Lindan Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Something that I never thought about before, but seems strange now. Why was the Tiger so heavy, compared to the M26 and the IS-2? Has anyone an answer to this? All 3 have thick armor, a heavy gun etc. , but still the Tiger is about 14 tons heavier than a M26. Strange. Any feedback welcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 For one thing, German tanks in general were just big. If you have two tanks with the same armour thickness but one was taller, then it'd be heavier. And this is true especially when comparing the IS and Königstiger. Someone posted once a very good drawing of how German and Soviet tank profiles compared, and the difference was notable. Doesn't Königstiger have one crew mate more than IS-2? Another thing is that the German Panzer aces used to be beer-swilling pigs recruited from some Tirolische Kneipe that looked a bit like the today's average Yankee but thinner, which when compared to the midgets raised in Siberian Gulags didn't do very much good to the Tiger's suspension. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Also, PzKpfw VIE has a thicker all-around armour than the M-26 Pershing. For instance, hull rear in Tiger is 82mm while in Pershing 50mm. And it just is possible to design two tanks with similar qualities but with the other costing (weighing) much less. A matter of engineering skill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Another thing to consider is that the Tiger VIE achieved its good armour protection more from sheer thickness of metal rather than the actual slope on the armour contributing to the penetration resistance. Bear in mind that the Tiger was first designed back around 1940 compared with the mid forties for the IS2 & Pershing when it was well accepted by then that sloping the armour to achieve better protection was the way to go. The later heavy tanks were better shaped to resist AP shells but then they had the advantage of being the next generation. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Count the roadwheels; the German interleaved suspension means lots more metal wheels. Not 14 tons' worth, but I wouldn't think that is an inconsiderable factor. [ September 05, 2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Pershing and IS-2 series also used extensive castings for hull and turret, which is quite efficient weight-wise. The tiger IIRC had wider tracks and a far more complex interleaved suspension system, which also added weight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 All those things are true but don't forget the Tiger tank was gray. Have you ever seen a gray Pershing or IS-2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Kruger Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Originally posted by lcm1947: All those things are true but don't forget the Tiger tank was gray. Have you ever seen a gray Pershing or IS-2? Are you implying earlier Tigers were heavier than later wwar Tigers?! Besides, it's grEy... hehe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Originally posted by Herr Kruger: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lcm1947: All those things are true but don't forget the Tiger tank was gray. Have you ever seen a gray Pershing or IS-2? Are you implying earlier Tigers were heavier than later wwar Tigers?! Besides, it's grEy... hehe </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 A tiger's about 2 feet wider than an IS-2 (12 ft. as opposed to 10 ft.) That makes up much of the difference there. I think, too, as someone pointed out, the Tiger actually had substantially more armor than the IS-2 or M-26; it's just that the slope of the IS-2 and M-26's hull made their lesser amount of armor the functional equivalent of the tiger's armor. If the Tiger has to carry an extra inch of frontal armor across 12 feet and up however high the hull is...well, that's going to add up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: A tiger's about 2 feet wider than an IS-2 (12 ft. as opposed to 10 ft.) That makes up much of the difference there. I think, too, as someone pointed out, the Tiger actually had substantially more armor than the IS-2 or M-26; it's just that the slope of the IS-2 and M-26's hull made their lesser amount of armor the functional equivalent of the tiger's armor. If the Tiger has to carry an extra inch of frontal armor across 12 feet and up however high the hull is...well, that's going to add up. Actually, the frontal armour plates in Tiger I and Pershing are of the same thickness, and IS-2 front armour exceeds that of Tiger. However, Tiger has even in the rear 80-82 mm plates. In Pershing there is just 60 mm. I have always considered the armour of Tiger a big flaw in comparison to the much more functional one on Panther. If I was a tanker I'd rather have that extra weight in the front, thank you. But sloped armour would have another effect: if we have two boxes with the same maximum measures of height, width and length, but one of them was rectangular and the other had tilted sides, then the one with tilted sides actually has less volume and surface area. Just think of the difference between the Pyramid of Kheops and the Borg Cube. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted September 6, 2003 Author Share Posted September 6, 2003 Thanks for the answers guys! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Originally posted by Herr Kruger: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lcm1947: All those things are true but don't forget the Tiger tank was gray. Have you ever seen a gray Pershing or IS-2? Are you implying earlier Tigers were heavier than later wwar Tigers?! Besides, it's grEy... hehe </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Sloped armor does not neccessarily lead to a weight reduction, only when it comes along with some technological advances. Remember you have to fit all that bulky stuff underneath the tank. Some of it you can shape however you want (e.g. the fuel tanks), but other you cannot. In particular, in early WW2, when the Tiger was constructed, the gearboxes were pretty bulky and you couldn't really shape them. The gearbox and much of the drive train are in the front of the Tiger. To slope the armor in front of it you would have to extend the length of the tank. Later, especially today, the parts in the front of the tank are constructed to fit a sharp nose. And the crew needs space to move. In German tanks and especially in the Tiger they gave them a lot of space. Also, the Tiger carries a lot of ammunition in positions easily accessible to the loader. The Soviet tanks compromise crew space a lot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.