# Best/favorite WW2 heavy tank



## Danielmellbin (Jun 24, 2008)

Yihaa - my favorite - the heavy tank (must be a guy thing )

My choice is the King Tiger. 
Unreliable?: yes! 
Indestructable?: Nearly... 
Killer?: YES! 

During the late phase of "Wacht am Rein" a King Tiger suffered more than 100 direct hits to the frontal armour - and survived... The Pershing is surely a better machine - but it was too late to be my choice. IS2 was a beaut as well. Finally - there is something cool/nostalgic about the Matilda


----------



## timshatz (Jun 24, 2008)

I think the Tigers were the only ones that were truely considered heavy tanks. Not sure about the IS2 but I think the Pershing was considered a medium.


----------



## Mitya (Jun 24, 2008)

IS-2 forewer!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2008)

I have to go with the Tiger.

Yeah she had problems, but one on one she was the best.


----------



## seesul (Jun 24, 2008)

my vote goes for tiger 2


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2008)

Tiger 2, no doubt, the most advanced powerful tank with a turret to be produced in WW2.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jun 24, 2008)

I have to go with the KingTiger...too bad it was so unreliable...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 24, 2008)

I had to go with King Tiger despite reliability issues - could say the same thing about early Fw 190A or P-51B


----------



## Grampa (Jun 25, 2008)

I remember a documentary film whit ww2 veteran allies and axis tankcrew. the german who drove the Tigertank and some who dident really preferd the Tigertank as first choiche when sellecting tank they prefer. When the same question whent to the Allied veterans who had some combat experience against the tigern. They whit all the choice they had from all allied tanks. they preferd the Tigern as first choise.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jun 25, 2008)

IS-2. Relatively cheap, good cannon and well placed slope armor. Slow rate of fire, yes, but it's purpose was the front line breaktrough ,not the armour vs. armour battles - and for that purposes it was just enough. 
King Tiger - formidable toy, but it is not the weapon to win the war.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 25, 2008)

Tiger I


IS-2 was slightly too limited in its scope for my taste, to be called best heavy tank. King tiger was just too mechanically unreliable and too underpowered. If they had managed to put a 1000hp engine in it this might have changed.


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2008)

I voted for Tiger I
an excellent tank up to 44, expensive but that was not so important in heavy tank category.

Juha


----------



## Grampa (Jun 25, 2008)

Hi again. The poll of the best tank is gonna be often the tigern so it's the winner in this discussion. but lets make a poll over the worst tank designed in first hand to fight against tank instead, that may gonna be a lot of discussing of. My belive of the worst tank is the Cruisertank A9 Mark 1
A9 Cruiser
The main dravback over this tank was thin armour Max 14mm-6mm 
the other whas to many horisontal armour, to many angel and courner where a AP-round could easly get a grip instead of slide off, to many crewmember because of the six crewmember 2 were used in 2 machinegunturrets whitch had a limmit shootangle, and there whas weary limmited space in the tank for the crew and it has thin track.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 26, 2008)

timshatz said:


> I think the Tigers were the only ones that were truely considered heavy tanks. Not sure about the IS2 but I think the Pershing was considered a medium.




The KV 1/2 were the first real "Heavy tanks" in common usage in WWII, gave the Germans fits early in the war, they were not expecting that. IS/JS 2 3 were "heavies" as well

The Churchill was an infantry tank, so could be considered heavy tank too.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 26, 2008)

freebird said:


> The KV 1/2 were the first real "Heavy tanks" in common usage in WWII, gave the Germans fits early in the war, they were not expecting that. IS/JS 2 3 were "heavies" as well
> 
> The Churchill was an infantry tank, so could be considered heavy tank too.



I'll have to disagree - The CharB1 was in common usage during the french campaign - and the Matilda II in North Africa.
All the tanks that in the poll where listed as heavy tanks or infantry support tanks by those who used and encountered them (none of them designed to be the mainstay of their countries armoured formations (the pershing however was reclassified as 'medium' in 1946). Furthermore - IMO - their power-to-weight ratio alone disqulifies any of them as medium tanks.

P.S. I did not list the IS3 as it did not see combat in WW2 (neither did the type 95 - oops).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 26, 2008)

I'll go with the King Tiger .... fenomenal and powerfull tank


----------



## JugBR (Jun 26, 2008)

is true that story about one tiger kills 25 shermans at once in sequence ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 26, 2008)

King Tiger is a blimp, I dont like it.

The JS-2 was very good, but I think is overgunned for tank vs tank combat. the separate charge proyectile made it slow to reload.

The real "King" was the Tiger 1.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

> King Tiger is a blimp, I dont like it.



Blimp ? What does that mean ?



> The JS-2 was very good, but I think is overgunned for tank vs tank combat. the separate charge proyectile made it slow to reload.



Overgunned ?? The 122mm D-25T was on par with the 75mm KwK42 L/70 in terms of AT performance and nowhere near as accurate.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 26, 2008)

JugBR said:


> is true that story about one tiger kills 25 shermans at once in sequence ?


- haven't heard of a specific battle in which that has happened - At Villers Bocage Michael Wittmann scored 11 confirmed tank kills. (The story of Villers Bocage is well traveled and has many exagerated versions). It wouldn't surprise me if a few Tigers in the east achieved 25 kills in one engagement...



CharlesBronson said:


> King Tiger is a blimp, I dont like it.
> 
> The real "King" was the Tiger 1.



No doubt the Tiger E was the supreme tank of late '42- to early '44. The King Tiger is often dismissed as to cumbersome and in a constant state of "enginemeltdown". However the troubles suffered by the King Tiger could be overcome by veteran crews - the same went with the Tiger E - neither machine would last long if not handled with care. The thing I dont like about the Tiger I is its outdated design. The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44. Plus the upgrade from the L56 to L71 '88 meant that a King Tiger could "easily" knock out a IS2 at 2000 meters - by comparison a Tiger I had to close to 200-500 meters to penetrate the IS2's main armour.


----------



## airboiy (Jul 1, 2008)

about time theres a heavy tank pole!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2008)

And that is all you posted? That is what we call spam. Spam is not allowed. Do you understand?


----------



## Freebird (Jul 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And that is all you posted?



And he spent hours crafting that post...  





Danielmellbin said:


> The thing I dont like about the Tiger I is its outdated design. The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44.




That always struck me as strange too, IIRC the design of the Tiger was being worked on in 1941, AFTER seeing details of the T-34 in action in Finland. 

Unless the design was already too advanced in 1941 to alter it?


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 1, 2008)

freebird said:


> That always struck me as strange too, IIRC the design of the Tiger was being worked on in 1941, AFTER seeing details of the T-34 in action in Finland.
> 
> Unless the design was already too advanced in 1941 to alter it?




Development of the Tiger started in 1937 - but the desired specs where altered many times. I think that if the armour had been altered (as in sloped) the machine would have been delayed considerably - better to get it in the field and hurry on to the improvement (tiger II).

P.S. To my knowledge there weren't any T-34's in the Winter War - "only" some KVs.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 1, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> P.S. To my knowledge there weren't any T-34's in the Winter War - "only" some KVs.



I stand corrected then. Was the Tiger's development ahead of the Panther? It would seem that they got the sloped armour idea on the Panther....


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

> The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44



That is actually not the case Daniel, cause you see the Tiger Ausf.E featured the best qaulity armour of any tank in the world. The armor used was 255 - 265 BHN RHA armour, which was so strong that the APDS rounds from the 17pdr were ineffective against it because of the shatter effect. The same applied for the new 76mm US tank gun which proved completely unable to penetrate the Tiger's frontal armour at any distance, despite being able to penetrate up to 100mm of armour at 1,000y in US tests. However against the Tiger's armour the US 76mm APBC projectile simply shattered on impact, much to the horror of US tankers who were promised that the new gun would be effective against the Tiger out to 1,000y, infact they couldn't even hurt it at 100y!

Heck at 300m the rounds from the 122mm D-25T would occasionally bounce off the Tiger Ausf.E's armour if any angle was present, as happened in a close range engagement during 44 which resulted in the IS-2 being knocked out in return by a straight hit to the front turret by the Tiger.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 1, 2008)

freebird said:


> I stand corrected then. Was the Tiger's development ahead of the Panther? It would seem that they got the sloped armour idea on the Panther....



The Panther was developed several years after the Tiger I; as Daniel pointed out, design on the Tiger I started in '37, right about the time the plans for the PzKpfw IV were finalized. The development of the Panther started when the Germans got a rude shock on the Eastern Front after running into the early Soviet T-34's; at that time, the T-34 totally outclassed the PzKpfw IV's the Germans had been using as main battle tanks up until then. Afterwards, the Germans decided they were never going to be surprised like that again. Originally, there was some thought of simply copying the T-34 outright but, fortunately, saner heads prevailed, and an original German design was developed. It combined the best features of the T-34, while using a conventional German internal layout. Reliability problems were initially encountered, especially on the brutal Easter Front, but by the late stages of the War ('44-'45), it was probably the best all-around tank in the world.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 1, 2008)

Soren - well thats new for me - was pretty certain that the 17pdr had a good chance at up to 1000yds or more. Wouldn't a steel of that hardness crack pretty easily? (- I mean - this is before BOS)


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

No 255 to 265 BHN is the ideal range for armour of the period, and not brittle at all. Brittle RHA armour is in the range of 350+ BHN.

Now remember Daniel that I was talking about the 17pdr's APDS projectile, NOT the APCBC projectile. The APCBC projectile was effective against the Tiger Ausf.E way past 1,000y, while the APDS projectile would shatter on impact.

Wittmann's Tiger was supposedly taken out by a Firefly at 800m. (Although some claim it was detroyed by rockets fired from a Typhoon) Regardless the 17pdr was definately capable of punching through the Tiger Ausf.E's frontal armour at the range and much further.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 1, 2008)

erm... the APDS rounds was capable of and had a higher velocity. As such they could also penetrate more armour than the than the APCBC - however did less dammage upon penetration ofcourse.

As for Wittmann - nobody knows how it ended - lots of stories about but I've never seen any of them backed up so far. The two you mention are the most common - and make the most sense...


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

Daniel,

You don't understand I see. The APDS projectile was too weak, it shattered upon impact instead of penetrating, the Tiger's armour being much stronger. The APCBC projectile didn't have this problem.

So while the APDS projectile was capable of remarkable penetration performance against British test plates it failed miserably against the armour of the Tiger which was much tougher, experiencing something refered to as the "Shatter gap".

PS: Armour penetration is a combination of the velocity + weight (Kinetic energy), shape, size, hardness ductility of the projectile.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 1, 2008)

Don't get me wrong - In 1944 I would rather be firing APCBC rounds.

But - a well made APDS round would/will penetrate more armour than a regular APCBC round. However the brittish APDS rounds where not very succesfull.

This was primarily due to accuracy issues caused mainly by the sabot - and the muzzlebreak on the 17pdr didn't exactly help. Furthermore the accuracy was also compromised by offset cores in these new rounds. 

But 100mm of nonsloping Armour shattering the Tungsten Carbide Core of a 17pdr round at 1200m/s!? I dont see it happening...


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

Will a US army test report convince you ?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2008)

I found a couple of interesting sites concerning the Tiger, which to me demonstrates their superiority over the opposition. Strange for me and Soren to be basically agreeing, but the tiger was the best tank of the war, and enjoyed considerable superiority over the russian equivalents (IS-2), for pretty much the reasons put forward by Soren. 

Here are the links for people to look at

Achtung Panzer! - Tiger I

Tiger I Information Center | PanzerKampfwagen VI: The Legendary Tiger I

STMMain


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

The Russian site while implying the IS-2's armour was effective against most AT guns forgets to mention that the Tiger Ausf.B's 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 gun could punch a clean hole straight through the IS-2's turret lower hull, front to back, at 4,000 + meters. 

Even at 2,000m the IS-2 was highly vulnerable to the Tiger Ausf.E, which 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 gun easily could penetrate the IS-2's front turret at that distance.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2008)

An interesting way to look at the tiger issue, is to assess its cost, as compared to other items. Though in my opinion the qualitative advantages of the Tiger ought not be questioned, I do wonder about its cost effectiveness

By way of comparison, here are some costs for other items of hardware available to the German army (costs are in RM) 

PzKpfw II Ausf a 52640 with armament 
PzKpfw II Ausf B 38000 w/o armament 
PzKpfw II Ausf F 49228 w/o armament / 52728 with armament 
Sturmpanzer II Bison 53000 with armament 
PzKpfw III Ausf M 96183 w/o armament / 103163 w/o radio 
Stug III Ausf G 82500 with armament radio 
PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 115962 with armament radio
PzKpfw V Ausf A 174000 with armament radio
75mm KwK 37 L/24 8000 
75mm StuK 37 L/24 9150 
75mm StuK 40 L/43 12500 
75mm KwK 42 L/70 12000 
PzKpfw VI Tiger 250800 w/o armament radio / 299800 with armament radio 
PzKpfw VI Tiger II 321500 with armament radio

Speer was absolutely disdainful of the tigers, seeing them as an absolute waste of resources. he constantly held up the Sherman as an example of true cost effectiveness (the Sherman 75 cost about US $35000 to produce....I dont know the currency conversion rate, but compared to the tiger, it was a fraction of the cost.

Rommel was also opposed to the exotic approach taken to the Panzerwaffe in the later years of the war. In his opinion, after 1943, the Germans would have been better off in investing in large numbers of AT guns rather than larger and larger tanks. When you consider that a 75mm AT gun only cost RM 12000, or that a Stug III cost RM 82000, this argument starts to make sense.

One has to compare the kill ratios of the tiger compared to non-tiger equipped units in order to gain some further perspective on this matter. The average kill/loss ratio for the tiger units were 5.74:1, whilst non-tiger equipped units managed a Kill/Loss ratio of 2.37:1 in the years 1943-45. If the ratio of non-Tiger equipped units are assumed to be an even mix of SGIII, PzIV and PzVs, the average cost of non-Tiger equipped units is 123000 per AFV, compared with approximately 310000 for the tiger equipped units. This translates to an average cost to Germany of RM55000 per kill with tiger Equipped units, as opposed to RM50000 for non-Tiger equipped units. In other words, it was slightly cheaper to kill enemy tanks with normal panzers, than it was with Tiger units


----------



## Soren (Jul 2, 2008)

Interesting way to look at it Parsifal. However seeing that many Tiger equipped units achieved a kill/loss ratio greater than 7/1 the Tigers in these units were actually more cost efficient. But a factor which further increases the cost efficieny of the Tiger is the fact that one Tiger didn't use up as much fuel as two Panzer IV's.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2008)

One of the Links i posted has the following Loss/Kill/ratio Loss summary for tiger equipped units 

schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501: 120/450/3.75 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502: 107/1,400/13.08 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503: 252/1,700/6.75 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 504: 109/250/2.29 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 505: 126/900/7.14 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 506: 179/400/2.23 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 507: 104/600/5.77 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508: 78/100/1.28 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 509: 120/500/4.17 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 510: 65/200/3.08 
13./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland: 6/100/16.67 
III./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland: 98/500/5.10 
13./SS-Panzerregiment 1: 42/400/9.52 
8./SS-Panzerregiment 2: 31/250/8.06 
9./SS-Panzerregiment 3: 56/500/8.93 
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (501): 107/500/4.67 
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 102 (502): 76/600/7.89 
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (503): 39/500/12.82 
Total: 1,715/9,850/5.74

The site suggests that this is the total number of Tiger equipped units.

Point taken about the fuel, there is also the cost about the crew training, and the higher cost of replacing MkIV crews because of the lower survivability of the AFV. Still, I cannot help but think that a simplified Panther would have been a better option for the Wehrmacht....


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Will a US army test report convince you ?



probably - where is it?


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2008)

First here's an extract from tests on a Pzkpfw.V Panther, note the Sabot round is even having trouble against the armour of the Panther which is of much lower quality than that on the Tiger. In the following tests the 17pdr APCBC does just as well as the 17pdr Sabot round.

_*3. Nature of Test*
a. The above ammunitions were fired at the front plate of three Panther tanks. The general characteristics of the frontal armour are: Glacis Plate 85mm (3.35") at 55º and Nose Plate 65mm (2.56") at 55º. using U.S. armor basis curve, the verticle equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36") and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47"). Due to the inclination of the ground, the angle with the verticle of the glacis plates on the tanks used in this test were: 57º 34', 57º 05', and 56º 53'. The nose plate on one of the tanks tested measured 66.67mm (25/8").

b. Wide variation was found in the quality of glacis plate on the three tanks. Tank No.2 (hereafter referred to as the "best plate") sustained 30 hits as ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks Nos.1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "average plate") cracked after relatively few hits. All conclusions are, therefore, based solely on the relative performance of rounds fired at a single plate. Comparisons are not made between rounds fired at different plates. Also, the performance of any ammunition in this test cannot be considered a criterion as to the range at which it will penetrate the front plate of a Panther tank... [last few words of sentence are illegible].

c. Effectiveness was determined by balancing penetrations against the number of rounds fired and the number of hits obtained on the specific plate.

d. A penetration was defined as occuring only when the projectile passed completely through the plate. Only fair hits were considered in determining penetrations. Rounds striking edges of the plate, welds and junctions of the plate, and cracks in the plate were not fair hits.

e. The line of fire was approximately perpendicular to the lateral axis of the target tanks.

f. The 17pdr guns were fired by two superior British enlisted gunners. The 76mm gun was fired by two officers with considerable test firing experience.

4. Results of Test
a. A tabulation of the detailed results, with photographs, is attached as Appendix A1.

*b. Accuracy*

(1) A tabulation does not present a true picture of the comparative accuracy of the various ammunitions. With all the standard rounds, except 17pdr SABOT, the accuracy was such as to warrant attempting to hit specific parts of the front plates. In general this was successful, but some rounds fired at the lower glacis struck the upper nose, and vice versa. In addition, it was not possible to position all the tanks so that the nose was not, at least partially, hidden by the ground line. Therefore, it is felt that a better measure of accuracy can be obtained by considering the nose and glacis as one target.

(2) On this basis all twenty-two (22) rounds of 76mm HVAP, T4, and all twenty-three (23) rounds of 17pdr APCBC hit the target. Only one (1) of eight (8) rounds of 76mm APC, M62, which fell short attempting to hit the nose, failed to hit the target. Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pdr SABOT were fired and only 57% [24 rounds] were hits. More rounds of 76mm APC, M62 were not fired since its accuracy had been well established in previous firing in the U.S. by two members of the board.

(3) Insufficient firing was conducted with 76mm HVAP projectile with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propellant to determine definite sight settings for a conclusive accuracy test. The results of the limited firing indicated that these rounds are of an accuracy comparable with 76mm HVAP and 17pdr APCBC. 

*c. Penetration*

(1) At 600 yards, 17pdr APCBC penetrated the lower nose of tank No.1 (average plate), while 76mm HVAP failed to penetrate.

(2) At 400 yards, one round out of four fair hits of 17pdr SABOT penetrated the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). This was the only penetration of this plate by a fair hit with any of the ammunitions (including 76mm HVAP w/17pdr APBC propellant, 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant) at ranges 200 yards and over.

(3) At 400 yards, one round out of one fair hit with 17pdr APCBC and one round out of one hit with 17pdr SABOT penetrated the lower nose of tank No.2 (best plate). Both rounds of 76mm APC, M62 failed to penetrate, and one round of 76mm HVAP penetrated while the second round failed to penetrate. Two rounds out of two hits of 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant also penetrated.

(4) At 200 yards one fair hit with each of the standard ammunitions failed to penetrate the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). The relative depths of the partial penetrations at this range were as follows:
(a) 17pdr APCBC - 2"
(b) 17pdr SABOT - 1 7/8"
(c) 76mm HVAP - 1 5/16"
(d) 76mm APC, M62 - 1"

(5) At 200 yards firing at the glacis of tank No.3 (average plate) one round out of four fair hits with 76mm HVAP penetrated, this round, after partially penetrating, ...[illegible word]... and penetrated the plate ...[illegible word]... . One round of 17pdr SABOT penetrated and one round failed to penetrate at this range. One fair hit with 17pdr APCBC failed to penetrate, but cracked the plate. The second round striking within 6" of the first round penetrated.

(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this teast with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is expalined by Col. A. G. Cole, Deputy Director of Artillery, Ministry of Supply. Col. Cole witnessed part of the test and states that the ammunition lot furnished the board had not been proof fired. He further states that, in his opinion, the lot is of sub-standard manufacture and if proof fired would not have been accepted.

(7) 76mm APC, M62 fair hits which failed to penetrate caused no cracking of the plate of average quality. 76mm HVAP, 17pdr SABOT, and 17pdr APCBC caused cracking in varying degrees. In general, 17pdr APCBC caused greater damage to the plate than 17pdr SABOT or 76mm HVAP. 

*5. Findings*
a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy. The board invites attention to the fact that its findings and conclusions apply only to the ammunition furnished it and may not apply to good quality 17pdr SABOT.

b. The accuracy of 76mm APC, M62 is satisfactory. However this ammunition is definitely inferior to either the 17pdr APCBC or the 76mm HVAP, T4, because of its poor penetrating power.

c. The 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4, are both highly accurate ammunitions. In the opinion of the members of the board, two of whom have had considerable experience test firing British and American tank and antitank weapons, the 76mm HVAP, T4 is the most accurate tank or antitank ammunition encountered to date.

d. The 17pdr APCBC is more effective against the front of a Panther tank than is the 76mm HVAP, T4. Its margin of superiority is not great. Neither one can be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate in one fair hit on average quality plate.

e. Combining 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr APCBC propellant offers no advantages over a standard ammunition.

f. Because of its accuracy and since the core is essentially the same as that in 17pdr SABOT, 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant may provide an ammunition superior to 17pdr SABOT as regards accuracy and to 17pdr APCBC and 76mm HVAP as regards penetration.

*6. Conclusions*
a. That the 17pdr SABOT of the lot tested is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition because of its inaccuracy.

b. That the 76mm APC, M62 is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition for use against heavy armor because of its inferior penetration.

c. That the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4 are considered the best antitank ammunitions available in these calibers for use against heavy armor. The 17pdr APCBC is somewhat superior to the 76mm HVAP, T4, against the Panther Tank. Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate.

d. That the possibilities should be investigated of using 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant, if 17pdr guns are made available to U.S. units.

Andrew P. O'Meara, Colonel, F.A., President.
Francis B. Shearer, Colonel, Ord, Member.
John B. Routh, Lt Col, F.A., Recorder._


----------



## starling (Jul 3, 2008)

perhaps this is why allied tanks attempted to get in behind the mk6 tank.yours,starling.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> First here's an extract from tests on a Pzkpfw.V Panther, note the Sabot round is even having trouble against the armour of the Panther which is of much lower quality than that on the Tiger. In the following tests the 17pdr APCBC does just as well as the 17pdr Sabot round.
> 
> _*3. Nature of Test*
> a. The above ammunitions were fired at the front plate of three Panther tanks. The general characteristics of the frontal armour are: Glacis Plate 85mm (3.35") at 55º and Nose Plate 65mm (2.56") at 55º. using U.S. armor basis curve, the verticle equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36") and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47"). _


_

Due to the angle in this test the armour is thicker than that of the Tiger I - and it can also deflect some of the shots.



Soren said:



5. Findings
a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy. The board invites attention to the fact that its findings and conclusions apply only to the ammunition furnished it and may not apply to good quality 17pdr SABOT.

Click to expand...


As you know this was my point all along!

-to get back on track- APDS ammo accounted for only some 6% of brittish AT crews ammo - and as such - The Tiger I was in trouble when faced with 17pdrs. Indeed it was in trouble when faced with mostly any AT-guns of 43/44 vintage. The King Tiger gave back the glory days of the Tiger I - having practically inpenetrable armour as was the case for the Tiger I in 42/43. The same goes for the gun - the L56 was begining to have some problems by 44 (although not many!) - the L71 "cured" this completely._


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Now remember Daniel that I was talking about the 17pdr's APDS projectile, NOT the APCBC projectile. The APCBC projectile was effective against the Tiger Ausf.E way past 1,000y, while the APDS projectile would shatter on impact.
> 
> Wittmann's Tiger was supposedly taken out by a Firefly at 800m. (Although some claim it was detroyed by rockets fired from a Typhoon) Regardless the 17pdr was definately capable of punching through the Tiger Ausf.E's frontal armour at the range and much further.



Again - since only a small percentage of the AT crews ammo was APDS - then for all practical purposes the 17pdr was a threat to the Tiger I at 1000yds+ and didn't have to close to the ridiculous range you mentioned earlier. 
Even if they had used APDS ammo then the problem would not have been penetrating power but rather - like I said at first - :accuracy.


All in all - The arrangement of the Tiger I's armour was by early '44 making it a waste of resources when compared to the Panther and King Tiger. (probably why it was taken out of production!).

Still waiting for any kind of proof of 100mm of nonsloping armour shattering a 17pdr APDS round's tungsten carbide core....



Soren said:


> Daniel,
> 
> You don't understand I see.




 - didn't notice that part until now. You can skip the whole childish condescending part next time


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2008)

Daniel,

The report clearly states: 
_*The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC*_

As for the effectiveness of the Tiger Ausf.E's armour, you should read WWII Gunnery Ballistics by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird. The shatter gap problem is mentioned there.

Also you should read up on the importance of BHN and its effect on armour effectiveness against AP projectiles, as well as face hardening and the difference between cast and rolled homogeneous armour.



> Due to the angle in this test the armour is thicker than that of the Tiger I - and it can also deflect some of the shots.



That's not the point Daniel, the point is that the APDS fails to improve on penetration performance over the std. APCBC round! And so, like the board also concludes, what's the use of the round when it is also extremely inaccurate ?? 

Furthermore if you read Livingston Rexford's book you'll notice that the effectiveness of the APDS round decreases radpidly with any slope, as does it for the APCR HVAP rounds. 



> You can skip the whole childish condescending part next time



Never made any childish condescending remarks at all Daniel. So relax and leave be with the rollingeyes, ok?

Have a nice day.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2008)

During WW II, the phenomenon known as shatter gap resulted in hits with too much penetration failing to defeat the armor. 

The British noted this oddity in Libya and other North African areas, where rounds that could penetrate beyond 1000 yards would fail at shorter ranges, or hits would fail at short range and then start to penetrate further out. 

The theory on shatter gap is that when hits penetrate on half the hits at a given velocity (the basis for most penetration data), there are certain impact forces on the projectile nose. If the velocity is increased and the armor thickness is held constant, the round moves armor out of the way faster, which leads to increased inertial forces on the ammo nose. 

If the projectile nose is too soft, such that it absorbs much of the impact energy, the nose can shatter and break up. U.S. and Russian ammunition fell into the shatter gap nose hardness range (less than 59 Rockwell C). While British ammunition was harder than the threshold, some characteristic of the projectiles made it vulnerable to shatter gap. 

With regard to Tiger armor, shatter gap normally occurs when the armor thickness is close to, equal to or thicker than the projectile diameter. U.S. 76mm APCBC hits on Tiger armor would fall into this category. 

If 76mm APCBC hit the Tiger driver plate at 12° side angle, the resultant resistance would equal 109mm at 0°. With shatter gap, rounds fail when they have 1.05 to 1.25 times the armor resistance, which would result in M10 failures from point blank to 550 meters range, and then penetrate from 550m to 750m. 

On M10 hits against the Tiger side armor at 30° side angle, the resistance would equal 103mm at 0°, and M10 hits would be expected to fail from point blank to 800m, and then penetrate from 800m to 1000m. 

U.S. Navy tests during WW II against 3" armor at 30°, using 76mm APCBC, resulted in 50% penetration at about 2069 fps impact, and then the hits failed from 2073 fps through 2376 fps. 

Firing tests with 75mm APCBC did not appear to result in shatter gap failures, suggesting that impact velocities above 2000 fps would be required for nose failure. 

Prior to Normandy, the Americans calculated that their 76mm gun would be sufficient to stop Panthers and Tigers, since the 100mm frontal armor on those panzers could theoretically be penetrated to 1250m by M10's and 76mm armed Shermans. Shatter gap may be responsible, in part, for the sorry showing of those guns in France against heavy German armor.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2008)

According to Jentz (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.), "The Tiger's armor was invulnerable to attack from most tank guns firing normal armor-piercing shells or shot at ranges over 800 meters, including the American 75 mm and the Russian 76 mm. It is obvious that the 17-pdr. firing normal APCBC rounds could defeat the frontal armor of the Tiger I at most combat ranges for tank vs. tank actions in Europe. However, by 23 June 1944, only 109 Shermans with 17-pdrs. had landed in France along with six replacements. By the end of the war, on 5 May 1945, the British 21st Army Group possessed 1,235 Sherman tanks with 17-pdrs., while the remaining 1,915 Sherman tanks were all equipped with the 75 mm M3 gun". 

The Tiger I armor could take a lot of punishment, as can be seen by the number of hits taken by Tiger 312. One of the Tigers from 2.Kompanie, sPzAbt.504, lost in the first days following the Allied landings on Tunisia on 10 July 1943. 

The armor of the Tiger I was not well sloped, but it was thick. Here is where many fail to understand that, in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness was a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor.

The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of around 255-280 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for the corresponding thickness level of the Tiger's armor, by WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. About this issue, and according to Thomas L. Jentz, "there is no proof that substandard german armour plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war" (JENTZ, Thomas L. Germany's TIGER Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production Modifications).

Moreover, in the same reference book, Jentz presents the data from a British testing of the Tiger's armor protection by firing different guns against it. The tests were realized in a place beside the the main road from Beja to to Sidi N'sir in Tunisia, on May 19, 1943. The reports from these tests stated that the resistance of the Tiger's armor was "considerably higher than that of the British machineable quality armor. The side armor, with a thickness of 82 mm (nominal thickness was 80 mm) had a resistance equivalent of 92 mm of British armor" (Jentz, op cit, page 15). However, a little further, when addressing directly the issue of the Tiger's armor quality, the report states that "The armor plates (with exception of the hull roof plates) did not show any marked tendency to brittleness, and their behavior generally was not unlike British mechineable plates. The following table gives a list of Poldi hardness, corrected to Brinell figures, taken at the surface of the armor".

Armor Nominal Thickness Brinell Hardness No. 
Turret Roof 25 mm 290 
Hull Roof 25 mm 335 
Glacis 60 mm 265 
Hull Sides 60 mm 265 
Turret Sides 80 mm 255 
Superstructure 80 mm 260-255 
Hull Rear 80 mm 255 
Driver's Front Plate 100 mm 265 
Hull Front 100 mm 265 
Mantlet 100-200 mm 280 
NOTE: Actually, the Tiger I chassis Nbr. 250570, object of the trials, was assembled in early October 1943, and its armor would have been rolled, cut, hardened, and welded together at least three months earlier - that is, before July 1943. 

The Tiger, as a result of it's intrinsic doctrinal mission - that is, to effect a breakthrough and to support medium tanks, during the breakthrough, by destroying enemy tanks - was, production-wise, a very expensive and resource consuming tank. The nominal cost of a Tiger was 250,800 Reichsmarks. In contrast, a PzKpfw III Ausf. M cost RM 103,163, a PzKpfw IV Ausf. G RM 115,962, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,100; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios. However, the final cost of the Tiger's production was even higher - 299,800 Reichsmarks (Source: HAHN, Fritz. Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1943 Band 1 Band 2. Koblenz : Bernard Graefe Verlag, 1987, in Christian Ankerstjerne's Panzerworld web site. Accessed in June 21, 2007).

Christopher W. Wilbeck, in "Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Heavy Tank Battalions in World War II", citing the Tigerfibel (the Tiger's manual), states that the final cost of the Tiger's production was much higher - 800,000 Reichsmarks - and 300,000 man-hours were required to produce one single Tiger. The Tigerfibel , in view of making those numbers more personal to the Tiger crewmen, stated that it was required one week of hard work from 6,000 people to produce one Tiger. It also stated that 800,000 Reichsmarks figure was equivalent to the weekly wages for 30,000 people.


The frontal vertical plating was massive enough to withstand virtually anything. Tiger I disabled by a side penetration that hit the engine and caused the suspension to collapse. 

Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affected allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.

Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect.

As a general rule, BHN (Brinell Hardness Index) effects, shot shatter, and obliquity effects are related to the ratio between shot diameter and plate thickness. The relationship is complex, but a larger projectile hitting relatively thinner plate will usually have the advantage. There is an optimum BHN level for every shot vs plate confrontation, usually in the 260-300 BHN range for World War Two situations. Below that, the armor is too soft and resists poorly, above that, the armor is too hard and therefore too brittle.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 4, 2008)

The Panther for me, but not in poll(or am I blind, me wife drove over my glasses yesterday)

Achtung Panzer! - Panther


Here is body on my [WIP] Halinski Panther












edd


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2008)

Parsifal when you copy from another place you should always use quotation marks (""). Otherwise good article.

Now about t/d, well it doesn't have as large an effect as implied, and the reason US 76mm APCBC projectiles shattered was entirely due to being either too soft or too brittle, neither is good. It had nothing to do with the t/d ratio.

The t/d ratio theory originates from the early 1800's IIRC, and was concieved by a frenchman who's name now escapes me. It was developed for the round shots of the time and is really very obsolete when it comes to predicting the penetrative performance of 20th century AP projectiles. Also as we know the general rule of thumb when it comes to armour penetration is that you want to concentrate as much power to as small an area as possible (Within reason), which is why arrow head SABOT rounds are the std. AP round for use against armour today. However as noted in the article the quality of the projectile itself is of very high importance as well, as if its either too soft or too brittle it'll simply shatter on impact. For this reason the Germans the Allies generally tended to face harden their AP rounds to some 400-450 BHN with the underlying metal core being around 300+ BHN, IIRC.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> Never made any childish condescending remarks at all Daniel. So relax and leave be with the rollingeyes, ok?




Nice to see you edited out the "cant you read?" remark and your own roll eyes. Which kindof contradicts that statement...

Anyway - yes I can read and what I read is "equal or slightly better" - not "useless penetration power when compared to APCBC" as you said.
Just to get this straight: Your primary point maaany posts ago was "17pdrs firing APDS where totally incapable of penetrating the armour of the Tiger due to the shatter effect". This has not been backed sofar. In any event the 17pdrs didn't use many APDS rounds - so its a bit redundant to discuss it. As I also mentioned just after that - I would not prefer WW2 models of APDS - because of their lack of accuracy caused by what i mentioned earlier. But - *my* point in all this bickering is that the Tiger I was no longer "invunerable" to AT fire in the latter half of 43 and onwards - thus not being as usefull for its main (official) purpose - namely breakthrough. The King Tiger restored this capability (plus all the things about the gun... bla-bla repeating myself  ).

And thanks a bunch for the article/book qoute Parsifal  - very informative


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> you'll notice that the effectiveness of the APDS round decreases radpidly with any slope, as does it for the APCR HVAP rounds.



Which makes the test you bring forward kindof irrelevant as the Tiger had nonsloping armour.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 4, 2008)

eddie_brunette said:


> The Panther for me, but not in poll(or am I blind, me wife drove over my glasses yesterday)



damn - hope ya got some new ones. Contacts ftw  and no the Panther is not there as it was a medium tank. True that its weight might suggest otherwise but its inteded use was as a main battle tank of the panzer divisions not breakthrough/heavy infantry support. Which in my mind rules it out as a heavy tank.


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2008)

Daniel,

Here's what you said:
_"The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44"_

Which I'm afraid just isn't the case. The 17pdr was the only gun available to the Allies which was capable of taking on the Tiger at sane ranges and then have a hope of surviving. The US 76mm guns proved completely incapable, and so did the Soviet 76 85mm gun. Heck like I said even the 122mm D-25T sometimes had troubles against the Tiger's armour, and at ranges as close as 500m. The IS-2 below was knocked out after having fired an AP round at the Tiger Ausf.E which hit the front glacis and bounced off, after which the Tiger sent an 88mm APCBC projectile straight through the IS-2's turret front:


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Nice to see you edited out the "cant you read?" remark and your own roll eyes. Which kindof contradicts that statement...



Well can you ? Cause you seem to be forgetting your own words otherwise.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well can you ? Cause you seem to be forgetting your own words otherwise.



Dude... again... please stop that s***. To answer your rude questioning: please explain the significant difference between:

A.)"The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44".

B.) "The Tiger I was no longer "invunerable" to AT fire in the latter half of 43 and onwards"

 

Anyway... moving on

"122mm soviet AT-gun unable to defeat a tiger at 500 meters" you say? Yea - sure it probably happened once or maybe twice due to point of impact and other conditions on the battlefield. But the odds of it happening more than once or twice....?

Guns able to defeat the Tiger E due to armour penetration under normal combat conditions/ranges from late '43:

British: 17pdr
American: 17 pdr
Russian: 
85mm (although (as you mentioned) problems where encountered against frontal armour at long and even medium range).
100mm
122mm
152mm (ISUs)

Guns able to defeat the King Tiger due to armour penetration under normal conditions/ranges from time of introduction to wars end:

Brittish: none
American: none
Russian: the 100 and 122 might have a chance against the side armour (maybe the 152 ISUs could even penetrate frontal armour - haven't done the math or examined any combat records - so no idea on that except a gut fealing that the sheer energy released on impact would in many cases damage the tank in other ways even if the shot wouldn't penetrate the armour).


In '42/early '43 the Tiger E had no "armour penetration enemies" on the battlefield - however - as seen above this changed dramatically in late '43. When introduced in '44 The King Tiger enjoyed all the benefits that the Tiger E had in its earlier days. 

The concept of "heavy tanks" was pretty much abandoned after WW2 as MBT's were evolved. And as such the King Tiger is in my opinion the best heavy tank to ever have seen action. Don't get me wrong: Other choices are fine and well and maybe also better choices due to other ways of judging the tank (time of service, impact on war, personal linkings and so on...). But the Tiger E and King Tiger are much more subjected to comparison than the other choices since one replaced the other. I believe that the relative weakness of the armour and gun of the Ausf E outweighs the benefits of its slightly better reliability when compared to the Ausf B.


----------



## starling (Jul 6, 2008)

these comparisons are all well and good ladies and gents,but in war all this stops,does it not.i have read of the js tanks 122mm rounds simply knocking the turret off tigers,sheer kinetic energy apparently.and also achillies t.d,s killing king tigers in normandy.the german mk4,5 or6,did not have it all their own way,as some people and authors have said.yours,starling.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2008)

Soren, Daniel

If you too can not keep is civil, the thread will be closed...


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 6, 2008)

starling said:


> these comparisons are all well and good ladies and gents,but in war all this stops,does it not.i have read of the js tanks 122mm rounds simply knocking the turret off tigers,sheer kinetic energy apparently.and also achillies t.d,s killing king tigers in normandy.the german mk4,5 or6,did not have it all their own way,as some people and authors have said.yours,starling.



Too true. The Tigers always runs away with the attention: It really shows how effective german propaganda was (and ofcourse how quickly rumours spread on the battlefield) that some 2000 (never more than 300 operational at the same time - usually app.150) tanks have made such a stir even to this day. But I dont think anybody have claimed that they had it all.
To my knowledge all the King Tigers in normandy where taken out by typhoons or other aircraft (but im far from sure)... Do you have any additional info on that Sterling? Have tried to find info on the battles in which King Tigers took part in Normandy for a looong time - never managed...

Adler - ofcourse. However if people are rude to me I find it hard not to "retaliate" - human nature i think...


----------



## parsifal (Jul 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Parsifal when you copy from another place you should always use quotation marks (""). Otherwise good article.




I couldnt quote completely for two reasons, firstly, I have taken the quote from a third secondary source (the original source material - jentz,- is adequately credited), and secondly there are some comments of my own in the text. it is not a direct quote of the source mateial as a result of that.

I thought that i made it clear enough that this is not my own material.

I should also say that Shatter Gap is not a phenomena that happens with every round fired, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesnt. Also, ther is a real risk that there may be a scab effect in the interior of the tank, with some armour flakes detaching and having a shrapnell effect on the inside of the tank.

However, as a general comment, the armouring scheme of the tiger (I II) was very effective


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 7, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> damn - hope ya got some new ones. Contacts ftw  and no the Panther is not there as it was a medium tank. True that its weight might suggest otherwise but its inteded use was as a main battle tank of the panzer divisions not breakthrough/heavy infantry support. Which in my mind rules it out as a heavy tank.



Aaahhhh, thank you. My limited knowledge on tanks is showing    

WW2 Tanks is a relative new subject for me


Edd


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 7, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> But - *my* point in all this bickering is that the Tiger I was no longer "invunerable" to AT fire in the latter half of 43 and onwards - thus not being as usefull for its main (official) purpose - namely breakthrough.



I agree with the first part but not the seocond part; no tanks at no point of the war were 'invulnerable' to AT means. Some were very difficult to destroy. While the 17 pdr was a valid threat to the Tiger, until there were far too few 17pdr AT guns around and the bulk was still 6 pdrs (ie. much into 1944), the Tiger I was certainly useful in its roles.


----------



## starling (Jul 7, 2008)

danial,check on ww2talk,i believe you will find lots of info in there.starling.


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2008)

The Soviet 85mm gun was less effective than the US 76mm gun, so how on earth do you rate that as a gun effective against the Tiger Ausf.E Daniel ??!

If you want to know how effective the Soviet 85mm gun was against slightly softer 240 BHN RHA armour (Tiger: 255-265 BHN) at vertical impact angle here are the results achieved at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA (From Robert D. Livingston Lorrin Rexford Bird's book: _WW2 armour ballistics_):

Ranges (m): 100/250/500/750/1,000/1,250/1,500/2,000/2,500/3,000.






Furthermore how many 100mm 122mm guns were available to the Soviets in 1943 ?? Not many. The ones they had plenty of were low velocity howitzers which were completely inadequate for the role.

Furthermore the ISU-152's 152mm gun wasn't a very effective AT gun, but against a Tiger Ausf.E it would do at up to slightly more than 1,000 meters. Against the Tiger Ausf.B, the the gun was useless in frontal engagements.

Furthermore you overrate the Tiger Ausf.B's side armour protection, remember it was no thicker on the sides than the Tiger Ausf.E and it featured very little slope on the sides, making its broadside as vulnerable as the Tiger Ausf.E's.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 7, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> I agree with the first part but not the seocond part; no tanks at no point of the war were 'invulnerable' to AT means. Some were very difficult to destroy. While the 17 pdr was a valid threat to the Tiger, until there were far too few 17pdr AT guns around and the bulk was still 6 pdrs (ie. much into 1944), the Tiger I was certainly useful in its roles.



Ofcourse - no doubt it was usefull! But if the allies where picking up intel (which they often did) on a German attempted breakthrough they would have the means to deploy guns to take it out frontally - there was few and far between the Tigers so a constant screen of heavy AT guns was not paramount (however preferable). And as far as invunerable goes - ofcourse no tank ever is (aaargh I must start being more precise instead of using brackets and just hoping ppl know what i mean  ).


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Soviet 85mm gun was less effective than the US 76mm gun, so how on earth do you rate that as a gun effective against the Tiger Ausf.E Daniel ??!
> 
> If you want to know how effective the Soviet 85mm gun was against slightly softer 240 BHN RHA armour (Tiger: 255-265 BHN) at vertical impact angle here are the results achieved at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA (From Robert D. Livingston Lorrin Rexford Bird's book: _WW2 armour ballistics_):
> 
> ...




Regarding the 85mm - 
your data does not show the preformance of the APCR rounds. The BR-365P would penetrate 110mm of armour at 1000mtrs. But even the regular APBC almost did this as your stats also show.

Regarding the 85mm vs. 76mm - 
Variations of ammunition meant that the 76mm would penetrate 88-92mm armour at 1000 meters
The 85mm was able to penetrate just around 94-110mm at this range.

Regarding rarity of weapons - 

Fisrtly - i only pointed out that the tiger E was in trouble from *late* 1943 - I made it very clear that in '42 to late '43 it was more than adequate.

............1942...1943...1944....1945
SU-122....25.....630......493...1,148 
SU-85.............750....1,300...2,050 
SU-100...........500....1,175...1,675 
SU-152 ..........704 
ISU-122/152.....35.....2,510....1,530 
IS-2...............102....2,252....1,500 

The *above* stats are taken from that mother of inaccuracy - wiki  - but im far from home atm and can't access my own books on soviet production. But as far as my memory serves me these numbers are right. Couldn't find anything on AT-gun production right now - but the numbers on these must be quite a bit larger than those above

...........................1942...1943...1944.....1945
17 pdr AT Guns.......699....3,558...1,641......? 
17 pdr Tank Guns.......2....259......3,789...1,139 

(from the 17pdr handbook)

All in all - not as many as the "seriously" churned out shermans and T-34's. But still enough to not be rare (from a german standpoint) when faced with the odd 1300 produced tigers.

Regarding Soviet 152's -
Like I said: The sheer mass of the projectile begins to do damage even without armour penetration - i.e. turrets knocked of or disabled, massive internal damage and so on.

Regarding side armour of Ausf E&B -
Ausf B:
Turret side: 80 mm @ 69° (Porsche turret: 80 mm @ 60°) 
Hull side, lower: 80 mm @ 90°; upper: 80 mm @ 65°

Ausf E:
Turret side: 80mm @ 90° 
Hull side, lower: 60mm @ 90°; upper: 80mm @ 90° 

Ausf B's armour protection increase when recieving fire from 90°:
Hull side lower: +25%
Hull side upper: +15%
Henschel turret side: +11%
Porsche turret side: +20%
(rough estimates)

So vunerable when faced with high calibre flanking AT fire? - as I said before: yes
But just as vunerable as the Ausf E? - no


----------



## parsifal (Jul 7, 2008)

With regard to the 17 pounder debate, as well as the ammunition issue, I would refer people to the following site. 

ANTI-TANK

It has two salient points to make, IMO. The distribution of 6pounder/17 pounders in the late war British Infantry formations, and secondly the effectiveness and issue of the various ammunition types, and why

Distribution of ATGs to Inf Divs

"By September 1943 the official position for European Theatres was:

Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 6-pdr and 4 × 17-pdr in 3 troops. 
Regiments in armoured division - 2 batteries each of 12 × 6-pdr, and 2 batteries each of 12 × M10 in 3 troops. 
Corps regiments - as for armoured divisions. 
At the beginning of 1944 the official WEs permitted divisional anti-tank regiments to comprise 4 batteries each with 8 × 6-pdr and 4 × 17-pdr, or 2 batteries with 12 × 6-pdr and 2 with 12 × M10, or 4 batteries each with 8 × 6-pdr and 4 × M10.

However, there was considerable dissatisfaction with these organisations, what was wanted, and was duly agreed and approved was:

Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 17-pdr and 4 × 6-pdr in 3 troops. 
Regiments in armoured division - 2 batteries, each 12 × 17-pdr, and 2 batteries each 12 × M10 in 3 troops. 
Corps regiments - as for armoured divisions. 
The following month a specialised anti-tank battery organisation was approved for 'assault' units (meaning amphibious assaults). These batteries had 2 troops of 6-pdr and 1 of M10. The reason for this was the policy that only tracked vehicles would cross the beaches for the first 8 hours of a landing. However, in August 1944 experience in Normandy led to a revised organisation for batteries in infantry divisions, a merging of the 'normal' and 'assault' organisations. Batteries became 1 troop 6-pdr, 1 troop towed 17-pdr, 1 troop SP 17-pdr to provide an effective mix of capability reflecting strengths and weaknesses of the various guns.

Starting in 1943 infantry type divisions in India had a composite LAA/ATk regiment instead of one regiment of each as in western theatres, although most divisions in India had never had an LAA regiment and a LAA/ATk regiment had been formed a year earlier, possibly for the Indian armoured division. These regiments were generally formed by a pair of LAA and anti-tank regiments exchanging two batteries. They lasted until September 1944 when all the LAA/ATk regiments in 14 Army became anti-tank regiments with 3 batteries, dual equipped with a 6-pdr anti-tank gun and 3-inch mortar for each of their 36 detachments.

Anti-tank was the one area of artillery organisation where there was national diversity. By the end of the war Canada had two types of anti-tank regiment, corps and armoured division regiments had 48 guns 50:50 towed and SP 17-pdr, but infantry division regiments had only 36 guns, still 50:50. Australia retained the 48 gun regiments, all 6-pdr, for the home defence divisions, but the jungle divisions were reduced to a single battery from a corps anti-tank regiment. All Australian anti-tank regiments were renamed 'Tank Attack Regiments' in 1943. In the final year of the war the AIF divisions' retained their tank attack regiments but anti-tank was little used and Australian batteries employed 4.2-inch mortars, 75-mm howitzers and acted as infantry." 

Effectiveness Of ATG guns and ammunition

"Most British anti-tank ammunition during WW2 was solid shot, which relied on kinetic energy to penetrate armour. KE is the product of the mass and velocity of the shot. However, soon after WW1 an armour piercing HE shell had been developed for the 18-pdr field gun (such shells had been common for naval guns), and the original design of 25-pdr ammunition had been for an armour piercing cap for 25-pdr HE, this design was unsuccessful. Later in the WW2 a shaped charge (HEAT) shell was developed and issued to 3.7-inch Howitzers in Burma, although in the event it was never needed. HEAT was also used with the PIAT. To these can be added work on recoilless guns, including the 4.7-inch anti-tank using HESH that led to the post-war 120-mm BAT family, during the war the size of its ammunition and its logistic implications found little favour. 

Wartime developments in anti-tank (and tank) gun ammunition addressed two matters, improving penetration of shot and flashless propellant.

At the outbreak of war the standard anti-tank ammunition was a solid armour piercing (AP) shot fitted with a tracer. Throughout the war anti-tank guns used fixed ammunition (ie the cartridge and shot were a single fixed item, unlike other artillery ammunition). Improvement to the penetrative capability of AP shot went through 5 stages:

Fitting a special cap to the nose to prevent it shattering at oblique impact angles, called Armour Piercing Capped (APC). 
Fitting a streamlined ballistic cap over the AP, this reduced in-flight loss of velocity and increased penetration. It was called Armour Piercing Ballistic Capped (APBC) 
Combining APC and APBC as APCBC. This entered production for 2-pdr in February 1943, for 6-pdr in April and for 17-pdr in August of that year. 
Using a solid alloy body, highly tapered in shape, around a tungsten steel core, Armour Piercing Composite Rigid (APCR) was introduced very briefly for 6-pdr, and does not seem to have ever reached units in action. 
In the summer of 1944 discarding sabot shot (APDS) was introduced. This was a tungsten carbide sub-calibre core in a light metal casing that fell apart and dropped away from the core when in left the muzzle. 
APDS provided better penetration than APCBC but the latter did greater damage when it penetrated so both were used with APDS being used when penetration by APCBC was less than certain. In addition there were practice projectiles (PP) for all calibres. These were generally reduced in lethality and range. AP shot was available for 40-mm Bofors LAA guns throughout the war. However, HE was useful, during the first German attack on Tobruk the first rounds fired at tanks by 25-pdr were HE. The first caused a Pz KfW Mk IV to catch fire, with the second another tank lost its turret.

The following table summarise the main characteristics of anti-tank ammunition, most were fitted with tracers and there were also practice rounds for each calibre. The penetration figures are for standard tests and should be viewed in terms of their relativity and not actual penetration of tank armour."

Summary of Anti-Tank Shot Characteristics

Ammunition
Calibre
500 yds, 30°
1000 yds, 30°

2-pdr AP
53 mm 
42 mm 

6-pdr Mk II AP
75 mm 
63 mm 

6-pdr Mk II APC
88 mm 

6-pdr Mk II APCBC
95 mm 

6-pdr Mk IV AP
74 mm 

6-pdr Mk IV APC
Unknown 

6-pdr Mk IV APCBC
Unknown 


6-pdr Mk IV APCR
100 mm 

6-pdr Mk IV APDS
143 mm 

17-pdr AP
123 mm 
113 mm 

17-pdr APC
118 mm 

17-pdr APCBC
Unknown, not stated 



17-pdr APDS
231 mm 

25-pdr Mk 2 AP
62 mm


----------



## starling (Jul 8, 2008)

there seems 2 b a lot of ...unknown..stated there,on important ammunition,does it not.yours,starling. .


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

Tiger is my machine; IS-2 is good but crude, while Tiger II is a tank in denial.


----------



## Doughboy (May 24, 2009)

Tiger II...That 88MM gun sure could kick rear.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (May 25, 2009)

Now I see why the Mods have to ban people from time to time...as Shakespeare said 'Much ado about Nothing"

(I wonder if someone will flame me just for THAT...) 

I think I'll start a new thread on the lines of my previous ones on WWII Aircraft design. Then all you guys can put you engineering expertise to work!


----------



## Doughboy (May 25, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Now I see why the Mods have to ban people from time to time...as Shakespeare said 'Much ado about Nothing"
> 
> (I wonder if someone will flame me just for THAT...)
> 
> I think I'll start a new thread on the lines of my previous ones on WWII Aircraft design. Then all you guys can put you engineering expertise to work!


Is that an attack on me because I said "That 88MM gun sure could kick rear"????


----------



## Burmese Bandit (May 25, 2009)

Sheesh! Siome people are MIGHTY sensitive!

Short answer. NO.


----------



## Doughboy (May 25, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Sheesh! Siome people are MIGHTY sensitive!
> 
> Short answer. NO.


Okay. I posted this"Tiger II...That 88MM gun sure could kick rear. " and then you said this"Now I see why the Mods have to ban people from time to time" I thought you were saying I should be banned for that.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (May 25, 2009)

Oh I see. No, I was referring to the almost flamefest between two other posters - heck, I think it was actually more like a three or four way dogfight - several posts above. 

Plus the fact that I've been away from the forums for a long time and when i come back i see guys getting banned left and right, and weirdos or bots posting crazy things and the poor mods running around killing one bot or human spammer after another...


----------



## Gnomey (May 25, 2009)

Doughboy, you do need a thicker skin, not every post that has angst in it is directed at you. Just because it is below you doesn't mean they are talking about you. You shouldn't care too much about what people say about you on the internet as it doesn't mean anything. 

BB people have differing opinions and will never get on, just get used to it, not everyone is going to have an argument in flowery Shakespearean English.


----------



## Doughboy (May 25, 2009)

Gnomey said:


> Doughboy, you do need a thicker skin, not every post that has angst in it is directed at you. Just because it is below you doesn't mean they are talking about you. You shouldn't care too much about what people say about you on the internet as it doesn't mean anything.
> 
> BB people have differing opinions and will never get on, just get used to it, not everyone is going to have an argument in flowery Shakespearean English.


Okay.

Sorry BB.


----------



## Stitch (May 26, 2009)

Soren got banned AGAIN? What did he do this time?


----------



## Doughboy (May 26, 2009)

Stitch said:


> Soren got banned AGAIN? What did he do this time?


Not sure.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

I was too biased I was told, so the mystery is now solved.

Anyway my vote goes for the Tiger Ausf.B ofcourse, no mystery there.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> I was too biased I was told, so the mystery is now solved.
> 
> Anyway my vote goes for the Tiger Ausf.B ofcourse, no mystery there.


I see.... You just got a vacation...You didn't get banned.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

That's what they call it alright.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 7, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I see.... You just got a vacation...You didn't get banned.



LOL!

Hey, Soren, I'm with you on this one; the Ausf. E was nice, the Ausf. B was even better! Many authorities considerer the KwK 43 to be the best tank gun of the War.

P.S. For those of you who care (not many, I know), I've just started work on a Tamiya 1/25th scale Tiger I Ausf. E; I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 7, 2009)

LOL! 


I'm sorry....I meant to say you were only banned for 2 weeks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> I was too biased I was told, so the mystery is now solved.



That was only the tip of the iceberg and *you* know it. So move on and post in a decent matter, or the next vacation will be permanent...


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2009)

Then my innocent starbucks joke indeed was the primary reason for the ban ? I see.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2009)

There you go again. Didn't I say move on? Do you want to push this further? It will be permanent next time, that I promise...


----------



## puckett (Aug 19, 2014)

the big German tigers are # 1.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2014)

As a piece of military engineering, the tiger was a marvel. as a practical piece of military hardware it was an unmitigated disaster. The problem was its relative cost, short range, and at times mechanical unreliability. Tiger II losses during the ardennes is revealing. The battalion that attacked through Stavelot against the American positions there crossed the border with 45 Tigers on strength. After three days, the unit was down to 20 effectives, and by the end of the campaign the crews walked out of belgium with not a tank in their possession. Most had simiply ran out of fuel, but many had also broken down and were forced to be either abandoned, or destroyed by their own crews. During Kursk, only about 3 out of the 100 or so tiger Is committed were destroyed during the main battles, yet by the end of the month, not a one of that 100 tanks remained in german hands. The Germans found themselves overwhelmed by the flood of Soviet tanks, and the Soviets had numbers on their side because their tanks were built to a budget, as were the Allied Shermans. The Allies could afford huge losses, and keep on fighting with undiminshed power, whereas each tiger lost represented a near irreplaceable loss for the germans and a significant loss of capability.

Where the tiger excelled were in the long retreats the germans were forced to undertake in the last half of the war. A single tiger took up an enormous allocation of resources to bring down and could hold up an advance for many hours or days. As a nuisance weapon, able to pick off individual tanks at distance, the tiger was a supreme weapon system. as a war winning, game changing weapon, not a chance. Too expensive, too immobile too unreliable, but above all, too few in number

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2014)

As a piece of military engineering, the tiger was a marvel. as a practical piece of military hardware it was an unmitigated disaster. The problem was its relative cost, short range, and at times mechanical unreliability. Tiger II losses during the ardennes is revealing. The battalion that attacked through Stavelot against the American positions there crossed the border with 45 Tigers on strength. After three days, the unit was down to 20 effectives, and by the end of the campaign the crews walked out of belgium with not a tank in their possession. Most had simiply ran out of fuel, but many had also broken down and were forced to be either abandoned, or destroyed by their own crews. During Kursk, only about 3 out of the 100 or so tiger Is committed were destroyed during the main battles, yet by the end of the month, not a one of that 100 tanks remained in german hands. The Germans found themselves overwhelmed by the flood of Soviet tanks, and the Soviets had numbers on their side because their tanks were built to a budget, as were the Allied Shermans. The Allies could afford huge losses, and keep on fighting with undiminshed power, whereas each tiger lost represented a near irreplaceable loss for the germans and a significant loss of capability.

Where the tiger excelled were in the long retreats the germans were forced to undertake in the last half of the war. A single tiger took up an enormous allocation of resources to bring down and could hold up an advance for many hours or days. As a nuisance weapon, able to pick off individual tanks at distance, the tiger was a supreme weapon system. as a war winning, game changing weapon, not a chance. Too expensive, too immobile too unreliable, but above all, too few in number

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MildExplosion (Feb 22, 2016)

The Tigers, while they looked spectacular on paper, were difficult to maintain IRL, and had several major technical flaws.

My vote goes to the Char B1, in 1940 the Germans did not have a single tank capable of frontally penetrating it, and had to rely on larger antitank guns and air support.


----------

