TIGERS ON TV

[Warrior]

Tonight (Sunday) at 9pm EST, the History Channel will show Tiger Attack. Should be good.

[Huffy]

hey warrior,...just saw your post....made a post myself about it also...
good show though....

[Big T]

What the heck?!?! According to the show it implies/flat out says that the Tiger was a response to the t-34! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was the Panther that resulted from experience against the T-34.

Has the History channel fallen for a common misconseption of german tanks? Who does their research??? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Big T ]</p>

[Warrior]

Originally posted by Big T:
[QB]What the heck?!?! According to the show it implies/flat out says that the Tiger was a response to the t-34! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was the Panther that resulted from experience against the T-34.

Has the History channel fallen for a common misconseption of german tanks? Who does their research??? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> [QB]

---

In my experience, the History Channel is not scrupulous about their research, nor do they require truth or check material from their contributors. Much of their programming comes from independent producers, and contains factual errors and questionable agendas, and their "in-house" produced material is no better. As with all "news" programs on TV, it's wise to keep a very large dose of healthy skepticism about their "facts."

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Warrior ]</p>

[U235]

I would have to agree with the History Channel on this one thing. Since the Tiger was available before the Panther, I would have to say it was the response to the T-34 and KV-1's. If I'm not mistaken (think I saw it posted somewhere in this forum, maybe not) that the manhours to produce one Tiger could produce 3 Panthers. I think Panthers were built to replace Pzkw IV's (eventualy). Of course anthing new by then would be needed to defeat T-34's or anything else the Germans thought the Soviets would field (wheather this was the case or not).

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

In defense of History Channel (I have never had access to it actually).

After having had the benefit of seeing hundreds of hours of outstanding documentaries (and wild Bill will be able to verify this I think, if his library is as mine is), even the best series have visual and statment errors that seem so obvious to a fanatic like us, but slip past humble film producers.

My best example is the scene of scores of Royal Tigers attacking Poland in 39 (as it was the footage being viewed as the narative explained the campaign in Poland).

This is common and not at all rare. I cant claim to have EVER seen ANY documentary that was 100% completely accurate.

Possessing reams of archival film and scores of interviews with veterans is still not garantee of perfect accuracy.

So as I said

History Channel is no special case.

[deggo]

I saw a documentary on Stalingrad a week or so ago that had some errors in the footage. Late model PZ-IV's early in the campain. I see those kind of mistakes in most WWII programs. It seems like they could employ some editors that would know what is out of place.
I did get a glimps of a Red Army Sherman, I think. Didn't have the VCR taping or I would have double checked.
One of the things I look for is US or British equipment in Soviet footage, but it is rare to see any. It seems obvious that the sensors made sure to show only Russian made weapons.

[Don Doom]

The Tiger attack show even with all its errors was still better than the one on the T-34. I would have like seeing some on the ferd's and Jagdtigers. But I believe that would have taken away from a very reasonable program. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">