# USA and DDR penetration about D25T gun



## TempestMKV (Nov 24, 2008)

Very interesting difference between these two resources.

USA data from test on aberdeen.
DDR data from archives.

It is obvious that the ballistic coefficiency (BC) of D25T AP shell (BR471) is lower than that of APBC shell(BR471B).
Both USA and DDR resource have proved this, however, the DDR data tells us that AP and APBC shell's penetration are almost the same at 100 meters (160mm v 158mm,ratio is 101.3%) while USA data demostrates APBC has more penetration at 100meters(206mm v 192mm,ratio is 107.3%).

What's the problem?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2008)

EDIT. 

I notice that the docs you provided list penetration values as against vertical armour. Interesting.

The difference probably stems from the harder armour the Germans were using for the tests, 250 BHN vs 240 BHN RHA plates.


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2008)

But as can be seen the 122mm D25T wasn't a very good AT gun, its' performance was close to that of the 75mm KwK42 L/70 on the Panther while being much heavier and much much slower to reload. In short the D25T was more of an anti personnel weapon than an anti tank weapon. 

The Soviets should've concentrated more on their 100mm D-10 AT gun, which was an able design in the AT role, featuring better performance than the 122mm D25T while being lighter and faster to reload.


----------



## Glider (Nov 24, 2008)

I admit that I am not suprised, after all the 122mm D25 was a modified version of the 122mm A19 field gun, whilst the 75L70 was designed for the AT role.
To say that it wasn't a good AT gun when it was roughly equal to the 75L70 is a little harsh, as the L70 was an excellent AT gun.

Many a British or American tanker would have settled for the 'poor' performance of the 122mm over the 75mm or 57mm.


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2008)

Glider, keep in mind that it is only the 122mm D25T's penetrative performance which is equal to that of the 75mm KwK42, in terms of accuracy, reload rate overall weight the KwK42 is far superior, and all three aspects are what make a good AT gun. 

In short the 122mm wasn't a good AT gun, it was infact pretty miserable, cause although it did pack a punch you had to make absolutely sure to hit with your first round as the reload time was extremely slow, which alone was hard enough with the poor optics in Soviet tanks.


----------



## Glider (Nov 24, 2008)

I am aware of that but maintain that the British and US Tankers would happily swap a poor 122 with a chance of knocking out the larger German tanks, than a 75 or 57 with no chance.


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> EDIT.
> 
> I notice that the docs you provided list penetration values as against vertical armour. Interesting.
> 
> The difference probably stems from the harder armour the Germans were using for the tests, 250 BHN vs 240 BHN RHA plates.



This is russian resource of APBC shell. Note that penetration comparation between 100m vs 2000m is 212mm: 152mm,ratio is 139%,while DDR corresponding ratio is 136%( APBC,160mm:118mm) ,but USA test's ratio is 160%(206mm vs 129mm). 

USA test [email protected] penetration is 129mm, am I right? Or 144mm?


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> But as can be seen the 122mm D25T wasn't a very good AT gun, its' performance was close to that of the 75mm KwK42 L/70 on the Panther while being much heavier and much much slower to reload. In short the D25T was more of an anti personnel weapon than an anti tank weapon.
> 
> The Soviets should've concentrated more on their 100mm D-10 AT gun, which was an able design in the AT role, featuring better performance than the 122mm D25T while being lighter and faster to reload.



USSR had Su100 in WWII, so needn't JS-100.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

Tempest, 

The point is that if the Soviets wanted a tank effective in tank vs tank combat then they should've chosen the 100mm D-10T as the main armament instead of the 122mm D-25T. And since all their tanks were at a serious disadvantage compared to German tanks when it came to firepower then they should've concentrated on the 100mm D-10T. 

That they built a tank destroyer with the gun (D10T) doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake not putting it on their battle tanks, cause on the battlefield the rotatable turret on a battle tank gives it a huge advantage over any SPG.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> This is russian resource of APBC shell. Note that penetration comparation between 100m vs 2000m is 212mm: 152mm,ratio is 139%,while DDR corresponding ratio is 136%( APBC,160mm:118mm) ,but USA test's ratio is 160%(206mm vs 129mm).



First of all the Soviets never were too thurough when it came to tests, and secondly the test plates the Soviets used were of pretty poor quality, which woud explain the difference.




> USA test [email protected] penetration is 129mm, am I right? Or 144mm?



At 2000m, with the APBC round, the D25T penetrated on average 129mm of vertical 240 BHN RHA armour in US tests at the Aberdeen proving grounds.


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> First of all the Soviets never were too thurough when it came to tests, and secondly the test plates the Soviets used were of pretty poor quality, which woud explain the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anyway, DDR data and USA test conflict each other.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

Yes cause the US tests were likely done against higher quality plates (Seeing that the DDR only had access to Soviet test plates which often were of dubious quality). Furthermore, seeing that the tests were run in the 60's, they might have been using newer type AP projectiles with better penetrative performance than those used during WW2.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 13, 2010)

Soren



> 12.2cm D-25T L/43
> 
> Projectile weight: 25 kg BR-471B APC
> Sectional Density: 1.679
> ...



Are you sure its a BR-471B? This type was described as APBC. Performance should be similar to 100mm. By the way, I think BR-412D is APCBC.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2010)

Soren said:


> First of all the Soviets never were too thurough when it came to tests, and secondly the test plates the Soviets used were of pretty poor quality, which woud explain the difference.
> ...



Soren
While I do found you posts worth reading, stating that Soviets were "never were too thurough when it came to tests" is silly, to say at least.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Soren
> While I do found you posts worth reading, stating that Soviets were "never were too thurough when it came to tests" is silly, to say at least.



No not really tomo, that's sadly just how it was, and their tests with German tanks stand as firm testamonies to this.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 13, 2010)

> No not really tomo, that's sadly just how it was, and their tests with German tanks stand as firm testamonies to this.



Can you be more specific?


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

Well take their tests against a captured Tiger Ausf.B, they started out by taking the thing apart removing the gun, tracks etc etc... and then they fired loads of 7.62cm, 8.5cm 15.2cm shells at the thing, after which they fired the 12.2cm D-25T 10cm D-10 gun at it. From this they concluded that the 12.2cm gun would be effective against the Tiger's glacis plate cause large pieces of armour cracked and fell off. They somehow ignored the fact that they prior to firing the 12.2cm 10cm guns had fired numerous (over 20) 7.62, 8.5 15.2 cm shell at the glacis, greatly weakening the structure. 

They didn't do like other nations such as Germany, US UK did, which was pick a couple of guns they assumed could maybe penetrate the armour to begin with and then fire them one by one at the tank. No they chose to hammer the thing with a multitude of different caliber guns until the thing was ready to fall apart, and THEN they started firing their most powerful guns at it, the very guns which performance needed to be tested against the tank the most. Not a very thurough test if you ask me.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 13, 2010)

Soren said:


> Well take their tests against a captured Tiger Ausf.B, they started out by taking the thing apart removing the gun, tracks etc etc..



This is normal practice. Lots of stuff is taken away for proper technical examination. See here how another monster was stripped down.

















Soren said:


> They didn't do like other nations such as Germany, US UK did,



Look on page 20 of Jentz Tiger I&II, Combat Tactics. I see one British test hit on a Tiger that is numbered 114.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 13, 2010)




----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

Way to go by picking comments out of context m_kenny. Unlike the Soviets the British, Germans US actually started out with guns they had an assumption could penetrate the armour at some range. The Soviets just peppered the tank until it failed in certain areas, they didn't even take into account that they were weakening the structure.



m kenny said:


> This is normal practice. Lots of stuff is taken away for proper technical examination. See here how another monster was stripped down



Normal to what degree exactly? Look at the Tiger the British tested their guns against, the gun is still on that tank, and so are the tracks as far as I can see.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2010)

I notice that the 122mm gun impact is numbered 1 and a load of smaller hits are numbered in the 40's to 60's. Wouldn't that imply that they started with the bigger guns and worked their way down, not the other way?


----------



## thrawn (Jan 14, 2010)

Glider said:


> I notice that the 122mm gun impact is numbered 1 and a load of smaller hits are numbered in the 40's to 60's. Wouldn't that imply that they started with the bigger guns and worked their way down, not the other way?




It seems that this is a completly other turret, than the one with the many holes. The Tiger 2 with the great number of shots had a Zimmerit coating, the one with the 122mm holes numberd 1 and 2 didn't.

btw, the last tank with the 122mm holes looks like a Panther turret...

Regards 

thrawn


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 14, 2010)

> Well take their tests against a captured Tiger Ausf.B, they started out by taking the thing apart removing the gun, tracks etc etc...



So, why is always this test referred? Soviets also examined Pz-III and they were extremely impressed by it. The same with Stug or Tiger-I. I do not know whats surprising about Tiger-II problems during Soviet testing and the model was plagued by mechanical problems and even sabotage. 

I don't think removing the tracks is going to have much effect on the glacis resistance, to put an example.



> No they chose to hammer the thing with a multitude of different caliber guns until the thing was ready to fall apart, and THEN they started firing their most powerful guns at it, the very guns which performance needed to be tested against the tank the most. Not a very thurough test if you ask me.



Did you read what mkenny said about British Tiger-I tests?


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

Glider said:


> I notice that the 122mm gun impact is numbered 1 and a load of smaller hits are numbered in the 40's to 60's. Wouldn't that imply that they started with the bigger guns and worked their way down, not the other way?



That picture is of a Panthers side turret as far as I can tell Glider, so it doesn't apply to the Tiger.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> So, why is always this test referred?



Referred to by whom? Not by experts that's for sure. They only rightly note that the test was carried out in a poor fashion and that the Soviets had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger or drivers with any knowledge on driving it. Hence their poor results.



> Soviets also examined Pz-III and they were extremely impressed by it.



The Pz.III was also a simple tank to operate and maintain, it didn't demand an experienced crew.



> The same with Stug or Tiger-I. I do not know whats surprising about Tiger-II problems during Soviet testing and the model was plagued by mechanical problems and even sabotage.



Sabotage? AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 14, 2010)

Soren said:


> Referred to by whom? Not by experts that's for sure.



Name the 'experts' who say Soviet tests were flawed.




Soren said:


> They only rightly note that the test was carried out in a poor fashion and that the Soviets had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger or drivers with any knowledge on driving it. Hence their poor results.



Absurd. The Soviets had far more experience with 'heavy' tanks than the Germans. They had far bigger tank Armies and had much more experience than the Germans. They did comment on the poor quality of the TII's they had for testing (2) and for the cardinal sin of attacking this great tank they are vilified.
No nation had more experience destroying Tigers than the Soviets. Around 75 % of the Tigers built were destroyed in the East. They did it in spades




Soren said:


> Look at the Tiger the British tested their guns against, the gun is still on that tank, and so are the tracks as far as I can see.



Look closer and you will see the one on page 15-17 has not even got a turret.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

m kenny said:


> Name the 'experts' who say Soviet tests were flawed.



Rexford and Livingston to name a couple. They mention the odd approach taken by the Soviets, for example by starting out by weakening the glacis by firing 7.62, 8.5 15.2cm shells at the thing only to fire the 12.2cm 10cm gun at it afterwards. This provided flawed results in their opinion.



> Absurd. The Soviets had far more experience with 'heavy' tanks than the Germans. They had far bigger tank Armies and had much more experience than the Germans. They did comment on the poor quality of the TII's they had for testing (2) and for the cardinal sin of attacking this great tank they are vilified.
> No nation had more experience destroying Tigers than the Soviets. Around 75 % of the Tigers built were destroyed in the East. They did it in spades



lol, you're the one being absurd now m_kenny! The Soviets despite what you claim had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger Ausf.B, it was a far more complex machine than any they had ever built or operated, and also heavier. They had no spare parts for it, they had no trained drivers for it, in short they had ZERO experience operating it! But I don't expect you to understand the importance of this ofcourse..

And as for destroying Tigers in spades, no need to overreact, I think you should check the actual number of Tigers built as-well as the final fates of most of them. You'll probably be more than just a little surprised to see that most Tigers lost weren't so due to direct enemy action. 



> Look closer and you will see the one on page 15-17 has not even got a turret.



Duly noted, however the Brits didn't pepper the tank in as unpurposeful a manner as the Soviets. The Brits were actually very keen on getting something out of their tests.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 14, 2010)

Soren said:


> Rexford and Livingston to name a couple.



I had a feeling you were going to say that. So far it seems this one book is the only thing you have.
I remember the debates when these two first started going on about the mythical 'shatter gap'. The scientific Forums were full of people taking them to task. Perhaps you were around then?
One of them is a poster over at Tanknet if you are interested.
Name me the other 'experts' that slate the Soviet tests.

Maybe you can now give me the results of the Soviet tests?
To say they are flawed obviously means you have studied them.
What were the Kubinka results for the TII armour?




Soren said:


> They mention the odd approach taken by the Soviets, for example by starting out by weakening the glacis by firing 7.62, 8.5 15.2cm shells at the thing only to fire the 12.2cm 10cm gun at it afterwards. This provided flawed results in their opinion.



Yes it would have been much smarter to fire a 122mm round at a target then follow it up with75/85mm rounds - providing they could have avoided the gaping holes left by the 122mm rounds!





Soren said:


> you're the one being absurd now m_kenny! The Soviets despite what you claim had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger Ausf.B, it was a far more complex machine than any they had ever built or operated, and also heavier. They had no spare parts for it, they had no trained drivers for it, in short they had ZERO experience operating it! But I don't expect you to understand the importance of this ofcourse..



They were using it as a target. What on earth has anything else you mention got to do with penetration resistance?



Soren said:


> And as for destroying Tigers in spades, no need to overreact, I think you should check the actual number of Tigers built as-well as the final fates of most of them. You'll probably be more than just a little surprised to see that most Tigers lost weren't so due to direct enemy action.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 14, 2010)

> And as for destroying Tigers in spades, no need to overreact, I think you should check the actual number of Tigers built as-well as the final fates of most of them. You'll probably be more than just a little surprised to see that most Tigers lost weren't so due to direct enemy action.



In reality Tiger-II was far more vulnerable in 44/45 than Tiger-I back in 1943. SPzAb 424 was completely wiped out in Poland and in a few days lost all Tiger-II.



> Maybe you can now give me the results of the Soviet tests?



Not even to mention that the stuff shown in battlefield.ru is just a part. In Svirin work you can find more data, articulated sight was given positive comments, same with driver position and fire extinguishing systems.



> They only rightly note that the test was carried out in a poor fashion and that the Soviets had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger or drivers with any knowledge on driving it. Hence their poor results.



It seems the tank was a struggle for the Germans too, as with proper maintenance, they lost 37 out of 45 on the way to battlefield. Tiger-II was underpowered and its mechanical systems were not up to the weight of the vehicle. Thats the problem of using a medium tank engine and having Hitler asking for armour to be added.



> The Pz.III was also a simple tank to operate and maintain, it didn't demand an experienced crew.



It was simply a far better design.



> AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.



Go to Jentz (an expert) and read about the use of "semidiluted" personnel during tank production, or engine's tendency to burn. SchJgdPz 653 reports also mention that HL 230 engines came with sand in oir filters and stuff like that.

Jentz book provides a whole list of "small problems" like exhaust system badly designed and causing fires, weak tracks...


----------



## m kenny (Jan 14, 2010)

These early hits show an entry and exit hole


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

alejandro said:


> It seems the tank was a struggle for the Germans too, as with proper maintenance, they lost 37 out of 45 on the way to battlefield. Tiger-II was underpowered and its mechanical systems were not up to the weight of the vehicle. Thats the problem of using a medium tank engine and having Hitler asking for armour to be added.



Only problem with that theory is that the Germans didn't provide proper maintenance for the Tiger, and that because they simply couldn't. There wasn't enough spare parts, and shortages in fuel oil meant that the tanks often had to run with too low an oil level for extended periods of time, greatlly wearing on the engine transmission. And this affected the whole German armoured force, the reliability of tanks such as the Pz.IV, which up until 1944 had served as a very reliable tank, suddenly hit rock bottom and proved worse than that of the Tiger tank battalions.

In short, that the Tiger Tiger II were big, slow and unreliable pillboxes is pure fabrication and myth, it has no basis in reality. Both were very mobile tanks that if properly maintained were as reliable as the other tanks in service, as proven the few times when they actually got regular maintenance.

That having been said it is true that the final drive wasn't ideal for a 70 ton tank, but it worked just fine when an experienced driver was behind the wheel, which is what matters. You don't put a cesna pilot behind the controls of a Harrier jumpjet for the same reason.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

m kenny said:


> I had a feeling you were going to say that. So far it seems this one book is the only thing you have.
> I remember the debates when these two first started going on about the mythical 'shatter gap'. The scientific Forums were full of people taking them to task. Perhaps you were around then?
> One of them is a poster over at Tanknet if you are interested.
> Name me the other 'experts' that slate the Soviet tests.



And I had a feeling you would grasp at straws by dismissing them as amateurs when infact they know more about metallurgic science than any one of us here. 



> Maybe you can now give me the results of the Soviet tests?
> To say they are flawed obviously means you have studied them.
> What were the Kubinka results for the TII armour?


 
Ah so now you don't think I know about the Soviet metallurgic tests done with the Tiger's armour or what?



> Yes it would have been much smarter to fire a 122mm round at a target then follow it up with75/85mm rounds - providing they could have avoided the gaping holes left by the 122mm rounds!



That is about the most ridiculous counter argument I have heard in a loooong time.




> They were using it as a target. What on earth has anything else you mention got to do with penetration resistance?



And so now you automatically assume I was only talking about that one and only tank? For your information they drove the tank as-well m kenny, and they described it as very unreliable as it broke down after just a short stroll. Problem is the driver had no clue how to properly drive the thing, and the soviets had no clue how to maintain it either.



>



 That's rich! Someone is getting desperate I see.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

Oh btw, regarding the two last pictures shown by m kenny of the #25 entry exit hole: #25 entry exit hole was inflicted by a single 8.8cm PzGr.39/43 projectile fired from a KwK43 at the tank from 400m away. The projectile went straight through the turret at both ends, penetrating a combined 285mm of RHA armour.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 14, 2010)

> n short, that the Tiger Tiger II were big*, slow * and unreliable pillboxes is pure fabrication and myth, it has no basis in reality. Both were very mobile tanks that if properly maintained were as reliable as the other tanks in service, as proven the few times when they actually got regular maintenance.



Myth? you got a source for that? lets see what the book "Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503 in World War II", by Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann and Richard Freiherr von Rosen:

_The maneuverability of the Tiger was seriously inadequate. The most significant contributor to that deficiency was the low power to weight ratio of 10 horsepower / ton (T-34 = 18 hp/ton.) The inmediate consequence of that deficiency was a very low march speed (a theoretical 38 km/hr, which was never actually attained in practice). Ten km/hr was the rule in driving cross country._

Page 22, but there is a whole section. This by the way refers to Tiger-I.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 14, 2010)

Soren said:


> And I had a feeling you would grasp at straws by dismissing them as amateurs when infact they know more about metallurgic science than any one of us here.



I simply told you (as you seem unaware of the fact) that their conclusions were hotly disputed. 
I also asked for the other 'experts' who said the Soviet tests were useless.
Can you please provide another source confirming this claim.



Soren said:


> Ah so now you don't think I know about the Soviet metallurgic tests done with the Tiger's armour or what?



Until such time as you supply the information from those tests then I am unable to give an informed answer. Perhaps you can end the speculation and share your info?





Soren said:


> And so now you automatically assume I was only talking about that one and only tank? For your information they drove the tank as-well m kenny, and they described it as very unreliable as it broke down after just a short stroll. Problem is the driver had no clue how to properly drive the thing, and the soviets had no clue how to maintain it either.



So you also have the detailed automative test results as well?
Please share the conclusions. Failing that do you have the Soviet Archive reference number so we can check ourselves.




Soren said:


> That's rich! Someone is getting desperate I see.



No, I have plenty more


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

Alejandro,

Franz is refering to the early Tiger Ausf.E's which featured 600 hp HL210 P45 engine and suffered from numerous teething problems. Later versions used the 700 hp HL230 P45 engine and had many of the earlier teething problems worked out, and cross country speed was 20 km/h. 

But as already explained in another thread, a tanks mobility is not determined by how much horsepower is available pr. ton, A LOT of other things determine the actual mobility of a tank, such as the amount of torque available and how it is transferred to the tracks, ground pressure, suspension design etc etc. And it might surprise you to know that the Tiger Tiger II were both capable of negotiating larger obstacles steeper gradients than the Sherman.

And I've got plenty of sources, my primary being Thomas L. Jentz.

You can actually read a lot on the Tiger's mobility here:
PzKpfw VI TIGER I

The info presented there is the same as in Jentz's books, and much of it is actually taken directly from Jentz. Note the operational percentage from May 44 to March 45, the Tiger tanks actually in general proving more reliable than any other German tank then in service.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

m kenny, grow up and get over your obsession. I have grown sick and tired of your childish games further demonstrated by your desperate attempts to support your ridiculous claims by simply posting a few pics of destroyed tanks as if that is proof enough. You are only showcasing the argumentative skills of a child.

If you wish to know what the Soviets concluded it is a simple matter of clicking yourself to this very well known place: Was the Tiger really "King?" - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD 

That site has been up for years upon years, and the content within for even longer. Much of the information on the site has been disputed and criticized as highly biased by many experts, as you undoubtedly know as a member of the Axis History Forum but are unwilling to admit. 

That having been said I am through with you m kenny, you will see no further responses from me to you, it only ends in conflicts every single time anyway and the mods here have mentioned that more than once.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2010)

Lets compare the Sherman Tiger B in terms of maneuverability on the battlefield:

*Tiger Ausf.B:*

Max fording Depth = 1.6 m
Max vertical Obstacle = 0.85 m
Max trench crossing = 2.5 m
Max gradient climbing = 35 degrees
Minimum turning radius = 2.08 m (i.e. Pivoting)
Ground pressure = 0.76 kg/cm^2
Ground clearance = 0.5 m
Average cross country speed = 20 km/h
Top speed = 41.5 km/h 


*Sherman M4A3:*

Max fording Depth = 0.91 m
Max vertical Obstacle = 0.61 m
Max trench crossing = 2.3 m
Max gradient climbing = 30 degrees
Minimum turning radius = 19 m
Ground pressure = 1.07 kg/cm^2
Ground clearance = 0.43 m
Average cross country speed = 20 km/h
Top speed = 48 km/h


----------



## m kenny (Jan 14, 2010)

Soren said:


> Note the operational percentage from May 44 to March 45, the Tiger tanks actually in general proving more reliable than any other German tank then in service.



This is a classic case where looking at the actual numbers gives you a clearer picture of the situation.
For the West in May-Sept 1944 Jentz gives figures of 67-98% readiness for the Tigers.
However if you cross check this with the information given in Zetterling for SS 101, SS 102 and Heer 503 you get an entirely different result.

For SS 101 (using only those figures that give an In service/In repair figure and thus ignoring all the written off tanks) you get a high of 80% readiness for 1st June but then they were not in action.
From the day they first entered combat then the figure goes as low as 0 (none) to 20 tanks available. This means a readiness rate of 80% down to 35% (ignoring the periods when no Tigers were available which would drag the average right down)
Note the figures are arrived at by adding together the total of tanks in service and in repair. The destroyed tanks are ignored that is why you get '20' as 80% of '25' rather than '20' which is 45% 0f 45 which is the full strenght figure for SS 101.

SS 101 80% -35% readiness
For SS 102 the figures fluctuate from 69%-40% readiness.
Heer 503 range from 78%-32% readiness.

Do the maths with Zetterling's tables and it averages out at 55-60%. The numbers are all there any anyone is able to double check. Unfortunately Jentz gives no references for his data so I am unable to comment on his conclusions.



Soren said:


> If you wish to know what the Soviets concluded it is a simple matter of clicking yourself to this very well known place


I do know of the site however I was under the impression you had the full results of these tests. The site has only the briefest details and not enough information for anyone to reach a firm conclusion. Your confidence in your claims assured me you must be in possesion of much greater detail or even the report itself. It appears I was mistaken.


Soren said:


> Much of the information on the site has been disputed and criticized as highly biased by many experts


I beg to differ. There have been a number of sustained attacks of the Russian site and its information. Some years back there was an organised attempt by members of the old Achtung Panzer Site (no longer running) to close it down. Many wild claims were made such as all the photos of destroyed Panthers ect were fakes and had the holes added after printing. This was shown to be an invention and in the end 1 (one) photo was shown to be a fake and it was removed. There are a few threads over at AHF about the Russian site but I saw no experts condeming it. Quite a few people got upset with the Tiger II test results and to this day there are those who try and claim they are faked or manipulated. It would seem this crusade is still active.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 15, 2010)

> Franz is refering to the early Tiger Ausf.E's which featured 600 hp HL210 P45 engine and suffered from numerous teething problems. Later versions used the 700 hp HL230 P45 engine and had many of the earlier teething problems worked out, and cross country speed was 20 km/h.



Not really, it’s a general comment. As I said there are more sections dealing with these problems. No HL 230 developed 700CV. Nominal value was 690CV but this was at max regime (3000rpm). Risk of fire was just too high and reduced to 2500rpm. This would give 600CV, not very healthy for a 70 ton tank. Read Jentz:

Maximum speed for the Tiger-I decreased to 37.8km/h and for the Tiger-II to 34.6km/h after November 1943 when HL 230 motor was regulated not to exceed 2500rpm.

Tiger-I and II combat tactics, by Jentz



> Lets compare the Sherman Tiger B in terms of maneuverability on the battlefield:



The Tiger values are simply wrong.



> The info presented there is the same as in Jentz's books, and much of it is actually taken directly from Jentz.



Not really, Jentz trilogy on Tiger is far better.

Anyway, Tigers were operated in independent battalions because they demanded much more maintenance and were far more complicated than other tanks used in Panzer divisions. As mkenny pointed out (excellent message), availability was higher very often because Tigers saw less combat. Some more information. 

_Soldiers of the fuel section of the battalion during a formation. These soldiers were kept very busy satisfying the "thirst" of a Tiger [I}, which consumed 500 liters of fuel for every 500 kilometers of cross country movement. (Pag 219)

By the way, that value 500 litres/ 500 kms is what the Russians measured in Kubinka.

A march unit composed of the 2nd Company, Tiger Tank Battalion 503, in the spring of 1943. The Tigers take a maintenance halt. Maintenace halts were proscribed for every two hours of march and lasted thirty minutes. (Pag 226)_

The combat history of German tank battalion 503 in World War 2

More 

_At 1000 hours on 9 July 1944, the battalion was ordered to conudct a road march to Deguciai, a distance of 50 kilometers.[...] The battalion after-action report stated: 

Towards 1900 hours, the combat elements of the 2d and 3d Companies arrived in the sector ordered with a large number of road march break-downs (motor damage, running gear damage). These were bound to occur as a result of the high temperature adn the long march distance. Of the 22 Tigers that originarlly participated in the road march, only five Tigers from the 2d Company and three Tigers from the 3d Company were combat ready. 

This meant that 64 percent of the Tigers broke down during a 50-kilometer roadmarch along a primary road_


Finally, some information on quality:

_"IS-2 vehicles, most likely from the 13th Heavy Tank Regiment, skirmished with the Tigers from 424 sHPzAbt near Lisow. The advancing Tigers were greeted by powerful and accurate fire from tanks and ant-tank weapons. The armor, made from lower quality steel (due to problems with raw materials) could not withstand the 122mm, 25 kilogram projectiles and the attack broke down. The battalion commander, Major Saemisch was killed and numerous tanks were lost."_

Kielce 1945" by Norbert Baczyk.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> Not really, it’s a general comment. As I said there are more sections dealing with these problems. No HL 230 developed 700CV. Nominal value was 690CV but this was at max regime (3000rpm). Risk of fire was just too high and reduced to 2500rpm. This would give 600CV, not very healthy for a 70 ton tank. Read Jentz:
> 
> Maximum speed for the Tiger-I decreased to 37.8km/h and for the Tiger-II to 34.6km/h after November 1943 when HL 230 motor was regulated not to exceed 2500rpm.
> 
> Tiger-I and II combat tactics, by Jentz



The HL230 P30 developed 700 PS (European horsepower) at 3,000 rpm (equal to 690 bhp), later a governor was put on which wouldn't allow rpms to exceed 2,500 rpm. This was done not because of a risk of fire, but simply to increase engine life as the Germans knew that regular maintenance would be hard to achieve in the situation they were currently placed. 

But contrary to what you incorrectly claim this reduction in max permissable rpm had no effect on the tank's mobility at all, which is also explained by Jentz (Do you even read what he writes??). The max torque (1,850 Nm) of the HL230 engine being developed at 2,100 rpm.



> The Tiger values are simply wrong.



No they aren't, they are exactly right and from Jentz. 



> Not really, Jentz trilogy on Tiger is far better.



Don't you get it?? The info on that site IS from Jentz! I have the books, I know, much of what is written on the site is directly copied from works by Jentz!



> Anyway, Tigers were operated in independent battalions because they demanded much more maintenance and were far more complicated than other tanks used in Panzer divisions. As mkenny pointed out (excellent message), availability was higher very often because Tigers saw less combat. Some more information.
> 
> Soldiers of the fuel section of the battalion during a formation. These soldiers were kept very busy satisfying the "thirst" of a Tiger [I}, which consumed 500 liters of fuel for every 500 kilometers of cross country movement. (Pag 219)
> 
> By the way, that value 500 litres/ 500 kms is what the Russians measured in Kubinka.



And here's what is listed in the German manual (Again provided by Jentz):

Fuel capacity: 860 Liters
Range Cross country: 80 km
Range on road: 170 to 120 km

That translates into a fuel consupmtion cross country of 10.75 L/km, which is more than 500 Liters pr. 500 km as that simply enough tranlates into 10 L/km. So here we see that the German specs are once more actually quite conservative compared to the real performance.

Anything else you'd like to come up with?



> Finally, some information on quality:
> 
> _"IS-2 vehicles, most likely from the 13th Heavy Tank Regiment, skirmished with the Tigers from 424 sHPzAbt near Lisow. The advancing Tigers were greeted by powerful and accurate fire from tanks and ant-tank weapons. The armor, made from lower quality steel (due to problems with raw materials) could not withstand the 122mm, 25 kilogram projectiles and the attack broke down. The battalion commander, Major Saemisch was killed and numerous tanks were lost."_
> 
> Kielce 1945" by Norbert Baczyk.



You must be joking! The Tigers lost near Lisow were taking out from the flanks after having been poorly commanded into a very disadvantagous situation, getting bogged down in the swamps surrounding the town of Lisow. The quality of the Tiger's armour had nothing to do with the outcome of that battle, the stupid tactics employed by the commander of those tanks however had everything to do with it. But besides this one of the company's tanks commanded by Lt. Oberbracht managed to knock out 7 Soviet tanks in his bogged down outflanked Tiger II in that battle, having earlier in the same day destroyed another 12 Soviet tanks.

From _Tigers in Combat_ by Wolfgang Schneider:

_"On the march to Lisow, Tiger 323 breaks through a 12 ton bridge. The battalion launches the assault with the first company on the left, the third company on the right and the second company following. Several tanks are bogged down in the swamps beside the narrow road and cannot be recovered. On the South edge of Lisow, the Tiger 111 (Lt. Oberbracht) loses both tracks, nevertheless, it destroys 20 tanks. The second company knocks out 7 T-34s. Tigers 202 and 221 break down during the movement to contact 200 meters in front of the town. Tiger 334 stops with a broken driveshaft. In Lisow the battalion is ambushed by Josef Stalin tanks and hidden anti-tank guns, and is almost completely wiped out. The battalion commander's Tiger is also knocked out....During the retreat, Tiger 332 recovers one of the bogged down tanks of the 3rd company, but suffers a broken track tensioner a short time later and has to be blown up." "_

Also just so you know it, there isn't a single incident during the war where a Tiger Ausf.B was knocked out from the front. In short no Tiger Ausf.B ever had its' frontal armour defeated in combat, of the ones lost in actual combat, which was very few, all were taken out by flanking shots from the side or rear, or from above by enemy fighter bombers. So there's your testimony to the quality of its armour.

In the west one Tiger II was taken out from the front by a shot to its belly after driving over a pile of rubble.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 15, 2010)

Soren said:


> Also just so you know it, there isn't a single incident during the war where a Tiger Ausf.B was knocked out from the front



So you know the fate of every Tiger II?



Soren said:


> In short no Tiger Ausf.B ever had its' frontal armour defeated in combat



You have confused the mantra. What you mean to repeat is:
_there are no photos of a Tiger II with a glacis penetration_
This is not the same as 'frontal penetration' nor is it the same as no Tiger glacis was ever penetrated.



Soren said:


> of the ones lost in actual combat, which was very few, all were taken out by flanking shots from the side or rear, or from above by enemy fighter bombers.



As studies showed that side and rear penetrations were greater in number than frontal penetrations then having a good frontal aspect only gives you a small advantage. It is not a decisive edge.
There are very few instances of Tiger II's being destroyed by aircraft so that excuse is a bit jaded.
Perhaps you have a list of the fate of the 45 Tiger II's left smouldering in Normandy.
How many were 'lost in combat'?



Soren said:


> In the west one Tiger II was taken out from the front by a shot to its belly after driving over a pile of rubble.



The claim for the Super Pershing from the books 'Another River' and ' Death Traps'. Almost certainly mistaken. No Tiger II's were in the area.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 15, 2010)

> Don't you get it?? The info on that site IS from Jentz! I have the books, I know, much of what is written on the site is directly copied from works by Jentz!



Indeed, but having the whole thing is much better.



> No they aren't, they are exactly right and from Jentz.



Ok, we should just say they don't apply to 



> But contrary to what you incorrectly claim this reduction in max permissable rpm had no effect on the tank's mobility at all, which is also explained by Jentz (Do you even read what he writes??). The max torque (1,850 Nm) of the HL230 engine being developed at 2,100 rpm.



Are you completely sure? Do you have a graph of torque vs rpm? where does he say that? Usually max power is given at the corresponding rpm. Giving some random rpm for max torque/power is strange to say the least. *How comes the max speed reduce after limiting the rpm? * Where in Jentz does this appear? I have only come accross it in wikipedia.

_600 @ 2,500 rmp.
Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.B "Tiger II"_



> Anything else you'd like to come up with?



I am still waiting for a source on this:



> AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.





> You must be joking! The Tigers lost near Lisow were taking out from the flanks



Where is you evidence for these facts?



> Also just so you know it, there isn't a single incident during the war where a Tiger Ausf.B was knocked out from the front.



Tanknet.org > Anyone know what did this to thisd King Tiger?
And lack of evidence is not evidence by itself.



> In short no Tiger Ausf.B ever had its' frontal armour defeated in combat, of the ones lost in actual combat, which was very few, all were taken out by flanking shots from the side or rear, or from above by enemy fighter bombers.



Same with IS-2 mod 1944 or Ferdinand, no evidence. The point being?


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2010)

alejandro said:


> I am still waiting for a source on this:
> Quote:
> AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.



Are YOU waiting for a source? Hey mr., YOU were the one claiming that Tiger II's were subject to sabotage caused by slave labour, am I right? Is it then not your job to support that statement, not mine? I have nowhere read that any Tiger was assembled by slave labour, only that skilled workers were used. I also happen to have many pictures of the production lines, and there are no slave labourers on any of those pictures.

In short, I am the one who's waiting here.



alejandro said:


> Are you completely sure? Do you have a graph of torque vs rpm? where does he say that? Usually max power is given at the corresponding rpm. Giving some random rpm for max torque/power is strange to say the least. How comes the max speed reduce after limiting the rpm? Where in Jentz does this appear? I have only come accross it in wikipedia.



Alejandro it doesn't seem like you're much into engines and how they work. The max torque of an engine is not reached at the same rpm as the max horsepower. Furthermore as long as you don't reduce the rpm below the max torque point only the horsepower and therefore top speed is affected by any alterations in rpm, it doesn't affect pulling power at all. I thought you knew that. 

For better understanding:

_Torque is part of the basic specification of an engine: the power output of an engine is expressed as its torque multiplied by its rotational speed of the axis. Internal-combustion engines produce useful torque only over a limited range of rotational speeds (typically from around 1,000–6,000 rpm for a small car). The varying torque output over that range can be measured with a dynamometer, and shown as a torque curve. The peak of that torque curve occurs somewhat below the overall power peak. The torque peak cannot, by definition, appear at higher rpm than the power peak.

Understanding the relationship between torque, power and engine speed is vital in automotive engineering, concerned as it is with transmitting power from the engine through the drive train to the wheels. Power is a function of torque and engine speed. The gearing of the drive train must be chosen appropriately to make the most of the motor's torque characteristics. Power at the drive wheels is equal to engine power less mechanical losses regardless of any gearing between the engine and drive wheels.

Steam engines and electric motors tend to produce maximum torque close to zero rpm, with the torque diminishing as rotational speed rises (due to increasing friction and other constraints). Reciprocating steam engines can start heavy loads from zero RPM without a clutch_

Hence why (like I've already explained), a hp vs weight comparison in no way defines how mobile a vehicle is. 

So I will repeat what I've already said, sometime in 1944 a governor was put on the HL230 engine which wouldn't allow rpms to exceed 2,500 rpm. And again this was done not because of any risk of fire (Don't know where you got that from??), but simply in an attempt to increase engine life, the Germans knowing full well that regular maintenance would be hard to achieve with the huge lack of oil spare parts from which they were suffering. 

Pretty much every break down experienced by Tiger units was caused by either lack of oil, laco of spare parts, lack of regular maintenance or too brutal a treatment inflicted by a novice driver.



alejandro said:


> Where is you evidence for these facts?



The combat which took place there is very well covered alejandro, you should pick up Wolf Schneider's books on the Tiger, _Tiger's in Combat I II_. The battalion commander led the Tigers directly into a swamp and was then ambushed from the flanks by both AT guns, T-34's JS2's. Despite this



alejandro said:


> Tanknet.org > Anyone know what did this to thisd King Tiger?
> And lack of evidence is not evidence by itself.



That picture has become pretty famous amongst some people, only problem is no'one knows where its from or wether we're looking at a penetration at all. Furthermore we know nothing about what gun supposedly inflicted the damage seen.



alejandro said:


> Same with IS-2 mod 1944 or Ferdinand, no evidence. The point being?



Oh really ? I beg to differ:

JS-2 K'oed by a Tiger Ausf.E by s single rond through the front turret:






15 JS-2's knocked out frontally from a distance of 1,500m by Tiger Ausf.E's from the GrossDeutchland Division in August 1944:


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 15, 2010)

> The combat which took place there is very well covered alejandro, you should pick up Wolf Schneider's books on the Tiger, Tiger's in Combat I II. The battalion commander led the Tigers directly into a swamp and was then ambushed from the flanks by both AT guns, T-34's JS2's. Despite this



*Again, source which says the shooting was only from the flank for all tanks, exact quote.




Alejandro it doesn't seem like you're much into engines and how they work. The max torque of an engine is not reached at the same rpm as the max horsepower. Furthermore as long as you don't reduce the rpm below the max torque point only the horsepower and therefore top speed is affected by any alterations in rpm, it doesn't affect pulling power at all. I thought you knew that.

Click to expand...


Don't pull away, where in Jentz does it say that reduction in RPM did not affect mobility? where does it say max torque takes place at 2100rpm. Have you ever seen a torque vs power output graph for HL 230. Prove it.

Engine setup was similar to Panther, hence risk of fire.




Pretty much every break down experienced by Tiger units was caused by either lack of oil, laco of spare parts, lack of regular maintenance or too brutal a treatment inflicted by a novice driver.

Click to expand...


Source of this?*


----------



## thrawn (Jan 15, 2010)

max. Torque at 70% of rpm. 

100% = 3000 rpm

3000rpm * 0.7 = 2100rpm. Soren is right.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> *Again, source which says the shooting was only from the flank for all tanks, exact quote.*


*

Are you kidding me? Does it need to say from which angle each tank was knocked out??? They were ambushed alejandro! Do you know how an ambush works? Usually it doesn't happen from the front, I can tell you that. Also it just so happens that there are pictures of the Tigers lost there actually, and guess what ALL where knocked out from the side or rear. 




Engine setup was similar to Panther, hence risk of fire.

Click to expand...


Similar engine set up ? Wrong! Read up on both tanks, the early Panthers suffered from improper cooling and a leaking problem which caused a risk of fire. This problem of the Panther was quickly solved however, and it was never a problem which plagued the Tiger II.



alejandro said:



Don't pull away, where in Jentz does it say that reduction in RPM did not affect mobility? where does it say max torque takes place at 2100rpm. Have you ever seen a torque vs power output graph for HL 230. Prove it.

Click to expand...


Like I said, you don't know much about engines do you?




Source of this?

Click to expand...


German loss reports ofcourse.*


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2010)

Soren
Now how an ambush was organized depends on terrain and situation, one cannot say unequivocally than an ambushed party was hit only by flanking fire. IIRC many of the ambushes I organized during military manoeuvres were partly frontal, but we were usually delaying and wearing down the "enemy" not defending rigidly a given place as the Soviets were in Lisow.

Anyway, a couple description of the battle of Lisow

Axis History Factbook: Schwere Panzer Abteilung 424

and more interesting one, Axis History Forum • View topic - The Battle for Lisow January 13th 1945 message #2 shows the Soviet side of the story, unfortunately no source. According to it Soviets lost 11 total write-offs and 11 badly damaged but repairable.

Juha


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 15, 2010)

> Like I said, you don't know much about engines do you?



Far more than you know about the IS-2. Those photos you posted before and I can see now correspond to *IS-2 mod 1943*! not 1944. And you want to discuss about torques?



> Similar engine set up ? Wrong! Read up on both tanks, the early Panthers suffered from improper cooling and a leaking problem which caused a risk of fire. This problem of the Panther was quickly solved however, and it was never a problem which plagued the Tiger II.



Lets see what "expert" Coronel G.B. Jarrett wrote:

_The engine room compartment was quite like the Panther and the engine was identical - the HL 230 of 690 Hp. This fact probably was the undoing of the Tiger Tank, as it certainly was badly under powered. A Dr. Arnold seen by the author in Germany, who was one of the main designers of the Tigers for Henschel, claim - they were trying to increase the Hp and unless they increased the size of the engine compartment to permit installation of a heaver engine, they could not improve the power situation very much. It, in a sense had them stymied. Dr. Arnold also complained that this situation arose from having Rommel insist that the Tiger be furnished for front line duty, some 6 months before they were ready,and that they had to use the 690 Hp Panther engine. Rommel, having "der Fuhrer's" ear had wanted to get a gun, like in the earlier Ferdinand, but in a 360 degree turret. This had been one of the leading reasons for the development of so large a tank, and based on the success of the Panther (47 tons), the Tiger had been presumed to also be successful.

In the opinion of the author, any tank the size of the King Tiger is a mistake. The Panther could go many palces the King Tiger couldn't, bridges as just one example, and yet its gun could do fully 85% of the damage possible to the Tiger's 88. As fas as Allied tanks were concerned, as seen in the ETO, the Panther's high velocity 75 was ample."_

Is it that surprising?



> Are you kidding me? Does it need to say from which angle each tank was knocked out??? They were ambushed alejandro! Do you know how an ambush works? Usually it doesn't happen from the front, I can tell you that. Also it just so happens that there are pictures of the Tigers lost there actually, and guess what ALL where knocked out from the side or rear.



Ho-ho you have photos too? do you that those combats took place over more than a day? maybe the Tiger-II were ambushed for more than a day then.

As I said, lack of proof -as in IS-2 mod 1944 or Ferdinand- is not a proof by itself. 

Lets see what Jentz says on the reduction in rpm versus Tiger-II performance:



> *Maximum speed for the Tiger-I decreased to 37.8km/h and for the Tiger-II to 34.6km/h after November 1943 when HL 230 motor was regulated not to exceed 2500rpm.*
> 
> Tiger-I and II combat tactics, by Jentz





> That picture has become pretty famous amongst some people, only problem is no'one knows where its from or wether we're looking at a penetration at all. Furthermore we know nothing about what gun supposedly inflicted the damage seen.



Its penetrated and there are references to the combat. For example, that IS-2 mod 1943 you saw in the photo is also claimed by Grossdeutschland Panther's, not Tiger-I. 



> I have nowhere read that any Tiger was assembled by slave labour, only that skilled workers were used.



Really, why was sand found in oil filters for HL 230 engines? why does Jentz talk about semi-diluted labour? haven't you seen the photos of Tiger-II restoration in Switzerland? there were evidences of Italian labour being used. 

Early Tiger-II had so many faults that were demolished without being used, this just saws what a bad design it was, miles behind of Pz-III.

Finally, I can't help noticing that its mkenny and me the ones who keep bringing sources with extracts

Thrawn I had not noticed the diagram before I sent the message, I will have a look in more detail, thanks for that.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 15, 2010)

Soren said:


> That picture has become pretty famous amongst some people, only problem is no'one knows where its from or wether we're looking at a penetration at all. Furthermore we know nothing about what gun supposedly inflicted the damage seen.



Not so. 

US 79th Infantry Division, 315th IRgt, 813 TD Btn 749th TBn was the opposition on 28/8/44
The location was in front of Sailly near Mantes on the Seine just west of Paris.
A couple of TII's from both SS 101/501 and Heer 503 were also lost in and around this area.


Paris is just to the East 






Sailly is in the top right-hand corner below







This map is from Bruno Renoult's book.















Soren said:


> Oh really ? I beg to differ:
> 
> JS-2 K'oed by a Tiger Ausf.E by s single rond through the front turret:




same as this frontaly penetrated Tiger II turret (the one refered to above)










The 503 combat history says it was hit 5 times frontaly on 26.8.44 whilst in action against US troops near Fontenoy. Now as well as the 5 hits you see in the above pic there are another 5 not visible in the shadow on the lower bow plate I presume the photo above was taken after the tank was knocked out in this position.
I would say the information about the hits was just the caption writer counting the gouges rather than first hand information about the action. In the 503 book the pic with 10 hits is dated 16.8.44 and the one with 5 hits 26/8/44! It is not the only contradiction in the book and I presume the book was not properly edited before release.

In his book '45 Tigre en Normandie' Didier Lodieu writes about the 28th August:

_Un veritable ouragan de fer et de feu enveloppe les quatre mastodontes de la 3/503 le Tiger 301 est touche puis brule Quatre members de lequipage reussisent a s'en sortir mais le cinquieme. le radio Ricke est blesse. Ill meurt un peu plus tard._

I make that:

A real hurricane of steel and fire envelops the four beasts of 3/503. Tiger 301 is hit and burns. Four members of the crew manage to escape but the fifth, the radio operator Ricke is wounded. He dies a short while later. 


Below the same Tiger with a fake deflection painted on to the glacis.
















Soren said:


> 15 JS-2's knocked out frontally from a distance of 1,500m by Tiger Ausf.E's from the GrossDeutchland Division in August 1944:



The photo is a montage. It has been manipulated and is not an accurate representation of the scene. Not only that but so far I have seen 3 different dates and locations given for it.
Soren says *August 1944*.
Squadron /Signal book 'Soviet Panzers In Action' says "Caption reads _"These JS-1 heavy tanks were destroyed by *"Panthers" *of the division "Grossdeutchland" during a German counter-attack near Konigsberg, East Prussia, *February 17, 1945*_

Wydawnictwo book ''Grossdeutschland Vol II' says* April 1945* and location is Romania.
There is no evidence of a penetration on the front of the tank hull. A chunk of the hull top near the drivers visor has been blown off but then so has the gun and mantlet. It is impossible to say where it was hit and penetrated.
Short answer is the date and location are not know nor is the situation and the photo is faked.






Soren said:


> Are you kidding me? Does it need to say from which angle each tank was knocked out??? They were ambushed alejandro! Do you know how an ambush works? Usually it doesn't happen from the front, I can tell you that. Also it just so happens that there are pictures of the Tigers lost there actually, and guess what ALL where knocked out from the side or rear.



In TIC I (page 75/76 hardback or page 65/66 softback) there are 3 TII photos (only 2 in the paperback) said to be from this action. In no case is it possible to see a penetration and Schneider never mentions side hits in the text. It is not true to say there are photos of side penetrations on any Tiger. The 3 pics in TIC are the only photos of these Tigers known to me and if Soren has information on others then he should share it and we can all see for ourselves. This claim is pure invention.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 15, 2010)

Soren said:


> Pretty much every break down experienced by Tiger units was caused by either lack of oil, laco of spare parts, lack of regular maintenance or too brutal a treatment inflicted by a novice driver.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2010)

Despite what M kenny claims this picture is not a fake, it might have been cropped, but it is not fake:





Here's another picture from the same scene (note pentration of front upper hull):


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> Lets see what "expert" Coronel G.B. Jarrett wrote:
> 
> _The engine room compartment was quite like the Panther and the engine was identical - the HL 230 of 690 Hp. This fact probably was the undoing of the Tiger Tank, as it certainly was badly under powered. A Dr. Arnold seen by the author in Germany, who was one of the main designers of the Tigers for Henschel, claim - they were trying to increase the Hp and unless they increased the size of the engine compartment to permit installation of a heaver engine, they could not improve the power situation very much. It, in a sense had them stymied. Dr. Arnold also complained that this situation arose from having Rommel insist that the Tiger be furnished for front line duty, some 6 months before they were ready,and that they had to use the 690 Hp Panther engine. Rommel, having "der Fuhrer's" ear had wanted to get a gun, like in the earlier Ferdinand, but in a 360 degree turret. This had been one of the leading reasons for the development of so large a tank, and based on the success of the Panther (47 tons), the Tiger had been presumed to also be successful.
> 
> ...



Don't know why you posted that, fact is still that the engine compartment setup was different in between the Panther Tiger Ausf.B.



alejandro said:


> Ho-ho you have photos too? do you that those combats took place over more than a day? maybe the Tiger-II were ambushed for more than a day then.



Yes I have photos, and they just shows side penetrations thats all.



> Really, why was sand found in oil filters for HL 230 engines? why does Jentz talk about semi-diluted labour? haven't you seen the photos of Tiger-II restoration in Switzerland? there were evidences of Italian labour being used.



Sand in oil filters has nothing to do with slave labour on the tank production line. Oil filters were manufactured elsewhere. And that Italian labour was used does not mean it was slave labour, skilled italian workers worked for Germany throughout the war.



> Early Tiger-II had so many faults that were demolished without being used, this just saws what a bad design it was, miles behind of Pz-III.



So many faults? What faults? And of these faults which were attributed to bad design?

I am really looking forward to this... esp. seeing as the Tiger Ausf.B was by far the most advanced tank put on the battlefield during the war.



> Finally, I can't help noticing that its mkenny and me the ones who keep bringing sources with extracts



I have provided both sources and extracts, hat you choose to ignore them is not fault.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 15, 2010)

Let the viewer decide if it is a penetration or a catastrophic internal explosion.








Do you have any views on the different locations and dates given?
August 1944?
Feb 1945?
April 1945?
Are you saying it is only' a little bit' faked?





Soren said:


> Yes I have photos, and they just shows side penetrations thats all.



Please please post them or failing that the book that has them and I will post them


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 15, 2010)

> Sand in oil filters has nothing to do with slave labour on the tank production line.



No, it probably finished there by accident, even if report says "sabotage". Maybe German workers took a stroll in the beach and the sand ended in the pockets.



> Oil filters were manufactured elsewhere.



So? its still a tank component.



> Please please post them or failing that the book that has them and I will post them



Can't wait to see this one.



> So many faults? What faults? And of these faults which were attributed to bad design?



Weak engine for weight, badly designed exhaust, problematic final drive, overweight, short range. Is it that surprising? initially Tiger-II was supposed to be lighter, but then Hitler stepped in. Somehow I do not expect to see a rational design if an irrational head intervened in it.



> the Tiger Ausf.B was by far the most advanced tank put on the battlefield



Which authors say this? taking into account that the design was simplified and inherited components from Panther, I can't see how.

m kenny, thanks for those summaries, the one on the Tiger-II front penetration is amongst the most complete. Can you tell me the book which talks about the engines? its looks worth a read.



> I have provided both sources and extracts, hat you choose to ignore them is not fault.



I am still waiting for quote on where Jentz states that rpm reduction did not affect mobility, used of only very experienced labour... and I do not think I am the only one.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> No, it probably finished there by accident, even if report says "sabotage". Maybe German workers took a stroll in the beach and the sand ended in the pockets.



Learn english before you get ahead of yourself. I never said that sand in the oil filters weren't caused by sabotage, I said it has nothing to do with slave labour on the tank production line. The oil filters were simple designs which could be assembled by unskilled labour, the tanks were not.

I am still waiting for your source stating that slave labour was used to assemble any Tiger tank.



> So? its still a tank component.



You clearly have no clue how these machines were built or where.



> Weak engine for weight



With a pulling power of 1,850 Nm I wouldn't call it weak.



> , badly designed exhaust,



How so exactly? be specific.



> problematic final drive,



Nope, not if proper regular maintenance was done and the tank was driven by an experienced driver. 



> overweight,



The more armour you put on a tank, the heavier it gets. 



> short range.



The tank weighed 68.5 tons, and yet it had a road range of 120 to 170 km.



> Is it that surprising? initially Tiger-II was supposed to be lighter, but then Hitler stepped in. Somehow I do not expect to see a rational design if an irrational head intervened in it.



Aah yes, Hitler, just how much exactly of the tank did he design? Oh yeah thats right, not a single piece. Hitler just put forth his wishes, which in short was for a new heavy tank mounting the FlaK41. The designers made the rest of the work



> Which authors say this? taking into account that the design was simplified and inherited components from Panther, I can't see how.



The design was not simplified, it was infact according to some overly complex. And the Panther was a complex design as-well.

The fact still stands, the Tiger Ausf.B is the most advanced tank to see service during WW2. Infact the US were so impressed by the state of the art steering mechanism semi automatic transmission that they incorperated it in their future tank designs such as the M46, 47 48 Patton series of tanks. The Tiger Ausf.B, along with the Panther, also featured the most advanced hydraulic suspension system mounted on any tank during the war, providing unrivalled floatation and stability whilst negotiating rough terrain. 



> I am still waiting for quote on where Jentz states that rpm reduction did not affect mobility.



Use you heard for a minute here; Does Jentz say anywhere that decreasing the max rpm from 3,000 rpm to 2,500 rpm had any negative effects on mobility at all? Let me answer that for you: NO. And the reason he doesn't is because it ZERO negative effects on the mobility, and that I might add for some very basic reasons anyone knowledgable about tanks will know. 

You on the other hand alejandro did claim that mobility suffered, which ofcourse is completely and utterly false, but you are welcome to try and substantiate your claim. But seeing as you don't even know the relationship between the torque horsepower I can't say I expect you to understand what really defines how mobile a tank is...

So allow me to repeat what I've already said once:

The Tiger Ausf.B was despite its' massive weight in actual fact a very mobile tank, capable of negotiating larger obstacles and steeper gradients than most other tanks of the period. This is often overlooked however, and certain people tend to focus all of their attention on all the issues the tank experienced as a result of lacking oil, spare parts skilled personnel.

The Tiger Ausf.B vs the Sherman M4A3 in terms of battelfield mobility:

*Tiger Ausf.B:*

Max fording Depth = 1.6 m
Max vertical Obstacle = 0.85 m
Max trench crossing = 2.5 m
Max gradient climbing = 35 degrees
Minimum turning radius = 2.08 m (i.e. Pivoting)
Ground pressure = 0.76 kg/cm^2
Ground clearance = 0.5 m
Average cross country speed = 20 km/h 
Top speed = 41.5 km/h 


*Sherman M4A3:*

Max fording Depth = 0.91 m
Max vertical Obstacle = 0.61 m
Max trench crossing = 2.3 m
Max gradient climbing = 30 degrees
Minimum turning radius = 19 m
Ground pressure = 1.07 kg/cm^2
Ground clearance = 0.43 m
Average cross country speed = 20 km/h
Top speed = 48 km/h


----------



## m kenny (Jan 15, 2010)

Srill no sign of the photos that (it is claimed) show the Tigers with clear side penetrations.
Is there a problem that prevents you sharing them with us?

Here you will find the most complete collection of photos of sPzAbt 501's TII's.
http://www.tiif.de/thread.php?threadid=15&sid=6504285f58b9a3084b5f5b66f163e7b0

There are no pictures that show side penetration and in fact photos of these TII's are rare indeed.

You said earlier:



Soren said:


> Yes I have photos, and they just shows side penetrations thats all.



That is photos (plural) and though my instincts tell me this is not possible I am prepared to withold my judgement until you clarify the situation.



alejandro_ said:


> .Can you tell me the book which talks about the engines? its looks worth a read.



The book is the Spielberger/Doyle Schiffer book 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764327801/?tag=dcglabs-20


Which is a translation of

http://www.amazon.de/dp/3613027836/?tag=dcglabs-20


----------



## m kenny (Jan 16, 2010)

Soren said:


> I am still waiting for your source stating that slave labour was used to assemble any Tiger tank.



Early in 1935, Henschel began manufacturing Panzer I tanks. During World War II in 1939-1940 it began large-scale production of the Panzer III, and the Tiger I from 1941. Henschel was the primary manufacturer of the Panzer VI. During 1945 the company had 8000 workers working in two shifts each of 12 hours. The company used slave labour extensively. The company's factories were among the most important bomber targets and were nearly completely destroyed.

From:
Henschel Son - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also:

Fieseler Werke Kassel

_Forced Labor Camps in Kassel

(to provide workers for the factories ) 


Camps for foreigners in Kassel (1940 - 1945) 

HolländischeStraße *The camp was the first of a large number (eleven were detected) by the firm of Henschel und Sohn -* mostly procured on their own land or lease contracts - set up for foreigners. It was listed as Henschel Residential Camp I, sometimes called the camp midfield (because it is in close proximity to the work of the company Midfield Henschel) was set up as slave laborers and dormitories 1940th It was located between the Holländische Straße and the Struthbachweg. It was more than 2,000 workers, mostly from Western countries set up. Like almost all the big camps are closed civilian workers and prisoners of war departments, a department in separate barracks. In an air raid in October 1943 it has been largely destroyed, the forced laborers were housed in tents and several weeks later, such as school buildings (Fasanenhof school, Paul von Hindenburg-Schule in Schulstraße). The power exercised in the camp from the camp commander or the chief officer in conjunction with the work of protecting the company Henschel, which could in turn be based on foreign "employees". The work of protecting the company in 1940 Henschel was formally appointed as the auxiliary police, so that the members of police officers powers similar to those entitled. In addition, the "host plant" (NSDAP activists intervened in the operation) in the "care" of foreigners. 

The camp Lower King Street 99 (Henschel Residential Camp IV), also called the Polish women's camp, which was an established exclusively for women who contributed at Henschel forced labor camp..............

The camp monks Brickyard Mountain (Henschel Residential Camp VI).....................

The small mining camp monks Wielandstraße (Henschel-residential camps VII.............

The camp monks mountain Stockbreite (Henschel-residential camps VIII).......... Several thousand people (we suspect 2ooo to 3ooo) from various nations have been accommodated in this pure camp. ....................

The relatively large bearing monks mountain Ihringshäuserstraße as Henschel residential camps IX probably not until mid-1943 built, was designed exclusively for "Western workers" (Italy, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg). It was southeast of the Ihringshäuserstraße......

the next camp for foreigners, was built by the firm of Henschel, the so-called Henschel residential camps XI was outside of Kassel............

The Matt mountain camp was probably the second biggest camp for foreigners (behind the monks, mountain camps) of Kassel in the war. In the 54 barracks were at the same time more than 6000 people from many countries _

Henschel was one of the biggest users of slave/forced/guest (pick your euphemism) workers and though this is a general overview it is impossible to claim none of these people were involved in Tiger construction.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 16, 2010)

m kenny said:


> These early hits show an entry and exit hole



No. 25 that went in an out is the Tiger's own 8,8cm KwK 43 L/71... 8)

The other two are Soviet 122mm and 100mm rounds, though its worth noting that the hit at no. 24 obviously assisted penetration of no. 25 round (that being the 122mm round), and that if you look at the place of the hit, its at the opening for the gunner's sight (where armor resistance was less due to the opening, but normally covered by the gun blende, which has been removed for the tests)


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 16, 2010)

> Learn english before you get ahead of yourself.



Thats very polite. 



> You clearly have no clue how these machines were built or where.



Ho-ho our super engineer does know the difference between assembly and manufacturing, bring him a medal!



> With a pulling power of 1,850 Nm I wouldn't call it weak.



Maybe we should go to English lectures together. Have you noticed the words "for its weight"? 



> How so exactly? be specific.



Don't you have Jentz book on the Tiger-II. I am away and can't pick up the phrase. You will have to wait, its on a section talking about all the things going wrong. Report dated Januway 1945.



> Aah yes, Hitler, just how much exactly of the tank did he design? Oh yeah thats right, not a single piece. Hitler just put forth his wishes, which in short was for a new heavy tank mounting the FlaK41. The designers made the rest of the work



This just shows your superficial understanding of things. Hitler asked in Tiger-II design to increase front armour to 180mm, and 150mm IIRC on glacis. And the design was using an engine for a medium size tank! in reality Tiger-I should have been able to mount a Flak 41 gun, but someone (probably Dr Porsche) ordered ring to be reduced from 200cms to 190cms. What did this mean? Flak 41 could not be mounted i.e A new design would be needed... more contracts, money and so on. Tiger-II story is indeed complicated.



> The Tiger Ausf.B, along with the Panther, also featured the most advanced hydraulic suspension system mounted on any tank during the war, providing unrivalled floatation and stability whilst negotiating rough terrain.



Which no one ever used again, by the way.



> Infact the US were so impressed by the state of the art steering mechanism semi automatic transmission



Panther had this too... so no state of the art any more.



> You on the other hand alejandro did claim that mobility suffered, which ofcourse is completely and utterly false, but you are welcome to try and substantiate your claim.



Lets see Jentz for the third time:

_Maximum speed for the Tiger-I decreased to 37.8km/h and for the Tiger-II to 34.6km/h after November 1943 when HL 230 motor was regulated not to exceed 2500rpm._

*Tiger-I and II combat tactics, by Jentz. *There you go, now you can change that comparison with M4A3. 



> I am still waiting for your source stating that slave labour was used to assemble any Tiger tank.



Again:

Really, why was sand found in oil filters for HL 230 engines? why does Jentz talk about semi-diluted labour? haven't you seen the photos of Tiger-II restoration in Switzerland? there were evidences of Italian labour being used. 



> This is often overlooked however, and certain people tend to focus all of their attention on all the issues the tank experienced as a result of lacking oil, spare parts skilled personnel.



Can you tell me which units lack skilled personnel? I have never come accross any *direct reference * for this.

Thanks mkenny for the reference.



> Henschel was one of the biggest users of slave/forced/guest (pick your euphemism) workers and though this is a general overview it is impossible to claim none of these people were involved in Tiger construction.



Semi-deluted could be a choice...


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> Thats very polite.



Exactly how polite have you been yourself through this discussion?



> Maybe we should go to English lectures together. Have you noticed the words "for its weight"?



1,850 Nm for 68 tons aint too bad for a WW2 tank,



> Don't you have Jentz book on the Tiger-II. I am away and can't pick up the phrase. You will have to wait, its on a section talking about all the things going wrong. Report dated Januway 1945.



I do have ALL his books alejandro, and the exhaust system was a fine design, atleast in the end.



> This just shows your superficial understanding of things. Hitler asked in Tiger-II design to increase front armour to 180mm, and 150mm IIRC on glacis. And the design was using an engine for a medium size tank! in reality Tiger-I should have been able to mount a Flak 41 gun, but someone (probably Dr Porsche) ordered ring to be reduced from 200cms to 190cms. What did this mean? Flak 41 could not be mounted i.e A new design would be needed... more contracts, money and so on. Tiger-II story is indeed complicated.



Hitler requested a 150mm gacis and 80mm sides, thats it, again he had no involvement in the design of the tank, he just expressed his wishes and the designers were then left to fullfill them.



> Which no one ever used again, by the way.



Oh really? I beg to differ, have you seen the suspension design of modern tank designs? Almost all use individual swing armed torsion bars with hydraulic shock absorbers just like the Tiger Panther. Why? Because it provides unrivalled floatation stability. Only the interleaved wheel design was abandoned in favour of a later design providing the same stability utilizing a very wide wheel design instead.



> Panther had this too... so no state of the art any more


.

Wrong! This just proves you know nothing on either tank. The steering mechanism of the Tiger Panther were completely different! And so was the transmission!

One tank used levers for steering while the other used a steering wheel for crying out loud! 



> Lets see Jentz for the third time:
> 
> _Maximum speed for the Tiger-I decreased to 37.8km/h and for the Tiger-II to 34.6km/h after November 1943 when HL 230 motor was regulated not to exceed 2500rpm._



And where does he say it had any negative effects on mobility? Asnwer: Nowhere. Why? Because it had zero negative effects. A slight reduction maximum road speed isn't a reduction in mobility alejandro, esp. not when you take into account that tanks aren't race cars but machines meant to negotiate tough terrain.



> *Tiger-I and II combat tactics, by Jentz. *There you go, now you can change that comparison with M4A3.



Nope, figures still stand as pure facts. They are from Jentz himself. And as can be seen the Tiger B was clearly a very capable tank when it came to negotiating rough terrain, better than most other tanks except for the Panther.



> Again:
> 
> Really, why was sand found in oil filters for HL 230 engines?



Again don't understand that this has nothing to do with your incorrect claim that slave labour was used to assemble Tigers. I am still waiting for a single source on this, and m kenny hasn't provided any for you if thats what you think btw. That Henschel Son used slave labour for manufacturing some of their products is well known, m kenny is just unaware of that, but that slave labour was used to assemble Tiger tanks.. well let's just say no evidence has been provided to substantiate that claim yet, so the wait continues..



> why does Jentz talk about semi-diluted labour? haven't you seen the photos of Tiger-II restoration in Switzerland? there were evidences of Italian labour being used.



Again, Italy provided skilled labour for Germany throughout the war. Italian labour doesn't transform into slave labour!



> Can you tell me which units lack skilled personnel? I have never come accross any *direct reference * for this.



Oh really, you haven't? Thats because you don't own any of Jentz's book then, cause in them it is mentioned quite clearly that one of the main problems plagueing the Tiger B was the lack of skilled drivers, many of the drivers coming directly from the training ground having only driven light panzers having no idea how to treat a tank like the Tiger. So again, please read his books.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 16, 2010)

> 1,850 Nm for 68 tons aint too bad for a WW2 tank,



Yes, as good as sand in oil filters. The Tiger-II power to weight ratio was amonsgt the lowest in world war 2.



> Exactly how polite have you been yourself through this discussion?



You were the one starting insulting and claiming no one expect you understands anything. It does not seem to be the first time it happens neither



> Hitler requested a 150mm gacis and 80mm sides, thats it, again he had no involvement in the design of the tank, he just expressed his wishes and the designers were then left to fullfill them.



How efficient eh? except that the design was originally to have 100mm thick armour plates. And keeping an engine for a medium tank. Well done.



> Oh really? I beg to differ, have you seen the suspension design of modern tank designs? Almost all use individual swing armed torsion bars with hydraulic shock absorbers just like the Tiger Panther.



Of course I was referring to interleaved wheels. Torsion bars were already used in tanks like Pz-III and KV-1, thus no state of the art, but your uber-love of Tiger-II does not help.



> And where does he say it had any negative effects on mobility? Asnwer: Nowhere. Why? Because it had zero negative effects. A slight reduction maximum road speed isn't a reduction in mobility alejandro, esp. not when you take into account that tanks aren't race cars but machines meant to negotiate tough terrain.



So, first you use maximum speed to compare Sherman and Tiger mobility, and now you said it does not count?



> Again, Italy provided skilled labour for Germany throughout the war. Italian labour doesn't transform into slave labour!



Your innocence strikes me. How do you think Italian prisoners of war were treated after 1943?



> Oh really, you haven't? Thats because you don't own any of Jentz's book then, cause in them it is mentioned quite clearly that one of the main problems plagueing the Tiger B was the lack of skilled drivers, many of the drivers coming directly from the training ground having only driven light panzers having no idea how to treat a tank like the Tiger. So again, please read his books.



And as usually you dont provide a source or a *quote*. Mkenny is also waiting by the way. 



> The steering mechanism of the Tiger Panther were completely different! And so was the transmission!



True, Panther final drive was quite unsucessfull, Tiger-I being advanced.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 16, 2010)

Still no sign of the photos said to show all the Tigers with side penetrations.
Can you tell me where you got them and I will get them myself and post them for you.


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

We can continue this discussion after you've read up on the Panther Tiger Alejandro, up until then discussing with you will be pointless. You didn't even know that the Panther Tiger featured two completely different steering mechanisms and transmissions, you actually claimed they were identical for crying out loud! 

And regarding Italy's surrender in 1943 and Italian labour, Northern Italy was still allied to Germany from 1943 to the end of the war (Read about: Italian Social Republic). And it provided lots of skilled labour for the Germans. So again, the italians weren't used as slave labour, they worked for the Germans.

Moving on you also need to learn that the mobility of a tank is not defined by the amount of horsepower available pr. ton, or how high the top road speed of a tank is. What matters is the torque available and how it is transferred to the track and from the tracks to the ground, which in turn depends on the drivetrain, suspension track design. And the Panther Tiger series were blessed with a very advanced drivetrain which, altough initially had its fair share of problems (most of which were ironed out in the end), was extremely effective at transferring power to the tracks. On top of this the Panther Tiger series enjoyed the advantage of having the best suspension system put on any tank during the war, providing unrivalled floatation stability whilst negotiating rough terrain. All this put together enabled not just the Panther but also the very heavy Tiger Ausf.B to both tackle higher obstacles steeper gradients than most other tanks during the war, as proven by the results obtained during the long and extensive testing period of both tanks at Kummersdorf proving grounds, parts of which are still used actively to test vehicles to this day.

The Tiger Ausf.B's performance established at the obstacle course at Kummersdorf:
Max fording Depth = 1.6 m
Max vertical Obstacle = 0.85 m
Max trench crossing = 2.5 m
Max gradient climbing = 35 degrees
Minimum turning radius = 2.08 m (i.e. Pivoting)
Ground pressure = 0.76 kg/cm^2
Ground clearance = 0.5 m
Average cross country speed = 20 km/h 
Top speed = 41.5 km/h (37 km/h at 2,500 rpm)

The tests revealed that the Tiger Ausf.B just like the Panther the previous Tiger featured superior mobility to most other tanks, which includes the American Sherman tank.

The Kummersdorf different gradient ramps, all the way up to 45 degrees from the horizontal:










Picture from inside the forest obstacle course:





The Tiger Ausf.B at Kummersdorf, climbing ramps, fording on the forest obstacle course:

















Panther(s) at the forest obstacle course:


----------



## m kenny (Jan 16, 2010)

In the above I see many images posted. 
Is there any reason why you can not post the images of the Tiger II's you claim have side penterations?
Why do you not post them?
If you can not post them tell me where I can find them.

I have to say I do not believe you have any such photos.

The TII(p) shown above is the one given to Sweden after WW2.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 16, 2010)

> We can continue this discussion after you've read up on the Panther Tiger Alejandro, up until then discussing with you will be pointless. You didn't even know that the Panther Tiger featured two completely different steering mechanisms and transmissions, you actually claimed they were identical for crying out loud!



You are simply trying to pull away from the conversation by simply flagging other stuff (What are those photos for!). First you come to me and go on about torque instead of horsepower, now you add that its transmission and final drive! of course, together with many other factors. This is not rocket science.



> And the Panther Tiger series were blessed with a very advanced drivetrain which, altough initially had its fair share of problems (most of which were ironed out in the end), was extremely effective at transferring power to the tracks.



Again, you simply have a very superficial knowledge. Panther engine was ok, but the compartment was too tight, and transmission/final drive was simply too weak for the mass. Ideally, it was supposed to be 35 tons but in reality it was 45. This caused all sorts of problems, and were not ironed out as you said. During the Normandy campaign they were still giving trouble, more than a year after being introduced! by the way, Hitler also ordered changes into the development. How surprising! Overweight is not quite comparable to teething troubles...

You see the difference, anyone can make mistakes when writing fast or from memory, but your problem is on knowledge. You even posted images of IS-2 mod 1943 and said they were 1944! they have so many differences!



> Top speed = 41.5 km/h (37 km/h at 2,500 rpm)



You see? you put your own data, which shows that rpm do make a difference, and then you said that top speed shouldn't? rpm and torque are related you know?



> Still no sign of the photos said to show all the Tigers with side penetrations.
> Can you tell me where you got them and I will get them myself and post them for you.



I would also like to see these



> And regarding Italy's surrender in 1943 and Italian labour, Northern Italy was still allied to Germany from 1943 to the end of the war (Read about: Italian Social Republic). And it provided lots of skilled labour for the Germans. So again, the italians weren't used as slave labour, they worked for the Germans.



You have a source for this?


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

> You see? you put your own data, which shows that rpm do make a difference, and then you said that top speed shouldn't? rpm and torque are related you know?



Did you not read what I wrote? 1. The data is from Jentz (not me!). 2. It's actual test results! 3. The top road speed of a tank is of ZERO importance, it doesn't even begin to define how mobile a tank is, the tanks obstacle clearing abilities on the other hand have everything to do with mobility. I wouldn't expect you to understand that ofcourse...

So sorry alejandro but you quite simply have no clue on these tanks, you've demonstrated that time and again in this thread. First you claimed that Tigers were contructed by slave labour, later changed to italian workes. Then you went on to claim that the Tiger Panther featured identical engine setups, then that they had exactly the same transmission steering mechanism. All of it has ofcourse been proven false. 

But not to be deterred by recent setbacks you now claim that the many issues plagueing the Panther weren't ironed out in the end. Well obviously you haven't been reading any Jentz's books then, cause according to him the Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther. Furthermore he also mentions that most of the Tigers issues were ironed out in the end.

So what's next alejandro?


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

All the pictures of the Tiger Ausf.B in my recent post #64 were taken during German testing at Kummersdorf during the war.

The Tiger Ausf.B recieved by Sweden after the war:


----------



## m kenny (Jan 16, 2010)

Soren said:


> The Tiger Ausf.B recieved by Sweden after the war





Those images from Achtung Panzer are very dated. Treat yourself to some better photos from 5 years back.

Axis History Forum • View topic - Swedish TII

sample:







Perhaps you can now post those Tiger II photos you say you have showing side penetrations. 


Why not just admit you made it up and you do not have any photos.
End the farce.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 16, 2010)

> First you claimed that Tigers were contructed by slave labour, later changed to italian workes. Then you went on to claim that the Tiger Panther featured identical engine setups, then that they had exactly the same transmission steering mechanism. All of it has ofcourse been proven false.



This hiding and deformation of facts is getting silly. Do you think the gearbox works the same if you change gear at 3000 and 2500 rpm?

Did you bother reading my input on what a US Coronel said? I said similar, not identical. 

On the same way you do not know the difference between IS-2 mod 1943 and mod 1944 you do not know the difference between similar and identical.



> you've demonstrated that time and again in this thread. First you claimed that Tigers were contructed by slave labour, later changed to italian workes.



If you would know how they were treated you would understand. Pure lack of knowledge. mkenny already explained Henschel extensive use of labour.



> But not to be deterred by recent setbacks you now claim that the many issues plagueing the Panther weren't ironed out in the end. *Well obviously you haven't been reading any Jentz's books then, cause according to him the Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther.*



This is laughable. The Hohenstaufen division Panthers were directly delivered from factory and little used. They expected the engines would last 1,500 km or more, but half of the motors failed during the first 300 km! 
During a six week period in the spring of 1944 (I.Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 2) 13 out 30 Panthers fell out due to final drive failures. None were caused by battle damage. 

Or read Panzertruppen v2, Chapter on Normandy to check how reliable and efficient was Panther from a mechanical point of view.

Again, put up the quote or end up the farce.



> End the farce.



Exactly, end it up



> Those images from Achtung Panzer are very dated.



He is trying to pull away from the discussion. He will never post those photos. I can bet on that.

Oh, I am also waiting for a source on this:



> AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, *they had highly skilled labourers for that.*


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> This hiding and deformation of facts is getting silly. Do you think the gearbox works the same if you change gear at 3000 and 2500 rpm?



Hiding deformation? What is it you don't understand? That max torque (i.e. pulling power), isn't reached at max revs? Also I really don't hope what you just said is an example of how you change gears when you're driving (if you're old enough for that that is), flooring the gas pedal and then shifting gear whilst hitting max revs... not such a good idea! 



> Did you bother reading my input on what a US Coronel said? I said similar, not identical.



Ah back tracking now I see. You said "the same", which means identical. That the Colonel didn't share your vews has been established long ago, old news pal.



> On the same way you do not know the difference between IS-2 mod 1943 and mod 1944 you do not know the difference between similar and identical.



Why would I not know the difference between a JS-2 JS-2M ? You claimed there were no pictures of IS-2's having been penetrated from the front, I proved you wrong.



> If you would know how they were treated you would understand. Pure lack of knowledge. mkenny already explained Henschel extensive use of labour.



Don't fool yourself, m kenny hasn't explained anything on the matter, he went over to wikipedia for answers because he was desperate and there he found what most people already know and that is Henschel Son used slave labour for some of their products, just like many other companies. Slave labour during WW2 was however naturally only used for simple construction tasks on simple products, they weren't set to work with anything that demanded any form of technical expertize (i.e. skilled labour), which ironically means things such as assembling a Tiger tank. 

In short there is no evidence what'so'ever that slave labour was used to assemble Tiger tanks, which is kinda understable seeing that the job of assembling such a machine demanded highly skilled labour.



> This is laughable. The Hohenstaufen division Panthers were directly delivered from factory and little used. They expected the engines would last 1,500 km or more, but half of the motors failed during the first 300 km!
> During a six week period in the spring of 1944 (I.Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 2) 13 out 30 Panthers fell out due to final drive failures. None were caused by battle damage.
> 
> Or read Panzertruppen v2, Chapter on Normandy to check how reliable and efficient was Panther from a mechanical point of view.



Yes laughable indeed...

Look at the Pz.IV service history in the same period, it was just as appauling, and I've already explained why. Lack of oil spare parts had the field reliability of ALL German tanks plummit to an all time low. Also it seems you're apparently under the impression that the war ended in the summer of 1944? Just so you know the Panther was under development the whole time, constantly getting improved. And again, directly from Jentz, the Panther ended up having most of its issues ironed out and became a reliable tank.

Keep ignoring the facts alejandro..



> Again, put up the quote or end up the farce.



Seriously man, that is pretty dumb, you're beginning look like your m kenny's own little puppet here. 



> He is trying to pull away from the discussion. He will never post those photos. I can bet on that.



I wouldn't put too much money on that if I were you...

These pictures were taken after the fighting at Lisow according to the discriptions I have:

















These are just some of the pics taken by the Soviets there, I've just heard from a friend that there are more.



> Oh, I am also waiting for a source on this:



Really? Thats odd cause I thought we had already concluded that the one who started spewing out claims on this matter was yourself? I remember a certain thing about slave labour being used to assemble Tiger tanks? I am still waiting on a source for that claim. And no your master m kenny hasn't provided any.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2010)

More pictures from Lisow:


----------



## m kenny (Jan 17, 2010)

Removed because the post I was replying to has been edited and the disputed part removed


----------



## m kenny (Jan 17, 2010)

Redundant reply. Post removed whilst I was working on it.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 17, 2010)

what you actualy said was 



Soren said:


> I can tell you that. Also it just so happens that there are pictures of the Tigers lost there actually, and guess what ALL where knocked out from the side or rear................
> Yes I have photos, and they just shows side penetrations thats all.................................



Please indicate where the side penetrations can be seen in any of the photos you posted.
The German losses were in the region of 30+ tanks so you have a lot more photos to post.


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2010)

Hello Soren
Exactly where Jentz claims that “Jentz's books then, cause according to him the Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther.”?

Now in his Panther tank book p. 127 he writes:”But, following modification of key automotive components, with mature drivers taking required maintenance halts, the Panther could be maintained in satisfactory operational condition.” IMHO that doesn’t meant that it was “a very reliable tank”, only that in the end it’s mechanical components were strong enough for normal battlefield environments. That there still was problems in Spring/Summer 44 can be read from Jentz’ Panther book p. 140 or his Panzertruppen Vol 2 p.184.

Now the first photo in your post #71 is well known and usually captioned, as in Jentz’ Panzertruppen Vol 2 p.217 “A Tiger II of the 3. Kompanie /sPzAbt 501, accompanied by two StuGe, engaged in mopping up a bridgehead in the Weichsel bend on 2 Oct 1944” Now unit is right, 501 became 424 later, area is nearby but date is over 3 months off. So if we believe Jentz and other writers the photo had nothing to do with the battle of Lisow.

Quote:” The top road speed of a tank is of ZERO importance, it doesn't even begin to define how mobile a tank is, the tanks obstacle clearing abilities on the other hand have everything to do with mobility." 

So you think that Churchill was about the most mobile of British WWII tanks because while it was SLOW it had legendary ability to climb steep hillsides as shown for ex. in Tunisia.?

Quote:” the italians weren't used as slave labour, they worked for the Germans.”

Now many Italian PoWs after Sept 43 were sent to concentration camps (and thousands were simply shot) so some of them were used as slave labour but I have no exact info by which firms.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2010)

The first photo in Soren's message #72 definitely is from Lisow, but the third photo in Soren’s post #71 is according to Schneider’s TiC II Tiger 213 of sSS-PzAbt 502 destroyed by its own crew on 28 Apr 45

Juha


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 17, 2010)

Now you are simply lying:



> You claimed there were no pictures of IS-2's having been penetrated from the front, I proved you wrong.



Lets see what I said:

*Same with IS-2 mod 1944 or Ferdinand, no evidence. The point being? *



> Ah back tracking now I see. You said "the same", which means identical. That the Colonel didn't share your vews has been established long ago, old news pal.



Don't lie Soren, this is not looking good:

_The engine room compartment was quite like the Panther and the engine was identical - the HL 230 of 690 Hp. This fact probably was the undoing of the Tiger Tank, as it certainly was badly under powered. A Dr. Arnold seen by the author in Germany, who was one of the main designers of the Tigers for Henschel, claim - they were trying to increase the Hp and unless they increased the size of the engine compartment to permit installation of a heaver engine, they could not improve the power situation very much. It, in a sense had them stymied. Dr. Arnold also complained that this situation arose from having Rommel insist that the Tiger be furnished for front line duty, some 6 months before they were ready,and that they had to use the 690 Hp Panther engine. Rommel, having "der Fuhrer's" ear had wanted to get a gun, like in the earlier Ferdinand, but in a 360 degree turret. This had been one of the leading reasons for the development of so large a tank, and based on the success of the Panther (47 tons), the Tiger had been presumed to also be successful._



> Slave labour during WW2 was however naturally only used for simple construction tasks on simple products, they weren't set to work with anything that demanded any form of technical expertize (i.e. skilled labour), which ironically means things such as assembling a Tiger tank.



And what do you understand by semidiluted labour? 



> And again, directly from Jentz, the Panther ended up having most of its issues ironed out and became a reliable tank.



Indeed laughable. Those Panther received by Hohenstaufen division were in November 1944, but I can look for more problems at later stages. Maybe yu do not understand the meaning of overweight.



> Seriously man, that is pretty dumb, you're beginning look like your m kenny's own little puppet here.



Oh, another insult. Its just funny how this uber lovers of Tiger-II go hysterical when you touch the myth.



> These pictures were taken after the fighting at Lisow according to the discriptions I have:



And thats all? where are the others then?

And don't forget, source for:



> AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, *they had highly skilled labourers for that. *


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 17, 2010)

Juha said:


> Quote:” The top road speed of a tank is of ZERO importance, it doesn't even begin to define how mobile a tank is, the tanks obstacle clearing abilities on the other hand have everything to do with mobility."
> 
> So you think that Churchill was about the most mobile of British WWII tanks because while it was SLOW it had legendary ability to climb steep hillsides as shown for ex. in Tunisia.?



Well the obvious difference is of course that the Tiger I and II had, despite being a heavy tank and all, still retained a top speed on par with the avarage medium tank of WW2 (ca. 40 km/h) after the engines were governed to save on wear, AND had excellent cross country abilities. 

The Churchill on the other hand was slow to begin with at about half the speed of the avarage medium tanks, and about the third that British Cruiser type (~ medium ) tanks, while indeed its cross country capabilities were good. The drawback is obvious, Tigers could accompany any German medium, even on tough terrain, Churchills could not accompany a single Allied tank without slowing down the advance.

In short Soren got it absolutely right, the reduction of revs didn't have any practically noticable effect on the Tiger's or Panther's mobility, given that the significant qualities (ability to accelerate, or get the tank moving on bad terrain) is defined by torque and the torque conversion, and maximum torque did not decrease at all. 



Juha said:


> Now many Italian PoWs after Sept 43 were sent to concentration camps (and thousands were simply shot) so some of them were used as slave labour but I have no exact info by which firms.



Poor Italians PoWs, they seem to have fallen between a rock and hard place, given that wheter thez fell into Axis or Allied captivity, they were invariably used for slave labour..


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 17, 2010)

m kenny said:


> Early in 1935, Henschel began manufacturing Panzer I tanks. During World War II in 1939-1940 it began large-scale production of the Panzer III, and the Tiger I from 1941. Henschel was the primary manufacturer of the Panzer VI. During 1945 the company had 8000 workers working in two shifts each of 12 hours. The company used slave labour extensively. The company's factories were among the most important bomber targets and were nearly completely destroyed.
> 
> From:
> Henschel Son - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



An unsourced statement from wikipedia..?  

Tell me please, how many of the 8000 workers were actually forced, and how many were paid foreign workers? 

How many were actually involved in Tiger production, which were hardly the only product of Henschel (a manufacturer of airplanes and especially, locomotives)? 
How many of these were actually working on the Tigers as a productive force, and how many were merely assisting by performing basic tasks (moving material, working in the factory kitchen, sweeping the floor etc.) as a non-productive force?

IF you are trying to throw in the 'slave labour' BS as a rubber arguement, you would better be prepeared to support and quantify it with detailed and sourced statements, rather than discrediting your own claim by trying to google up a source and only manage to find a wiki article_ after_ you have made the particular statement... 8)


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
ah typical to you
on Italians, we were talking on how Germans behaved towards Italians, and I know that their behaviour towards Italian PoW were on some areas really ing, for ex on Ionian Islands, mass executions etc. Now have you some info on how Allied handled their Italian PoWs, slave labour?

On Churchill, you seem to agree with most that road speed after all had some importance on mobility, yes?

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jan 17, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> An unsourced statement from wikipedia..?



Supported by an online article showing the large number of camps ran by Henschel in the Kassel area.
Did you miss it?

Also:

Fieseler Werke Kassel

_Forced Labor Camps in Kassel

(to provide workers for the factories ) 


Camps for foreigners in Kassel (1940 - 1945) 

HolländischeStraße *The camp was the first of a large number (eleven were detected) by the firm of Henschel und Sohn -* mostly procured on their own land or lease contracts - set up for foreigners. It was listed as Henschel Residential Camp I, sometimes called the camp midfield (because it is in close proximity to the work of the company Midfield Henschel) was set up as slave laborers and dormitories 1940th It was located between the Holländische Straße and the Struthbachweg. It was more than 2,000 workers, mostly from Western countries set up. Like almost all the big camps are closed civilian workers and prisoners of war departments, a department in separate barracks. In an air raid in October 1943 it has been largely destroyed, the forced laborers were housed in tents and several weeks later, such as school buildings (Fasanenhof school, Paul von Hindenburg-Schule in Schulstraße). The power exercised in the camp from the camp commander or the chief officer in conjunction with the work of protecting the company Henschel, which could in turn be based on foreign "employees". The work of protecting the company in 1940 Henschel was formally appointed as the auxiliary police, so that the members of police officers powers similar to those entitled. In addition, the "host plant" (NSDAP activists intervened in the operation) in the "care" of foreigners. 

The camp Lower King Street 99 (Henschel Residential Camp IV), also called the Polish women's camp, which was an established exclusively for women who contributed at Henschel forced labor camp..............

The camp monks Brickyard Mountain (Henschel Residential Camp VI).....................

The small mining camp monks Wielandstraße (Henschel-residential camps VII.............

The camp monks mountain Stockbreite (Henschel-residential camps VIII).......... Several thousand people (we suspect 2ooo to 3ooo) from various nations have been accommodated in this pure camp. ....................

The relatively large bearing monks mountain Ihringshäuserstraße as Henschel residential camps IX probably not until mid-1943 built, was designed exclusively for "Western workers" (Italy, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg). It was southeast of the Ihringshäuserstraße......

the next camp for foreigners, was built by the firm of Henschel, the so-called Henschel residential camps XI was outside of Kassel............

The Matt mountain camp was probably the second biggest camp for foreigners (behind the monks, mountain camps) of Kassel in the war. In the 54 barracks were at the same time more than 6000 people from many countries _

I added this:

Henschel was one of the biggest users of slave/forced/guest (pick your euphemism) workers and though this is a general overview it is impossible to claim none of these people were involved directly in Tiger construction.

Maybe you missed it?







Kurfürst said:


> IF you are trying to throw in the 'slave labour' BS as a rubber arguement, you would better be prepeared to support and quantify it with detailed and sourced statements, rather than discrediting your own claim by trying to google up a source and only manage to find a wiki article_ after_ you have made the particular statement...



There you go again. Ignoring the camps article that is clearly headed 
*Forced Labor Camps*.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 17, 2010)

We can go into detail on the origins of the Tiger II photos soren trawled from the net *only* when he provides a photo showing a Tiger *pentrated from the side*
So far he has not shown a single photo that in any way back up his original claims:



Soren said:


> I can tell you that. Also it just so happens that there are pictures of the Tigers lost there actually, and guess what ALL where knocked out from the side or rear................
> Yes I have photos, and they just shows side penetrations thats all.................................



He was lying and to try and cover up this deliberate deception he is forced into posting random Tiger images. It is impossible to say with any certainty where the wrecks he posts are located. Some are located (by Schneider) at Lisow but he is not the best source on locations. Soren also posted 2 views of the same tank.
No matter because he has yet again failed to provide a single pic of a side penetrated Tiger II from Lisow.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2010)

Unlike what m kenny here claims I haven't been lying, that is something he is guilty of himself, and not just on this forum. The pictures I presented I found on my harddrive and uploaded them. I have them in a folder for themselves. I checked in various books the origins of the photos as-well to be sure that I had the right ones (That takes time, something ignorant people can't comprehend). Some pictures have two completely different discriptions, but it said Lisow so I presented it. 

M kenny however is clearly incapable of getting a message across into his head, as I had made it abundantly clear that I wasn't going to respond any of his posts anymore, why? Because he's rude, childish incapable of admitting his own mistakes, a good example of his rude behavior is calling me a liar for only upholding the promise I had made to him earlier.

And like I said, of all the photos which there are of this incident the only thing present on them is side penetrations or no visible penetrations at all. For further confirmation according to the Soviets themselves the Tigers were knocked out from the sides, and thats again what the Germans say. 

Furthemore very few JS-2's were actually present at Lisow, the attack was mostly carried out by T-34/85's hidden AT guns.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2010)

Regarding slave labour once more. What m kenny once more fails to understand is that there is ZERO evidence of slave labour being used for assembling Tiger tanks, furthermore simple logic points toward that it wasn't the case as Tiger was a very complex and expensive machine to build; Not exactly something ýou have malnurished slaves take care of! So I have asked for sources on their claim, neither alejandro or m kenny have provided any though. So should we call them liars? They clearly said something they knew was untrue, cause they didn't have anything to base their theory on, no pictures no documents no nothing. Alejandro also claimed that the Tiger Panther featured the same transmission steering mechanism, which is completely untrue, so again a lie?


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 17, 2010)

I am back at home, thus I have access to most of my data base and books.



> Unlike what m kenny here claims I haven't been lying, that is something he is guilty of himself, and not just on this forum. The pictures I presented I found on my harddrive and uploaded them. I have them in a folder for themselves.



Then, if you had the photos already. Why did you claim they only shown side penetrations? Why did you claim I say there were no photos of IS-2 with frontal penetration when I was clearly referring to IS-2 mod 1944.



> Alejandro also claimed that the Tiger Panther featured the same transmission steering mechanism, which is completely untrue, so again a lie?



My mistake, nor the first nor the last. This debate touches on a large number of subjects and I was typing fast, I already corrected the point.



> And again, directly from Jentz, the Panther ended up having most of its issues ironed out and became a reliable tank.



This comes from Jentz:

Technical details - The Pz.Kpfw.IV, V and VI have proven themselves to be good. However, the Panther burns astonishingly quickly.* The lifespan of the Panther´s engine (1400 to 1500kms) is considerably higher than that of the Panther´s final drives. A solution is urgently needed!*

This is a report from Guderian to Hitler on 28th July 1944 i.e more than a year after Panther was introduced in service. The book is "Panzer Truppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation Combat Employment of Germany's Task Force-Formations, Organizations, Tactics, Combat Reports, Unit Strengths", by Thomas L. Jentz, pag 176 (1996).

The data I posted regarding Panther performance in November 1944 was not that better neither... so, when did those problems were ironed out and what is the source to state that *"Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther.”*



> He was lying and to try and cover up this deliberate deception he is forced into posting random Tiger images. It is impossible to say with any certainty where the wrecks he posts are located. Some are located (by Schneider) at Lisow but he is not the best source on locations. Soren also posted 2 views of the same tank.



This ending was expected. I have done quite a bit of research on that battle, and opened a thread in tank-net, which I guess is probably where Soren got the photos from (with the mistakes as Juha pointed out). I put some information from Bergstrom and Max Hastings but details are hard to find. 



> For further confirmation according to the Soviets themselves the Tigers were knocked out from the sides, and thats again what the Germans say.



Where do the Soviets say that Tigers were knocked out from the side? have you confirmed that IS-2 were not around? 



> AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.



This is what Jentz mentions:

Now, we can discuss about the meaning and interpretation of "semidiluted" or "foreign" armour, but the quality of late was Panzers was not exactly increasing (See note below).





As I did not get any answer on the effect of rpm reduction in changing gear mechanism I also uploaded the data from Jentz:

As expected, a reduction in rpm gives the engine (and therefore tank) less flexibility when using gears.





Also, HL 230 engines at the end of the war did have some serious quality issues:





By the way, that report makes reference to both Panther and Tiger. Jagdtigers were also quite in a bit of trouble:

_"The extremely difficult road marches caused a large number of breakdowns for the Jagdtiger. Engines and final drives proved to have defects and were too weak in construction.* Sabotage by foreign workers in the factories was also suspected, since metal shavings were found in many engine oil filters."*_

Combat history of SJgPz 653, page 274 (not sand by the way).


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2010)

Again a reduction in max rpm does nothing other than change the top speed of the tank as long as it doesn't drop below the max torque range. So that the HL230 engines' max rev limit was reduced from 3,000 to 2,500 rpm had no negative effect on the tanks' mobility in any way what'so'ever. Also the chart in Jentz's book does not show that there was any less flexibility, it only shows the natural effect of max speed in every gear being reduced. But all this is completely redundant as max torque (i.e. pulling power) was provided at 2,100 rpm. The only reason behind the reduction in max rpm of the HL230 was to increase the engine life. 

Also what good is it that you have some of Jentz's books if don't read all that is written in them alejandro? Read the rest as-well. Reading Jentz's books on the Panther he quite clearly explains that in the end the Panther had most of its issues ironed out, not in one sentence but explained over several pages dealing with the evolution of the design. The Panther's poor reliability in the field was, like that of every other German tank from late 44 to 45, the result of lack of oil, spare parts, regular maintenance and skilled drivers. The tank itself was reliable enough, and considering the circumstances under which it had to operate it did remarkably well, and the exact same can be said about the Tigers.

And as for the sabotage suspected with the oil filters, wouldn't be out of place, but again these were simple parts which could be assembled by unskilled labour. The construction of a Tiger tank itself however required skilled labour, and there is no evidence what'so'ever which points to any Tiger having been assembled by use of slave labour. It simply didn't happen, and pure logic also tells us that it couldn't cause they simply wouldn't have known what to do.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2010)

Enough!

Another great thread with lots of good information going down the fricken drain because people can't act like adults!

Apparently people ignored me the last time that I said that we would not tolerate you all destroying threads with your childish behavior! Why is that? Do you not think that you will be removed from the site, so that other members can actually discuss and learn things on this forum without having to put up with your bullshit?!

There are no more warnings, I am tired of this ****!


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 17, 2010)

> Again a reduction in max rpm does nothing other than change the top speed of the tank as long as it doesn't drop below the max torque range.



Again, this is very superficial. I don't think you grasp the concept. For the start, in which gears you can reach 2100rpm? just think of a car. *Do you know why the speed is lower in every gear?*

When we talk about engines we refer to power for performance, not max torque. Power related torque and angular velocity of the engine. You can have less torque than maximum but at a higher angular velocity, thus getting more power. Thats how power in HL 230 goes down from 690 to ~600.

Do you have a car? how do you refer to the engine performance? power or torque.

I already explained problems with Panther final drive and transmission, which have nothing to do with war situation/

I asked for sources before and no answers yet:

*Why did you claim I say there were no photos of IS-2 with frontal penetration when I was clearly referring to IS-2 mod 1944.*

*When did those problems were ironed out and what is the source to state that "Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther.”*

*AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.* 

*For further confirmation according to the Soviets themselves the Tigers were knocked out from the sides, and thats again what the Germans say.*

I have given sources, extracts and IMO concise data. All I ask is the same. 

To end up I will post this text from Spielberg book on Panther:

During a conference in the Heereswaffenamt on 10 February 1944 the opinion was expressed that the Panther I no longer met the requirements in light of the experience gained on the Eastern Front. *The panther should be completely redesigned and, as already mentioned, receive the Tiger steering mechanism and final drive.*

How can some one claim that Panther was very reliable when a complete redesign is needed!


----------



## m kenny (Jan 17, 2010)

CLAIM:



Soren said:


> Are you kidding me? Does it need to say from which angle each tank was knocked out??? They were ambushed alejandro! Do you know how an ambush works? Usually it doesn't happen from the front, I can tell you that. Also it just so happens that there are pictures of the Tigers lost there actually, and guess what ALL where knocked out from the side or rear.
> Yes I have photos, and they just shows side penetrations thats all.................................





Can anyone point me to a side penetration in any of the following pics?




























The last 2 photos are the same tank



Soren said:


> I checked in various books the origins of the photos as-well to be sure that I had the right ones (That takes time, something ignorant people can't comprehend). Some pictures have two completely different discriptions, but it said Lisow so I presented it.



Can you tell me which book gave this caption as Lisow please. 






It tends to pop up in Polish Publications The Wydawnictwo title 'Tigers in Action 1944'  (2006) has it on page 55 but the caption places it many miles and many months away.
I am pretty sure it first appeared in another Wydawnictwo title 'Kielce 1945' (2003) on page 14. Again it is placed in the earlier 1944 sPzAbt 501 debacle which gave the Soviets the TII they tested their guns on-as well as the TII now on display at Kubinka.
I presume that is where you got it but the location you say goes with it is clearly a later invention.

[
If you peruse your copy of Kielce 1945 you will find a pretty detailed description of the fighting on Jan 13th along with several maps.









Soren said:


> .
> 
> Furthemore very few JS-2's were actually present at Lisow, the attack was mostly carried out by T-34/85's hidden AT guns.



For your information page 46 says an IS II *Regiment * was present.


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2010)

Hello m_kenny
thanks for the Lisow map, it shows that 424 didn't attack alone but alongside with 17. PzD.

Soren
metal shavings in oil filter usually means that there is something wrong inside the engine not in oilfilter.

Juha


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 18, 2010)

The link below (Page 278) gives data on Italian POW owrking in Germany. Their treatment was not very nice. The photo giving evidence of Italian workers in Tiger-II manufacturing showed a massive "Italia" in a component. I can't remember if it was drilled but did not look very impressive.

Hitler's foreign workers: enforced ... - Google Books


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2010)

Hello alejandro
thanks for the very informative the link. I have general info on the appalling conditions Italian PoWs lived in Germany in Lamb's War in Italy 1943-45 but it isn't very exact where they worked, simply "in factories and mines" plus of course also in agriculture.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 18, 2010)

i tryed some times but never i can see page 278...


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 19, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Kurfürst
> ah typical to you



Yeah-yeah, get to the point, rhetorics isn't exactly your strong suit anyway..



> on Italians, we were talking on how Germans behaved towards Italians, and I know that their behaviour towards Italian PoW were on some areas really ing, for ex on Ionian Islands, mass executions etc.



Actually the subject is wheter so-called slave labour was actually present in Tiger II production, wheter they were actually employed in its assembly or were just helping out. On the slightly related note, we are talking about sweeping unreferenced statements made by Juha and m kenny about this alleged use of forced labour.



Juha said:


> Now have you some info on how Allied handled their Italian PoWs, slave labour?
> 
> Juha



I know several hundred thousends of Italian PoWs were used as slave labourers in Britain's agriculture. Its pretty common knowledge, the Brits even had some slightly related (romantic) movie with the theme.

I am not sure about their conditions, or the death toll during their imprisonment. Perhaps there are accounts from the Italian survivors.




Juha said:


> On Churchill, you seem to agree with most that road speed after all had some importance on mobility, yes?



Well if its significantly different from your typical tank or the other vehicles you have to work with then yes, but we are specifically discussing the the case of the Tiger, for which:

a, there wasn't significant difference compared to other tanks
b, reducing the revs didn't effect either torque (general mobility on terrain) or typical cruise speeds.

ie. if you think about it, they certainly didn't march on road in a general sense at top speed of 41 km/h and 3000 rpm before either, probably just about 2/3s due to engine wear, overheating and fuel economy considerations. Now if you usually cruise at about 2000 rpm, it doesn't matter at all wheter your engine is limited at 2500 or 3000... I am pretty sure that if my car would be regulated from 6500 down to 5000, I wouldn't notice at all - I rarely rev it up to even 4000 (unless I feel the urge  ) , and certainly it is very rare to cruise at more than 2500 in the city.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 19, 2010)

> Actually the subject is wheter so-called slave labour was actually present in Tiger II production, wheter they were actually employed in its assembly or were just helping out.



Jentz makes reference to "semi-diluted, mostly foreigner". We can discuss about the meaning and interpretation, but to me it does not sound like "the most skilled labour", as it was stated in this debate. I guess that if sabotage took place in mechanical components, its because this labour was not very well treated. Can we agree on this?



> a, there wasn't significant difference compared to other tanks



There was in power to weight ratio (except for Churchill). 



> ie. if you think about it, they certainly didn't march on road in a general sense at top speed of 41 km/h and 3000 rpm before either, probably just about 2/3s due to engine wear, overheating and fuel economy considerations



Of course, but I do not think your car has a power to weight ratio of ~10CV/ton. And if you do I would like to know what kind of vehicle you got!


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 19, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> There was in power to weight ratio (except for Churchill).



And..? It was also painted with much more vivid colours than say, American or Soviet tanks. The French ones may be an exceptions from that, I heard they really liked vivid colours too, though the pattern was different.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> I know several hundred thousends of Italian PoWs were used as slave labourers in Britain's agriculture. Its pretty common knowledge, the Brits even had some slightly related (romantic) movie with the theme.
> 
> I am not sure about their conditions, or the death toll during their imprisonment. Perhaps there are accounts from the Italian survivors.



Axis PoW were not used as "slave labour" in the UK, Commonwealth or USA. PoWs were given the opportunity to work for a wage, as per the various international conventions on the treatment of PoWs, and many Axis PoWs availed themselves of this opportunity, but they were not compelled to do so, as the food and conditions in the camps were relatively good. Here's one story:

Thunder Bay Historical Museum Society, prisoner of war art, krakhofer

and another:

POW Camps in UK - 1 to 50


----------



## Juha (Jan 19, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” On the slightly related note, we are talking about sweeping unreferenced statements made by Juha and m kenny about this alleged use of forced labour.”

If you bothered to read what I wrote, I gave the info I had and in my message#93 gave the source. And there is no “alleged” in the use of Italian Pows as forced labour by Germans, simply read a book on subject, and you’ll see. If you want more exact source info, it’s the Chapter 6 “Mussolini’s New Army, and the Fate of 600,000” in the Lamb’s book. That 600,000 means those Italian PoWs used as forced labour by Germany.

Quote:” ie. if you think about it, they certainly didn't march on road in a general sense at top speed of 41 km/h and 3000 rpm before either, probably just about 2/3s due to engine wear, overheating and fuel economy considerations. Now if you usually cruise at about 2000 rpm, it doesn't matter at all wheter your engine is limited at 2500 or 3000…”

Generally I agree and usually that is so but in the war there are situations that one needs all the speed one possible can squeeze out of one’s vehicle. Arriving a few minutes later at dominating feature might have grave consequences, look for ex. what happened to 20. PzD in late June 44 just SE of Bobruysk when some heavy Soviet tanks got into a wood near the eastern end of Bobryusk railway bridge before it. No Tigers there, only an example how sometimes time is essential.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 19, 2010)

Soren said:


> The construction of a Tiger tank itself however required skilled labour, and there is no evidence what'so'ever which points to any Tiger having been assembled by use of slave labour. It simply didn't happen, and *pure logic also tells us that it couldn't cause they simply wouldn't have known what to do.*



Hmmm, I don't know about the Tiger being build by slaves or not, but I believe this reasoning (in bold) is false as among the slave-labourers were quite some skilled craftsmen and technicians. "Slave-labourers" doesn't necessary mean "unskilled". I know this from first hand as my wife's grandfather was one of them.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 19, 2010)

double


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 19, 2010)

the use of POW in working it's not, generally, slave labour, also my grandfather was pow (world war I) and worked in bayern plates factory. we need specific info for know.


----------



## Juha (Jan 19, 2010)

Hello Vinzenco
I gave one source, according to it the 600.000 Italian PoWs in Germany were clearly forced labour and badly treated. Alejandro gave a net source, which also gives some info on the conditions they lived in. The some 200.000 Italian civilian workers in Germany had much better conditions.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2010)

I actually saw Italian POWs being used as laborers near the end of WW2 at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. They were maintaining the landscaping at the post and being guarded by MPs. Don't know if they were slave laborers on not but they seemed relatively content and very well fed. LOL


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 20, 2010)

> And..?



Simply that a tank with lower HP/weight ratio will tend to have a lower mobility.



> It was also painted with much more vivid colours than say, American or Soviet tanks. The French ones may be an exceptions from that, I heard they really liked vivid colours too, though the pattern was different.



I wonder how painting the tank in different colors will affect its mechanical performance...


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 20, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> Simply that a tank with lower HP/weight ratio will tend to have a lower mobility.



I see, than logically it can mean only two things:

a, The Tiger II had equal or higher HP/weight ratio compared to other tanks, since its mobility characteristics were equal or higher than other tanks..

b, It is not as simple... there's a lot between the engine and the terrain - for example transmission (ever wondered why Tigers had 8+4 gears in total?), running gear and the tracks themselves...



> I wonder how painting the tank in different colors will affect its mechanical performance...



And I wonder how power to weight figure all alone would give a guide about the mobility of a big tracked vehicle like a tank. Simply I was being sarcastic.


----------



## thrawn (Jan 20, 2010)

alejandro,

for clarification, can you please post your definition of mobility?
i.e. what charateristics are a must-have for tank to rate it mobile in your opinion?

regards

thrawn


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 20, 2010)

> a, The Tiger II had equal or higher HP/weight ratio compared to other tanks, since its mobility characteristics were equal or higher than other tanks..



Can you name a few apart from Churchill?


> b, It is not as simple... there's a lot between the engine and the terrain - for example transmission (ever wondered why Tigers had 8+4 gears in total?), running gear and the tracks themselves...



Did you read some of the excerpts I posted? tracks gave trouble. The General Inspector of the Panzertruppen asked for more powerful and more "healthy" engines i.e HL 234, cooling was also insufficient...

Is there any mechanical system in Tiger-II which was outstanding enough to make up for all this? 



> for clarification, can you please post your definition of mobility?
> i.e. what charateristics are a must-have for tank to rate it mobile in your opinion?



This probably covers a whole topic:

- Power to weight ratio.
- Fuel consumption/range.
- Cruising speed.
- Pressure over ground.
- Turning radius/Slope limits.
- Transmission -how effective, ease of drive-.

- Maintenance requirements - MTBF if it can be used in this context.
I would also consider weight and size from an strategic point of view. Tanks are often transported in trains, have to cross bridges. Tiger needed special wagons and was equipped with 2 sets of tracks.



> _5.Movement. As much as possible allow the Tigers to move alone.
> Reason: The stress on the automotive parts of the Tiger are least when it is given the opportunity to drive quickly without changing gears, braking and restarting. *The Tiger also disturbs the movement of other units. Bottlenecks, bridges and fords often present surprises for the Tigers through which traffic can become completely blocked.*
> 7.
> Do not request forced marches. Reason: The result will be high wear on the engine, transmission and running gear. The Tiger’s combat capability will thus be used up on the road and not in action. *The average speed for a Tiger unit is ten kilometers per hour by day and seven kilometers per hour by night*.
> ...



"Swinging the Sledgehammer: The Combat Effectiveness of German Heavy Tank Battalions in World War II" by Christopher W. Wilbeck


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 20, 2010)

i've take some info on italian "pow" (they were not considerd pow from germans authority, and theorically were classified free workers in early '44, w/o change in they actual situation) and after this we can agree that can be called slave labour ( in the common sense, also if this words are not technical exact). so now need know if italian "pow" were surely used in tigers factories


----------



## Njaco (Jan 20, 2010)

Didn't know this was a PzKpfw VI thread.


----------



## thrawn (Jan 20, 2010)

> - Power to weight ratio.


This is not a real characteristic of mobility. If so, a stationary power generator would be highly mobile.


> - Fuel consumption/range.


Agreed.


> - Cruising speed.


Agreed.


> - Pressure over ground.


This alone is also no real attribute of mobility, but the result is. namely good cross-country ability.


> - Turning radius/Slope limits.


Agreed.


> - Transmission -how effective, ease of drive-.
> - Maintenance requirements - MTBF if it can be used in this context.
> I would also consider weight and size from an strategic point of view.



Yes, for the most part i agree.

To sum it up, the ideal mobile tank can go nearly everywhere in the smallest possible amount of time. Would you agee to this?

regards 

thrawn


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 20, 2010)

thrawn said:


> This is not a real characteristic of mobility. If so, a stationary power generator would be highly mobile.



Right, so if we put a kubelwagon engine in a Tiger, it's mobility will remain the same? Power to weight ratio is a critical component of mobility, and it is completely ridiculous to claim otherwise. The Tiger has a 8 speed transmission because it is underpowered and the increased number of gears reflects a smaller usable power band.


----------



## thrawn (Jan 21, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Right, so if we put a kubelwagon engine in a Tiger, it's mobility will remain the same? Power to weight ratio is a critical component of mobility, and it is completely ridiculous to claim otherwise. The Tiger has a 8 speed transmission because it is underpowered and the increased number of gears reflects a smaller usable power band.



Maybe i didn't made my point clear enough.
I want a definition of mobility. What are the characteristics of mobility? i.e. what must a tank *could do*, to be mobile.

If we have these characteristics, we can determine how these can be technically achieved (power to weight, torque, ground pressure, etc.).And now we can look at the specification of each tank to judge its mobility.

regards

thrawn


----------

