# Soren and McKenny's thread to discuss why the Tiger or Sherman rocked or sucked.



## m kenny (Jan 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Tiger Ausf.B's glacis is 150mm thick and sloped at 50 degrees from vertical, the Jumbo's glacis is 100mm thick and sloped at 47 degrees from vertical ! So as you can see the Tiger Ausf.B is enormously better protected from the front than the Jumbo, you can't even compare the two !
> 
> And since the Jumbo had a pea-shooter of a gun it was a Cow on the battlefield, no match for the KingTiger which could knock it out at distances exceeding 2km. Heck even the Tiger Ausf.E could take out the Jumbo frontally at a distance of 1km, just by aiming at the turret. The Panther could do the same at a 1.5km distance. Truth is, against the AT and tank-guns of the time, the Jumbo was anything BUT impervious to AT fire.



Here are 2 Jumbos hit by 88's
The first Jumbo had 1 hit bounce of the glacis and 2 off the mantlet before a 4th entered through the gunsight opening in the mantlet.

The last 2 pics are the same Jumbo that was disabled by a mine. It then took 8 hits from 88's. 7 failed to penetrate and only one (no.3) got in and set it alight.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 9, 2007)

Great pics m kenny.


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2007)

m kenny said:


> Here are 2 Jumbos hit by 88's
> The first Jumbo had 1 hit bounce of the glacis and 2 off the mantlet before a 4th entered through the gunsight opening in the mantlet.



I see no hits on the glacis at all M_kenny.



> The last 2 pics are the same Jumbo that was disabled by a mine. It then took 8 hits from 88's. 7 failed to penetrate and only one (no.3) got in and set it alight.



Its quite obvious this tank was engaged at a very steep angle, hit no.3 doesn't seem to have penetrated, just bounced off becaus of the angle - Hit no.7 however clearly penetrated.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> I see no hits on the glacis at all ..



On the first pic the 88 hit is on the front transmission cover, dead centre and just below the row of bolts. The hit destroyed the sandbags on the glacis.





Soren said:


> Its quite obvious this tank was engaged at a very steep angle, hit no.3 doesn't seem to have penetrated, just bounced off becaus of the angle - Hit no.7 however clearly penetrated.



On the original there is a hole at number '3'.
The glacis hit is numbered '8' and is on the side of the drivers hatch. It bounced upwards and took a chunk from the bottom of the turret just on the level of the mantlet and to the right as you look at it.
Something also blew away the sandbags on the glacis and again you can see a depression in the centre of the transmission cover.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 12, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Ughh....I rescue this thread from the deep bottom and you both start to post about the Sherman:



'88' actually and the fact it had a hard time with the Jumbo's.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 12, 2007)

m kenny, I thought you dolts were arguing this Sherman vs Tiger/Panther BS on another thread. I really like your posts, but what's going on?


----------



## m kenny (Jan 13, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> m kenny, I thought you dolts were arguing this Sherman vs Tiger/Panther BS on another thread. I really like your posts, but what's going on?



Nothing going on. I simply replied to an earlier comment in the thread about the Jumbo's being unable to withstand an '88' hit. The pics were to show that they could take a lot of punishment.

This is the comment and as it is in the thread I don't see the problem with replying in the thread.

*"The Tiger Ausf.B's glacis is 150mm thick and sloped at 50 degrees from vertical, the Jumbo's glacis is 100mm thick and sloped at 47 degrees from vertical ! So as you can see the Tiger Ausf.B is enormously better protected from the front than the Jumbo, you can't even compare the two ! 

And since the Jumbo had a pea-shooter of a gun it was a Cow on the battlefield, no match for the KingTiger which could knock it out at distances exceeding 2km. Heck even the Tiger Ausf.E could take out the Jumbo frontally at a distance of 1km, just by aiming at the turret. The Panther could do the same at a 1.5km distance. Truth is, against the AT and tank-guns of the time, the Jumbo was anything BUT impervious to AT fire."*


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

m kenny said:


> On the first pic the 88 hit is on the front transmission cover, dead centre and just below the row of bolts. The hit destroyed the sandbags on the glacis.



It is very unclear wether thats a hit or not m_kenny, and looking closer it certainly doesn't look like a hit from a AP round at all. And the sandbags could been blown off by a number of different things, a HE round for example which was often used against the weakly armored Sherman. 



> On the original there is a hole at number '3'.



Its not impossible but the angle is very steep, and it looks more like it bounced off - perhaps you could show us the original ??



> The glacis hit is numbered '8' and is on the side of the drivers hatch.



And besides hitting a sloped area it looks like a hit from a much smaller caliber weapon than an 88.

Besides what evidence do you have that it was exclusively an 88 which engaged these two Jumbo's ?? And at what range ?? 



> Something also blew away the sandbags on the glacis and again you can see a depression in the centre of the transmission cover.



Again either there's nothing there at all, or the area was hit by a HE round. - It could as-well have been done by a smaller caliber weapon, such as a 75mm Pak40.




> Nothing going on. I simply replied to an earlier comment in the thread about the Jumbo's being unable to withstand an '88' hit. The pics were to show that they could take a lot of punishment.
> 
> This is the comment and as it is in the thread I don't see the problem with replying in the thread.
> 
> ...



And as you can see in both cases the turret was penetrated completely.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 13, 2007)

range was 'about 800 yds'.

One was penetrated through the gunsight in the mantlet. i.e through an opening. 2 other hits bounced off the turret and one off the glacis..
The other tank was penetrated through the right hand side. None of the 4turret hits on this Jumbo penetrated. the glacis hit did not penetrate either.

The turret is 6 inches all round.

The photos are in Steve Zaloga's 'US Tank Battles In Germany 1944-45' and he also had an article on Jumbo's in Military modelling a while back where at least the de-turreted Jumbo was featured. book for Concord.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

6 inches all round, thats 152mm. And the 88mm L/56 Kwk36 would penetrate 151mm of vertical 240BHN RHA armor at 500m with the std. Pzgr.39 APCBC round - So that they didn't completely penetrate at ca.731m sounds right. 

With the Pzgr.40 APCR round, which wasn't in use by medium-heavy tanks in 1944, the 88mm Kwk36 would penetrate 160mm of vertical 240BHN RHA armor at 1500m - Hence my previous comment.

The Panther's 75mm L/70 Kwk42 gun however would penetrate the Jumbo's front turret out to a 1,000 yards with its std. Pzgr.39/43 APCBC round, and far beyond with the Pzgr.40.

The Jumbo's glacis should be impervous to both guns at 200m and beyond.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I have a question for you tank experts. What was the typical accuracy of WWII tank and anti-tank cannon? From what I have read and the pics you guys are posting, it looks to be within a couple of minute-of-angle (MOA) [e.g. 1 MOA = 1in at 100yds, 6in at 600yds].



German guns were definitely capable of sub MOA because of the quality of the gun and optics. Infact during training, without the stress of combat, the 88mm Kwk36 on the Tiger Ausf.E would hit a 2 x 2.5m target 87% of the time at 2,000m and 53% of the time at 3,000m - not bad ! And the Panther's 75mm Kwk42 proved even more accurate with a 92% accuracy at 2,000m and 55% at 3,000m.



> I've actually read of german commanders targeting barrels of KV-1/-2 to disable them. Fairy tale?



Not a fairytale, they actually did this until they got the more powerful Pz.IV F-2, after which they didn't have to.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> This topic is completely ruined, thanks soren and company.



Easy there, its not ruined, we'll just debate the matter elsewhere. 

Need a moderator to move the last few posts please.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> German guns were definitely capable of sub MOA because of the quality of the gun and optics. Infact during training, without the stress of combat, the 88mm Kwk36 on the Tiger Ausf.E would hit a 2 x 2.5m target 87% of the time at 2,000m and 53% of the time at 3,000m - not bad ! And the Panther's 75mm Kwk42 proved even more accurate with a 92% accuracy at 2,000m and 55% at 3,000m.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fairytale, they actually did this until they got the more powerful Pz.IV F-2, after which they didn't have to.



Soren - how does this compare to the accuracy of other nations tankers?


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

It beats the accuracy of the guns by any other nation for sure, however since I haven't got any detailed info on gun accuracy tests carried out by the Allies I can't tell you by how much exactly.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

Here we go. Thanks moderators. I have enjoyed these two heavyweights battling this out, but not juxtaposed with other threads.

Have at it guys. I'm honestly amused with your well researched posts.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

Glad to know I made someone happy


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

But now the pressure is on to perform. Wish you guys had all of your previous posts conveniently located in one thread.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Me too. I'm not smart enough to contribute to your discussion, so I just read and learn.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

Okay, so I'll ask the question again in the proper thread...

I have a question for you tank experts. What was the typical accuracy of WWII tank and anti-tank cannon? From what I have read and the pics you guys are posting, it looks to be within a couple of minute-of-angle (MOA) [e.g. 1 MOA = 1in at 100yds, 6in at 600yds]. I've actually read of german commanders targeting barrels of KV-1/-2 to disable them. Fairy tale?


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 13, 2007)

I wouldn't for a second question the truth or validity of both arguements, but I also hope people see these kind of comparisons purely as theoretical exercise and not reflective with what makes one thing better than another. 

Okay - say a single Sherman or T-34 goes up against a single Tiger on a flat playing field - there's no question, that either of those tanks will die very quickly, but then the fact still remains that battles and wars aren't won on a test range.

Terrible fuel consumption, heavy, slow, needed to be a vast size just to carry the 8.8 - took AGES to build one... from 43 onward, the Germans really couldn't afford the time or resources to mess about with Uberpanzers like Tigers or King Tigers.

It's an incredibly Gucci piece of kit, but what really, really matters are the results it achives within the situation and time in which it was used. 

Something that whilst being robust, but is not particually fancy like the Shermans or T-34's, those are the designs which can be churned out in huge numbers, and THAT is what history has proved you fundamentally need to have if you're fighting a total war - therefore no matter what technical marvel the Tiger may have been at the time, the two main opponents of it should always be considered the better tanks for that one simple reason.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 14, 2007)

Medvedya said:


> It's an incredibly Gucci piece of kit, but what really, really matters are the results it achives within the situation and time in which it was used.
> 
> Something that whilst being robust, but is not particually fancy like the Shermans or T-34's, those are the designs which can be churned out in huge numbers, and THAT is what history has proved you fundamentally need to have if you're fighting a total war - therefore no matter what technical marvel the Tiger may have been at the time, the two main opponents of it should always be considered the better tanks for that one simple reason.



I agree with you completely there - but I think soren and mkenny enjoy the pugilistic banter. We all get to learn, so everyone wins. Sometimes people do forget that what matters is no sh*t combat effectiveness, not sexiness. Not being able to field a piece of gear in large enough numbers - well that greatly diminishes its effectiveness if there's a need for it. The german armaments ministry seemed to not completely appreciate this. A German officer said "how do you destroy 50,000 tanks" when referring to the Sherman. I'd guess a similar number of T-34s were produced as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

I think Med actually hit the nail. When compared one on one the Tiger is the better tank over the Sherman or the T-34 but as he pointed out and mkloby accented, how do you destroy 50,000 tanks. Therefore as history is concerned they are the better tanks. They won the war.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 14, 2007)

Exactly. Take the massive tank battle of the 13th of July, 1943, in the Kursk Salient. Visibility was such that the German tanks couldn't exploit their superior long-range firing capabilities anyway, and the Germans lost half of their remaining tanks. It was a loss from which they could never recover, and the Soviets, while taking massive losses themselves, were still able to churn out their "simple" tanks by the dozens and continue the push westward. So much for German technical superiority.

But it _does_ still make for interesting debate.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

OK

Did the Tiger rock or suck? IMO it both rocked and sucked. I would sy it was effective though.

As for the M4A3E2 'Jumbo', well I know it could shrug off 88mm hits L56 that is, not sure about the PaK43 though - and NO I can't be bothered posting sources.

A big part of this is a law called shatter gap. If you want a definitive answer, delcyros is an unbiased expert.8) 

IIRC some Jumbos were upgraded with 17pdrs, this would make a decent weapon.

The problem was, the jumbo was sloow - and mobility is a huge part of a tanks protection.



m kenny said:


> This is the comment and as it is in the thread I don't see the problem with replying in the thread.



Nor do I. IMO it tidies the place.


Hi Soren,



> Besides what evidence do you have that it was exclusively an 88 which engaged these two Jumbo's ?? And at what range ??



A valid point?



> The Jumbo's glacis should be impervous to both guns at 200m and beyond.



Kissing distance. What were the other Sherman's doing whilst it was getting that close? If they weren't KO'd 1st, then they would be putting holes in the sides or rear. Also nearby Bazookamen could do the same etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure a decent Jombo commander would've disabled a Panther before it could get that close? Weren't Jumbo commanders hand-picked IIRC?



> German guns were definitely capable of sub MOA because of the quality of the gun and optics. Infact during training, without the stress of combat, the 88mm Kwk36 on the Tiger Ausf.E would hit a 2 x 2.5m target 87% of the time at 2,000m and 53% of the time at 3,000m - not bad ! And the Panther's 75mm Kwk42 proved even more accurate with a 92% accuracy at 2,000m and 55% at 3,000m.



I suppose an advantage of their Henschel suspension was that it allowed less shock to be transmitted to the occupants, as well as fatiguing them less and being better for a gun platform. With 122mm rounds though...

Like someone on here said before, Zeiss optics were hyper-accurate but very time-consuming.



> Not a fairytale, they actually did this until they got the more powerful Pz.IV F-2, after which they didn't have to.



Wasn't it Otto Carius who famously did this?



> Easy there, its not ruined, we'll just debate the matter elsewhere
> 
> Need a moderator to move the last few posts please.



How polite you are.


Hi Medvedya,



> Terrible fuel consumption, heavy, slow, needed to be a vast size just to carry the 8.8 - took AGES to build one... from 43 onward, the Germans really couldn't afford the time or resources to mess about with Uberpanzers like Tigers or King Tigers.



Oh I think Uberpanzers were needed as hero tanks, and the Tiger was reasonably fast and compact. I do agree with a lot of what you say though.


"how do you destroy 50,000 tanks"

If they're Shermans - with 10,000 Panthers!

I think a lot of it is morale; Panther and Tiger crews knew their tank designers/procurers cared about them. The Allied tankers sometimes knew that theirs didn't give a sh*t.

The unreliability of the German heavies was evidence of the latter though, but I'd say that was Maybach's and the procurers fault, not MAN and Henschel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2007)

No offense Scwarzpanzer but I think you actually missed the point of the posts....

...Now having said that, keep posting.


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmm the top road speed of a Tiger was 23 m.p.h, as far as speed goes, it's not tee-riff. 

The Panther is a better tank, but again still too heavy and slow, and if the final drive burns out (which could happen) you couldn't get to the gear box of a Panther without taking half the tank to pieces - not a practical proposition when PPSh rounds are whizzing past you! 

T-34 - the transmission was utter junk, the designers knew it, so they made it easy to get to at the back. Okay, this arrangement did sometimes make the gears hard to shift but this was quickly solved by finding a hammer and yelling "Rabota, tuy sooka!" before precisely smashing it down on the levers.

Does exactly what it says on the tin as they say.


----------



## Udet (Jan 18, 2007)

Medvedya said:


> T-34 - the transmission was utter junk, the designers knew it, so they made it easy to get to at the back. Okay, this arrangement did sometimes make the gears hard to shift but this was quickly solved by finding a hammer and yelling "Rabota, tuy sooka!" before precisely smashing it down on the levers.



Not very practical to know such thing happened when in combat with a Tiger, Panther, Mark IV (LB) or sturmgeschutz...


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, if because of things like that you don't have to take a T-34 out of the field, that doesn't matter since if one gets knocked out, there are still going be other T-34's coming in behind it's exhaust fumes! 

You're still thinking of one on one combat - only someone tired of living would take on those three you mentioned single handed. 

But that's not how you fight a war. Have a go - but make damn sure you're with all yer mates as well! And although granted, your Tiger or Panther is going to turn lots of them into roman candles, sooner or later one of those Shermans or T-34's is going to get lucky...

This is a very bad thing if that was your one uberpanzer gone because the rest of them are all being patched up back behind the lines!

Those mid/late war German tanks were amazing but.... wrong weapon, wrong war, wrong time.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

These discussions are similar to any weapon system dominance discussion. If you ignore maintenance, supplies, training, repair, logistics the discussions are fun...but only entertaining.

But keep it coming!


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 18, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> But keep it coming!




It's the only way to win a war!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2007)

The complication of the entire German system lost them the war, not the tank designs they produced. Had the German industry abandoned the Tiger and King Tiger then turned the industrial capacity toward the single build; Panther Ausf G. The Germans would have had the greatest tank of the war in numbers sufficient to stem the tide of the Soviet and Allied medium armour. 

And I'm not talking one on one; the Panther had the balance of firepower, speed and armour combined with a relatively small build time (for a tank of its size) and an ability to destroy the enemy in a ratio far in its favour. 

Outside Konigsberg a single Panther G managed to destroy three IS-2s and stem a Soviet assault on its own. What prevented there being another two or three Panthers with that one, was simply the fact that resources were wasted on the King Tiger and Tiger. 

In technical terms of combat ability the Germans ruled, however.


----------

