USA and DDR penetration about D25T gun

Soren · Jan 16, 2010

alejandro_ said:
Thats very polite.

Exactly how polite have you been yourself through this discussion?

Maybe we should go to English lectures together. Have you noticed the words "for its weight"?

1,850 Nm for 68 tons aint too bad for a WW2 tank,

Don't you have Jentz book on the Tiger-II. I am away and can't pick up the phrase. You will have to wait, its on a section talking about all the things going wrong. Report dated Januway 1945.

I do have ALL his books alejandro, and the exhaust system was a fine design, atleast in the end.

This just shows your superficial understanding of things. Hitler asked in Tiger-II design to increase front armour to 180mm, and 150mm IIRC on glacis. And the design was using an engine for a medium size tank! in reality Tiger-I should have been able to mount a Flak 41 gun, but someone (probably Dr Porsche) ordered ring to be reduced from 200cms to 190cms. What did this mean? Flak 41 could not be mounted i.e A new design would be needed... more contracts, money and so on. Tiger-II story is indeed complicated.

Hitler requested a 150mm gacis and 80mm sides, thats it, again he had no involvement in the design of the tank, he just expressed his wishes and the designers were then left to fullfill them.

Which no one ever used again, by the way.

Oh really? I beg to differ, have you seen the suspension design of modern tank designs? Almost all use individual swing armed torsion bars with hydraulic shock absorbers just like the Tiger Panther. Why? Because it provides unrivalled floatation stability. Only the interleaved wheel design was abandoned in favour of a later design providing the same stability utilizing a very wide wheel design instead.

Panther had this too... so no state of the art any more

.

Wrong! This just proves you know nothing on either tank. The steering mechanism of the Tiger Panther were completely different! And so was the transmission!

One tank used levers for steering while the other used a steering wheel for crying out loud!

Lets see Jentz for the third time:

Maximum speed for the Tiger-I decreased to 37.8km/h and for the Tiger-II to 34.6km/h after November 1943 when HL 230 motor was regulated not to exceed 2500rpm.

And where does he say it had any negative effects on mobility? Asnwer: Nowhere. Why? Because it had zero negative effects. A slight reduction maximum road speed isn't a reduction in mobility alejandro, esp. not when you take into account that tanks aren't race cars but machines meant to negotiate tough terrain.

Tiger-I and II combat tactics, by Jentz. There you go, now you can change that comparison with M4A3.

Nope, figures still stand as pure facts. They are from Jentz himself. And as can be seen the Tiger B was clearly a very capable tank when it came to negotiating rough terrain, better than most other tanks except for the Panther.

Again:

Really, why was sand found in oil filters for HL 230 engines?

Again don't understand that this has nothing to do with your incorrect claim that slave labour was used to assemble Tigers. I am still waiting for a single source on this, and m kenny hasn't provided any for you if thats what you think btw. That Henschel Son used slave labour for manufacturing some of their products is well known, m kenny is just unaware of that, but that slave labour was used to assemble Tiger tanks.. well let's just say no evidence has been provided to substantiate that claim yet, so the wait continues..

why does Jentz talk about semi-diluted labour? haven't you seen the photos of Tiger-II restoration in Switzerland? there were evidences of Italian labour being used.

Again, Italy provided skilled labour for Germany throughout the war. Italian labour doesn't transform into slave labour!

Can you tell me which units lack skilled personnel? I have never come accross any direct reference for this.

Oh really, you haven't? Thats because you don't own any of Jentz's book then, cause in them it is mentioned quite clearly that one of the main problems plagueing the Tiger B was the lack of skilled drivers, many of the drivers coming directly from the training ground having only driven light panzers having no idea how to treat a tank like the Tiger. So again, please read his books.

alejandro_ · Jan 16, 2010

1,850 Nm for 68 tons aint too bad for a WW2 tank,

Yes, as good as sand in oil filters. The Tiger-II power to weight ratio was amonsgt the lowest in world war 2.

Exactly how polite have you been yourself through this discussion?

You were the one starting insulting and claiming no one expect you understands anything. It does not seem to be the first time it happens neither

Hitler requested a 150mm gacis and 80mm sides, thats it, again he had no involvement in the design of the tank, he just expressed his wishes and the designers were then left to fullfill them.

How efficient eh? except that the design was originally to have 100mm thick armour plates. And keeping an engine for a medium tank. Well done.

Oh really? I beg to differ, have you seen the suspension design of modern tank designs? Almost all use individual swing armed torsion bars with hydraulic shock absorbers just like the Tiger Panther.

Of course I was referring to interleaved wheels. Torsion bars were already used in tanks like Pz-III and KV-1, thus no state of the art, but your uber-love of Tiger-II does not help.

And where does he say it had any negative effects on mobility? Asnwer: Nowhere. Why? Because it had zero negative effects. A slight reduction maximum road speed isn't a reduction in mobility alejandro, esp. not when you take into account that tanks aren't race cars but machines meant to negotiate tough terrain.

So, first you use maximum speed to compare Sherman and Tiger mobility, and now you said it does not count?

Again, Italy provided skilled labour for Germany throughout the war. Italian labour doesn't transform into slave labour!

Your innocence strikes me. How do you think Italian prisoners of war were treated after 1943?

Oh really, you haven't? Thats because you don't own any of Jentz's book then, cause in them it is mentioned quite clearly that one of the main problems plagueing the Tiger B was the lack of skilled drivers, many of the drivers coming directly from the training ground having only driven light panzers having no idea how to treat a tank like the Tiger. So again, please read his books.

And as usually you dont provide a source or a quote. Mkenny is also waiting by the way.

The steering mechanism of the Tiger Panther were completely different! And so was the transmission!

True, Panther final drive was quite unsucessfull, Tiger-I being advanced.

m kenny · Jan 16, 2010

Still no sign of the photos said to show all the Tigers with side penetrations.
Can you tell me where you got them and I will get them myself and post them for you.

Soren · Jan 16, 2010

We can continue this discussion after you've read up on the Panther Tiger Alejandro, up until then discussing with you will be pointless. You didn't even know that the Panther Tiger featured two completely different steering mechanisms and transmissions, you actually claimed they were identical for crying out loud!

And regarding Italy's surrender in 1943 and Italian labour, Northern Italy was still allied to Germany from 1943 to the end of the war (Read about: Italian Social Republic). And it provided lots of skilled labour for the Germans. So again, the italians weren't used as slave labour, they worked for the Germans.

Moving on you also need to learn that the mobility of a tank is not defined by the amount of horsepower available pr. ton, or how high the top road speed of a tank is. What matters is the torque available and how it is transferred to the track and from the tracks to the ground, which in turn depends on the drivetrain, suspension track design. And the Panther Tiger series were blessed with a very advanced drivetrain which, altough initially had its fair share of problems (most of which were ironed out in the end), was extremely effective at transferring power to the tracks. On top of this the Panther Tiger series enjoyed the advantage of having the best suspension system put on any tank during the war, providing unrivalled floatation stability whilst negotiating rough terrain. All this put together enabled not just the Panther but also the very heavy Tiger Ausf.B to both tackle higher obstacles steeper gradients than most other tanks during the war, as proven by the results obtained during the long and extensive testing period of both tanks at Kummersdorf proving grounds, parts of which are still used actively to test vehicles to this day.

The Tiger Ausf.B's performance established at the obstacle course at Kummersdorf:
Max fording Depth = 1.6 m
Max vertical Obstacle = 0.85 m
Max trench crossing = 2.5 m
Max gradient climbing = 35 degrees
Minimum turning radius = 2.08 m (i.e. Pivoting)
Ground pressure = 0.76 kg/cm^2
Ground clearance = 0.5 m
Average cross country speed = 20 km/h
Top speed = 41.5 km/h (37 km/h at 2,500 rpm)

The tests revealed that the Tiger Ausf.B just like the Panther the previous Tiger featured superior mobility to most other tanks, which includes the American Sherman tank.

The Kummersdorf different gradient ramps, all the way up to 45 degrees from the horizontal:

Picture from inside the forest obstacle course:

The Tiger Ausf.B at Kummersdorf, climbing ramps, fording on the forest obstacle course:

Panther(s) at the forest obstacle course:

m kenny · Jan 16, 2010

In the above I see many images posted.
Is there any reason why you can not post the images of the Tiger II's you claim have side penterations?
Why do you not post them?
If you can not post them tell me where I can find them.

I have to say I do not believe you have any such photos.

The TII(p) shown above is the one given to Sweden after WW2.

alejandro_ · Jan 16, 2010

We can continue this discussion after you've read up on the Panther Tiger Alejandro, up until then discussing with you will be pointless. You didn't even know that the Panther Tiger featured two completely different steering mechanisms and transmissions, you actually claimed they were identical for crying out loud!

You are simply trying to pull away from the conversation by simply flagging other stuff (What are those photos for!). First you come to me and go on about torque instead of horsepower, now you add that its transmission and final drive! of course, together with many other factors. This is not rocket science.

And the Panther Tiger series were blessed with a very advanced drivetrain which, altough initially had its fair share of problems (most of which were ironed out in the end), was extremely effective at transferring power to the tracks.

Again, you simply have a very superficial knowledge. Panther engine was ok, but the compartment was too tight, and transmission/final drive was simply too weak for the mass. Ideally, it was supposed to be 35 tons but in reality it was 45. This caused all sorts of problems, and were not ironed out as you said. During the Normandy campaign they were still giving trouble, more than a year after being introduced! by the way, Hitler also ordered changes into the development. How surprising! Overweight is not quite comparable to teething troubles...

You see the difference, anyone can make mistakes when writing fast or from memory, but your problem is on knowledge. You even posted images of IS-2 mod 1943 and said they were 1944! they have so many differences!

Top speed = 41.5 km/h (37 km/h at 2,500 rpm)

You see? you put your own data, which shows that rpm do make a difference, and then you said that top speed shouldn't? rpm and torque are related you know?

Still no sign of the photos said to show all the Tigers with side penetrations.
Can you tell me where you got them and I will get them myself and post them for you.

I would also like to see these

And regarding Italy's surrender in 1943 and Italian labour, Northern Italy was still allied to Germany from 1943 to the end of the war (Read about: Italian Social Republic). And it provided lots of skilled labour for the Germans. So again, the italians weren't used as slave labour, they worked for the Germans.

You have a source for this?

Soren · Jan 16, 2010

You see? you put your own data, which shows that rpm do make a difference, and then you said that top speed shouldn't? rpm and torque are related you know?

Did you not read what I wrote? 1. The data is from Jentz (not me!). 2. It's actual test results! 3. The top road speed of a tank is of ZERO importance, it doesn't even begin to define how mobile a tank is, the tanks obstacle clearing abilities on the other hand have everything to do with mobility. I wouldn't expect you to understand that ofcourse...

So sorry alejandro but you quite simply have no clue on these tanks, you've demonstrated that time and again in this thread. First you claimed that Tigers were contructed by slave labour, later changed to italian workes. Then you went on to claim that the Tiger Panther featured identical engine setups, then that they had exactly the same transmission steering mechanism. All of it has ofcourse been proven false.

But not to be deterred by recent setbacks you now claim that the many issues plagueing the Panther weren't ironed out in the end. Well obviously you haven't been reading any Jentz's books then, cause according to him the Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther. Furthermore he also mentions that most of the Tigers issues were ironed out in the end.

So what's next alejandro?

Soren · Jan 16, 2010

All the pictures of the Tiger Ausf.B in my recent post #64 were taken during German testing at Kummersdorf during the war.

The Tiger Ausf.B recieved by Sweden after the war:

m kenny · Jan 16, 2010

Soren said:
The Tiger Ausf.B recieved by Sweden after the war

Those images from Achtung Panzer are very dated. Treat yourself to some better photos from 5 years back.

Axis History Forum • View topic - Swedish TII

sample:

Perhaps you can now post those Tiger II photos you say you have showing side penetrations.

Why not just admit you made it up and you do not have any photos.
End the farce.

alejandro_ · Jan 16, 2010

First you claimed that Tigers were contructed by slave labour, later changed to italian workes. Then you went on to claim that the Tiger Panther featured identical engine setups, then that they had exactly the same transmission steering mechanism. All of it has ofcourse been proven false.

This hiding and deformation of facts is getting silly. Do you think the gearbox works the same if you change gear at 3000 and 2500 rpm?

Did you bother reading my input on what a US Coronel said? I said similar, not identical.

On the same way you do not know the difference between IS-2 mod 1943 and mod 1944 you do not know the difference between similar and identical.

you've demonstrated that time and again in this thread. First you claimed that Tigers were contructed by slave labour, later changed to italian workes.

If you would know how they were treated you would understand. Pure lack of knowledge. mkenny already explained Henschel extensive use of labour.

But not to be deterred by recent setbacks you now claim that the many issues plagueing the Panther weren't ironed out in the end. Well obviously you haven't been reading any Jentz's books then, cause according to him the Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther.

This is laughable. The Hohenstaufen division Panthers were directly delivered from factory and little used. They expected the engines would last 1,500 km or more, but half of the motors failed during the first 300 km!
During a six week period in the spring of 1944 (I.Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 2) 13 out 30 Panthers fell out due to final drive failures. None were caused by battle damage.

Or read Panzertruppen v2, Chapter on Normandy to check how reliable and efficient was Panther from a mechanical point of view.

Again, put up the quote or end up the farce.

End the farce.

Exactly, end it up

Those images from Achtung Panzer are very dated.

He is trying to pull away from the discussion. He will never post those photos. I can bet on that.

Oh, I am also waiting for a source on this:

AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.

Soren · Jan 16, 2010

alejandro_ said:
This hiding and deformation of facts is getting silly. Do you think the gearbox works the same if you change gear at 3000 and 2500 rpm?

Hiding deformation? What is it you don't understand? That max torque (i.e. pulling power), isn't reached at max revs? Also I really don't hope what you just said is an example of how you change gears when you're driving (if you're old enough for that that is), flooring the gas pedal and then shifting gear whilst hitting max revs... not such a good idea!

Did you bother reading my input on what a US Coronel said? I said similar, not identical.

Ah back tracking now I see. You said "the same", which means identical. That the Colonel didn't share your vews has been established long ago, old news pal.

On the same way you do not know the difference between IS-2 mod 1943 and mod 1944 you do not know the difference between similar and identical.

Why would I not know the difference between a JS-2 JS-2M ? You claimed there were no pictures of IS-2's having been penetrated from the front, I proved you wrong.

If you would know how they were treated you would understand. Pure lack of knowledge. mkenny already explained Henschel extensive use of labour.

Don't fool yourself, m kenny hasn't explained anything on the matter, he went over to wikipedia for answers because he was desperate and there he found what most people already know and that is Henschel Son used slave labour for some of their products, just like many other companies. Slave labour during WW2 was however naturally only used for simple construction tasks on simple products, they weren't set to work with anything that demanded any form of technical expertize (i.e. skilled labour), which ironically means things such as assembling a Tiger tank.

In short there is no evidence what'so'ever that slave labour was used to assemble Tiger tanks, which is kinda understable seeing that the job of assembling such a machine demanded highly skilled labour.

This is laughable. The Hohenstaufen division Panthers were directly delivered from factory and little used. They expected the engines would last 1,500 km or more, but half of the motors failed during the first 300 km!
During a six week period in the spring of 1944 (I.Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 2) 13 out 30 Panthers fell out due to final drive failures. None were caused by battle damage.

Or read Panzertruppen v2, Chapter on Normandy to check how reliable and efficient was Panther from a mechanical point of view.

Yes laughable indeed...

Look at the Pz.IV service history in the same period, it was just as appauling, and I've already explained why. Lack of oil spare parts had the field reliability of ALL German tanks plummit to an all time low. Also it seems you're apparently under the impression that the war ended in the summer of 1944? Just so you know the Panther was under development the whole time, constantly getting improved. And again, directly from Jentz, the Panther ended up having most of its issues ironed out and became a reliable tank.

Keep ignoring the facts alejandro..

Again, put up the quote or end up the farce.

Seriously man, that is pretty dumb, you're beginning look like your m kenny's own little puppet here.

He is trying to pull away from the discussion. He will never post those photos. I can bet on that.

I wouldn't put too much money on that if I were you...

These pictures were taken after the fighting at Lisow according to the discriptions I have:

These are just some of the pics taken by the Soviets there, I've just heard from a friend that there are more.

Oh, I am also waiting for a source on this:

Really? Thats odd cause I thought we had already concluded that the one who started spewing out claims on this matter was yourself? I remember a certain thing about slave labour being used to assemble Tiger tanks? I am still waiting on a source for that claim. And no your master m kenny hasn't provided any.

Soren · Jan 17, 2010

More pictures from Lisow:

m kenny · Jan 17, 2010

Removed because the post I was replying to has been edited and the disputed part removed

m kenny · Jan 17, 2010

Redundant reply. Post removed whilst I was working on it.

m kenny · Jan 17, 2010

what you actualy said was

Soren said:
I can tell you that. Also it just so happens that there are pictures of the Tigers lost there actually, and guess what ALL where knocked out from the side or rear................
Yes I have photos, and they just shows side penetrations thats all.................................

Please indicate where the side penetrations can be seen in any of the photos you posted.
The German losses were in the region of 30+ tanks so you have a lot more photos to post.

Juha · Jan 17, 2010

Hello Soren
Exactly where Jentz claims that "Jentz's books then, cause according to him the Germans in the end got a very reliable tank out of the Panther."?

Now in his Panther tank book p. 127 he writes:"But, following modification of key automotive components, with mature drivers taking required maintenance halts, the Panther could be maintained in satisfactory operational condition." IMHO that doesn't meant that it was "a very reliable tank", only that in the end it's mechanical components were strong enough for normal battlefield environments. That there still was problems in Spring/Summer 44 can be read from Jentz' Panther book p. 140 or his Panzertruppen Vol 2 p.184.

Now the first photo in your post #71 is well known and usually captioned, as in Jentz' Panzertruppen Vol 2 p.217 "A Tiger II of the 3. Kompanie /sPzAbt 501, accompanied by two StuGe, engaged in mopping up a bridgehead in the Weichsel bend on 2 Oct 1944" Now unit is right, 501 became 424 later, area is nearby but date is over 3 months off. So if we believe Jentz and other writers the photo had nothing to do with the battle of Lisow.

Quote:" The top road speed of a tank is of ZERO importance, it doesn't even begin to define how mobile a tank is, the tanks obstacle clearing abilities on the other hand have everything to do with mobility."

So you think that Churchill was about the most mobile of British WWII tanks because while it was SLOW it had legendary ability to climb steep hillsides as shown for ex. in Tunisia.?

Quote:" the italians weren't used as slave labour, they worked for the Germans."

Now many Italian PoWs after Sept 43 were sent to concentration camps (and thousands were simply shot) so some of them were used as slave labour but I have no exact info by which firms.

Juha

Juha · Jan 17, 2010

The first photo in Soren's message #72 definitely is from Lisow, but the third photo in Soren's post #71 is according to Schneider's TiC II Tiger 213 of sSS-PzAbt 502 destroyed by its own crew on 28 Apr 45

Juha

alejandro_ · Jan 17, 2010

Now you are simply lying:

You claimed there were no pictures of IS-2's having been penetrated from the front, I proved you wrong.

Lets see what I said:

Same with IS-2 mod 1944 or Ferdinand, no evidence. The point being?

Ah back tracking now I see. You said "the same", which means identical. That the Colonel didn't share your vews has been established long ago, old news pal.

Don't lie Soren, this is not looking good:

The engine room compartment was quite like the Panther and the engine was identical - the HL 230 of 690 Hp. This fact probably was the undoing of the Tiger Tank, as it certainly was badly under powered. A Dr. Arnold seen by the author in Germany, who was one of the main designers of the Tigers for Henschel, claim - they were trying to increase the Hp and unless they increased the size of the engine compartment to permit installation of a heaver engine, they could not improve the power situation very much. It, in a sense had them stymied. Dr. Arnold also complained that this situation arose from having Rommel insist that the Tiger be furnished for front line duty, some 6 months before they were ready,and that they had to use the 690 Hp Panther engine. Rommel, having "der Fuhrer's" ear had wanted to get a gun, like in the earlier Ferdinand, but in a 360 degree turret. This had been one of the leading reasons for the development of so large a tank, and based on the success of the Panther (47 tons), the Tiger had been presumed to also be successful.

Slave labour during WW2 was however naturally only used for simple construction tasks on simple products, they weren't set to work with anything that demanded any form of technical expertize (i.e. skilled labour), which ironically means things such as assembling a Tiger tank.

And what do you understand by semidiluted labour?

And again, directly from Jentz, the Panther ended up having most of its issues ironed out and became a reliable tank.

Indeed laughable. Those Panther received by Hohenstaufen division were in November 1944, but I can look for more problems at later stages. Maybe yu do not understand the meaning of overweight.

Seriously man, that is pretty dumb, you're beginning look like your m kenny's own little puppet here.

Oh, another insult. Its just funny how this uber lovers of Tiger-II go hysterical when you touch the myth.

These pictures were taken after the fighting at Lisow according to the discriptions I have:

And thats all? where are the others then?

And don't forget, source for:

AFAIK no Tiger tanks were assembled by slave labour, they had highly skilled labourers for that.

Kurfürst · Jan 17, 2010

Juha said:
Quote:" The top road speed of a tank is of ZERO importance, it doesn't even begin to define how mobile a tank is, the tanks obstacle clearing abilities on the other hand have everything to do with mobility."

So you think that Churchill was about the most mobile of British WWII tanks because while it was SLOW it had legendary ability to climb steep hillsides as shown for ex. in Tunisia.?

Well the obvious difference is of course that the Tiger I and II had, despite being a heavy tank and all, still retained a top speed on par with the avarage medium tank of WW2 (ca. 40 km/h) after the engines were governed to save on wear, AND had excellent cross country abilities.

The Churchill on the other hand was slow to begin with at about half the speed of the avarage medium tanks, and about the third that British Cruiser type (~ medium ) tanks, while indeed its cross country capabilities were good. The drawback is obvious, Tigers could accompany any German medium, even on tough terrain, Churchills could not accompany a single Allied tank without slowing down the advance.

In short Soren got it absolutely right, the reduction of revs didn't have any practically noticable effect on the Tiger's or Panther's mobility, given that the significant qualities (ability to accelerate, or get the tank moving on bad terrain) is defined by torque and the torque conversion, and maximum torque did not decrease at all.

Juha said:
Now many Italian PoWs after Sept 43 were sent to concentration camps (and thousands were simply shot) so some of them were used as slave labour but I have no exact info by which firms.

Poor Italians PoWs, they seem to have fallen between a rock and hard place, given that wheter thez fell into Axis or Allied captivity, they were invariably used for slave labour..

Kurfürst · Jan 17, 2010

m kenny said:
Early in 1935, Henschel began manufacturing Panzer I tanks. During World War II in 1939-1940 it began large-scale production of the Panzer III, and the Tiger I from 1941. Henschel was the primary manufacturer of the Panzer VI. During 1945 the company had 8000 workers working in two shifts each of 12 hours. The company used slave labour extensively. The company's factories were among the most important bomber targets and were nearly completely destroyed.

From:
Henschel Son - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An unsourced statement from wikipedia..?

Tell me please, how many of the 8000 workers were actually forced, and how many were paid foreign workers?

How many were actually involved in Tiger production, which were hardly the only product of Henschel (a manufacturer of airplanes and especially, locomotives)?
How many of these were actually working on the Tigers as a productive force, and how many were merely assisting by performing basic tasks (moving material, working in the factory kitchen, sweeping the floor etc.) as a non-productive force?

IF you are trying to throw in the 'slave labour' BS as a rubber arguement, you would better be prepeared to support and quantify it with detailed and sourced statements, rather than discrediting your own claim by trying to google up a source and only manage to find a wiki article after you have made the particular statement... 8)

USA and DDR penetration about D25T gun

1st Lieutenant

Airman 1st Class

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Airman 1st Class

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Airman 1st Class

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads