Band of Brothers: Tiger Tank for sale
 

Band of Brothers: Tiger Tank for sale

… If I only had the money…
http://www.milweb.net/webverts/49161/

This would defiantly make airsoft a little bit more fun!

Aside from the suspension, that actually looks pretty good.

Sod the reenactment, I'd want to bring that to the next Board meeting...

"This is a reality you're not going to like either!!!"

:lol:

wow insane custom builds...
but better than running a real priceless panzer 6 I suppose lol.
Did you happen to get a quote? =p

Not gona bother, because the pricetag will only make me cry =(

it should be under half a million? if that is any consolation. =p
T55s are dirt cheap because of their numbers.
As for workhours... well, yeah.
I would take a wild stab in the dark to say it probably ends up costing around the same as a decent sherman

that tiger looks alot smaller than i imagined.

Probably less. Americans LOVE the Sherman like they LOVE the P-51.. they think it was God's gift to the Allies.. eventhough it was a shitty tank.

Tigers actually weren't that big. Dimension-wise they were smaller than the Panzer V.

u sure?or am i thinking of the Tiger II(or better yet tiger ace)? from the looks of it this tiger can't even take on 1 sherman. even the stug in the pics look beefier than the tiger.

M4 Medium Tank (Sherman)
Length 19 ft 2 in
Width 8 ft 7 in
Height 9 ft

Panzerkampfwagen VIE Tiger
Length 20 ft 8 in
Width 11 ft 8 in
Height 9 ft 10 in

The Tiger II and Tiger are completely different tanks. They have very, very little in common. The Tiger II is more of an enlarged Panther than a Tiger I varient.

I have no idea what a 'Tiger Ace' is... I assume you're not talking about Michael Wittmann.

Not really a matter of size, it's what armour you have and what gun you're packing. Tiger had good armour and was packing the 88mm, Sherman had crap armour and a comparatively piddly 76mm gun.

The Shermans had to hide and attack Tigers en masse in the hope that while the Tiger is busily killing your mates, one of you would be able to sneak to its rear and shoot it point blank.

The Sherman wasn't nicknamed a 'Ronson' for nothing. It wasn't until the Brits and Canadians managed to get the 17pdr gun into the Sherman that tankers had something good to shoot back with.

Actually, the original M4's in Europe where only armed with the 75mm. That thing had practically zero hope of penetrating the frontal armour of a Tiger. The 76 wasn't a whole lot better.

Even then, calibre makes less of a differance than gun design and shot. The 75mm/L70 on the Panther was more deadly than the 88mm on the Tiger I, and the 76.2mm 17-pounder was probably one of the all round best anti-tank weapons of the Second World War -it was even more effective than the Panther's gun -especially with APCBC or APDS ammunition.

The Sherman, overall, was a rather poor tank design. It was lightly armoured, had a high silhouette, a pitiful main gun (Americans still believed that tank destroyers were meant to kill other tanks, and tanks were only there for infantry support), and generally caught fire within 20 seconds of being hit (hence the invention of wet stowage). The only advantage the Shermans had over their German counterparts was their mechanical simplicity, which meant easier maintenance and easier to build. The Panther and Tiger were horridly complex pieces of machinery in comparison.

yeah about that catching on fire thing...
anyways, it's not really the point about which tank is better 1v1, because there were dozens of shermans for every tiger.
when the panzer 7 was being produced, german design and manufacturing standards had dropped significantly, and as a result, most of them broke (or got destroyed in bombing runs) long before seeing action. Overheating engine, blah blah blah.
And the tiger ace doesn't actually exist outside of company of heroes.

There was no Panzer 7. The King Tiger was the Panzer VIB.

oops, my bad.