Duel at Dessau

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi DerAdler,

So all I need is tact and useful info? - OK, I'm screwed!


Hi Tanker,

I understand you feel strongly on this? OK, but I'd advise altering your language slightly. Your different viewpoint is appreciated though.

It appears we don't have a Swearbot, but I'd advise avoiding it, if possible. Is BS OK? Though 'Propaganda' would be enough to make your point?


Back to the subject:

I came across this:

- It appears that this KT has been shot in the lower hull from underneath, from what looks like 75mm+ calibre and the shots have bounced off. The poor quality of it's armour may have allowed spalling to happen, however.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What's so wrong with bringing up old threads, just because they were posted years ago?
THEY ARE NOT CORRECT AT ALL.

AND YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A RETARD - LAST WARNING SNAPPERHEAD. COOL YOUR JETS OR ELSE YOU'RE GETTING LAUNCHED INTO CYBERSPACE

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Would it please be OK to go a little easier on newbies? I can understand that first posts can seem agressive, but I'm sure he'll settle down. He needs to realise that his opinion is appreciated because it is different - so he's got no need to act defensively.

If we can all stay away from insulting comments, please guys? (but feel free to throw all you want at me though, I can take it ).

 

[GrauGeist]

I can enjoy a good debate, and I don't mind it when someone comes to the table with some good information, it's how folks learn, right? Just talk to me (or others) in the same manner as you would want to be addressed...

As far as the engagement goes I agree that officially, there weren't units in the area, however, given the late date in the war that this action occurred, it is entirely possible and very likely that the Pershing encountered a detatched unit, as there was plenty of chaos with retreating units scattered all over the collapsing lines. You had detached units being pressed into service like groups of Luftwaffe men fighting alongside Wehrmacht troops, members of the Home defense mixed in with SS and so on.

The fact that a King Tiger was encountered in that town is not unrealistic. You might notice that they didn't encounter 3 or 4 King Tigers, right? In the report, the Pershing slugged it out "mano-y-mano" with the Bengal and moved on to mix it up with some other panzers, which were most likely a mixed-matched group that was scraped together as defense or a rear-guard action covering a withdrawl.

Now, unless you were actually there and can tell me first hand what actually happened, then I'd suggest we consider the information given us by those that were, to be reasonably accurate.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is exactly the point. New views, facts or opinions are welcome. One can do it however in a friendly and adult like manner. It has nothing to do with coming here to make friends or not.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would it please be OK to go a little easier on newbies?l

NO - he was warned once. I don't mind spirited debate but this is outside the boundaries. This will not be tolerated and I will ban permanently anyone who continues to behave this way.

Now press on.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

OK Flyboy, I just get a little depressed when people are banned, so long as no-one threatens me or anything, then I'm fine with taking flak, but yes, if people start using insults, then I believe it shows they are losing the arguement IMO. War is a heated subject though, and some Forums leap on newbies, which will create an aggressive attitude - but it needs to be realised by them that this isn't one of them. I like getting a ribbing though, a bit of banter, but some people could take that as being insulting when it's not.


Anyway, pressing on:

This quote has led me to believe that the crew of the KT weren't that well trained:

As it rolled down one of the many streets it turned around at an intersection to see a King Tiger around 600 yards away. The King Tiger fired but its shot went harmlessly over the Pershing. The Pershing fired upon the King Tigers front glacis plate and the round was deflected. Then the Pershing was struck but did little damage, it is not known if the round was caused by the King Tiger or another tank. Capabilites from the King Tiger show that if it was from the King, it would have been a near miss definately not a direct hit because that would have ripped the Pershing apart.
The King Tiger started rolling forward towards the Pershing and moved over a pile of rubble. The Pershing crew taking advantage of the moment, fired when the King Tigers ill-armoured underbelly was pointing towards them. The round went straight through and exploded the King Tigers ammo blowing the Kings turret clean off.

First of all the KT missed - easy enough on a moving target, but the 2nd shot didn't hit square-on (though again, it may have been a moving target). Then, the crew drive over a pile of rubble - exposing the weakest parts. Some KTs weren't fully crewed though, an/or used part Luftwaffe crews (though I suppose a loaders job would be OK there). Either this was a poorly crewed vehicle, or it was propaganda IMO.


There is also a video of a Pershing taking on a Panther Ausf G:

WW2 Combat Footage - Pershing vs Panther Video

- but it seems the crew just reversed and then took hits in what looked to be the sponson (the weak part). I suppose it's the crews as well as the machine that count - but either way it's good propaganda: 'Their machines aren't as good as you think, and their crews aren't invincible either' etc.

I wonder if there are any heroic tales of Sherman 76mms taking on heavier Panzers?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK Flyboy, I just get a little depressed when people are banned, so long as no-one threatens me or anything, then I'm fine with taking flak, but yes, if people start using insults, then I believe it shows they are losing the arguement IMO. War is a heated subject though, and some Forums leap on newbies, which will create an aggressive attitude - but it needs to be realised by them that this isn't one of them. I like getting a ribbing though, a bit of banter, but some people could take that as being insulting when it's not.

Point taken, but be advised that this individuals fist post was not endearing to him as a "newbe" and as stated will not be tolerated. That's what makes this forum different from the others. Now with that said, case closed...

 

[timshatz]

There is also a video of a Pershing taking on a Panther Ausf G:

?

That is a great vid. Seen it a ton of times. Outstanding.

 

[Njaco]

Ok, lets see now. The rarest tank in the entire ETO (only 1 Super Pershing saw action in Europe) 'magically' and 'coincidentally' manages to find and best one of the rarest German tanks of that time......in an area NOWHERE NEAR where any surviving King Tiger units are operating? Far fetched propaganda which has now been shown to be nonsense. We now have a complete record of all King Tiger actions and movements and none were anywhere near Dessau in April 1945. Did the KT fly to Dessau on it's own?

There are NO pictures of this phantom King Tiger at Dessau. No unit ID. Not even a tank number. A King Tiger k.o'd by a Super Pershing would have been a great pictorial attraction for the occupying U.S forces.....yet there is not even one picture of the aftermath of this mysterious 'event'.
The U.S thought enough to take lots of pictures of the Tiger I k.o'd by the regular Pershing near Elsdorf in Feb '45, but 'mysteriously' NOBODY ever took a pic of this phantom King Tiger at Dessau????

King Tiger unit placements on April 21st 194:

Battalion 501= unit already disbanded near Paderborn.
Battalion 502= unit disbanded 19th April in Harz mountains.
Battalion 503= in combat in the Austrian Hungarian border area near Stronsdorf.
Battalion 504= In action near Ferrara, Italy.
Battalion 505= unit disbanded in East Prussia. Last Tiger k.od 15th April.
Battalion 506= Unit disbanded 14th April at Iserlohn (the Ruhr).
Battalion 507= Last Tigers in action on 11th April near Osterode (Harz)
King Tiger unit placements on April 21st 1945 (continued).
Battalion 508= In Italy. No King Tigers in the battalion.
Battalion 509= in action in lower Austria between St Polten and Amstetten.
Battalion 510= Unit disbanded 18th April in the Bode valley.
Grossdeutschland= No King Tigers.
SS 501 = In action at Eschenau, Austria.
SS 502= In action around Fortstenwalde (south of Berlin).
SS 503= In action in Berlin.

[ source: Tiger I Information Center - Unit Histories ]

So you see, there were never any King Tigers or King Tiger units at Dessau, this is FACT.

ALL Tiger unit movements are known and recorded. Often we even now know the exact number of tanks they had at any particular given time.
You will be surprised at how much bona fide German archives have come to light these last 15 years.
Wolfgang Schneider and others have provided exhaustive research and shed complete light on what was unknown before because nobody bothered. Now we know everything. Daily combat records, movements and allocations of ALL the Tiger units are known and are widely available.

We even know when they received their tanks.
I can tell you where each unit was on which day and date.
NONE were anywhere near Dessau on 21st April 1945. Closest was SS battalion 502. It was located SEVENTY miles northeast around Forstenwalde engaging the Soviets.
There were NO King Tigers at Dessau.

Have you ever wondered why there was never any picture of this 'mysterious King Tiger' defeated by the Super Pershing? Because it didn't happen. No pictures. No Tiger unit ID. No records from German bundesarchives. NOTHING.Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Makes a nice 'mythical' story to try to show the most powerful US tank of WW2 bested the most powerful German tank of WW2 but that's all it was.
It wasn't a King Tiger. The US captured Dessau and were there for ages.....yet NOT ONE picture? Hmmmmm.

If we go by all allied tanker's accounts of 'Tigers' they faced then there must have been bloody thousands of them in 1944'45. 'Tigers' were allegedly everywhere if we listen to them.
Panthers were mostly called Tigers. Jagdpanthers too. Even Panzer IV sometimes.
King Tiger wasn't the only German AFV with 88mm KWK 43 L/71.
Jagdpanther had that gun. So did Nashorn.
Again NO KING TIGERS WERE AT DESSAU.
Nearest King Tiger unit was 100 miles to the east fighting the Soviets.

A Tiger I was k.o'd by a Pershing near Cologne in early '45 (and vice versa). We have documented proof and photos of that but Super Pershing v King Tiger is very bogus.

My question is; were there any King Tigers at Dessau?

 

[tanker1408]

.....The poor quality of it's armour may have allowed spalling to happen, however......

The King Tiger that got 5 frontal hits near Paris in August 1944? The driver (Walter Jung) got out and we have the pic of him looking at the hits on the front plate. None penetrated and he wasn't even wounded by spalling or the force of the hits.

Look at the damn picture and tell me what you see? Good armour that could withstand multiple allied tank gun hits..................or no? OF COURSE IT WAS STILL GOOD ARMOUR!!!
There is not even a hint of any splitting. Can't see ant bits falling off. Where are the examples of this?

It was Soviet propaganda that the KT fell apart when hit. The British and Americans have never claimed this and there are no pics showing the KT's armor splitting or spalling.
Where are the pictures of all these King Tigers that 'fell apart' after being hit by those wonderful Soviet tanks??
In the fantasy minds of your beloved Soviets?

Bazooka and Panzershreck were tested in a competion. Both failed to penetrate the King Tiger's glacis in repeated shots at point blank. Panzerschreck could penetrate 200mm armor.
One of the hits landed EXACTLY on the weld seam on the upper glacis. It DIDN'T split the weld open and nor did the King Tiger 'fall apart LOL.

FACT: NO ALLIED TANK GUN EVER PENETRATED A KING TIGER'S FRONT GLACIS IN COMBAT.

FACT: THERE ARE NO PICTURES OF ANY KING TIGERS THAT 'FELL APART' IN COMBAT.

But there is AMPLE evidence of King Tigers taking a lot of punishment without 'falling apart'.
One King Tiger suffered over 200 hits and the crew were fine. The Tiger was regarded almost as a 'life insurance policy'. hehe

The Soviets were the kings of spin and propaganda. Hell, they even claim the western allies lend lease help wasn't important to them. or best of all when they claim 70 Tiger Is were k.o'd on 12th July '43 at Prokhorovka....never mind that less than 20 were involved in the battle and only ONE was lost on that day at Prokhorovka. I never believe what the Soviets claim.

By the way, at the time the King Tiger was being built, the Panther was also being built with the same (lesser) steel quality so the Panther G steel was no better quality than King Tiger's. Yet at almost point blank range many tank guns failed to penetrate the Panther's front glacis plate and no THE TANK DIDN'T FALL APART OR SPLIT IT'S WELDS.

 

[tanker1408]

Anyway, pressing on:

This quote has led me to believe that the crew of the KT weren't that well trained:

First of all the KT missed - easy enough on a moving target, but the 2nd shot didn't hit square-on (though again, it may have been a moving target). Then, the crew drive over a pile of rubble - exposing the weakest parts. Some KTs weren't fully crewed though, an/or used part Luftwaffe crews (though I suppose a loaders job would be OK there). Either this was a poorly crewed vehicle, or it was propaganda IMO.

'Their machines aren't as good as you think, and their crews aren't invincible either' etc.

Even if it was a poorly trained crew without experience, but after ground training they were always capable of starting first round hits at over 1,000 meters anyway.
Good trained crews could actually start first round killing at 1,500 meters under combat conditions.

range_____ in training_____ in combat:
_______________________________
100 m_______ 100%_______ 100%
500 m_______ 100%_____ 100%
1000 m______ 100%_______ 89 %
1500 m_______ 97 %_______ 66 %
2000 m_______ 89 %_______ 47 %
________________________________

I wonder how could the crew miss 2 times at close range?

The gunner sight in the Tiger was the "binocular Turmzielfernrohr 9b".

This range scale was graduated at 100 meter intervals up to a maximum range of 4,000 meters! Which means that any Tiger crews were able to kill enemy tanks at a very long distance over 2-3 km very accurate - due to the high muzzle velocity of the 88mm gun. Tiger crews could accurately hit targets at ranges where the enemy could not even aim at!

Another example in a clear photo (below). This is the view of the gunner of a German heavy tankhunter "Ferdinand" seen through his aiming optics. The T-34 was destroyed from a distance of 2000 meters. The same gun and same optics were also used in the King Tiger.
Yet how could they miss 2 times with this outstanding binocular optics and a impressive high velocity gun at close distance of 500m?

Kurt Knispel (highest scoring tank ace of WW2 and considered as the best tanker of all time, with 168 confirmed tank kills) is credited with knocking out a T-34 at even 3,000 meters range.

'the German tank bounced a shot off the Super Pershing's extra armor'

Nonsense, the 8,8cm kwk 43 could penetrate 274 mm of vertical armor at 500 meters distance.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi timshatz,

Yes, it is good isn't it? Any idea on what History Channel Programme it was originally shown on?


Hi Njaco,

My question is; were there any King Tigers at Dessau?

I suppose that is a misleading question. By this point, everything was in turmoil - so if a KT got seperated and ended up at Dessau?... Not saying that is definately what happened,but it is possible. If the crew were lost, distressed, sperated, tired and alone, it would also explain why they weren't so on the ball.


Hi tanker,

I suppose on the spalling/weld craking thing - the Soviet guns were large, and relied on this effect and were: 85mm, 100mm, 122mm and 152mm. Allied and German guns relied on penetration (which is theoretically more efficient, but does have it's drawbacks), these were 'only': 76.2mm and 90mm for the Allies, and 75 88mm for the Germans - though 128mm was used later. Also, Soviet armour was apparently very prone to spalling, so even the 75mm KwK 40 caused spalling on the IS-2s armour.

Apparently, the Panzershreck could only penetrat 160mm of vertical armour - making the frotal arc of the KT quite safe from it.

HEAT can work in weird ways. It would only create a small, pencil-diameter hole in the weld - not enough to cause catastrophic failure.

It was believed before, that a KT was never penetrated frontally. This Forum has shown that the turret front was pierced - and, depending on how this Thread pans out, maybe the lower front hull too. Maybe evidence will emerge that the glacis was penetrated? In addition to that, the Kubinka tests show that the initial hits were made by 122mm's - and penetrated (though this happening in combat would be unlikely, IMO).

Yes, the KT was sturdy, I call it a 'Hero Tank'. The Soviets though, always pelted any vehicle they came across with large-calibre guns, rather than aimed shots using smaller-calibre ones. This is shown with what happened to the Ferdinands at Kursk - all those lost vehicles could have been repaired, but were still technically KO'd. There are several tyes of AFV 'kill': Mobility being just one (Forget the exact terms for the rest, sorry ).

That pic seems to show aprox 75mm, as I said - so not ikely to cause spalling (Though I'm not sure - delcyros will know the answer?).

As I said, there are many different kinds of AFV KO, IIRC the Bovington Tiger was KO'd, for example.

Lend-Lease was always desireable to the Soviets, especially early on. Later on though, Allied tanks were not that necessary.

Yes, Panther Gs were also poor quality, though I'd say variable. IIRC the Panther in the Kubinka trials was an Ausf A (earlier) - and had better quality armour than the KT. I think there are photos of Panthers been torn apart IIRC?

Even if it was a poorly trained crew without experience, but after ground training they were always capable of first round hits at over 1,000 meters anyway.
Good trained crews could actually start first round killing at 1,500 meters under combat conditions.

range_____ in training_____ in combat:
_______________________________
100 m_______ 100%_______ 100%
500 m_______ 100%_____ 100% <- Our scenario
1000 m______ 100%_______ 89 %
1500 m_______ 97 %_______ 66 %
2000 m_______ 89 %_______ 47 %
________________________________

I wonder how could the crew miss 2 times at close range?

Some great info there. If the KT was there, how did the crew miss? Well, as I said above, if they were there, they wouldn't be 100% - and may even have injured, or lost crew members, or only have HE shells left etc.

The 2nd round hit, but bounced off, maybe a glancing blow, or HE. High-velocity, narrow-calibre hits work poorly in close range encounters with thick armour - due to a phenomenon known as shatter-gap.

Good sights are al well and good - but you need to be very sharp to use them properly. Soviet and Allied equipment was often easy to use, not so for German equiment.

Apparently, essentialy the same gun as in the KT - the PaK 43 - destroyed an IS-2 at 4,600m! That is likely using calm, aimed fire though - not in desperation, as in this scenario.

Perhaps the KT crew were just tryig to get away? Or it was commandeered by an unoriginal crew? (as in the case of 'Command Post 506').

The thick armour was there in case of close-range encounters.

A sniper is not ideal for CQB.

Nonsense, the 8,8cm kwk 43 could penetrate 274 mm of vertical armor at 500 meters distance. I refuse to believe that additional armor plates on the Super Pershing's turret were 280mm thick!

I'm not sure, it might have been? Anyway, that is verical armour. At an oblique angle, that info would be near useless. Also, the Persings turret mantlet armour was rounded, and very ductile.

 

[Njaco]

Schwarzpanzer, that was 'tongue-in-cheek' - if I read that sentence one more time.........!!!!

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi Njaco,

AARGH! Ya got me!! How could you??

Still, what it caused me to reply was a reasonable comment?

 

[Njaco]

Most defiante. The calm, rational posts here have been very informative.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

OK, now I know that one was tongue-in-cheek!

 

[Njaco]

possibly!

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Why you little tinker!

I like the way you mention calm, then I double post - totally stressing me out!

If any Moderators could please delete my 2nd post? - sorry.

I have a bit more info regarding the KT vs Pershing: The Ford GAF V8 was considered underpowered, even in the lighter M26, hence the M46 being developed. Though the KT was underpowered, apparently it was enough - and I suspect the design would give more torque? Still, I think it was a lot heavier than the Super Pershing?

 

[timshatz]

Hi timshatz,

Yes, it is good isn't it? Any idea on what History Channel Programme it was originally shown on?

.

Schwartz, I don't remember the show but I definitely remember the guy who is talking. He's on the history channel productions. I don't think the show was about tanks per se but about fighting in western europe with an emphasis on armor.

I'll try to remember it, kinda cloudy up there right now after a full weekend of boozing on Easter.