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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

m kenny

Banned
308
1
Oct 15, 2006
The Tiger Ausf.B's glacis is 150mm thick and sloped at 50 degrees from vertical, the Jumbo's glacis is 100mm thick and sloped at 47 degrees from vertical ! So as you can see the Tiger Ausf.B is enormously better protected from the front than the Jumbo, you can't even compare the two !

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

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

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

Attachments

  • jjjkkl0002.jpg
    jjjkkl0002.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 205
  • jumbo2nd.jpg
    jumbo2nd.jpg
    47.9 KB · Views: 200
  • jumboist.jpg
    jumboist.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 190
Here are 2 Jumbos hit by 88's
The first Jumbo had 1 hit bounce of the glacis and 2 off the mantlet before a 4th entered through the gunsight opening in the mantlet.

I see no hits on the glacis at all M_kenny.

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

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

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



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

On the original there is a hole at number '3'.
The glacis hit is numbered '8' and is on the side of the drivers hatch. It bounced upwards and took a chunk from the bottom of the turret just on the level of the mantlet and to the right as you look at it.
Something also blew away the sandbags on the glacis and again you can see a depression in the centre of the transmission cover.
 
m kenny, I thought you dolts were arguing this Sherman vs Tiger/Panther BS on another thread. I really like your posts, but what's going on?
 
m kenny, I thought you dolts were arguing this Sherman vs Tiger/Panther BS on another thread. I really like your posts, but what's going on?

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

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

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

And since the Jumbo had a pea-shooter of a gun it was a Cow on the battlefield, no match for the KingTiger which could knock it out at distances exceeding 2km. Heck even the Tiger Ausf.E could take out the Jumbo frontally at a distance of 1km, just by aiming at the turret. The Panther could do the same at a 1.5km distance. Truth is, against the AT and tank-guns of the time, the Jumbo was anything BUT impervious to AT fire."
 
On the first pic the 88 hit is on the front transmission cover, dead centre and just below the row of bolts. The hit destroyed the sandbags on the glacis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

And as you can see in both cases the turret was penetrated completely.
 
range was 'about 800 yds'.

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

The turret is 6 inches all round.

The photos are in Steve Zaloga's 'US Tank Battles In Germany 1944-45' and he also had an article on Jumbo's in Military modelling a while back where at least the de-turreted Jumbo was featured. book for Concord.
 
6 inches all round, thats 152mm. And the 88mm L/56 Kwk36 would penetrate 151mm of vertical 240BHN RHA armor at 500m with the std. Pzgr.39 APCBC round - So that they didn't completely penetrate at ca.731m sounds right.

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

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

The Jumbo's glacis should be impervous to both guns at 200m and beyond.
 
I have a question for you tank experts. What was the typical accuracy of WWII tank and anti-tank cannon? From what I have read and the pics you guys are posting, it looks to be within a couple of minute-of-angle (MOA) [e.g. 1 MOA = 1in at 100yds, 6in at 600yds].

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

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

Not a fairytale, they actually did this until they got the more powerful Pz.IV F-2, after which they didn't have to.
 
This topic is completely ruined, thanks soren and company.

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

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



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

Soren - how does this compare to the accuracy of other nations tankers?
 
It beats the accuracy of the guns by any other nation for sure, however since I haven't got any detailed info on gun accuracy tests carried out by the Allies I can't tell you by how much exactly.
 
Here we go. Thanks moderators. I have enjoyed these two heavyweights battling this out, but not juxtaposed with other threads.

Have at it guys. I'm honestly amused with your well researched posts.
 
Glad to know I made someone happy :D
 
Okay, so I'll ask the question again in the proper thread...

I have a question for you tank experts. What was the typical accuracy of WWII tank and anti-tank cannon? From what I have read and the pics you guys are posting, it looks to be within a couple of minute-of-angle (MOA) [e.g. 1 MOA = 1in at 100yds, 6in at 600yds]. I've actually read of german commanders targeting barrels of KV-1/-2 to disable them. Fairy tale?
 
I wouldn't for a second question the truth or validity of both arguements, but I also hope people see these kind of comparisons purely as theoretical exercise and not reflective with what makes one thing better than another.

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

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

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

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Back