PJungnitsch

Interesting read. Seems quite believable to me. The Allies were fully aware of the dangers of being pushed into the sea at Normandy. And this bit jived with something I read in another veterans interview. ie Gary: compared to Rudolf Salvermoser: From this interview

Well, that's going into my Stug reference notes. This bit I liked too: I've gotten into some nasty arguments with Russianophiles about the guns that German vs Russian tanks came with, and this makes the most sense, that each made what best suited their particular needs.

Will the Tiger rotate to oblique when facing the Sherman to give the armor angle?

A punctured hydraulic line would certainly be bad, firewise. Not only is all hydraulic fluid I know of petroleum based and quite flammable (its a lightish oil), but (in the heavy construction and ag equipment I'm familiar with anyway) the lines are under at least 2500 psi pressure when under use. That is a lot of pressure considering a car tire runs around 28psi. Any puncture and there is hydraulic oil sprayed everywhere.

Interesting post Jason, as always. The one thing that comes to my mind though is that drops in operational readiness do not necessarily translate into poorer automotive characteristics, or more time required for maintenance. It may, of course, but the Tigers were also put into the heaviest fighting normally. For example the amount of Soviet tanks knocked out per Tiger at Kursk was something phenomenal, but in return they all took terrific non-fatal poundings, all of which take time to repair. This famous quote from Guderian illustrates the point: This tank would take a long time to repair, certainly, but it would have nothing to do with unreliable components.

A Panzer faust 150 with shrapnel ring would probably do. Link and photo here Or maybe a 'Schrappnellfaust' ("Shrapnel Fist")

You mean the Panzerjäger Bren 731(e)? Link here Also a similar Borgward model, with 6 Panzershrek tubes.

Percentage operational, from Jentz: EASTERN FRONT WESTERN FRONT Pz IV Panther Tiger Pz IV Panther Tiger 31May44 84 77 79 88 82 87 15Sep44 65 72 70 80 74 98 30Sep44 65 60 81 50 57 67 31Oct44 52 53 54 74 85 88 15Nov44 72 66 61 78 71 81 30Nov44 78 67 72 76 71 45 15Dec44 79 69 79 78 71 64 30Dec44 72 61 80 63 53 50 15Jan45 71 60 73 56 45 58 15Mar45 54 49 53 44 32 36 Overall 68 62 70 71 65 65

Not necessarily. There were advances in the design of the Panther and Tiger chassis that included central greasing and easy track adjusting that made servicing quicker. From an American evaluation of a captured Panther in 'Weapons of Pattons Armies': Compare this to T-34 (Russian Battlefield):

The selection of AP vs APBC may have had something to do with the amounts of Tigers I's faced vs Panthers. As the amounts of Tiger I's dropped and Panthers and Tiger II's increased, it would have made more sense to stick with APBC. Some quotes from 'Tiger vs Stalin' Notes for Panzer Troops: Soviet recognition that the Stalin was not optimum for taking on the German heavies? Best to fall back and bring up a SU-100? Oblique to target takes advantage of the heavy side armour, much like Tiger I's were trained to do. Still they sound convinced that the Tiger will hit first and are trying to minimize the chance, and the damage afterward. What was the loss rate of Stalins? Recognition that once the Tiger 'has the range' its best to get out of Dodge? Or emphasis from armour fragments flying through the crew compartment from the tempering problems? The other points are very cautionary for Tiger crews, including: Translation 'This ain't no T-34.'

The most sensible thing anyone has said here so far.

I wouldn't get too carried away. T-34 was revolutionary design, but Soviet tanks have always had a habit of looking better on paper than they perform in real life. The little things mean a lot. The Americans were impressed in some ways by their T-34 and KV, but disappointed in many others by the sample they had. And I reckon its not a Soviet problem so much as a Communist problem. Hands up those of us here driving a Lada or Yugo

Another bit of info on the PPsch41, from the On War forum:

PPsch41 had greater effective range, but otherwise had problems. 71 capacity drums were tough to fill and carry and not too reliable, so were replaced by 35 round curved magazines. The gun was heavy, long, and prone to fire when dropped. High rate of fire was also a problem (MP38/40 had a rate of fire reducer to keep them at a more controllable 400-500 rpm). Still a good gun, just not a 'wonder weapon'. It was retired from the Soviet army immediately after WWII and was replaced by the PPsch 43, which was smaller, used the 35 round magazines, lower rate of fire, etc.

The site also says here : Another report at the same website here gives the 122mm as penetrating Panther glacis as up to 2500, with the 100mm only up to 1500, and the L/71 88mm far behind at only 650 meters! While tables here give different penetration values again! Here the 122 and 100 are very similar. What gives? Are any of the tests accurate, or were they just skewed to fit the results wanted at the time by the particular government official?

An account from a Soviet infantryman on the receiving end of a Nebelwerfer attack. Complete text here.

No idea what range this was about, but while on the subject of Jagdtiger stories, here's one from George Forty.

They did have SF 14Z commanders scissors periscopes as standard for rangefinding, which would have helped. The gunners sight were graduated for that distance as well. Still, 4 km is a long way away. [ February 04, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]

Nice new article in AFV interiors on the Jagdtiger, including this bit on use of stereoscopic periscope/rangefinders by the crew. These seem to be standard issue for Jagdtigers and JagdPanthers. Maybe also on Stugs and the other tank hunters, as well as some Tigers and Panthers. Bonus for long range accuracy for the vehicles that carried these? Exterior view: Interior view: Complete article on the Jagdtiger here [ January 30, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]

MikeyD, you may find this interesting, what the Soviets thought of the Aberdeen report. This quote from Russian Battlefield shows the type of problems the Soviets could have with armour, in this case with the Stalin: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.<hr></blockquote>

While the tank the Soviets sent the British seemed to be a high quality one, the one they sent the Americans had a lot of manufacturing problems. Strangely enought, the armour of this one was too soft, if I understand this passage right: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel. In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability.<hr></blockquote> Maybe more evidence of the variable armour quality. Link to Russian Battlefield article.

Similar reasons for upgunning the T34, as far as I can see, not anti infantry and artillery, but anti tank: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In his introduction, V.A.Malyshev noted that the victory at the Battle of Kursk cost the Red Army a high price: "Enemy tanks opened fire on ours at distances of up to 1,500 metres, while our 76 mm tank guns could destroy "Tigers" and "Panthers" at distances of only 500-600 metres. Imagine the enemy has a kilometer and a half in his hands, while we have only half a kilometer. A more powerful gun needs to be put into the T-34 quickly." In actual fact, the situation was significantly worse than Malyshev painted it, though attempts to correct the situation had been undertaken at the beginning of 1943.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Analyzing the results of those (note these battles were tank vs tank) battles, the GBTU came to the conclusion that the armament and protection of the JS-1 didn't correspond to its intended tasks and was inferior to the German heavy tanks. GBTU recommended increased armor protection and rearming the JS-1 with a more powerful weapon<hr></blockquote> Again, no mention of rearming the Stalin because it was needed to take out infantry better... [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]</p>

From what I've read the Stalin was upgunned specifically because it was viewed as inferior with the 85mm against the heavy German tanks. Infantry and artillery were not the driving concern. Again, from Russian Battlefield: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The first person to suggest arming the JS tank with a gun larger than 85 mm was the Director and Chief Designer of Factory #100, Zh.Y.Kotin. He realized in August 1943, after studying the results of the Kursk battle, that the most effective anti-tank weapon employed against German Tigers was the Corps 122 mm Field Cannon A-19 Model 1931<hr></blockquote> and: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In regards to fighting the Panther tanks the tests at Kubinka clearly show that the 122 mm D-25 gun (V=780-790 m/s; g=25 kg) is superior to the 100 mm D-10 gun (V=890-900 m/s, g=15.6 kg).<hr></blockquote> [ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And with all the mods there is like 100 or more tanks.<hr></blockquote> Including some heavy iron, Maus and E100: [ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]</p>