T-34\85 Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Maybe this has been covered but I was wondering about people's thoughts about how practical it wouldve been to instead of just manufacturing the expensive, cumbersome and ridiculously well-armored King Tiger, they could've just altered the regular Tiger design to mount an 88mm L71, and slope its thick armor ... would this have been feasible? It seems like a cheaper solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Somehow I don't think Adolf would've liked that. "WHAT!!! Does Stalin have a Tank that's bigger than mine". Think this has been discussed before on this forum and personally I would think that bigger isn't necesary better always. Quality vs Quantity will always be a hot topic (it's a little interesting that the Russians seems to have shifted over to the Quality side in recent years. Not that the T-34 or JS2 was bad or anything). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I suppose that the cost of upgrading the Tiger I into something more akin to the Tiger II wouldn't be cost effective. Eg increase the mass of the tank, you need a better engine, a more capable transmission, improved suspension and so on. Replace the gun, you may need to extend the back of the turret to account for an increase in recoil, revamp the position of the shell loudouts, revise seating arrangements, etc Thus cheaper just to design a new tank from scratch! Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I wonder if that is true. Looking at the updates the Sherman got, the Pz IV got, and the T34 (or the Leopard and the M1 for modern examples) most tanks were (and are) upgraded multiple times. Seems this is more cost effective (and faster) than designing a completely new one. No, I think it more probable that it was both a case of wanting to have it 'bigger and better' then the others, and a desperate hope in superweapons on the German side that got them designing more and more 'superthingies' as the war went on. Bertram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Mounting the L/71 PAK on the Tiger E was tried during initial design but never went beyond prototype stage. Also, it's only the overrepresentation of heavy armor that makes the short barreled 88 a bit ineffective in CM, IRL, they didn't go up against all those many Jumbo Shermans. apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampire1 Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Heavier tank, and armour served their purpose: defensive action. I don't think(hope at least)that it was produced simply for "My tank is bigger then your tanks!" bragging rights. Also imagine recalling all Tiger I's back to factory for upgrades! Hard enough moving those beasts 100 kilometers. Withdrawing from front lines and travelling 1000KM would be a nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Well, you're all missing one of the key ingredients in the design decisions about the King Tiger. In a word: Standardization. The allies did a much better job of this than the Germans. The Germans realized this and were trying to come to grips with it. The Tiger II and the Panther II were to share as many components as possible to simplify production and make supplying spares easier. Tiger II was to be the standard heavy tank and the Panther II the standard medium. They just ran out of time in making it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Firstly, the King Tiger was merely an up-scaled Panther when you get right down to it. Secondly, the KT was designed to have a major commonality of parts with the Panther II and thirdly, sloping the armour, putting in a new gun, adding counterweights, re-arranging ammo stowage, gearings etc etc etc are NOT trivial matters. Don't be misled by what was done with the Sherman. Putting a 76mm gun or a 17 pounder or adding a couple of inches of armour at the same slope as the existing armour are trivial changes compared to what you're talking about. It COULD have been done but the resultant "Tiger upgrades" would have been mechanical nightmares and pretty much worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter S Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I'll second that 'Standardization' argument. It is fair to say that the armament industries of the entire Axis was plagued by this lack of focus, especially when it came to weapon platforms. The combined manpower and economic might of the Allies gave them much more room for industrial 'errors' as their sheer weight of numbers could (and would) offset any qualitative inferiority their equipment suffered when compared to the Axis'. From tanks to planes to ships, the logic of settling on a few effective designs versus many was lost to all but a few wise high ranking officials in the respective Axis powers. The glaring exception to this was Germany's submarine fleet, which saw the smart and effective use of two extremely successful combat designs (types VII & IX) before the nearly omnipresent allied naval and air units demanded a more revolutionary design (type XXI) be built. OK, I jumped off the subject a little, So sue me... Peter S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampire1 Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 That is scary to think that the Panther II was to be the standard "medium" tank. That thing is huge! The one at Ft. Knox stands as high as the King Tiger and completely dwarfs the StuG and MkIII next to it. Imposing to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vampire1: That is scary to think that the Panther II was to be the standard "medium" tank. That thing is huge! The one at Ft. Knox stands as high as the King Tiger and completely dwarfs the StuG and MkIII next to it. Imposing to say the least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ....and there was always the proposed 'E' series of German AFVs as well. Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 That would be the Tiger E.100? Now we're talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 Lets not forget either that Germany did not move to full wartime production untill 1943. Germany was still making luxury items until April 1943 - The Year the Furher said the war would be over!! Furthermore - another key element in the production/standardisation formula is motivation/skill of workforce. Germany never seriously used woman in its labour force (Hitler personally was against this - as woman were too important in producing the next generation )but relied on slave labour/old timers for its factory production. It was not uncommon for there to be many problems in the production lines (delays) as the slaves fought a sort of war themselves. I would hate to think about the casualties if Germany had moved all wartime production to the Panther and FW (Focke Wolf) series of equipment. I believe the construction time taken for a King Tiger equated to that of 3 Panthers and I know that if I was a Soldier on the front what I would have preferred. Craig [This message has been edited by Aussie Smith (edited 08-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasj Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 I think to answer the original post/question you have to look at when the conceptional designing began on all German tanks. The work on the Tiger started back in 1937 and true lessons learned about its design weren't really known until after late 41, early 42 when it started taking heavy losses to the Russians. Which by that time the Tiger II or King Tiger was already way past developement stages, and we all know what it meant for something they were building to make it past conception, mock up, testing, and into production. It was a huge accomplishment for anything new to go into production without being delayed longer with changes or scraped completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 Someone help me on this one... IIRC, the Tiger has a fairly short (height) turret. Laying in a larger gun with a longer breach would have a serious detrimental effect on the gun depression capabilities. If you want to go hull down on a ridge line, then gun depression is extremely important. Seems a logical constraint to me. Longer gun with depression capabilities means higher turret for the Tiger. Not a small change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 9, 2000 Share Posted August 9, 2000 Usually the decisive factor limiting how far you can upgun a tank is turret ring diameter. Can anybody here compare the turret ring diameters of the Tigers I and II? BTW, in view of the above, does anybody happen to know how the Israelis managed to fit a 105mm into the Sherman? I've always assumed they moved the trunnions forward and just learned to live with the decreased elevation/depression, but I've never found out. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts