King Tiger Armor Strength

[SpeakEasy]

Is there a weapon within the Allied arsenal that could take out a king tiger (henschel turret) from the front?

Do the Americans possess anything that could take it out from the front?

[CM-Kane]

Hi Speakeasy,

yeah there is the Firefly, Achilles and the 17 pounder ATG, but only with the special APDS ammo. It can penetrate the turret up to 1000 meters, i think.

For the us boys, i don't know, the 76mm gun with HVAP ammo maybe? :confused:

Kane

[Michael Emrys]

Would the 90 mm gun on the M36 and M26 do it?

Michael

[ZPB II]

I think the only chance a US 76mm has is hitting the bow machine gun mount. It won't go through the front armour plates, not sure about the sides.

[Vanir Ausf B]

17 lbr APDS and US 90mm HVAP for sure. US 76mm HVAP should also be able to at short ranges, i.e. under 500 meters.

[MikeyD]

105mm Sherman has five HEAT rounds. I haven't fired it against a KT. I'd imagine it would have a better chance than most others.

[Vanir Ausf B]

No. US 105mm HEAT has only slightly better penetration than US 76mm APCBC.

[MikeyD]

I jut ran a test. KT stood up to repeated 105mm HEAT hits to the front.

[Oddball_E8]

Not to mention THIS

[db_zero]

iirc there was something I read years ago about how US AT gunners would aim their 57mm guns so the round would hit in front of the thick hide German tanks and skip up and penetrate the thinner underbelly .

For you shooters out there u can use the same principal to hit soneone taking cover behind a vechicle.

[Michael Emrys]

iirc there was something I read years ago about how US AT gunners would aim their 57mm guns so the round would hit in front of the thick hide German tanks and skip up and penetrate the thinner underbelly .

This may be another version of a frequently encountered myth. The geometry of such a shot would be almost impossible to set up. Even if you could get the round to strike the underbelly, it would do so at such a shallow angle that it would ricochet off even thin armor without penetrating. Also the round would lose a lot of its energy in striking the ground first.

Michael

[Seedorf81]

Is there a weapon within the Allied arsenal that could take out a king tiger (henschel turret) from the front?

Do the Americans possess anything that could take it out from the front?

P47, Typhoon.

[MikeyD]

I replayed my 105mm HEAT vs Tiger test, this time viewing from the Tiger's perspective. Penetration or not, the big HEAT round seems to cause the crew to spontaneously relieve themselves. Suppression to the point of panic. Things get broken - radio, optics. Popped smoke, attempts to back away. You're not defeating the armor but the Tiger crew doesn't exactly enjoy the experience.

[Michael Emrys]

P47, Typhoon.

From the front? Even the 37 mm armed Stukas preferred to attack from the rear.

Michael

[db_zero]

This may be another version of a frequently encountered myth. The geometry of such a shot would be almost impossible to set up. Even if you could get the round to strike the underbelly, it would do so at such a shallow angle that it would ricochet off even thin armor without penetrating. Also the round would lose a lot of its energy in striking the ground first.

Michael

Sounds like a job for Mythbusters.

[Freyberg]

The few times I've played with King Tigers, and the larger number of times I've played against them, I've found them quite susceptible to gun damage, not to mention easy to kill from the flank with any 76mm gun.

[sburke]

Aim for the fuel trucks lumbering along behind it. oh you mean in game... never mind

[db_zero]

Taking a direct hit or near where a salvo of rockets hit was said to be like getting a broadside from a light cruiser so it couldn't have been good news-even for a King Tiger crew. Typhoons and P-47s could also carry a pair of 500 pound bombs and that must have been hell to have them go off near you.

8 .50 cals from a P-47. A King Tiger may not get tossed, but not all upper areas could be heavily armored and ground attack pilot were trained at where to aim. Same with the 20mm from a Typhoon. By the time the King Tiger appeared the allied were pretty experienced in coordinating air/ground tactics and techniques and pilots on TDY were attached to ground units. By this time many if not most ground attack pilots and FACs were pretty experienced and given the opportunity pretty decent killers.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Aircraft K kills on heavy AFV's were rare, but they certainly caused M kills and abandonments.

[SpeakEasy]

So it doesn't seem that the US possesses anything on the ground that can reliably take out a KT from the front, although you can hope for gun damage or crew panic.

Knowing that they can be taken out with air support is useful.

Thanks for the info, guys.

[db_zero]

Does the ai take into account the relative ineffectiveness of certain AT weapons and try to target the treads or sprocket wheels to try and immobolize tanks like King Tigers? If not could a target to immobolize be implemented? Grunts aren't stupid and must have known the best shot was often one to immobolize a tank like the Tiger.

Also got to think the mobility of a King Tiger was always limited due to size and weight. You had to do careful recon and many areas were unsuitable for it. Once it got stuck you probably needed another Tiger or 2 to recover it. I'm not fimilar with Holland, but isn't most of it at ir below sea level? Those types of areas tend to have soft ground which doen't seem conductive to armored warfare.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The King Tiger was actually quite good on soft ground, better than most Allied tanks. This is not modeled correctly in the game. In fact, as I have pointed out before, the off-road ratings for vehicles in the game are way off.

"Wherever we have seen Tiger and Panther tanks they have not demonstrated any inferior maneuverability. Near Puffendorf, Germany, several Tiger Royal tanks were encountered. These Tiger Royals were able to negotiate very soft ground and their tracks did not sink as deeply into the soft ground as did our own."

-- Capt Charles B. Kelley, Company "D" 66th Armored Regiment

[akd]

"On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26. Panzer Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzer must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.

All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun."

-Albert Speer, 1 November 1944

Weight and size does matter. Mobility isn't based on a soft-ground flotation alone.

[Wicky]

Does the ai take into account the relative ineffectiveness of certain AT weapons and try to target the treads or sprocket wheels to try and immobolize tanks like King Tigers?

No

Also got to think the mobility of a King Tiger was always limited due to size and weight. You had to do careful recon and many areas were unsuitable for it. Once it got stuck you probably needed another Tiger or 2 to recover it. I'm not fimilar with Holland, but isn't most of it at ir below sea level? Those types of areas tend to have soft ground which doen't seem conductive to armored warfare.

Holland was soggy of the beaten track esp in areas which had been deliberately flooded.

[Vanir Ausf B]

"On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26. Panzer Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzer must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.

All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun."

-Albert Speer, 1 November 1944

Weight and size does matter. Mobility isn't based on a soft-ground flotation alone.

What "Panzers" is he referring to, and which version of the Sherman? How close did Albert Speer ever get to the front lines?

Of course weight and size matter. That is factored into the Mean Maximum Pressure rating, which shows the Tiger II coming out much better than the Sherman.

It's not just the Tiger II that is way off. In the game the Panther is about the same as the Sherman, which is just crazy. I'm talking off road rating. Hill climbing is a function of power-to-weight ratio and there is a separate rating in the game for that.

"The Mark V is probably the best tank the German has and is better than our tanks in the same respect that it is to theirs. These advantages far out-shadow our tanks, however, they have greater floatation and will cross difficult terrain, particularly mud and deep snow that our tanks cannot cross."

-- Major Philip C. Calhoun, 3rd battalion, 66th Armored Regiment.

"I have compared the depth to which our tanks sink along side of German Mk V and VI tanks in soft ground. Before the addition of track extensions our medium tanks sank six to eight inches while the Mark V tracks were not over four inches. We had to avoid "tracking" tanks or turning sharply, as either resulted in bellying-up and sticking. This was checked on the plain between the Wurm and Roar rivers west of Julich. The new E8 suspension with the wider track is about equal, on our M4 tank, to what the German Mk V has always been."

"On 17 November 1944, 2nd Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, jumped off on an attack from Puffendorf with the mission of securing Ederen, Germany. Upon moving into Ederen, I had the opportunity to compare the flotation of our M5A1, M4, with the German Mark V tank. Upon entering the town, my tank paralleled the tracks left by the German Mark V tank. I was very much interested in the capabilities of the two tanks cross-country. I dismounted to compare the tracks of the German tank with those of my own. I noticed that the German tank had sunk into the soft ground approximately two inches, and those of my own tank, the M5A1, had sunk about three and a half to four inches. I also noticed the impressions left by an M4 medium tank and noted that it had sunk about five or six inches. This was very interesting to me, as the German Mark V tank, weighing approximately forty-five tons, was three times heavier than my own tank, weighing fifteen tons. Our own M4 medium tank weighs thirty tons."

-- Harold A. Shields, First Lieutenant Company "A," 66th Armored Regiment

"We want wider tracks. This new E8 suspension is a lot better as far as flotation is concerned than our old suspension system, but the German tanks still have better maneuverability in the field."

"As far as flotation and maneuverability is concerned, our new E8 suspension system is okay. But we need to be able to some way lock one track so we could turn in the field like the Mark V. On the road we were okay, but they have us beat in the field."

-- Raymond Kasner, staff sergeant.