Best/favorite WW2 heavy tank

[airboiy]

about time theres a heavy tank pole!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[Freebird]

And that is all you posted?

And he spent hours crafting that post...

The thing I dont like about the Tiger I is its outdated design.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

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

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

 

[Danielmellbin]

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

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

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

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

 

[Freebird]

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

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

 

[Soren]

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

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

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

 

[SoD Stitch]

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

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

 

[Danielmellbin]

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

 

[Soren]

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

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

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

 

[Danielmellbin]

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

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

 

[Soren]

Daniel,

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

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

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

 

[Danielmellbin]

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

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

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

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

 

[Soren]

Will a US army test report convince you ?

 

[parsifal]

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

Here are the links for people to look at

Achtung Panzer! - Tiger I

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

STMMain

 

[Soren]

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Soren]

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

 

[Danielmellbin]

Will a US army test report convince you ?

probably - where is it?

 

[Soren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Accuracy

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

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

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

c. Penetration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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