kph off road – basically comparable to the Allied Sherman, that weighed in at a FAR lighter 35(ish) tonnes. Safe to say then, this all makes the Tiger I sound like a bit of alright, doesn't it? Unfortunately, however, there is far more to a quality tank design than simply producing an impressive Top Trumps card, there are a thousand other aspects of design that cannot simply be surmised with a quickly recited figure or two, and instead require a nuanced explanation to fully appreciate. Unfortunately for the Tiger, in many of these areas, it simply fails to cut the mustard. For example, first is the fact that the Tiger I was nothing short of a logistical nightmare. Its weight of up to 57 tonnes meant that many European bridges simply could not take its weight, which as a result often necessitated taking a longer route to a more substantial bridge, the construction of a VERY substantial pontoon bridge, or wading through the river with snorkelling gear if it was shallow enough; all of which took A LOT of time – whereas the Tiger I's younger sibling, the Panzer IV, could have just popped over the bridge in a matter of seconds. But that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to logistical issues however, because the Tiger I was not only heavy, but it was also wide; 3.56 metres wide to be precise… which is about half a metre or so wider than the loading gauge of German railways, i.e. the maximum width a rail vehicle can be before it starts bumping into things alongside the track. The wrinkle brains at Henschel did think of a solution to this problem however, as every Tiger I was also provided with a set of thinner 'transport tracks' that allowed it to happily squeeze onto a flatbed, but fitting them took A LOT of time, time that a thinner Panzer IV could have spent hurtling down the tracks towards the enemy. But wait, there's even more logistical issues still to address, because thanks to the Tiger I's heavy weight, and the VERY large 23 litre V12 Maybach HL230 engine used to propel it up to those surprisingly decent speeds, it was also a rather thirsty beast. How thirsty you ask? Well, rounding it down a smidge for the sake of a nice and easy figure, a Tiger I had a fuel consumption of 5(ish) litres per kilometre on road, and 9(ish) litres per kilometre off road. For reference, a Panzer IV drank about 2(ish) litres per kilometre on road, and 3.5(ish) litres per kilometre off road. This not only necessitated far more regular fuel breaks, with the Tiger I able to manage just over 120 miles of pure road driving compared to up to 200 miles on a Panzer IV, but all of this extra fuel also had to be transported to the front, necessitating a vast and complicated logistical chain just to support a single Tiger I. And further still, what do you do if a Tiger I gets knocked out or breaks down? Struggle, is the answer it turns out, because actually, there was remarkably little that the German Army had that could actually tow one. If you were really lucky, you'd have a Bergetiger knocking about; an armoured recovery vehicle variant of the Tiger I that had its gun swapped out in favour of a whopping great crane. Failing that, the manual called for using TWO Sd.Kfz. 9 'Famo' half-tracks, themselves each weighing 18 tonnes. And if neither of those solutions was available, or if enemy fire around the knocked-out Tiger I was too heavy to facilitate recovery, more often than not it'd just be abandoned, completely wasting the VAST quantity of resources that went into its construction. And speaking of the vast resources it took to construct a Tiger I… that's another drawback too! Because it turns out that a Tiger I was so heavy, so vast, and so complicated, that it took over TWICE the amount of time to produce one as it did a Panzer IV, in addition to it also being twice as expensive, with a Tiger I coming in at RM250,000(ish) compared to RM100,000(ish) for a Panzer IV. Such a crushing burden was this on German industry in fact, that come the war's end, only 1,349 Tiger I's had been made, as compared to roughly 15,000 Panzer IIIs, 13,000 Panzer IVs, and 6,000 Panthers. So yeah, we wouldn't want to condemn the Tiger I outright, as one could still argue its merits easy enough… but it suddenly doesn't look as wonderfully perfect as that hyped up Discovery+ documentary would have you believe, does it? ## The Panther Let's keep the ball rolling by now having a look at another German tank we mentioned in the last chapter. Not the Panzer IV mind you, that was an absolutely belting tank in our opinion, and has no place in today's video besides as a point of reference to show how it should have been done. No, instead we refer to the Panther, which, in our opinion, is VERY overhyped indeed. As for what it was, it was a medium tank that actually was designed as a response to the Soviet T-34, a tank that, despite having its own flaws that we will get to later, turned many pairs of standard issue Wehrmacht underpants a fragrant shade of brown thanks to a perception that it perfectly balanced firepower, armour protection, and mobility in a way that German tanks simply did not. Production of it finally began in 1943, and it rolled out of the factory sporting a 75mm KwK 42 cannon that, while certainly lacking the extreme punch of the Tiger I's KwK 36, was still more than capable of penetrating thick armour at respectable distances. As much as we are arguing that the Panther overall was overhyped, the cannon was one bit that the Germans got VERY right… shame about the rest of the tank! As for armour, the Panther also made heavy use of sloped armour; that being armour that is literally mounted on a slope and thus increases the effective thickness of the armour. The actual thickness of this armour varied, with the front armour plate (usually) being 85mm thick, and the side armour (usually) being 40mm thick. In addition to that, it also carried a 100mm thick glacis plate up in the front of the turret, and a 110mm thick mantlet in front of it. When it came to performance, a typical Panther could happily reach speeds of 55kph on roads, and 30kph off road, which was afforded to it by the same HL230 engine, albeit with some slight modifications, as we saw in the Tiger I in the last chapter. So then, what's the problem? Because much like the Tiger I, at face value this doesn't sound too bad really, does it? Well, first there was the weakness of its side armour. The eagle eared amongst you will remember that we said 40mm of armour, and that, REALLY wasn't a lot all things considered, particularly given how generous the armour complement was elsewhere on the tank. This 40mm would be just about enough to fend off some of the lighter anti-tank weapons of the day, think like your British 40mm 2-Pounders or American 37mm M3, but against anything larger, such as say the American 75mm M3 shoved into most Shermans, or the Soviet 85mm ZiS-S-53 that was put in later production T-34s, and yeah… basically no chance. The 85mm on the front however, and the absolute mass of armour on the front of the turret, that was a VERY healthy amount indeed. If you are wondering how this ridiculous spread of armour came about, it was the result of direct intervention of the Austrian armband enthusiast himself, a man who among his many negative qualities could count being rather tricky to say no to. So when he booted his way into MAN's offices one day and demanded that all the armour be piled to the front, instead of being met with a reply of "what have you been smoking you utter simpleton that's a ridiculous idea in a turreted tank which is meant to be all about mobility," he was instead met with a reply of "champion idea boss man our tank crews are getting tired of being alive anyway," and thus the Panther's perplexing armour spread came to be. The worst issue of all however, that would be the Panther's simply atrocious reliability. This was largely caused by its VERY rushed design phase, as this rush left a whole manner of minor kinks that in a normal design cycle would have been detected during extensive prototyping, and subsequently ironed out. The two most standout weak points caused by this rush were the final drive system and the cooling system, both of which broke, all the time, and thus took otherwise perfectly serviceable tanks out of action. In regards to the former, if you were LUCKY you'd get 200km out of it before you broke, potentially meaning the final drive had to be changed more often than the Panther had to be brimmed with go-juice, and in regards to the latter, not only were overheated engines seizing up a CONSTANT problem – but it was so bad that Panthers could even just outright burst into flames. So horrific was its reliability in fact, that it is estimated that half of all Panthers lost were lost due to mechanical breakdown rather than enemy action. Safe to say then, that although one could still argue to the contrary, just as we freely admitted with the Tiger I, there is no getting around the fact that the Panther's reality was rather different to how many hype it up. ## The T-34 So, with that done, let's move on to have a look at the very tank that inspired the Panther, which, as we teased you with earlier, also had no shortage of problems. The T-34 was a medium tank in the truest sense of the word – one designed to strike the perfect middle ground between mobility, armour, and firepower. It was equipped with either a 76mm F-34 cannon on the 'normal' version, or an 85mm ZiS-S-53 on the beefed up 'T-34-85' version, hence the name. Both of these were powerful enough little pieces for their day, although it has to be said that the 85mm cannon REALLY packed a punch. As for power, that came from a 38.8 litre Model V-2 V12 engine, that afforded the typical T-34 a speed of 53kph on the road, and 35kph in the muddy stuff – figures that weren't hurt by the fact that one usually weighed in around 25 to 30 tonnes. Armour was 'only' 45 to 60mm across it, but it was HEAVILY sloped to increase its effective thickness. So, what's the problem then? After all, a big cannon plonked on top of a reasonably nippy and not entirely terribly armoured chassis – what's not to love? Well, the first issue was that it was made really, REALLY badly, with the engine and transmission system being particularly regular points of failure. These weren't intrinsic to the design per se, and indeed, post war models were MUCH better made than their wartime siblings. Instead, the unreliability was the result of the absolutely mad rush to pump them out of the factories following the German invasion, with factories, ever eager to meet their ever greater production quotas, often delivering them straight from the production line without testing, and often times missing non-critical components; or at least those that were deemed non-critical in the heat of the moment – with some T-34s having been reported as missing everything from seats, to optics, and most terrifyingly of all, any heat treating to their armour, making it about as effective a means of stopping enemy fire as a big lump of butter. This proved particularly problematic when winter came to the Eastern Front, as the harsh conditions often pushed the poorly made components to their breaking point. Engines, for instance, would frequently crack or suffer from fuel system failures, while transmissions would just fall to bits as the biting cold did all manner of damage to the plethora of brittle teeth within. But while those issues would all be resolved post-war, something that WAS an intrinsic and unfixable flaw was just how damned cramped its interior was; something that affected not just crew comfort – but efficiency in combat operations. This was the result of the heavily sloped armour, so certainly, it was a well-intentioned move by the designers, but good intentions don't change the fact that it was an utterly horrific environment to have to work in even for diddly and malnourished Soviet men. Take loading a shell for example; rather than a nice smooth motion from rack to breech, as the loader in a Panzer IV would have, Soviet loader accounts near universally speak of the process being an awkward, janky, and above all else, slow one as they manoeuvred themselves around the tight as a coffin interior. Another issue that would be solved post-war, but that was a monumental pain in the posterior for wartime tank crews, was the gun, because while it might have been a big boy that packed a decent punch, whatever type it was, all the other gubbins that attached to it, even when all there, was just a bit, well, crap to be honest. The sights, for example, were crude and rudimentary, and just didn't have the precision necessary for reliably making accurate long-distance shots. Most of the wartime produced models also had a MANUAL turret traverse, which was slow, exhausting to use, and rather imprecise – although this one issue was fixed in the summer of 1944 when an electrically powered traverse was rolled out. Then there's the armour, which, even when properly heat treated at the factory, wasn't exactly the best, because it turns out that the Soviets were dreadful at heat treating; treating their steel for way too long and at way too high temperatures. This, admittedly, did make it exceptionally hard, but it came at the cost of making it exceedingly brittle and liable to completely cracking apart when a particularly meaty round was flung at it. Further still, this excessive heat treating also made it VERY prone to spalling, i.e. the flaking off of armour fragments upon impact – essentially turning the armour of a T-34 into a fragmentation grenade that went straight for the crew. As a result, even non-penetrating hits could completely wipe out the crew. As we've said, most of these issues would be fixed come the Cold War models of T-34, but for the wartime models, there is no escaping the fact they had some REAL problems. ## The Tiger II We REALLY wanted to throw in a British or American tank here for balance, but unfortunately for us, we soon found that all of their legitimately horrific stuff, think like the British Covenanter, or the American M6 'Heavy,' has already generally been labelled as horrific by the historical zeitgeist, and thus, we find ourselves with no hype to be able to tear down. And so, we find ourselves, once again, at the absolute font of the fluffed up that is German tank design, to have a little gawk at our first entry's younger brother – the Tiger II. At face value, it may well look like we've utterly lost the plot with this entry, because when you look at its 'Top Trumps' sheet, the Tiger II legitimately looks like a bit of a monster: an 88mm KwK 43 cannon that could penetrate basically ANYTHING the allies could field at 2,000 metres, armour that peaked at 180mm thick – what's not meant to be good on this beast? Certainly, contemporary Allied tank crews agreed, as generally speaking, the mere thought of encountering a Tiger II inspired abject fear in them, and, to be fair to them, they weren't wrong to think so, because regardless of the flaws we are imminently about to lay out for you, if a Tiger II put you in its crosshairs and let rip – odds are you were going home in a bin bag. But all that ACTUALLY says is that it had a bloody good cannon… it takes no heed of the fact that because it weighed a dumbbell shy of 70 tonnes, its Maybach HL230 engine, which we are now VERY familiar with, struggled to push it up to any speed greater than 40kph on the road, and 20kph off road. It naturally also absolutely ruined the fuel consumption, and made a Tiger I look like a Prius in comparison, but annoyingly, we can't give you an exact figure for it, because the book we consulted for this chapter, *Tiger I and Tiger II* by Anthony Tucker-Jones fails to mention one, instead just saying words to the extent of "yeah yeah trust me bro it was more – heavier init!" And of course, in addition to just the fuel consumption, whatever it was, this vast weight also brought with it all the exact same mobility issues as suffered by the Tiger I. And further to just that, the Tiger II's weight also created a unique series of problems for the HL230 engine – because 70 tonnes was just too much weight for it to deal with. So overstressed was it in fact, that transmission issues were a CONSTANT problem, so much so in fact, and admittedly we are hyperbolising a bit here for the sake of making a point, but a driver could basically flip a coin every time he opened the throttle as to whether or not the gearbox would tear itself apart. The double radius steering gear also wasn't terribly happy about the Tiger II's girth – as it too enjoyed reducing itself to scrap worryingly often. Another MAJOR problem was the significant quality control issues during production. Because the war wasn't exactly going well for Germany in 1944, when the Tiger II was introduced, there was a crippling shortage of direly needed strategic materials, the German's response to which was to say "sod it, be reet," and push Tiger IIs out of the factory made from whatever crap steel they had lying around. These steels, lacking essential alloys, BIG TIME compromised the integrity of many Tiger IIs, leaving them prone to spalling and cracking – much like the T-34s we looked at earlier. These crap steels also didn't particularly like being welded, and so they would sometimes just totally split at the seams when fired at. So yeah, while it might have had quite the scary cannon, between being an absolute logistical nightmare, breaking down all the time, and having armour that actually isn't quite what it was cracked up to be, pun intended, we think we're safe in chalking the Tiger II up as being rather overhyped! ## Key Takeaways - The German Tiger I tank was not developed in response to the Soviet T-34 and KV-1. - The Tiger I had significant logistical issues due to its weight and width, affecting mobility and transportation. - The Panther tank, designed to counter the T-34, had severe reliability problems, often breaking down due to rushed design. - The Soviet T-34, while innovative, suffered from poor manufacturing quality and cramped interior design. - The Tiger II, despite its powerful cannon, was overhyped due to its weight causing mobility and reliability issues. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Why is the Tiger I considered overhyped? The Tiger I is considered overhyped because, despite its powerful 88mm cannon and thick armor, it had significant logistical issues, high fuel consumption, and was difficult to tow or recover if damaged. It also took twice as long and cost twice as much to produce compared to the Panzer IV. ### Was the Tiger I developed in response to the T-34 and KV-1? No, the Tiger I was not developed as a response to the T-34 and KV-1. Its development began in January 1937, and the final specs were finalized in May 1941, before the invasion of the USSR. ### What were the main logistical issues with the Tiger I? The Tiger I's weight and width made it difficult to transport over bridges and railways, requiring longer routes, pontoon bridges, or snorkeling gear. Its high fuel consumption also necessitated frequent refueling and a complex logistical chain. ### What problems did the Panther tank face? The Panther had weak side armor, atrocious reliability due to rushed design, and frequent mechanical breakdowns. Its final drive system and cooling system were particularly problematic, leading to many Panthers being lost due to mechanical issues rather than enemy action. ### Why was the T-34's interior cramped? The T-34's interior was cramped due to its heavily sloped armor, which increased the effective thickness of the armor but made the interior tight and difficult to maneuver in, affecting crew comfort and efficiency. ### What issues did the T-34 face with its armor? The T-34's armor was often poorly heat-treated, making it brittle and prone to cracking or spalling upon impact. This could turn non-penetrating hits into lethal fragmentation grenades for the crew. ### What were the main problems with the Tiger II? The Tiger II had mobility issues due to its weight, frequent transmission and steering gear problems, and significant quality control issues with its armor, which was prone to spalling and cracking. ### Why was the Panther's armor distribution considered perplexing? The Panther's armor distribution was perplexing because it had very thick front armor and turret armor but very thin side armor, making it vulnerable to attacks from the sides. ### What was the impact of the rushed design on the Panther's reliability? The rushed design of the Panther led to numerous minor kinks that were not ironed out during prototyping, resulting in frequent mechanical breakdowns, particularly with the final drive system and cooling system. ### What were the production challenges faced by the Tiger I? The Tiger I took over twice as long to produce as the Panzer IV and was twice as expensive. By the end of the war, only 1,349 Tiger I's had been made compared to thousands of other German tanks. ## Sources - [Original Side Projects video: FOUR 'Great' WWII Tanks That Were Actually Terrible](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgJuACxoPqE) ## Related Coverage