The best AFV in the Kursk bulge 1943.

[schwarzpanzer]

What about the Leningrad debut? They got stuck in the mud, plinked one-by-one (by ZIS 76mm's) or captured. The element of surprise was lost. Same with NA.

You're right though, it is amazing how the Tiger built such a reputation for itself from these early fiasco's and with such little built. 8) Same with the PzIV and V really...

Still this venerability made them primary targets and celebrated kills...

And they were prone to breaking down and running out of fuel...

 

[KraziKanuK]

quote: "It was at Pont-du-Fahs (in Tunisia). Only 1 Tiger, but what a pathetic debut!"

Is was on the Robaa-Font du Fahs Rd. It was 2 Tigers. One was blown up and the other was taken back to GB. Several IVs were also destroyed.

One can read about this captured tank in Tiger! The Tiger Tank: A British View by HMSO, ISBN 0-11-29426-2

 

[plan_D]

When the Tiger first appeared in Leningrad it wasn't a shambles. The Red Army was shocked beyond belief, the Tiger achieved amazing results. And the Soviet tanks and troops were smashed to pieces. Only two Tigers were destroyed or damaged, a few broke down but were recovered. And I believe even the damaged one was recovered.

In North Africa the Tiger that is now at Bovington was captured when the Afrika Korps left, or surrendered, at the end of the North African campaign. Only three Tigers were destroyed in North Africa by enemy fire, all by the British. And they were all with heavy artillery save the ONE by the OQF 6pdr. Which is not a shambles, since the said Tiger took over 70 hits before it came to a halt. One Tiger in North Africa took over 150 hits from various arms and was not destroyed.

Most Tigers were forced to halt after destroying tens upon tens of enemy tanks, and AFVs, the Allies forced them to chase by runnin' away and leading the Tigers on to the minefields in the African desert.

The Tiger destroyed well in excess of 400 tanks while in North Africa for a loss of three destroyed themselves. That is not a fuckin' shambles, you tart.

The second showing of the Tiger in the Leningrad area WAS a shambles, but only two Tigers were destroyed. They didn't get stuck, but the ground was marsh and the Tigers were used wrong. This was never done again ... and the Tiger destroyed thousands upon thousands of American, British, Canadian and Russian AFVs with very little loss to themselves.

You came up against a Tiger in anything, at anytime during the war, no matter what you're in ... unless it's another Tiger or a King Tiger - you've fucked it ... face it.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Dug out the book.

The combat on the Robaa Rd, Jan 20 1943, was between the German tanks (2 VIs, 4 IIIs) and the 1 and 2 Troop A Bat 72A/Tk Regt RA.

All were put out of action. The 2cd Tiger was recovered by the Germans that night.

 

[CharlesBronson]

Some profiles of the AFV deployed by the germans.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Nice pics CB!


I've checked up and there were indeed 2 Tigers!

There were also 9 PzIII's IV's.

If there were 4 PzIII's, then there were 5 PzIV's.

The 6pdrs extremely skillfull/lucky, as they were hidden and much closer (than 500yds) and shatter-gap would've set in.


PlanD:

When the Tiger first appeared in Leningrad it wasn't a shambles. The Red Army was shocked beyond belief, the Tiger achieved amazing results. And the Soviet tanks and troops were smashed to pieces. Only two Tigers were destroyed or damaged, a few broke down but were recovered. And I believe even the damaged one was recovered.

Do you have the date for this incident?

I thought the 1st encounter on the Eastern Front was this:

http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/tiger.htm

The first time Tiger saw action was on August 29th of 1942 and September 21st/22nd at Mga, southeast of Leningrad with 1st company of sPzAbt 502. The unsuccessful engagements ended in the new Tiger being captured by the Soviets, who then examined it and exhibited during the captured equipment exhibition in Moscow's Gorky Park in 1943. The failure of Tigers was attributed to mechanical problems as well as poor terrain conditions, totally unsuitable for heavy tanks.

The Tiger destroyed well in excess of 400 tanks while in North Africa for a loss of three destroyed themselves. That is not a fu*kin' shambles, you tart.

No, I don't suppose it is - slut!

the ground was marsh and the Tigers were used wrong. This was never done again

Correct, but this mistake was repeated I'm sure.

You came up against a Tiger in anything, at anytime during the war, no matter what you're in ... unless it's another Tiger or a King Tiger - you've f*cked it ... face it.

Well there was the Firefly, Comet, Challenger, Centurion, Pershing, Super-Pershing, Jackson, Achilles, SU-100/122/85, T34/85, KV3/85, IS2M and of course the Panther, JagdPanther, Hornisse etc - but let us not go there, shall we?

 

[CharlesBronson]

SS Tigers advancing in the battle.

 

[CharlesBronson]

Churchilll Mk-IV destroyed, not even the 89mm (turret) or the 76 mm armor (hull) withstand the german AP ammo.

 

[MacArther]

The question is, what calibur did it to the Churchill, and was it an anti-tank gun or a tank mounted weapon?

 

[reddragon]

I wonder what would have happened if the attack had taken place earlier? I think it was a really stupid idea to give the Soviets so much time to fortify an obvious target. I know it takes time to prepare for an attack but I'm under the impression that this attack was delayed because Hitler wanted to try out the new Panther and waited until some were available to take part.

 

[plan_D]

The Kursk Offensive was not delayed because of the Panther. The Panther was ordered to be built starting in December 1942 to be ready by 12th May 1943. Production was late starting (January 1943) but the first Panther Ausf Ds arrived in April , were then recalled, and the issue came in May 1943 to the 51st and 52nd Panzerabteilungen. These were ready for the offensive in July, 1943.

The Panther was ready for when it was ordered. I see no reason for a delay , as it seems the attack was planned for that time period anyway.

 

[CharlesBronson]

The question is, what calibur did it to the Churchill, and was it an anti-tank gun or a tank mounted weapon?

The mark III and IV carried a british 6 pounder (57 mm) teorically it can shoot both AP and HE ammo but the explosive shells were unavailable until 1944.

 

[MacArther]

Ummm, I was asking if you knew what gun or guns were used to attack that particular Churchill. Was it a tank VS tank battle, or was it an anti-tank gun ambush? Also what calibur guns engaged the Chuchill, because some of the shots seemed to have done more damage than others?

 

[CharlesBronson]

Probably was hit several times with the 75mm Pak 40.

The larger holes seems to be caused by the 88mm , wich could be from a Flak 18 or the Tiger I main gun.

 

[delcyros]

minimum striking velocity needed to achieve full penetration against
the Churchills vertical armor (A= turret; B= sides):
(under the following estimations: Plate quality=0.95 (aequivalent to 15% elongation and 260 Brinell hardeness in average, which is average for ww2 tank armour); no prior impacts, no longitudinal impact angle greater than 1 degree, no further additions to the designed armor layout, armor quality= in within normal acceptance limits)

7.5 cm PzGr. 39 (weight 6.8Kg) with AP-cap and windscreen
8.8 cm PzGr. 39 (weight 10.2 Kg) with AP-cap and windscreen

against the turret: 7.5 cm PzGr. 39: 1.666 ft/sec.(~500 m/sec.); 8.8 cm PzGr. 39: 1.560 ft./sec(~470 m/sec.).
against the sides: 7.5 cm PzGr. 39: 1.510 ft/sec.(~450 m/sec.); 8.8 cm PzGr. 39: 1.419 ft./sec(~430 m/sec.).

Computed via M79 APCLC (thanks Okun!). Shatter is not taken into consideration! The minimum striking velocitys are well in possibility and imply a long range for both guns to penetrate the Churchill MK IV at direct impact angles.

 

[MacArther]

Hmmm, I would have thought that some of the smaller impacts had been made by 50mm L/60 anti-tank guns. The anti-tank gun model could perform better (according to my books, which have been known to be flawed) than the tank mounted model in terms of velocity and penetration of armor.

 

[delcyros]

We can check it.

Using PzGr. 39 (weight 2.06 Kg, sectional density=1.05) with a muzzle velocity of 835 m/sec. (approx. 2770 ft./sec.) for a Pak 5,0 cm L60.

(same armor specifications as above)

minimum striking velocity against Churchill MK IV to achieve full penetration:
A(turret): 2157 ft./ sec. (~650 m/sec.)
B(sides): 1996 ft./ sec. (~600 m/sec.)

Conclusion: At direct impact angles the PaK 50mm L60 using a PzGr.39 APCBC round will have a very reasonable chance to penetrate the Churchills side or turret armor. I don´t have yet a clue about the striking velocitys of this particular gun but I expect that penetrations up to and including 700 yrds under these circumastances are possible. Repeated hits may led to penetration at even further distances.
The armor penetrating abilities of a PzGr.40 at longer distances than ~800 yrds for this gun imply no penetration against either sides or turret of a Churchill MK-IV.

 

[CharlesBronson]

The Panzergranate 39 of the 50 mm L 60 pierce 89mm of homogeneous armor.....?


Are you sure about that ?

 

[delcyros]

absolutely sure. With the conditions given in mind (direct impact angles!) it will do, no doubt. There is no physical reason to deny that 5.0 cm PzGr.39 will penetrate 89 mm homogenious ww2 tank armor at close range at 650 m/sec striking velocity. And since a brand new 5.0 cm PaK L60 has a muzzle velocity of 835 m/sec we do even have a wider window for penetration. At zero range it would theoreticly be able to penetrate with 45 degrees obliquity (longitudinal impact angle= 45 degrees, striking velocity needed: 2.700 ft./sec.). Such ranges are not common except for fiercy street fights.
If You want to know more in detail, pm me and I will compile the necessary informatrions/computing programs needed for analyzis.

 

[CharlesBronson]

I was asking because sometimes ( and there is several reports) the Kwk of 50mmm failed to penetrate the T-34, wich had a 45mm angled armor.... and the sides of the KV-1 ( 75-90mm) I guess that must be a extreme close range.