this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
29 points (96.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

196 readers
170 users here now

Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by Piefed.social terms and conditions
  2. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  3. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:
!forgottenweapons@lemmy.world

For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think that has more to do with losing the war than the design of the tank. Especially considering the Germans didn't surrender until they were days away from being conquered anyway.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean, consider that the Tiger tank was a heavy tank built for tank-on-tank combat, when the vast majority of tanks are lost to other causes, one might suspect that its out-of-touch specialization very much played against its rate of survival.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Possibly, but the reality is, almost all of Germany's equipment was either destroyed or captured, air, sea, and land, so the fact that almost none survived the war isn't really an argument in any direction.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago

This is discussing losses during the war, though, not including those destroyed after the war. Not that there were many, considering that only a small percentage of Tiger I and IIs were captured.