King Tiger Armor Strength

[Vanir Ausf B]

"The Tiger II was remarkably agile for such a heavy vehicle. Contemporary German records indicate that its mobility was as good as or better than most German or Allied tanks."

-- Thomas Jentz

[SpeakEasy]

With a seeming wealth of information describing the mobility of the heavier Panther and Tiger tanks, I wonder why they are not modeled as being more competent across softer terrain in the game.

This may actually be somewhat of an issue in the new MG module because of the more frequent occurrence of soft ground compared to CW or the base game.

[Amizaur]

Tiger II could have relatively low ground pressure, that means it could move forward across soft ground as good or better as other tanks. But as someone said, ground pressure is only one many factors of maneuverability!

Tiger II was HEAVY. It was underpowered. It's engine had to work very, very hard to accelerate it and move trough softer ground, it had no power reserve, it easily overheated.

Turning in place or any hard turns on soft ground would be slow because of the increased drag, if turning in place the tracks could easily be blocked by soli/mud or even thrown / broken.

The final gear was strained, fabricated from poor quality steel, it could be easily broken when the drive train was strained during hard maneuvers. Especially if trying to turn in place.

Tiger II from Samour looks good and accelerates nicely on a hard surface. Please find a video where it is traversing on soil, grass, softer ground. The engine is screaming, acceleration is slow, maneuvering is slow.

In game Tiger 2 was accelerating well, and it's was THE FASTEST TURNING tank ! It turns in place faster than Panther, faster than anything other. When moving, it turns even twice faster than when turning in place. If ordered forward with a turn, it rotates amazingly fast. Having also a fast turret, Tiger 2 in game even on soft ground points its gun and faces front hull to any enemy in seconds.

I checked a version ago on different ground types, even in forrest or mud it turned fastest in game. I hope this was corrected so far in some patch.

Tiger II as just too heavy for it's engine and for quality of it's power train. It's cross-country manevering ability looks good on paper only.

I guess a Jagtiger on paper looks not that bad either. The specs, mean groud pressure, power to weight ect.

It doesn't look that bad also in some propaganda films, field tests. But in reality a Jagdtiger's mobility was simply a disaster - according to Otto Carius.

From quotations that other gave, I see that Americans praised German's tank mobility, and Germans praised American's tank mobility. Everyone believied the oher side has advantage. They noticed mainly shortcomings of their tanks and advantages of enemy's tanks. Many reports are biased.

It's true that German tanks sinked less in soft ground than American tanks, it's true German tanks could turn tighter, blocking one track completly (but it was risky). American tanks had to turn while moving, with some minimal radius and were jealous about those hard in-place turns.

But it was mainly Panther and to some extend Tiger I tanks that were more maneuverable than Allied tanks.

Tiger II was much more heavy and underpowered, the driver had to treat it with great care to not break it. It was quite fast and maneuverable on hard surface, but not really on soft ground, especially if it was not flat and they had to climb some elevation sometimes...

Of course it WAS quite maneuverable for a HEAVY tank, it compared nicely with some other HEAVY tanks like KV, IS, I guess with a Churchil too. But it was not a level of maneuverability of medium tanks like Panther or T-34. It just wasn't. And it should turn slowly, climb slowly and accelerate slowly on soft ground in game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

With a seeming wealth of information describing the mobility of the heavier Panther and Tiger tanks, I wonder why they are not modeled as being more competent across softer terrain in the game.

This may actually be somewhat of an issue in the new MG module because of the more frequent occurrence of soft ground compared to CW or the base game.

Actually, my testing has shone that the Tiger I tank is by far the best off-roading tank in the game. Off the top of my head I think it is the only medium or heavy tank with a "4 bar" off-road rating. That it is a better off-road performer than the Sherman in the game is historically accurate. That it is also a better off-road performer than the Panther in the game is not accurate.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Tiger II could have relatively low ground pressure, that means it could move forward across soft ground as good or better as other tanks. But as someone said, ground pressure is only one many factors of maneuverability!

Tiger II was HEAVY. It was underpowered. It's engine had to work very, very hard to accelerate it and move trough softer ground, it had no power reserve, it easily overheated.

Don't conflate soft ground performance with power to weight ratio. Those are two separate stats in the game and should therefore not be mushed together.

Turning in place or any hard turns on soft ground would be slow because of the increased drag, if turning in place the tracks could easily be blocked by soli/mud or even thrown / broken.

The final gear was strained, fabricated from poor quality steel, it could be easily broken when the drive train was strained during hard maneuvers. Especially if trying to turn in place.

This is true of any tank. Read the posted quote above regarding the difficulty of turning a Sherman in mud: "We had to avoid "tracking" tanks or turning sharply, as either resulted in bellying-up and sticking." How much "drag" is primarily a function of how deeply buried the running gear is. There is no reason so assume the Tiger II suffered from this more than most other tanks.

Tiger II from Samour looks good and accelerates nicely on a hard surface. Please find a video where it is traversing on soil, grass, softer ground. The engine is screaming, acceleration is slow, maneuvering is slow.

True of almost any WW2-era tank.

Tiger II as just too heavy for it's engine and for quality of it's power train. It's cross-country manevering ability looks good on paper only.

I'm going to need to see some real evidence before I take your word for it over Thomas Jentz

I guess a Jagtiger on paper looks not that bad either. The specs, mean groud pressure, power to weight ect.

It doesn't look that bad also in some propaganda films, field tests. But in reality a Jagdtiger's mobility was simply a disaster - according to Otto Carius.

Now you're adding mechanical reliability into the mix, which isn't even modeled in the game.

From quotations that other gave, I see that Americans praised German's tank mobility, and Germans praised American's tank mobility.

There was one quote from a German. Not exactly a good same size, and he does not specify what models of tanks, German or Allied, he is referring to. Give the date of the quote he could have been referring to E8 Shermans which did have much better performance than earlier versions. And the "Panzers" could well have been IVs which suffered from very poor ground clearance.

But it was mainly Panther and to some extend Tiger I tanks that were more maneuverable than Allied tanks.

Tiger II was much more heavy and underpowered, the driver had to treat it with great care to not break it. It was quite fast and maneuverable on hard surface, but not really on soft ground, especially if it was not flat and they had to climb some elevation sometimes...

Well you are again lumping together off-road performance, mechanical reliability and power-to-weight ratio. The Tiger II suffered some teething issues, although not nearly as bad as did the Panther. And even late Panther tanks had to be driven carefully given their notoriously easy-to-strip final drive gear. Over the last 6 month or so of the war there is no evidence that I have seen that the Tiger II suffered mechanical breakdown at greater rates than other German tanks. Reported percentage of tanks operational for 15 December 1944 was 72% of Panzer IVs, 80% percent of Tiger IIs and 61% of Panthers. For March 15 1945 it was 62% of Panzer IVs, 59% of Tiger IIs and 48% of Panthers.

[LukeFF]

P47, Typhoon.

And the myth continues...

[John Kettler]

Did someone say Jagdtiger? I had no idea footage this good of the 512th SPzJ Abt Jagdtigers surrendering at Iserlohn existed. All I'd ever seen was blurry. As you can see, even the monstrous Jagdtiger was no slouch on the speed front.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq32AjE9oMU

Here's a Jagdtiger on somewhat muddy ground. Note depth of track impression and how fast it can turn in place!

And if you look at the first two minutes or so of the Bulge footage with King Tigers in it, you can readily see that KTs, moving on a well used by other KTs road through a village, leave very shallow tread impressions, which matches some of the period commentary above.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

The Jagdtiger in the second film is missing a road wheel.

[Other Means]

Of course, the price they paid for such good floatation was mechanical complexity and so a terrible maintenance regime, which made them great AFVs but terrible weapons.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

I noticed that, too. My best guess is that we're looking at mine damage, but it could be something else. In any event, the wee beastie seems to get along just fine without that road wheel.

Regards,

John Kettler

[jtsjc1]

I think more of the problems the King Tiger and Jagdtiger had was the fact that they were underpowered. Had the Germans put in a more powerful engine and more reliable transmissions they would have had less reliability issues.

[Karabekian]

I think more of the problems the King Tiger and Jagdtiger had was the fact that they were underpowered. Had the Germans put in a more powerful engine and more reliable transmissions they would have had less reliability issues.

The Germans themselves did not see it like that. From their experience the problem was that the time required for maintenance was often not available. This was a problem that had appeared with the Tiger I already. The sPzAbt were so valuable that they were given very little respite once they were sent in, being constantly deployed even if the machines were not available or thoroughly serviced. This lead to failures during road marches and once deployed, depleted, to even further losses. If the operation was a failure, this would in the worst case lead to total loss of all armor, broken down during the road march, damaged in action as well as even further breakdowns of the depleted machines during retreat. Of course the increased weight of the heavy tanks made any recovery a cumbersome operation even in favorable conditions.

But in reality a Jagdtiger's mobility was simply a disaster - according to Otto Carius.

But then again Albert Ernst found the Jagdtiger quite valuable, as he was already used to Panzejägers. Carius worst concern was probably the deployment of the Jagdtiger as a replacement for the tank.

[Placebo]

Vanir Ausf B,

I noticed that, too. My best guess is that we're looking at mine damage, but it could be something else. In any event, the wee beastie seems to get along just fine without that road wheel.

Regards,

John Kettler

That looks like it is the one on show at the British tank museum. I think if memory serves it was a prototype captured at a german proving ground.

[Amizaur]

Regarding all the B&W historical videos from youtube - it's very valuable source of information, BUT before using it as a proof that something could move with some speed or turn that fast, we should be sure that the video FPS is properly synchronised and it's showing really in REAL TIME.

Many of those films were first converted (or not) to TV 50/60Hz format, other were displayed on TV without FPS conversion. Watching those youtube historical videos I often see signs of them being played too fast - like people walking with faster than normal pace.

I guess some of those historical videos ARE properly synchronised and showing things in real time. And some ARE NOT.

So before taking any video as a "proof" of something, this detail should be determined -is this tank moving/rotationg with it's true speed, or is the video accelerated a bit ?

It helps, if there are people visible on the video, walking or running, things falling, clouds of smoke moving. If not, it sometimes just hard to say...

I just wanted to say that it's something that should be considered when watching them.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In the second video showing the Jagdtiger turning a man is seen walking at 1:16-1:23

[altipueri]

Where is John Kettler on all this?

[MikeyD]

Its hard to judge the speed of something this size. Looking at some of the footage I could imagine someone would probably be able to keep pace at a quick jog. That would put the speed at about 10-12 mph. Some are going slower, some faster. I've seen films of Churchill tanks seemingly travelling at a pretty fast clip, except Churchills didn't travel at fast clip! At a village intersection a tank barreling past the camera at 10 mph looks 'fast'.

[John Kettler]

altipueri,

Which aspect? Didn't you see my #31 where I waded in on the speed and turning issue for the Jagdtiger and the King Tiger? The Iserlohn vid shows the Jagdtiger as being capable of moving at what would seem faster than a man could keep up. Wiki lists what's presumably a top speed of 21 mph, which is certainly not walking or jogging pace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdtiger

Or were you inquiring about the initial armor discussion? Apropos of what Tiger II armor consisted, its hardness and other matters, may I offer this thread, which features a great deal of material from our own armor protection expert Robert Livingston?

http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html

I pulled this from a WOT treadhead discussion, and I don't have the book cited. Wish I did!

(Fair Use)

Thomas L. Jentz, "there is no proof that substandard german armor plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war" (JENTZ, Thomas L. Germany's TIGER Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production & Modifications).

(Fair Use)

Tank-Net has quite the discussion of how not to use a Jagdtiger and the resultant cost.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21760

The Combat History of German Heavy Anti-Tank Unit 653 in World War II

By Karlheinz Munch, p. 278 states the famous 1st Jagdtiger kill at Rimling was via bazooka! For details, see Amazon site excerpt of book.

And here, in the first post, alecsandros presents an impressive compilation of things Tiger, to include the fact that a 76mm Sherman killed a Tiger II with a penetrating lateral hit to the turret (i.e., side of turret hit). There's another kill reported via a shot to the belly armor as the tank crested a rise.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3722

This 100th Division site shows what are believed to be the only M36 TD King Tiger kills, and they weren't made frontally.

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776m36.html

Here's a long analysis of the Tiger II in terms of the "received wisdom" vs actual performance in a host of categories. (Moon, no game here, just a discussion of treadhead stuff).

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132442-In-Defense-of-the-German-Tiger-II-Tank-%28Warning-Pic-Heavy-Post%29

I believe all of the above speak to the matters raised. It would appear that even the U.S. 90mm firing HVAP (what the game calls T) couldn't penetrate the King Tiger, let alone the Jagdtiger, frontally at useful combat ranges. All known kills were from the flank, rear or when some other highly vulnerable point, such as the belly, was presented.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

200 gallons of fuel. 75 off road miles.

White elephant.

As for the "readiness" figures, they are meaningless until you know what kind of action they were in and how many were held out of battle.

It is entirely typical for these beasties for those 60-80% readiness figures to reflect literally 2/3rds of them sitting home being buffed and tweaked, and only 1/3rd of them actually out facing the enemy.

Watch the figures for actual runners after actual commitment to action, days later.

Oh and spare us the nonsense about their claims. The reality is you can't find a single operation in the entire war where the tanks involved being Tiger IIs rather than Panthers made any positive difference.

If the Germans had 2 more years to work out the bugs, and fuel coming out of their ears, it might eventually have made a solid heavy tank. As it was, it just never mattered.

[db_zero]

The Tiger I, II and JadgTiger are cool tanks. I have cool 1/32 metal replicas of them and they look cool along with my other tanks and AFV's.

That being said...

My .02 cents is the Germans would have been better off using 50% resources and materials allocated to designing and producing these super tanks to making more Panthers, 20% of the resources to making more Assault Guns, 20% of the resources to maintenance/supply vehicles to support the tank force and the rest to producing more assault rifles and ammo for the assault rifles.

I agree with the historical consensus that the time, effort and resources used for Hitlers fascination with super tanks was a colossal waste.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It would appear that even the U.S. 90mm firing HVAP (what the game calls T) couldn't penetrate the King Tiger, let alone the Jagdtiger, frontally at useful combat ranges.

The game does not call it T. The game calls it APCR. And yes it could penetrate the front turret of the Tiger II.

[Vanir Ausf B]

200 gallons of fuel. 75 off road miles.

White elephant.

As for the "readiness" figures, they are meaningless until you know what kind of action they were in and how many were held out of battle.

It is entirely typical for these beasties for those 60-80% readiness figures to reflect literally 2/3rds of them sitting home being buffed and tweaked, and only 1/3rd of them actually out facing the enemy.

Watch the figures for actual runners after actual commitment to action, days later.

Oh and spare us the nonsense about their claims.

Not sure what you're on about here or what claims you are referring to. That the KT was a fuel hog and lacked operational range is not in question and is completely irrelevant to off-road performance in the game. If anyone has better numbers that show actual mechanical breakdown rates that would be interesting in an academic sort of way, but is also irrelevant to in-game modeling.

Since no one seems to be able to refute what I have said about KT soft-ground performance I'll consider the matter settled and go back to wondering when BFC will reconsider vehicle off-road ratings.

[db_zero]

Could be a case where both sides of the argument are right and wrong. On paper the KT was quite maneuverable off road, but in practical terms the reality of the situation dictated otherwise.

Here is some info that indicates while in perfect conditions and on paper the KT was indeed maneuverable off road, the design reduced track life, could be problematical in bad conditions and the maintenance requirements were so high as to be unattainable in sustained battlefield conditions, that in practice the full potential was not going to be attained.

Sounds like the same situation for Japanese fighters that were produced in 44. On paper they were far superior to American fighters. In fact when captured Franks and NiKi's were test flown at Miramar the American test pilots were stunned at their characteristics performance-which in the hands of a good pilot could best the P-51, P-47, Corsair and Hellcat.

In reality the subpar material used caused issues such as landing gear collapsing, bad engine wear and performance and the lack of experienced maintenance crews and pilots meant the Japanese fighters never really lived up to their potential-except for a few instances where all the right ingredients were in place.

The KT probably suffered the same pitfalls as the Japanese fighters like the Frank and NikI.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ii-ausf-b-konigstiger-kingroyaltiger-tiger-ii-sd-kfz-182.htm

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think you are agreeing with me

The Tiger II didn’t lack in mobility and maneuverability even with its high weight, but suffered from high fuel consumption (power/weight ratio – 10.1hp/ton).

[db_zero]

The only way to resolve this debate is a duel.

One side gets 5 Shermans, the other side 1 King Tiger.

Best of 7 game duel on a battlefield is the winner.