King Tiger

[Georgie]

Calling all tank grogs. Did the Americans, British or Russians ever field a tank that could fight the King Tiger head on and come out on top? Maybe this question is a little bit ahead of the "Game" but its something that I have wondered about and maybe others have also. I know that during the Bulge we didn't and if the King Tigers had not run out of gas then the Bulge might have just worked for the Germans.

[Baneman]

I'm no tank-grog, but I'd say that a Sherman Firefly could.

But in this case, "head-on" basically means - whoever hits first wins.

I imagine the IS-2 probably could do this too.

( real tank grogs will be able to tell you if the Russian 85mm could defeat the KT armour which would put the T34/85 in the frame too )

[Boche]

Not a tank grog either, but I suppose you could say the western allied "king Tiger" would be the "Pershing" and the Russian equivalent the "IS-2"

[Vanir Ausf B]

KT upper hull was mostly invulnerable to everything, but British 17 pdr and 77mm cannon, US 90mm cannon, Soviet 100mm cannon and 122mm cannon could all penetrate the KT front turret. The distance and reliability with which they could do this varied considerably with what type of ammunition was used.

[PzKpfw 1]

Calling all tank grogs. Did the Americans, British or Russians ever field a tank that could fight the King Tiger head on and come out on top? Maybe this question is a little bit ahead of the "Game" but its something that I have wondered about and maybe others have also. I know that during the Bulge we didn't and if the King Tigers had not run out of gas then the Bulge might have just worked for the Germans.

No, the Allies did not have a comparabe tank as in armor protection & firepower. By this I mean although the Allies had tank guns, ie, the 17lb that could penetrate the Tiger II, under certian conditons, ie, turret penetrations, whereas no Allied tanks armor was proof vs the 88/L71. The IS-3 was the only Allied tank, that had armor, specificly designed to defeat the 88/L71.

As to the Ardennes i dont think gas was the reason for the German defeat, as the whole plan was unrealistic. The Germans just didn't have the resources, manpower, nor material to accomplish any more then they did.

Regards, John Waters

[Karabekian]

Did the Americans, British or Russians ever field a tank that could fight the King Tiger head on and come out on top?

The answer for all is no, if the KT was used properly. Close enough they could be killed, and were killed, especially when outmaneuvered.

You can find some rather interesting maps with KT positions marked, usually sitting alone as they were designed to, with a "target arc" that they watched. In such a position, no single tank could successfully engage them head on at range.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If the question is what tank would most likely come out on top in a head-to-head encounter then I agree the KT had no equal. But in some ways it's not a fair fight. The KT was much heavier than any Allied tank -- 28 tonnes (!) heavier than the Pershing -- and it paid a high price for that weight in terms of mechanical reliability, fuel consumption and strategic mobility.

[Erwin]

It seems designed as a mobile AT bunker since it arrived when Germany was on the defensive everywhere. (When was it designed?)

[MikeyD]

The American's ace up the sleeve' was thier tank chemical smoke shell. The Germans really really didn't like American smoke. At the least it was a mere annoyance, at most it could make the interior of a tank virtually uninhabitable, especially if the engine was running and drawing in air. This was only of utility if the opponent was within smoke shell range, it wasn't much use when the Tiger was out beyond 2000m. There are reports of tankers, by late war, keeping an all-purpose smoke round 'up the spout' and of ready racks being 1/3rd smoke rounds - hard as that may be to believe.

[Andrew H.]

I know that during the Bulge we didn't and if the King Tigers had not run out of gas then the Bulge might have just worked for the Germans.

It wouldn't have made any - the Germans had a lot more going against them than just gas shortages. While the KT can be almost invulnerable in an appropriate defensive position, in the bulge it was used to attack up narrow roads in a heavily wooded where it could be easily flanked and where it couldn't use its best asset (its gun) to advantage.

The fact that if you sent a company 10 miles, half of the tanks would break down on the way wasn't a good thing, of course.

Finally, consider the fact that even if you have as much gas as you need, you are going to have to resupply your tanks, and this resupply is done by trucks or at dumps, all of which are vulnerable to artillery and air attacks.

But the history of the Tiger II, especially in the West, is mostly a history of them getting knocked out by flank shots or left behind by their crews when they broke down or their supplies were interdicted.

I don't know of any instances where any Tiger II performed anything like the Tiger I did - I think 10 Tiger 1 commanders had over 100 kills, and 10-1 kill ratios were not uncommon for individual commanders of Tiger Is. There weren't any 100 kill Tiger II commanders, and as far as I can see the tank performed less well than the Tiger I.

[JonS]

Calling all tank grogs. Did the Americans, British or Russians ever field a tank that could fight the King Tiger head on and come out on top?

Ever?

Well, Chally 2, M1A2, and T-90 would all give any number of T-II a really bad day.

[Andrew H.]

Ever?

Well, Chally 2, M1A2, and T-90 would all give any number of T-II a really bad day.

Time grog!

[Sgt Joch]

The SU-152 was supposedly able to rip the turrets off Tiger tanks with its 152 mm gun using HE shells.

[Georgie]

The American's ace up the sleeve' was thier tank chemical smoke shell. The Germans really really didn't like American smoke. At the least it was a mere annoyance, at most it could make the interior of a tank virtually uninhabitable, especially if the engine was running and drawing in air. This was only of utility if the opponent was within smoke shell range, it wasn't much use when the Tiger was out beyond 2000m. There are reports of tankers, by late war, keeping an all-purpose smoke round 'up the spout' and of ready racks being 1/3rd smoke rounds - hard as that may be to believe.

It would be interesting to see that portrayed in the game. Not on every encounter of course but once in awhile when a Sherman encounters a German tank. Be it Tiger 1, Tiger 2 or Panther. Roll of the dice sort of thing.

[sburke]

It would be interesting to see that portrayed in the game. Not on every encounter of course but once in awhile when a Sherman encounters a German tank. Be it Tiger 1, Tiger 2 or Panther. Roll of the dice sort of thing.

LOL man wouldn't you hate that though when you have a nice flank shot lined up and "bam!" oops that was a smoke round....then hope like hell it actually smokes em out.

[Georgie]

LOL man wouldn't you hate that though when you have a nice flank shot lined up and "bam!" oops that was a smoke round....then hope like hell it actually smokes em out.

Yeah I would. There would have to be something in the program to where a smoke round would only be used if it were head to head. I'm sure BF has got plenty of other programming to do but it was a thought. Still be fun to see. Or maybe being able to manualy select smoke instead of AP.

[JonS]

LOL man wouldn't you hate that though when you have a nice flank shot lined up and "bam!" oops that was a smoke round....then hope like hell it actually smokes em out.

[Silkwraith]

I shall withold myself from being repetitive.

The most historically correct answer to your question is that provided by PZKPFW 1.

No, the Allies did not have a comparabe tank as in armor protection & firepower. By this I mean although the Allies had tank guns, ie, the 17lb that could penetrate the Tiger II, under certian conditons, ie, turret penetrations, whereas no Allied tanks armor was proof vs the 88/L71. The IS-3 was the only Allied tank, that had armor, specificly designed to defeat the 88/L71.

As to the Ardennes i dont think gas was the reason for the German defeat, as the whole plan was unrealistic. The Germans just didn't have the resources, manpower, nor material to accomplish any more then they did.

Regards, John Waters

As regards a this response:

But the history of the Tiger II, especially in the West, is mostly a history of them getting knocked out by flank shots

This is incorrect. Notiwthstanding the fact that the quality of the iron ore used for the manufacture of any armoured vehicle by the Germans between 1944 and 1945 was inferior, it was still hard to penetrate the KT from the side unless you are a few meters away. And there weren't so many similar occasions. So to say that history relates this instance as happeneing 'mostly' is incorrect.

Many of the stories related by Allied Soldiers on how they knocked out KT even at point blank range have been proved wrong ...to say the least and I can quote a few of them given more time.

On the other hand it is true that many of the KT were destroyed by thier crews due to mechanical failure, failing logistical support etc etc.

The KT was exrtremely powerful for its time, and although the IS 2 (Iosif Stalin Tank) was technically as powerful and even had a 100mm Gun - its slow and medieval loading system was too time consuming and thus - for this reason it was, as well, no match for the KT on the Battlefield. May I please highlight that the IS3 ( the Shuka) did not see action against the Germans.

It was - for its day and age, a magnificent beast.....and still impressive to see even today.

[Vanir Ausf B]

... and although the IS 2 (Iosif Stalin Tank) was technically as powerful and even had a 100mm Gun...

This is incorrect. The IS-2 featured the A-19 122 mm gun.

its slow and medieval loading system was too time consuming and thus - for this reason it was, as well, no match for the KT on the Battlefield. May I please highlight that the IS3 ( the Shuka) did not see action against the Germans.

This is correct. The IS-3 if anything had an even slower rate of fire due to it's extremely cramped turret.

[c3k]

Recognize that bad loading systems meant the gun's elevation had to be changed to get the rounds in (depending on the tank, of course). This led to range errors for every shot.

The TigerII was specifically designed so that the round could be loaded while the 88L71 remained at the gunner's elevation.

A minor detail which makes a world of difference in accurate LONG RANGE shooting.

[Karabekian]

I don't know of any instances where any Tiger II performed anything like the Tiger I did - I think 10 Tiger 1 commanders had over 100 kills, and 10-1 kill ratios were not uncommon for individual commanders of Tiger Is. There weren't any 100 kill Tiger II commanders, and as far as I can see the tank performed less well than the Tiger I.

You are comparing two very very different projects. The Tiger I appeared very early on and actually surpassed its enemies. It had huge resources at its disposal as well as a favorable strategical as well as tactical advantage. Its development was also virtually unhindered. It was the best materials and design they could manage.

The Tiger II appeared in a desperate attempt to counter the ever increasing Soviet firepower, that by 1944 was massive due (mostly) to the response to the Tiger I. 85mm, 122mm and even 152mm was readily available for anti tank use as well as huge amounts of new AT guns, rifles etc. Germany was bombed to hell, the strategical situation was horrendous and tactically the Soviets already had all the measures to kill Tigers or any other German tank. It was the best they could manage with the resources at hand, and most of even those resources were taken away once they reached the front.

There were many Tiger II aces and most of them were also Tiger I aces. But it was a very different feat to go up against the Soviet army in 1944 than 1942, or the Americans in late 1944 rather than directly after the invasion.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Recognize that bad loading systems meant the gun's elevation had to be changed to get the rounds in (depending on the tank, of course). This led to range errors for every shot.

Good point. I wonder if that will be modeled in the East Front game.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

In John Kettlers thread about pictures of tanks from a French website there is a whole range of excellent pictures of an ISIII. Truly a beast!

Regards

KR

[Commissar]

Since we're talking about Tigers and Stalins,

From Thomas L. Jentz’s Panzertruppen Vol. 2

P216

The September 1944 issue of the Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen included a report from a Tiger-Kompanie that knocked out numerous Josef Stalin tanks in a short period:

. . . . The Kompanie commander made the following observations that were derived from their experience in fighting Josef Stalin tanks:

1. When a Tiger appears, most Josef Stalin tanks turn away and attempt to avoid a firefight.

2. In many cases, the Josef Stalin tanks let themselves engage in a firefight only at long range (over 2000 meters) and also only when they themselves are in favorable positions on the edge of a woods, village, or ridge line.

3. The enemy crews lean toward evacuating their tank immediately after the first shot is fired at them.

4. In all cases the Russians strived to prevent a Josef Stalin tank from falling into our hands and with all means available attempted to tow the tank away or t blow it up.

5. The Josef Stalin can also be knocked out, even if a penetration of the frontal armor can’t be achieved at long range. (A different Tiger-Abteilung reported that the front of a Josef Stalin can be penetrated by a Tiger only at ranges less than 500 meters.)

6. An attempt should be made to gain the flank or the rear of the Josef Stalin tank and destroy him with concentrated fire.

7. In addition, a firefight with Josef Stalin tanks should not be undertaken in less than Zug strength. Employment of single Tigers means their loss.

8. It has proven to be useful, after the first hits are registered, to blind the Josef Stalin by firing Sprenggranaten (high explosive shells).

p. 219-220

Experiences in employing Tiger II on the Eastern Front are revealed in the following report dated 25 November 1944 written by Hauptmann Fromme, commander of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503:

. . . . In tank-versus-tank combat, the 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 gun is effective in destroying all the types of enemy tanks, including the Stalin, at ranges up to 1500 meters. Under favorable conditions, the T34 and T43 tanks can also be knocked out at ranges up to 3000 meters. As previously experienced in the West with Allied tanks, it was most observed that the Russian tanks declined to fight Tigers or turned and fled after their first tank was knocked out. The same thing applies to the Russian assault guns as to the Stalin tanks. Kills at over 1500 meters have not yet occurred.

[Michael Emrys]

An attempt should be made to gain the flank or the rear of the Josef Stalin tank and destroy him with concentrated fire.

Shades of the Stuart rush! The worm turns.

Michael