TT

Another one :cool: : The penetration values for the 90 mm gun firing the standard APC M82 seems rather high. It is rated at 120 mm at 452 m, while the Tiger 1 gun, the 88 mm L/56 has just 110 mm at 500 m. In reality the 88 mm L/56 would outperform the 90 mm due to its higher quality ammo. So could it be that the penetration values for the APC M82 are too high, while the values for T33 is more or less correct, but that this round for some reason was very good against sloped armor?

Not quite sure here, but if I remember correctly from a drawing of the IS-3 the lower half of the turret had a tickness of 220 mm, but the upper part was thinner. If the T33 was as good as suggested it would still give the Pershing a good chanse against the IS-3. The 90 mm had a much higher ROF and was much more accurate than the Russian 122 mm. So in a shootout the IS would be hit over and over again with heavy shells, something which in the end is bound to do some damage. However, if the T33 wasn't as good as suggested, the Pershing crews had good reason to worry. As for 88 mm L/71 penetration: It could penetrate 202 mm at 30 degrees angle at 100 m. According to Jentz the multiplier at 0 degrees is 1,2 which give it a penetration of 242 mm. If we then add about 10 percent due to the quality of the German test plate (which was said to be very high) we end up at roughly 267 mm. At 1000 m this adds up to 218 mm.

According to "Tiger Tanks" by Michael Green the "Super-Pershing" had one, single purpose: To equal the Kingtiger, especially in gun power. As it was, the "Super-Pershing" never met a Kingtiger, neither did the standard Pershing. AFAIK, the "standard" Persings knocked out one Tiger 1, one Panther and a few PzIVs. One Pershing was knocked out by a Tiger 1 (later repaired) and one was knocked out by a Nashorn. There were probably more incidents, but I haven't been able to find more.

Robert Livingstone on the Tanker's Net stated that only very few T33 and APCR rounds were available, more or less on an experimental basis, to the Pershings during the last months of the war. In one of the two "Pershing vs Tiger 1" incidents, a Pershing engaged a Tiger 1 at 900 yards. The first round, an APCR, hit the final drive and immobilised the Tiger. The next round, a T33 went throught the gun mantlet (it is not clear if this was an early or late-production Tiger, there were quite few of the former in action during the last, desperate months), effectively knocking out the Tiger. The Pershing then knocks out two PzIVs at 1200 yards. I have not seen either APCR or T33 mentioned in connection with the M-36. Was these rounds only limited to the Pershing? One last thing: If the T33 was able to penetrate the turret front of the Tiger 2 at long range, why then the hurry to develop the "Super-Pershing"?

I agree that Valera's site is a valuable source on Russian stuff, but from reading his postings on various forums during the last couple of years, one thing is quite clear: He outright HATES the Kingtiger! And he ain't too pleased about the Panther, either. I get the impression that he will do almost anything to "hurt" the Kingtiger. So if Valera is heavy into CM2, you don't have to worry about the Tiger 2 if you're playing as the Russians. [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: TT ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tiger E fireing Pzgr. 39 APCBC Penetrates IS-2 @ 30^: Front turret - 100ms Gun mantlet - 100ms Superstructure - 100ms Hull - 300ms IS-2 fireing BR-471B AP-T Penetrates Tiger E @ 30^: Front turret - 1500ms Mantlet - 500m Superstructure - 1300ms Hull - 300ms Both could kill each other from the side & rear at over 1000ms. The Tiger II vs IS-2: Tiger II fireing Pzgr. 39 APCBC penetrates the IS-2 @ 30 ^: Front turret - 2300ms Mantlet - 1800ms Superstructure - 2100ms Hull - 2600ms IS-2 fireing BR-471B AP-T Penetrates Tiger II 30^: Front turret - 0ms Mantlet - 0ms Superstructure - 0ms Hull - 0ms The Tiger II could destroy the IS-2 from the side & rear in ranges over 3400ms while the IS-2 could destroy the Tiger II depending on hit location on the side or rear from 1800 - 2900ms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These numbers seems to have been taken straight from the "infamous" German Wapruf documents, which mostly are theoritical work, not based on real tests. The problem with these numbers are that they show that the Germans more or less thought their opponents had guns and armor of about the same quality as themselves. Reality could be a bit different: The 88 mm L/56 could penetrate the 100 mm turret front/mantle of the IS-2 at 1000+ meters. The turret front of the IS-2 was NOT 160 mm. It was a small target, but the 88 mm L/56 was a very accurate weapon, according to Robert Livingstone even more so than the 88 L/71 and 75 mm L/70. The IS-2 could penetrate the Tiger 1's frontal armor at long range, but there are also a story of a Tiger 1 taking a 122 mm shell against the 100 mm from an IS-2 at a distance of only 30 meters and still surviving and fighting back. Good Tiger armor/poor Russian ammo? I also heard a story of a few Panthers taking on a IS-2 in Poland. They immobilised the beast, but couldn't finish it off. The commander at the place calls for help. A Tiger 1 drives up, takes aim, fire, penetrates the IS and forcing the crew to bail out. Now this story don't tell if the Tiger had APCR or anything else. I have also not been able to find a reliable source for this story, so it could be just fantasy. But could it be that the heavy "88" in some situations were a better penetrator than the lighter, but "faster" 75 mm? According to the Wapruf documents the Tiger 2 should have been immune to the 122 mm of the IS, but was it? Even a non-penetrating hit from a heavy AP shell can make much damage, something which is mentioned in Green's "Tiger Tanks":"A glancing blow from a "122" shell could produce concussion enough to disable a Tiger's turret mechanism".

Good points. The world-famous optic company Carl Zeiss was situated in Eastern Germany, more correctly Jena (later renamed Carl Zeiss Jena, while its Western "sister" was called just Zeiss). In the 1940-45 Germany was undoubtedly the world-leader in optics. In fact, together with Austrian optic company "Swarovski" they still are the best as far as binoculars go, even if some Japanese and (one) US companies comes very close. I have nearly 30 years of experience with using different binoculars, both very poor, poor, mediocre, good, very good and excellent. In bright daylight the difference between excellent and mediocre optics may not show, but in poor weather/light the difference will often be tremendous, and the difference of course get bigger when the weather/light gets even poorer. At long range this would certainly make quite a difference for German and Allied gunners.