TANK TALK WITH LEN DYER: Tiger I

20

Hello,

Len Dyer from Fort Benning is back with another Tank Talk, this time he talks about the Tiger I:

I bet they probably regret cutting the tank sides…

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!

20 comments on “TANK TALK WITH LEN DYER: Tiger I

  1. Anonymous says:

    I live here. I have been out there and talked to the guy he let my family and I walk around. They had just got the tiger tank back and had the turret off working on it. The Tiger 2 they have has the sides off as well.




    0



    0
  2. Anonymous says:

    Almost 3 MoE.




    0



    0
  3. Silvio I says:

    The sides were cut off because this was originally considered after WWII to be a teaching tool at the Ordnance Museum and it did not mean anything to anybody back then to cut them open.




    0



    0
  4. Dunpeal says:

    It’s funny how he refers to the tank as girl… I mean come on, a vehicle with a giant umm rod it cannot be farther away from feminine…




    0



    0
  5. I just live thirty minutes from Fort Benning. Maybe I should be this guy a visit and give me specific data if has time for me 😀




    0



    0
  6. just4 says:

    02:37 “front armor is 110mm, the side armor is 100mm, the rear is 100mm thick too “…….dafuq? isn’t it 100mm in the front and 80mm at the side and rear? Do they have a special Tiger version???

    or are they just no “experts” on the metric system Kappa




    0



    0
    • Anonymous says:

      IIRC the gun manlet is the turret front and is 120mm thick. Upper front plate is 10mm at 10deg from vertical. Lower front plate is 100mm. Upper side hull and rear plate are 80mm. Lower side hull is 60mm but you have to shoot through the road wheels or get lucky and slide one between upper side hull and tracks and road wheels.

      If they are gonna plug the side of hull and turret that should be a fairly easy fix. I did like the pics of Tiger II at Patton museum with mannequins in the positions to see how much room there was.




      0



      0
  7. Anlushac11 says:

    Tiger I gun mantle was 120mm thick
    UFP was 100mm thick
    LFP was 100mm thick
    Upper side hull and rear plate were 80mm
    Lower side hull was 60mm but mostly covered by the road wheels.




    0



    0
  8. Akula971 says:

    Their Facebook page shows the restoration work being done on it.
    https://www.facebook.com/NationalArmorandCavalryMuseum/




    0



    0
  9. theSTG44 says:

    there are 7 Tiger 1’s still in existence, not 6 as he stated. there is also a possible 8th, as there was an unassembled one for sale on Millweb a few months ago.




    0



    0
  10. vepsilon says:

    Too bad he has no idea what he’s talking about though. Who even is he? Does he have any qualification for standing in front of that camera, making videos and pretending to be an expert, or is he literally just some random guy who’s decided “I’ll talk about this tank I have approximate knowledge of”.

    “Frontal armour is 110mm” It’s not, it’s 100mm of pretty flat RHA. Effective armour might go up to 110mm but it’s certainly not 110 base.

    “Side armour is 100mm” Again, it’s not. With the except of the parts covered by tracks (which is 60mm iirc, with the tracks obviously giving extra effective armour) the side armour is a very flat 80mm of RHA. Same for the big ol’ ass of the Tiger.

    And what is he talking about, the fact that it has thick armour means mechanics can repair the tank quickly on the battlefield? Making fixes on tanks is only required when the tank is penetrated (unless an important module is hit like the engine, ammo rack, transmission, etc. because that usually means you want to get the fuck out) or when an external module is hit and needs repairing. Furthermore, the Tiger was a beast of engineering, albeit somewhat over engineered. The design was so complex there was nothing quick about fixing the tank. It didn’t break down as often as poorly designed soviet tanks, especially later on in the war when immediately problems originally found with the big German cats were fixed, but the soviets designed their tanks to be easy to repair rather than hard to break. Germans did the opposite. When repairs were needed on that steel behemoth they weren’t happening with any haste.

    The only thing he seemed to get right was that the gun was outstanding, but he also probably just looked it up on wiki answers and saw that people said it was good and got the name of the gun along with it as opposed to having any real knowledge.




    0



    0
    • Anonymous says:

      I totally agree with you, his knowledge seems a bit limited, he needs to do atleast some research if he wants to do these videos…




      0



      0
  11. Hedgehog1963 says:

    Didn’t think much of this really. The bit where he said it was easy to repair made me laugh. it was a notoriously high maintenance vehicle.




    0



    0

Leave a Reply