Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
I see no hits on the glacis at all ..
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.
Ughh....I rescue this thread from the deep bottom and you both start to post about the Sherman:
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?
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.
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.
Something also blew away the sandbags on the glacis and again you can see a depression in the centre of the transmission cover.
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."
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?
This topic is completely ruined, thanks soren and company.
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.