OZ77 Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 The Russian live fire tests were conducted in the fall of 1944 at Kubinka, during the course of which the following results were obtained: "1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. Groups of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor. 2. Weak weld seams appeared characteristic of all hull and turret joints. Despite careful workmanship, the seams held up to shell impacts significantly worse than they did in analogous constructions on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as the "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun. 3. Impacts of 3-4 armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells from 152, 122, or 100 mm artillery pieces caused cracks, spalling and destruction of the weld seams in the tank's 100-190 mm thick frontal armor plates at ranges of 500-1000 metres. The impacts disrupted the operation of the transmission and took the tank out of service as an irrevocable loss. 4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres. 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 of 1000-1500 metres. 6. 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles from the D-5 and S-53 gun failed to penetrate the tank's front hull plates or cause any structural damage at distances of 300 metres. 7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret. 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." The final report of 16 February 1945 on the "Tiger-B" tests, stated the following: "The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking through the armor and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret. Shortcomings: The chassis is complex and is not durable. The steering mechanism is complex and expensive. The side running gear is extremely unreliable. The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks. The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located. The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower." So was the Tiger really "King"? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 The guys who were fighting it thought so. Perception matters more than figures any day. P.S. Wasn't this exact same thread up just a couple of weeks ago? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OZ77 Posted May 15, 2003 Author Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): Wasn't this exact same thread up just a couple of weeks ago? Maybe, I haven't seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 The guys who were fighting it thought so. Does any one have any sources from the German point of view. I'd like to know what the German tank crews on the ground thought about the various "kitties". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 OZ77 I have not seen a frontal defeat King tiger photo. It exist? should be if your post It´s true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterGoodale Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Interesting post actually! :mad: Maybe it wasn't more than a "kitten" afterall!! :mad: :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by TheCrow: OZ77 I have not seen a frontal defeat King tiger photo. It exist? should be if your post It´s true. There is one on this website, which is presumably where OZ77 got the information for his post: http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html [ May 15, 2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Ok But I would said, defeated in combat... One question, the gun and gun mantle has been removed prior testing, doesn´t harm frontal turret integrity? 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.