King Tiger

[Guest rune]

I remember someone mentioning that the King Tiger's turret was never penetrated. Those who think this is a super tank should look at the following web site:

http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons7.html

Note the picture of the front of the turret penetrated by s 100mm and an 88mm at 400 yards.

Also note the paragraph on the [gasp, dare I mention it?] 88L71.

Rune

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Yep, but that don't help the US Army none does it.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[RudeLover]

Hmmm, wouldn't have guessed this; the US 76mm was better than the Russian 76mm or 85mm? Is this regular APCBC or APDS?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800-2000 metres.

9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZIS-3 and F-34).

10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by RudeLover (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Tiger]

I wouldn't take any Soviet tests very seriously. It's well known that they propagandized and mis-reported everything to do with their principle enemy. Simply because they say this is the test and this is what happened is not enough for me. I'd rather see western data which should be more reliable.

Also, a 122 mm gun at 300-400 meters will penetrate just about any tank, even modern armor (except chobham). Even in this "report" it's noted that some of the shell holes they claim are caused by a certain gun look more like a larger caliber.

I'd take this info with a grain of salt.

jmtcw-

john

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover:

Hmmm, wouldn't have guessed this; the US 76mm was better than the Russian 76mm or 85mm? Is this regular APCBC or APDS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, the main reason the US 76mm was better was due to higher velocity than either Soviet gun. The quality of manufacture of the shells might have something to do with it, too (just like US 76 vs Brit 17 pounder).

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover:

Hmmm, wouldn't have guessed this; the US 76mm was better than the Russian 76mm or 85mm? Is this regular APCBC or APDS?

[This message has been edited by RudeLover (edited 09-21-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, the American 76mm had AP performance roughly equivalent to the Soviet 85mm and superior to the Soviet 76mm varieties.

Jeff Heidman

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune:

I remember someone mentioning that the King Tiger's turret was never penetrated. Those who think this is a super tank should look at the following web site:

Note the picture of the front of the turret penetrated by s 100mm and an 88mm at 400 yards.

Also note the paragraph on the [gasp, dare I mention it?] 88L71.

Rune

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the record Jentz stated that to 1996 no photographic evidence had been found showing an Tiger II frontal penetration in combat, looks to me that that still stands, as these are fireing range results.

The Russian's are finaly starting to share info as well as seen here, oh & before we go discounting anything Russian as unreliable etc, I would reccomend that ppl reconsider that position & check the source data as if it was recently declassified then it is reliable.

As an example their was a Russian T-34 book being published around 2 years ago from 2 very renowned Soviet armor historians, it was repeatedly not allowed to be published, in 1996 IIRC it was cleared for publishing then halted again on the grounds of national security.

I found the comments rather interesting especialy this:

5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges

Its almost a match of their test claims with the 122mm vs the Panther Ausf. D glacis, at Kublinkla in 1943. Least they provided some photographic evidence . Its interesting that the Germans rated both guns % to penetrate the glacis or TF at 0% at any range, wonder if they tested with better armor quality Tigers .

This also goes to show why the LL Sherman 76mm was regarded so highly by Soviet crews:

10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."

Their dead on concerning armor quality at that stage in the war. LOL Rune ya theirs that that dreaded KwK.43 165mm @ 1000ms @ 30^ penetration, egads its from a Russian test to .

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-21-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover:

Hmmm, wouldn't have guessed this; the US 76mm was better than the Russian 76mm or 85mm? Is this regular APCBC or APDS?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet tests reported that the 76mm gun had superior AT performance then the 85mm. The ammunition was US standard M79 APC.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...if it was recently declassified then it is reliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with this. Because it was witheld for a long time does not automatically make it accurate. I wouldn't discount the info entirely; however I wouldn't take it as gospel either, based on when it was de-classified.

-john

[Guest rune]

Well, just cause it came from the Russians doesn't mean it is invalid either. I find they are much more open about sharing WWII data. Also, photographs with tank numbers make me inclined to believe them. This was a memo from their Tank Proving Ground, internal memo. The only thing I find interesting, is that the author thinks one of the shells in the front turret is actually a 76mm penetration.

Rune

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

I disagree with this. Because it was witheld for a long time does not automatically make it accurate. I wouldn't discount the info entirely; however I wouldn't take it as gospel either, based on when it was de-classified.

-john <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Banshee]

I think it underwent so many hits that subsequent penetrations should be looked at with a wary eye. The structural integrity was quite comprimised.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[virtualfreak]

Well I will have to agree with tiger on this one. Soviet test just cant be taken as always accurate.Who knows how they conducted their test they could just have taken a 100mm gun and shot it at the tigers hull at point blank range.which is enough to penetrate any armor even armor on todays tanks.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee:

I think it underwent so many hits that subsequent penetrations should be looked at with a wary eye. The structural integrity was quite comprimised.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my exact thought as well. Many of those penetrations are only inches apart.

------------------

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

I disagree with this. Because it was witheld for a long time does not automatically make it accurate. I wouldn't discount the info entirely; however I wouldn't take it as gospel either, based on when it was de-classified.

-john <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly notice I said check the source before makeing sweeping generalisations on the credibility of Russian documents etc.

If interested contact the site or Valeriy & get the info, then make your decision. Some of you would be very suprised by just how frank & brutal in self criticism Soviet internal WW2 reports were, compared to the heavily sanitised crap released to the Soviet public after WW2.

To many ppl are haveing cold war flashbacks, & are way to eager, to dismiss anything Russian, as somehow inferior & tainted compared to the West, as if everything released in the West is gospel vs Soviet/Russian devil's propaganda etc.

Which can be partly blaimed on the USSR as they made a choice not to share their WW2 history with the West, except for briefe timeperiods when it was convient. Fortunently more & more once classified data is becomeing available as time goes by.

Their is a huge diference between what was released to the Russian public & what was regarded as state secrets & that was my point on if it was recently de classed then its most likely reliable.

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-21-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee:

I think it underwent so many hits that subsequent penetrations should be looked at with a wary eye. The structural integrity was quite comprimised.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, but notice how no one blinked an eye at this aspect in Simon & my discussions on the 88 lacking punch thread concerning the British LF tests, you think that Tiger II is shot up in those photo's, you should see the Tiger E's used in the British tests, yet those results are generaly accepted, show the same with the Russian Tiger B LF tests & ppl begin to cry foul, because its Russian.

Regards, John Waters

[Paul Lakowski]

Lets see Jentz data's no good and Ivan Hoggs data's no good and the Russian test data's no good.....what exact data is good?

What data did BTS use to confirm that there formula [ which isn't theres actually] works.

Wheres the 'good science' here when data is discarded whole sale?

Ballistic researchers don't discard data they correct it to the reference point [normalize] to make a better fit.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Agreed, but notice how no one blinked an eye at this aspect in Simon & my discussions on the 88 lacking punch thread concerning the British LF tests, you think that Tiger II is shot up in those photo's, you should see the Tiger E's used in the British tests, yet those results are generaly accepted,

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, this may be more appropriate to the 88 thread but since it was brought up here...

Wouldn't this say that the British LF tests should be taken with a grain of salt also? I mean, there is just no way you can riddle a tank full of holes until it looks like swiss cheese and say that the later shots are an exact representation of what would happen against an intact vehicle that still had its full armor integrety.

------------------

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Wouldn't this say that the British LF tests should be taken with a grain of salt also? I mean, there is just no way you can riddle a tank full of holes until it looks like swiss cheese and say that the later shots are an exact representation of what would happen against an intact vehicle that still had its full armor integrety.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly Vanir my point was you don't see anyone bringing that up as those Tiger E's used in the Brit tests were realy riddled compared to that Tiger B.

Hell the Brits shot the Tiger E mantlet with so many rounds that they had to stop testing the mantlet in one case after 1 17LB APDS shot because their was no room left on the mantlet that hadn't been holed.

They did declare some hits as 'unfair' though due to the deteraiting condition of the armor. And vitualy all the tests except the August 44 US LF tests vs the Panther in France were done vs 1 AFV.

In CM terms all this means squat as BTS has stated they don't use this data. Its more a real world comparison we have in these discussions, as vs test plate they switched plates after each fireing phase.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Vanir]

It's interesting that the Russians rated the KTs armor as being notably inferior to the Panther's because of the lack of molybdenum, making it brittle. Yet CM rates it at 90% while the Panther is at 85%.

Also, I believe that the KTs off road movement in CM is somewhat greater than what the Russians could achieve (10 MPH on a dirt road!).

I wonder if the KTs very poor mechanicle reliability could be modeled in CM. Perhaps there could be a small increased chance of becoming immobilized do to mechanical failure separate from the chance of bogging.

------------------

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

It's interesting that the Russians rated the KTs armor as being notably inferior to the Panther's because of the lack of molybdenum, making it brittle. Yet CM rates it at 90% while the Panther is at 85%.

Also, I believe that the KTs off road movement in CM is somewhat greater than what the Russians could achieve (10 MPH on a dirt road!).

I wonder if the KTs very poor mechanicle reliability could be modeled in CM. Perhaps there could be a small increased chance of becoming immobilized do to mechanical failure separate from the chance of bogging.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KT main armor was only 220 BHN while Panthers was 260-280 BHN so it was better armor. Also I heard the CW on the KT reliabity was that it was quite reliable as long as supplies of parts last.

[Dittohead]

Plus the guy driving the KT probably has no clue on how to do it. It also looks like the tracks have shot up pretty good.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Also, I believe that the KTs off road movement in CM is somewhat greater than what the Russians could achieve (10 MPH on a dirt road!).

I wonder if the KTs very poor mechanicle reliability could be modeled in CM. Perhaps there could be a small increased chance of becoming immobilized do to mechanical failure separate from the chance of bogging.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actualy Vanir the Tiger II was mechanichly reliable if 2 conditions were met, a) proper maintance was conducted, & a competent driver.

a)was somewhat easy to rectify as the problems were limited to leaking seals, & final drive problems that were eventualy almost eliminated due to the work of the crew & the factory personell. , was harder to rectify as Tiger II's required skilled drivers, and most German tank drivers that ended up in Tiger II crews were trained on another tank, and/or had no previous driveing experience at all.

An example of Tiger II's mechanichal reliability is reflected in the March 15 1945 strength return shows that on all fronts following % of German tanks as operational:

PzKpfw IV - 62%

PzKpfw V - 48%

PzKpfw VI - 59%

A potent example is supplied by Tom Jentz, describing how he & Hillary Doyle drove the route to La Glize in a modren car & how the route twisted & turned & they had to use low gears, much of the time, & this was in summer weather compared to the Tiger II's who had succersfuly navigated the route in 1944 in the dead of winter.

Most likely the poor performance was a result of the Soviet tank drivers unfamiliarity with the Tiger II.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Soviet industrial testing is not only considered suspect, but is often considered worthless (note I am not referring to weapons in particular, the information I have does not cover that, only production by heavy industry) because they failed to follower generally accepted industrial testing methods that any Western 4th year Engineering student can do in their sleep.

The Zil design group is an example. When testing prototype Zil trucks the Zil line would take the first example from the production lot and send it to a special refinishing team who would pull and replace almost every part, essentially building a new car -- sometimes using a different engine and new body panels. They would then turn it over to the design team management who had everything to loose from it failing. So the driving test would get done by driving it around a race track with a repair team on hand. All that matters was that it did the right number of laps, not anything else. In the west at the same time a random selection of vehicles would be pulled and tested by a quality assurance group not responsible to the design team (which is why events like Firestone tires had to have inside knowledge -- testing regimes are pretty good in the car industry).

In most cases, Soviets were lying to themselves more than they were fighting a propaganda war. Zil plant proved that problems in the Zil Limo were caused by poor metals provided by Kiev Heavy Industries, while Kiev proved that problems withthe Zil were caused by manufacturing mistakes, and the tests done by each district tester proved no fault of their own. The funniest quality control document in the library in one that says Zil vehicles tested out with a 1% rejection of quality control, but that the "minor problems" with delievered vehicles were caused by end users slamming doors "to hard" causing inferior Ukraine metals to break.

An example of shoddy testing is what they did to that King Tiger. If they had really wanted to test it, they would have cut it apart and done a series of armor tests in static test rigs - done impact hardness tests -- done all sorts of lab tests. This is exactly what the US did with Soviet tanks and led to the adoption of the L7 105mm. Parking it out in the field and peppering it with repeated shots assures that only the numbers for the first hit were valid as armor looses its stregnth with penetration.

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

An example of shoddy testing is what they did to that King Tiger. If they had really wanted to test it, they would have cut it apart and done a series of armor tests in static test rigs - done impact hardness tests -- done all sorts of lab tests. This is exactly what the US did with Soviet tanks and led to the adoption of the L7 105mm. Parking it out in the field and peppering it with repeated shots assures that only the numbers for the first hit were valid as armor looses its strength with penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You obviously havn't been following the discussion .... every one did this in WW-II as John pointed out and BTW how do you know they didn't do Metallurgy tests, how do you think they got there hardness numbers.

This is a common problem with western views of Eastern tech. "They don't do it the way we do it so they do it wrong".

Any ballistic engineer can look at the penetration series and results and adjust the data accordingly.

But no don't listen to me, ignor all the wealth of data and make the same mistakes with CM-2.

And just to prove the point...we were analysing American Impact test data on the M-744 DU alloy from Aberdeen Proving ground, and found that they doctored the data ... and this was 1991. Well actually they didn't doctor the data they just didn't tell the whole story

So I guess that means American data's usless too

[Aussie Smith]

Ok Folks

Lets breathe deep and just consider this aspect.

IIRC the survival rate of crews is and was a better measure of a vehicles protection value. Perhaps instead of digging up data on armour hardness, this gun vs. that gun, perhaps if we could we should find the survival rate of crews abandoning differing nationality vehicles to get a different angle on this discussion.

Now I know this doesn't answer the question about the KT directly but I put it to you - if the crew survival rate from a destructive hit on a KT was 65%, Pershing 55% and an ISII 35% (not real figures) what tank would you prefer to fight in.

I understand why this issue is so easily debatable and as I've said to John in the 88L56 thread understandable but considering a good tank is a tank that allows a crew to live and fight again (ala M1A1 etc) wouldn't this be a tangible measure of a vehicles effectiveness?

Ok so I'm a Groundpounder (Infantry) and am not an armour specialist but I know in convo's with our tankies (Leopard A3's) in Kangaroo 84' the aspect of survivability is foremost on their minds.

Thoughts?

Craig