I'm meaning under the glacis.
Yes, and so am I, its called the "Hull".
Not 100% chance, you must admit?
99.999%.
The Russians said this was only on the KT's of poor quality though.
Yes, thats what the Soviets said 'after' they had bombarded the Tiger Ausf.B with hundreds of shells with different caliber. (The Soviets never were to thorough with their tests)
I'm talking about hardness and malleability etc.
That made almost no difference, because the Tiger Ausf.B's armor was as highly sloped as it was. And besides the quality of the Tiger Ausf.B's armor wasnt nearly as poor as some believe it to be.
The link ? Would you call that a respectable and reliable source ?
Theres a great likelihood, equal on either side.
Absolutely not !
It had poor accuracy, but historians inflate it.
I havent run across any 'respectable' source who've inflated this at all.
Fact is the 122mm D25-T gun was a 'really' poor shot beyond 800m.
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'.
Beyond 800m the 122mm D25-T is worth nearly nothing as a AT gun, and can only really be used as an Anti-Personnel gun.
It's like the AK47 really.
I don't really know what you mean ?
You've got that the wrong way round.
No, I've got that exactly right, you've just miss understood it. (Remember I mentioned the targets "Axis of movement" ?
)
Its simple really, as it takes a round longer to reach its target the further away it is, and therefore the more deflection (Aiming ahead) is necessary to insure a hit.
Against a stationary target no deflection is necessary, and the gun only has to be elevated (Lowered/Raised) to hit at the exact range of the target.
A KT cannot manouvre out of an ambush (especially on poor terrain), this claimed many.
Claims...
The Tiger Ausf.B was actually surprisingly maneuverable on rough ground for its size, and by no means as cumbersome as some believe.
Besides we're talking a long range engagement here, so an ambush is impossible.
But I do agree however that the Tiger Ausf.B would be at a disadvantage in a 'close in' ambush, mostly because of its size and long barreled gun.
All published data says (roughly) the same story. I've never heard too different?
Then you haven't been reading much lately !
I know that, when firing APCBC, the 90mm is superior, though I dunno if that was used much WW2?
What ?! No !
The 88mm Kwk43 heavily outperforms the 90mm M3 with APCBC rounds ! The 90mm M3 was barely better than the 88mm Kwk36, and equal at best to the 75mm Kwk42.
I mean that shouldn't be to hard figure out by yourself.
The 90mm M3 fires a 10.9kg projectile only at a mere
853m/s, compared to the 88mm Kwk43 which fires a 10.4kg projectile in excess of
1000m/s. Thats a difference of about 1,400 KJ in energy alone !
And this difference in power also clearly shows itself in the official armor penetration tests of the two guns;
88mm Kwk43 penetration data:
Penetrated 132mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000m - Official German testing with standard Pzgr.39/43 "APCBC" round.
Penetrated 139mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,187y - Official British testing with standard Pzgr.39/43 "APCBC" round.
Penetrated 178mm of vertical armor at 2,187y - Official U.S. testing with standard Pzgr.39/43 "APCBC" round.
90mm M3 penetration data:
Penetrated 106mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000y - Official U.S. testing with standard M82 "APC" round. (The only round for the 90mm M3 to be used in WW2)
Penetrated 109mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000y - Official U.S. testing with T33 "APC" round. (This round was developed after WW2)
Not even the cumbersome 'separately loading' 90mm T15 gun on the Super-Pershing could duplicate the 88mm Kwk43's penetration performance with similar AP rounds;
90mm T15 penetration data:
Penetrated 122mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000y - Official U.S. testing with T43 "APBC" projectile. (The APBC projectile had no explosive filler)
---------------------------------------
Note: German conducted tests used a more strict criteria for penetration and were against better quality armor than Allied tests.
(
U.S. conducted tests were of somewhat low criteria, as the round didnt even have to pass completely through the plate to be considered a penetration)
SVDS/APDS in the 17pdr is superior to '88' APCBC, except for the reasons you gave.
Yes, against vertical armor the APDS round is superior to the APCBC round, penetration wise that is. However the British APDS rounds of WW2 were highly inaccurate, absolutely useless beyond 700m, and would often bounce off armor it should've normally penetrated.
The 17pdr was much better off just using its already very effective APCBC round, as the gun itself was already powerful enough to threaten almost any German tank at long range with this round. And crews also highly preferred the APCBC round as it did much better against German tanks during the war than the APDS round.
Yes, "too much". The Tiger's optics were very much better.
True, though the weight/performance ratio of the '88' was bad IMHO.
No ! The 88mm Kwk43 has a excellent weight/performance ratio, much better than the 90mm M3's !
I remember a story of a destroyed Tiger where the deciding factor was a knackered loader!
Yeah, what a 'story' huh ?
It even had an official designation, PzGr41/43 IIRC?
Yes, its Pzgr.40 or Pzgr.40/43.
BTW:
- Try not to use that, it's like a red rag to a bull!
Well I didn't mean to offend you Schwartzpanzer, but try to look at it from my point of view... wouldn't you be just a tad irritated if someone persisted not to listen to what you know is the truth and kept stating something which isnt the truth at all ? (Don't take this as me saying your lying, cause I'm not, just saying that your source is faulty)
I'm in slight disagreement there.
Well thats your choice, Im just presenting the facts.
Yes, but solid shot gives better penetration, research shows that APHE just isn't worth it.
Whoever mentioned APHE rounds ?
A APCBC round and a APHE round are two completely different rounds, both relying on different ways to penetrate armor.
The U.S. and Germany both used APCBC rounds/Solid shot rounds with small explosive fillers inside which would explode after penetration, and this had no adverse effect on the penetration ability of the round at all, as the round still relies on its KE to penetrate the armor. (Not on a large explosion like the APHE round)
160mm was the glacis thickness of the late IS2.
No, that was 120mm sloped at 60 degree's from vertical.
Yes, many.
Even Battlefield.ru mentions those figures
e.g. some T34's had 60mm glacis, most 45mm.
None had a 60mm glacis, they all had a 45mm glacis sloped at 60 degree's from vertical.
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
).
Ok
No worries
Yes, the IS2's front turret/mantlet is weird; small target but relatively easy to hit.
Well it was one the first places German gunners would aim at (along with the lower hull), as a penetration there would almost always insure a 'total' destruction of the IS-2.
- thanks Dacs! 
