Glider
Captain
I notice that the 122mm gun impact is numbered 1 and a load of smaller hits are numbered in the 40's to 60's. Wouldn't that imply that they started with the bigger guns and worked their way down, not the other way?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I notice that the 122mm gun impact is numbered 1 and a load of smaller hits are numbered in the 40's to 60's. Wouldn't that imply that they started with the bigger guns and worked their way down, not the other way?
Well take their tests against a captured Tiger Ausf.B, they started out by taking the thing apart removing the gun, tracks etc etc...
No they chose to hammer the thing with a multitude of different caliber guns until the thing was ready to fall apart, and THEN they started firing their most powerful guns at it, the very guns which performance needed to be tested against the tank the most. Not a very thurough test if you ask me.
I notice that the 122mm gun impact is numbered 1 and a load of smaller hits are numbered in the 40's to 60's. Wouldn't that imply that they started with the bigger guns and worked their way down, not the other way?
So, why is always this test referred?
Soviets also examined Pz-III and they were extremely impressed by it.
The same with Stug or Tiger-I. I do not know whats surprising about Tiger-II problems during Soviet testing and the model was plagued by mechanical problems and even sabotage.
Referred to by whom? Not by experts that's for sure.
They only rightly note that the test was carried out in a poor fashion and that the Soviets had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger or drivers with any knowledge on driving it. Hence their poor results.
Look at the Tiger the British tested their guns against, the gun is still on that tank, and so are the tracks as far as I can see.
Name the 'experts' who say Soviet tests were flawed.
Absurd. The Soviets had far more experience with 'heavy' tanks than the Germans. They had far bigger tank Armies and had much more experience than the Germans. They did comment on the poor quality of the TII's they had for testing (2) and for the cardinal sin of attacking this great tank they are vilified.
No nation had more experience destroying Tigers than the Soviets. Around 75 % of the Tigers built were destroyed in the East. They did it in spades
Look closer and you will see the one on page 15-17 has not even got a turret.
Rexford and Livingston to name a couple.
They mention the odd approach taken by the Soviets, for example by starting out by weakening the glacis by firing 7.62, 8.5 15.2cm shells at the thing only to fire the 12.2cm 10cm gun at it afterwards. This provided flawed results in their opinion.
you're the one being absurd now m_kenny! The Soviets despite what you claim had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger Ausf.B, it was a far more complex machine than any they had ever built or operated, and also heavier. They had no spare parts for it, they had no trained drivers for it, in short they had ZERO experience operating it! But I don't expect you to understand the importance of this ofcourse..
And as for destroying Tigers in spades, no need to overreact, I think you should check the actual number of Tigers built as-well as the final fates of most of them. You'll probably be more than just a little surprised to see that most Tigers lost weren't so due to direct enemy action.
And as for destroying Tigers in spades, no need to overreact, I think you should check the actual number of Tigers built as-well as the final fates of most of them. You'll probably be more than just a little surprised to see that most Tigers lost weren't so due to direct enemy action.
Maybe you can now give me the results of the Soviet tests?
They only rightly note that the test was carried out in a poor fashion and that the Soviets had no way of properly maintaining a tank like the Tiger or drivers with any knowledge on driving it. Hence their poor results.
The Pz.III was also a simple tank to operate and maintain, it didn't demand an experienced crew.
AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.
alejandro said:It seems the tank was a struggle for the Germans too, as with proper maintenance, they lost 37 out of 45 on the way to battlefield. Tiger-II was underpowered and its mechanical systems were not up to the weight of the vehicle. Thats the problem of using a medium tank engine and having Hitler asking for armour to be added.
I had a feeling you were going to say that. So far it seems this one book is the only thing you have.
I remember the debates when these two first started going on about the mythical 'shatter gap'. The scientific Forums were full of people taking them to task. Perhaps you were around then?
One of them is a poster over at Tanknet if you are interested.
Name me the other 'experts' that slate the Soviet tests.
Maybe you can now give me the results of the Soviet tests?
To say they are flawed obviously means you have studied them.
What were the Kubinka results for the TII armour?
Yes it would have been much smarter to fire a 122mm round at a target then follow it up with75/85mm rounds - providing they could have avoided the gaping holes left by the 122mm rounds!
They were using it as a target. What on earth has anything else you mention got to do with penetration resistance?
n short, that the Tiger Tiger II were big, slow and unreliable pillboxes is pure fabrication and myth, it has no basis in reality. Both were very mobile tanks that if properly maintained were as reliable as the other tanks in service, as proven the few times when they actually got regular maintenance.
And I had a feeling you would grasp at straws by dismissing them as amateurs when infact they know more about metallurgic science than any one of us here.
Ah so now you don't think I know about the Soviet metallurgic tests done with the Tiger's armour or what?
And so now you automatically assume I was only talking about that one and only tank? For your information they drove the tank as-well m kenny, and they described it as very unreliable as it broke down after just a short stroll. Problem is the driver had no clue how to properly drive the thing, and the soviets had no clue how to maintain it either.
That's rich! Someone is getting desperate I see.
Note the operational percentage from May 44 to March 45, the Tiger tanks actually in general proving more reliable than any other German tank then in service.
I do know of the site however I was under the impression you had the full results of these tests. The site has only the briefest details and not enough information for anyone to reach a firm conclusion. Your confidence in your claims assured me you must be in possesion of much greater detail or even the report itself. It appears I was mistaken.If you wish to know what the Soviets concluded it is a simple matter of clicking yourself to this very well known place
I beg to differ. There have been a number of sustained attacks of the Russian site and its information. Some years back there was an organised attempt by members of the old Achtung Panzer Site (no longer running) to close it down. Many wild claims were made such as all the photos of destroyed Panthers ect were fakes and had the holes added after printing. This was shown to be an invention and in the end 1 (one) photo was shown to be a fake and it was removed. There are a few threads over at AHF about the Russian site but I saw no experts condeming it. Quite a few people got upset with the Tiger II test results and to this day there are those who try and claim they are faked or manipulated. It would seem this crusade is still active.Much of the information on the site has been disputed and criticized as highly biased by many experts
Franz is refering to the early Tiger Ausf.E's which featured 600 hp HL210 P45 engine and suffered from numerous teething problems. Later versions used the 700 hp HL230 P45 engine and had many of the earlier teething problems worked out, and cross country speed was 20 km/h.
Lets compare the Sherman Tiger B in terms of maneuverability on the battlefield:
The info presented there is the same as in Jentz's books, and much of it is actually taken directly from Jentz.