Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
Are you confusing concept with design? Everything those tanks were designed to do, was being done in WW1. I would further suggest that the Tiger2 was a failed concept, and poorly designed as a result.
As I said - on a very, very abstract level that may be true. It's highly unlikely that you'll find much agreement by focusing on this level, though.


One example: No tank in WW1 ever bounced a cannon shell. Tiger2 was definitively built to do exactly this. The first tank built to stop shells -not only bullets and fragments- was the Char B-1bis, with a few days advantage over the Mathilda II.

Show me a tank type of WWI which served as command tank or was in radio contact with all other tanks.

Show me a WWI tank which was meant for reconnaissance.

Show me a WWI flamethrower tank.

Show me a WWI tank with a useful operational range and speed - enough for the encirclement of an army or corps.

Show me a swimming WWI tank.


Besides; Tiger and Tiger 2, even Ferdinand/Elefant were highly successful vehicles in the context of open terrain (Eastern front), well worth their price. These designs have been bashed a lot for their difficulties, but the kill ratio is outstanding and they were able to harass front lines or support a local counterattack at little risk.