schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
schwarzpanzer said:My basic point was that the Konigstigers armour had no Molybdenum or Manganese content (maybe even no Nickel) so a 122mm round would make a 'scab' fly through the KT (like a HESH round) unless it hit it in the turret which would likely rip it clean off.
That is without it penetrating.
Any other vs ideas?
Schwarzpanzer said:It says that the 88mm KwK36 was unable to penetrate point-blank @ 30 degrees, thus making the Pak43 also unable at combat ranges (it doesn't say the latter though)
Fact is there are absolutely no records of the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor ever being penetrated
the 122mm D25-T gun wasnt even close to being capable of penetrating the front glacis on the Tiger Ausf.B.
Dac's point is correct; 'shatter gap' and/or 'skate angle' is going to affect the results against the KT's glacis plate.
(Btw only nickel alloy was 'scarce' in the Tiger Ausf.B's armor)
Infact the Tiger-I was a serious threat to the JS-2 even at a distance of 2km. The 88mm Kwk36 would afterall punch through 116mm of vertical armor at a distance of 2000m with its standard round, and 91mm at 30 degree's from vertical - U.S. test results
Against the Tiger Ausf.B (Tiger II), the JS-2 only stands a chance if its a very close engagement where flanking maneuvers can be utilized to expose the Tiger's softer sides and rear.
A long-range frontal attack against a Tiger Ausf.B would have been pure suicide, as the Tiger Ausf.B was designed and built exactly for this role
carrying the best AT gun of the war.
Correction, this was by Russian measuring methods, and thus equals 60 degree's from vertical by western measures.
Infact the Pak43 was capable of cleanly penetrating the JS-2's front glacis at more than 1500m away
while being capable of penetrating the front turret at distances exceeding 4.5km.
A KingTigers turret front was penetrated by a 100mm and right through the gunsight too by the looks of things - ouch!
Also from what PlanD said, maybe the hull front too?
(which was also vulnerable)
Add to that the fact that the Porscheturm KT (1st 50) had a vulnerable shot-trap, like the Panther did 'till the late AusfG.
At point-blank, the 122mm could break 205mm of armour by sheer penetration.
Dac's point is correct; 'shatter gap' and/or 'skate angle' is going to affect the results against the KT's glacis plate.
However, from range, even a ricochet could be lethal; that big shell was capable of ripping Panther's turrets right off the hull!
Also the bolts holding the radios to the turret walls would go ping-ponging around the turret, mechanical failure would also be likely.
I think crews have been killed by ammo and radios falling on them when this happens?
Also penetration doesn't really matter too much!
HESH rounds don't work by penetrating armour.
(IIRC HESH were available for the Soviet WW2 Naval 100mm?)
The IS2M was a lot harder to kill though.
Point blank they are about equal frontally, unless the K-Tiger is a 'quality' version.
The 122mm could penetrate the KT's side/rear armour from quite a distance, say >1,500 km?
Yes, the KT should come out on top there (if it was decent quality).
It was rarely used this way though.
The best gun of the war? - That is debatable, good contender though.
Possible with APCR or APCBC. 8)
- But not plain AP.
I doubt that, but I will check.
90mm @ round is the same as a T34/85 (daft!) if a T34/85 was invulnerable at ranges >4km, then so was an IS2(M)!
I think the KV/85 and IS1/85 had 100mm of turret armour?
Thats a stupid step back, then again early T34's had 60mm of frontal armour, later to be 45mm!
The KT's front glacis was not at all vulnerable to any 122mm D25-T round, at 'any' range.
Very few KT's with Porsche turm's were manufactured.
(1st 50)
According to Russian tests, against Russian test plates.
Russian fairytale. The 122mm D25-T would never, under any circumstances, penetrate the KT's front glacis, period.
A 122mm D25-T round hitting the KT's front glacis could most likely barely even be felt by the crew
The IS-2 didn't have HESH rounds.
No, the KT is very much superior in every way under such an engagement.
problem is the D25-T couldn't anything beyond 1200m
No, it was used quite often this way actually, just sitting and waiting for anything to come within sight of its Kwk43 gun.
The best "AT" gun put on a tank, it certainly was.
The KT only carried APCBC.
the IS-2M only has 100mm of vertical frontal turret armor.
You're thinking about the Kubinka range KT?
- Not that one.
Not glacis, I said hull (underneath the glacis).
Anyway, at point blank it's just gonna cave in.
(1st 50)
No they were UK tests! <100m though.
It's possible, but unecessary, the 122mm didn't work by penetration.
I think not, armour would be chipped away
and the steering clutches would likely be shot at the very least.
The whole tank would likely even be forced backwards.
Similar principle, I actually think a few did (or was that SU-100?)
If the IS2's 1st round missed and it didn't get out it was dead!
Also if the KT got the 1st shot in...
The KT was a mahoosive target though...
The 90mm and 17 pounder were roughly equal, or better depending on your viewpoint.
No a variety was carried, the list is quite big; AP, APCBC, HE, APCR,
7.92mm etc, etc
90mm of rounded armour actually.
Infact there are no combat records what so ever of the front of a Tiger Ausf.B ever being penetrated, and thats a darn fact Schwartzpanzer.
It wouldnt penetrate that neither Scwartzpanzer.
No, its either going to bounce off, or shatter.
Would you call that alot ?
Ok, conducted where exactly ?
Schwartzpanzer, the 122mm D25-T wouldnt cause spalling on the glacis either, if thats what your implying.
Chipped away ?! Schwartzpanzer the round would simply bounce off, leaving only a deep dent in the armor.
Even if the IS-2, under some miracle, got the first shot in, it was still doomed to lose in such an engagement. The 122mm D25-T was simply so inefficient at long ranges, that it posed no threat what so ever to a Tiger Ausf.B in such a scenario.
At long ranges such as 1000m or more, that has almost zero importance.
They weren't even close Schwartzpanzer....
The only AP ammunition carried for the Kwk43 in the Tiger Ausf.B, was the APCBC.
The HE ammunition was for infantry targets.
APCR wasnt carried as "There was none!". German tungsten supplies had ran out already in late 43, so the remaining tungsten was issued only to the small AT guns ammunition, as these were worthless without it.
No, 100mm of armor actually,
the sides of the turret were 90mm thick
And rounded armor is also vertical.
schwarzpanzer said:I'll get it sometime.
The hull was not as heavily armoured, though the big 122mm shell would be a disadvantage there.
Those are possibilities, true.
Well, no,but KT production wasn't that large...
They were IIRC used on the Western front only?
Bovington IIRC.
That is indeed what I'm implying!
Even the short 122mm of the S122 (which was far inferior to the D25T) did that to a TigerI (whose armour was far better quality than the KT's).
At less than 600m? The 1st shot would likely win it.
It doesn't. If t did, every little helps...
At range, less 'lead' is needed.
The KT was also slow...
The were equal or better IMHO.
Penetration, RoF, weight etc.
What do you judge guns on??
No, APCR and APFDS were rare and very rare respectively.
BTW IIRC I don't think HVAP (APCR) was available for the 122mm?
Also retro ammo may be used, '88' KwK36 etc.
but HE can destroy a light tank or say a Cromwells flank...
There was some. Actually, in '44 all supplies went to machine tool production, it didn't run out in '43.
You're thinking about squeeze-bore, not APCR?
Definately 90mm.
Honestly can't remember.
No, it gives better protection, look at the IS3's 'inverted frying pan' turret.
- Unless it acts as a shot-trap, of course!
I'll be waiting patiently..
It was heavily enough armored to stop the 122mm D25-T's shell, I can assure you of that !
No, thats what is going to happen.
True, but still 50 ain't much at all.
Well then your wrong.
Your not seriously comparing the 100mm "Vertical" hull armor of the Tiger Ausf.E, with the 100mm "55 degree sloped" hull armor of the Tiger Ausf.B !
And btw where have you heard that story of yours about the SU-122 ?
Not a chance !
Considering the D25-T's already poor accuracy, it has almost zero importance.
The longer the range, the longer ahead of the targets axis of movement you'll have to aim. (Depending on the targets speed of-cause)
Thats not going to help the IS-2 at all in a long range engagement, as all the Tiger has to do in such a scenario is to stay put
If thats what your sources are telling you, then you desperately need to check 'their' sources, cause thats an outright lie !
In penetration power the Kwk43 clearly beats the 90mm M3 and 17pdr, no match. (The 17pdr being the closest to the Kwk43)
As to the optics, well the 17pdr and 90mm M3 both fall awfully short compared to the Kwk43 here as-well.
In weight, well all three weighed alot, the Kwk43 being the heaviest, but the Kwk43's weight is fully outweighed by its performance, that can't be said about the 90mm M3.
In RoF, well they are all pretty equal there. The Kwk43 might be a tad slower because of the large size of its rounds, but its excellent firing system more than compensates for that.
However the 17pdr lacked the Kwk43's HE capability and advanced optics, both of which are very important on the battlefield.
No Schwartzpanzer, I'm telling you the Tiger Ausf.B didnt use APCR rounds (And especially not APFDS cause no Tiger ever used that!), Why ? Cause there was none !.
German tungsten supplies had ran out in late 43, so there was none for the medium-heavy tanks as the little that remained was to be used in ammunition for small AT guns only, cause they were useless without it.
- Try not to use that, it's like a red rag to a bull!I'm telling you
The Tiger Ausf.E had stopped using APCR rounds already in 43, so there was nothing left for the Tiger Ausf.B to use !
Besides APCBC rounds were much more effective against tanks than APCR rounds anyway, as APCR rounds were "alot" more prone to bounce off sloped armor than the APCBC rounds. The APCR was only really effective against vertical, or lightly sloped armor. Above 35 degree's impact angle, and the APCR's penetration performance drops significantly ! (Same goes for the British APDS round)
Also the APCR didnt explode after penetration, while most APCBC rounds did. And exactly this deadly feature is what would spell instant death for the entire crew of the tank which was penetrated, as the pressure of the explosion would set off the tanks ammunition, blowing it up. (The Germans and Americans both utilized this feature in their APCBC rounds)
Yes, thats right, but apart from that it is mainly to be used against infantry, and AP rounds are also preferred against light tanks, as HE rounds arent nearly as accurate.
No, 100mm. (Some source's even quote 160mm in some places)
The IS-I has 90mm of frontal turret armor.
And a piece of good advice; Don't rely purely on your memory, thats a mistake far to often made, rather check up on the facts in a book from a respectable source.
Yes, overall it does provide better protection, but it is vertical at some point, making it very vulnerable to AP rounds.
I'm meaning under the glacis.
Not 100% chance, you must admit?
The Russians said this was only on the KT's of poor quality though.
I'm talking about hardness and malleability etc.
I can get the link.
Theres a great likelihood, equal on either side.
It had poor accuracy, but historians inflate it.
It was reasonably accurate to >1000m, though the optics weren't in the KT's league and a higher velocity is almost always an advantage for 'sniping'.
It's like the AK47 really.
You've got that the wrong way round.
A KT cannot manouvre out of an ambush (especially on poor terrain), this claimed many.
All published data says (roughly) the same story. I've never heard too different?
I know that, when firing APCBC, the 90mm is superior, though I dunno if that was used much WW2?
SVDS/APDS in the 17pdr is superior to '88' APCBC, except for the reasons you gave.
True, but not too much?
True, though the weight/performance ratio of the '88' was bad IMHO.
I remember a story of a destroyed Tiger where the deciding factor was a knackered loader!
It even had an official designation, PzGr41/43 IIRC?
BTW:- Try not to use that, it's like a red rag to a bull!I'm telling you
I'm in slight disagreement there.
Yes, but solid shot gives better penetration, research shows that APHE just isn't worth it.
160mm was the glacis thickness of the late IS2.
Do you have a source?
e.g. some T34's had 60mm glacis, most 45mm.
Yes, but when I'm unsure, I always try use language/grammer that makes it known that I'm unsure? but sometimes I know I'm right!(not here BTW ).
Yes, the IS2's front turret/mantlet is weird; small target but relatively easy to hit.