PDA

View Full Version : OT - Pershing tank



JG26Red
02-12-2004, 10:13 AM
"which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters"

what tank can do this!!! lol.. wow

JG26Red
02-12-2004, 10:13 AM
"which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters"

what tank can do this!!! lol.. wow

ednavar
02-12-2004, 10:15 AM
Hs 129 ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG26Red
02-12-2004, 10:17 AM
naw.. like i said OT, its not a plane..... a tank...

02-12-2004, 10:20 AM
http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/supertank.jpg



LOLhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

lbhskier37
02-12-2004, 10:21 AM
I would guess either an IS-3 or a King Tiger with that fun 88mm on it.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

02-12-2004, 10:21 AM
http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/super.jpg

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

faustnik
02-12-2004, 10:27 AM
The 128mm Pak44 of the Jagdtiger.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Chuck_Older
02-12-2004, 10:31 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Wolf, what have you done for the Emperor today?

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash

02-12-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Wolf, what have you done for the Emperor _today?_

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


?!sry ?! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif What Emperor?

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

(FIN)-Cowboy
02-12-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf4ever:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Wolf, what have you done for the Emperor _today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
?!sry ?! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif What Emperor?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, what Emperor? That is clearly an Israeli Merkava hiding under all that 40k junk. We boyz is not dat easily fooled! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tylymiez - the official choice of n00b-hunters since 2002!

02-12-2004, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tylymiez:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf4ever:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Wolf, what have you done for the Emperor _today?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
?!sry ?! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif What Emperor?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, what Emperor? That is clearly an Israeli Merkava hiding under all that 40k junk. We boyz is not dat easily fooled! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tylymiez - the official choice of n00b-hunters since 2002!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

PzKpfw
02-12-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
"which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters"

what tank can do this!!! lol.. wow<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well IIRC the Pershing's glacis armor was 102mm@44‚? so what gun would depend very much on

Chuck_Older
02-12-2004, 11:47 AM
Huh, sorry. I thought you knew that you had reproduced one of the Emperor of Humanity's war machines on the forum. I guess it's only fair to warn you that doing so without permission of the Adeptus Terra or other sanctioned member of the Adminstratum is a sign of deviance that will be dealt with in typical Imperial manner. The Inquistion is a strict bunch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash

02-12-2004, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Huh, sorry. I thought you knew that you had reproduced one of the Emperor of Humanity's war machines on the forum. I guess it's only fair to warn you that doing so without permission of the Adeptus Terra or other sanctioned member of the Adminstratum is a sign of deviance that will be dealt with in typical Imperial manner. The Inquistion is a strict bunch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


u made it some much more clear for me:P thx http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


lol

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/comp2.gif

JorBR
02-12-2004, 12:11 PM
This beast can:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/veijju/images/parola/is0696.jpg

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

Speco
02-12-2004, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JorBR:
This beast can:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/veijju/images/parola/is0696.jpg

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yea the Zveroboi. I red that those things had a nasty habbit of ripping off the Tigers turret. The russians liked them becose they finaly got a tank that was able to kill the "beasts"=&gt; zveroboi-beast killer

christopher65
02-12-2004, 01:36 PM
Thats a ISU-152 right?Quite a vehicle!

JG26Red
02-12-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JorBR:
This beast can:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/veijju/images/parola/is0696.jpg

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nope, there is still 1 better...

(FIN)-Cowboy
02-12-2004, 01:45 PM
I thought someone already mentioned the Jagdtiger?

--
Tylymiez - the official choice of n00b-hunters since 2002!

cuski
02-12-2004, 01:57 PM
Since we're talking about tanks, here's a dramatic video of a Panther destroyed by a Pershing, in K√¬∂ln:

http://www.walkerboyz.myby.co.uk/ww2/panther/panther.avi

Snow_Wolf_
02-12-2004, 02:06 PM
http://www.omsk.net.ru/arm/image/pic/t80163.jpg

or

http://www.jed.simonides.org/tanks/alpha/amx-13_series/ss-11tca/amx-13_15.jpg

or

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/atacms_02.jpg

JG26Red
02-12-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cuski:
Since we're talking about tanks, here's a dramatic video of a Panther destroyed by a Pershing, in K√¬∂ln:

http://www.walkerboyz.myby.co.uk/ww2/panther/panther.avi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you sure that was a pershing? i remember seeing that before, that panther picked off a sherman or 2, and a 90mm TD not sure which type came in and got it... how many rounds did they shot into that cat anyways lol

Obi_Kwiet
02-12-2004, 02:44 PM
The Mause heavy tank perhaps? Never saw mass production.

cuski
02-12-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
you sure that was a pershing? i remember seeing that before, that panther picked off a sherman or 2, and a 90mm TD not sure which type came in and got it... how many rounds did they shot into that cat anyways lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite positive, have a look at the story here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~crcorbin/ColognePictures.html

JG26Red
02-12-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cuski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
you sure that was a pershing? i remember seeing that before, that panther picked off a sherman or 2, and a 90mm TD not sure which type came in and got it... how many rounds did they shot into that cat anyways lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite positive, have a look at the story here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~crcorbin/ColognePictures.html&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://home.earthlink.net/~crcorbin/ColognePictures.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

ah, it was the same story, just a diff tank that took out the panther.... Pershing was pretty good tank, anymore info about battles it had with other german tanks, mainly tigers and king tigers?

faustnik
02-12-2004, 04:04 PM
There were few engagements between German tanks and Pershings, the M26 just got there too late. I recall reading about one getting knocked out by a Tiger and another by a Nashorn.

In another engagement a Pershing got the drop on a Tiger and knocked it out.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

GR142_Astro
02-12-2004, 04:18 PM
faustnik is quite right.

If you want to read everything there is to know about the Pershing, here's the bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0816871256/qid=1076627497//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-8146212-4172868?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

By the way, the name of the Pershing knocked out by the Nashorn was "Fireball". She was back in action a short time later. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Here is the Aberdeen Nashorn. Aberdeen, by the way is home to many rare and priceless vehicles that sit outside and rot in the weather each day. The open toppers take it especially hard. Another fine example of poor American priorities. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://www.armorinaction.com/Nashorn.jpg

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway."

Vladimir_No2
02-12-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Huh, sorry. I thought you knew that you had reproduced one of the Emperor of Humanity's war machines on the forum. I guess it's only fair to warn you that doing so without permission of the Adeptus Terra or other sanctioned member of the Adminstratum is a sign of deviance that will be dealt with in typical Imperial manner. The Inquistion is a strict bunch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Mon-Keigh will fail.

http://www.doyle.com.au/images/scharnhorst2.JPG
"Engage the enemy more closely" -Rear Admiral Cradock

Kampfmeister
02-12-2004, 07:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG26Red:
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
"which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters"

what tank can do this!!! lol.. wow
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

So anyway, back to the original question. Are you looking for some specific tank (i.e. German, Russian, etc.) or specific gun? I can't tell if we've decided on anything yet. So here's my input.

First another Pershing tank with a 90mm gun could probably penetrate the 4 inch armor at 2000 meters.

The famous British 17 pounder may have been able to do it using APDS tungsten shot.

A German Panther with its 75mm PAK 41 using tungsten shot has a slight chance. It could penetrate about 100mm of armor at 30 degree's of inclination at 2000 meters. Tigers with their 88mm PAK 43 guns again firing tungsten shot could penetrate about 140mm of armor at 30 degree's of inclination at that distance, as could the 128mm PAK 44 and more.

IS-2 & 3's with their 122mm guns could probably do it, even though their overall penetrating power wasn't quite as good as the German 88's. The ISU-152's gun as Speco mentioned could rip the turret off of a Tiger, but a bigger caliper weapon doesn't necessarily equate to a higher penetration ability. That was mainly a howitzer, not an anti-tank gun as I recall.

Let's not forget any kind of gun that can lob (accurately) a hollow charge or shaped warhead up to 2000 meters like a recoilless guns. The German LG 40's & 42, the British Burney, and the American M18 & 20's. Shape charges can easily penetrate more than 4 inches of armor if they hit properly. Usually from 6 to 10 inches of armor or more.

So anyway, is that what you are looking for. Am I even getting close http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG26Red
02-13-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kampfmeister:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG26Red:
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
"which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters"

what tank can do this!!! lol.. wow
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

So anyway, back to the original question. Are you looking for some specific tank (i.e. German, Russian, etc.) or specific gun? I can't tell if we've decided on anything yet. So here's my input.

First another Pershing tank with a 90mm gun could probably penetrate the 4 inch armor at 2000 meters.

The famous British 17 pounder may have been able to do it using APDS tungsten shot.

A German Panther with its 75mm PAK 41 using tungsten shot has a slight chance. It could penetrate about 100mm of armor at 30 degree's of inclination at 2000 meters. Tigers with their 88mm PAK 43 guns again firing tungsten shot could penetrate about 140mm of armor at 30 degree's of inclination at that distance, as could the 128mm PAK 44 and more.

IS-2 & 3's with their 122mm guns could probably do it, even though their overall penetrating power wasn't quite as good as the German 88's. The ISU-152's gun as Speco mentioned could rip the turret off of a Tiger, but a bigger caliper weapon doesn't necessarily equate to a higher penetration ability. That was mainly a howitzer, not an anti-tank gun as I recall.

Let's not forget any kind of gun that can lob (accurately) a hollow charge or shaped warhead up to 2000 meters like a recoilless guns. The German LG 40's & 42, the British Burney, and the American M18 & 20's. Shape charges can easily penetrate more than 4 inches of armor if they hit properly. Usually from 6 to 10 inches of armor or more.

So anyway, is that what you are looking for. Am I even getting close http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow, now that a response... lol... only 2 tank guns where able to penetrate the pershings armor at that distance... the 128mm used on jagdtiger and what i think was the best tank gun of the war the 88mm KWK43 L71... at least this was done by the us army after the war... i just read this the other day.. lol..

faustnik
02-13-2004, 10:09 AM
So which tank was the answer to your question Red, the Jagdtiger or the Tiger Ausf.B?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Chuck_Older
02-13-2004, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vladimir_No2
You Mon-Keigh will fail.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nil Desperandum

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash

JG26Red
02-13-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
So which tank was the answer to your question Red, the Jagdtiger or the Tiger Ausf.B?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BOTH

La7_BLitz
02-13-2004, 01:24 PM
Pershing is actually kind of crappy tank, the 90mm was only little better than the 88mm L56 on tiger , and 102mm max front armor (turret) wasnt too good either, in 1vs1 fights it will end up as a looser

WhiskeyRiver
02-13-2004, 01:47 PM
I think WW2 proved that a lot of easy to maintain and replace tanks of mediocre quality (Shermans)will defeat a small number of very good tanks(Panthers, Tigers).

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

SkyChimp
02-13-2004, 05:54 PM
The T26E4-1 had a very powerful gun:
http://www.3ad.us/history/wwll/feature.pages/scans/super.pershing.jpg

An experimental pershing prototype that was delivered to the 3rd Armored battalion in April 1945. It was upgraded with applique armor from a Panther, and other materials to make it comparible to the German Jagdtiger. The gun was a long barrel and more powerful version of the 90mm guns found in the Standard Pershings, giving it penetration power equal to the King and Jagdtigers. It fired it's gun in action once, knocking out a German Panther tank beyond 1500 meters. (source: Osprey's New Vanguard series: Pershing Tank)

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

dizeee
02-13-2004, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
I think WW2 proved that a lot of easy to maintain and replace tanks of mediocre quality (Shermans)will defeat a small number of very good tanks(Panthers, Tigers).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

read: DEATH TRAPS from Belton Y. Cooper
and you know that this is not true.
if patton hadnt interveined in favor of the sherman tank, wich was produced in big numbers, the pershing could have been among the charging us armor divisions, in considerable numbers, in late 44. the huge shermanlosses during 44/45 played a major role in the "failed" attepmts of the allies to break into the ruhr valley in fall 44.

JG26Red
02-14-2004, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The T26E4-1 had a very powerful gun:
http://www.3ad.us/history/wwll/feature.pages/scans/super.pershing.jpg

An experimental pershing prototype that was delivered to the 3rd Armored battalion in April 1945. It was upgraded with applique armor from a Panther, and other materials to make it comparible to the German Jagdtiger. The gun was a long barrel and more powerful version of the 90mm guns found in the Standard Pershings, giving it penetration power equal to the King and Jagdtigers. It fired it's gun in action once, knocking out a German Panther tank beyond 1500 meters. (source: Osprey's New Vanguard series: Pershing Tank)

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

still no match for the King or jagd, heck, i doubt any tank gun other than another german gun could knock out a jagd.. heck, just let it drive around and break or run out of gas, probably the best way to beat it lol...

if playing a video game that didnt tank break downs into effect, iam sure king tigers and jagd tigers would rule the game easy...

LEXX_Luthor
02-14-2004, 05:32 AM
Hey nice link. This was buried deep in there too. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another of Smoyer's memorable experiences occurred near Mons, Belgium, a key position to the Germans in defending the Siegried Line. One night, Smoyer said his tank was parked in the same field as a German Panther, but the Germans did not see the American tank. As soon as it became light, Smoyer put his gun on the German tank and knocked it out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess they heard the Germans but couldn't see them until lite.



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Bill_Lester
02-14-2004, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dizeee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
I think WW2 proved that a lot of easy to maintain and replace tanks of mediocre quality (Shermans)will defeat a small number of very good tanks(Panthers, Tigers).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

read: DEATH TRAPS from Belton Y. Cooper
and you know that this is not true.
if patton hadnt interveined in favor of the sherman tank, wich was produced in big numbers, the pershing could have been among the charging us armor divisions, in considerable numbers, in late 44. the huge shermanlosses during 44/45 played a major role in the "failed" attepmts of the allies to break into the ruhr valley in fall 44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur with dizeee. The Sherman was built to get the U.S. into the fight with something more potent than the Stuart and Grant. It was barely on par with the Panzers of 1942. American tank designers were grossly short-sighted in comparison to their aircraft counterparts. Ask any Sherman veteran of WWII or Korea and they will tell you it was an iron coffin.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

tenmmike
02-14-2004, 06:03 AM
SkyChimp your thinking of the 3rd armourd division not what you said if you want a good account of things read the book "DEATH TRAPS the survival of an american armoured division in world war II" it is written by belton y cooper and he was a ordance officer responiable for bringing up of new tanks recoverind knocked out ones and reporting on all things within this sphere it is a very good book he was there fore many events and can comment directly on the "super pershing " that was mentioned..im to tired to write a bunch ..just go get the book ////ISBN 0-89141-814-8

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

rfa0
02-14-2004, 06:44 AM
"I think WW2 proved that a lot of easy to maintain and replace tanks of mediocre quality (Shermans)will defeat a small number of very good tanks(Panthers, Tigers)."

Without allied air supremacy the Sherman would have never made it off the beaches of Normandy, let alone all the way to Germany.

Bill_Lester
02-14-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rfa0:

Without allied air supremacy the Sherman would have never made it off the beaches of Normandy, let alone all the way to Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without a doubt. Even with superior numbers on the individual battlefield, the Sherman was little more than moving target practice for most German tanks and AT guns.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

Chuck_Older
02-14-2004, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rfa0:
"I think WW2 proved that a lot of easy to maintain and replace tanks of mediocre quality (Shermans)will defeat a small number of very good tanks(Panthers, Tigers)."

Without allied air supremacy the Sherman would have never made it off the beaches of Normandy, let alone all the way to Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You make a very good point. But how is the fact that Sherman wouldn't have gotten off of the beaches prove anything other than we needed air superiority to get the Shermans off the beach?

It does not comment on larger numbers of mediocre tanks having an advantage over small numbers of superior tanks at all. You do not make a connection between the two, other than the 'all the way to Germany' part, which I would assume must include tank battles. But as far as that goes, the German fuel shortage and the fact that they went with larger defensive tanks like the Tiger as static weapons, along with good use of anti-tank guns, to fight a fixed piece brand of defensive fight, mitigate that circumstance.

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash

JtD
02-14-2004, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
So which tank was the answer to your question Red, the Jagdtiger or the Tiger Ausf.B?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BOTH<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the 88L71 was used in Tiger B, Nashorn, Elephant and Jagdpanther. This are 4 different types of armored vehicles. Only true Tank is the TigerB, though. "Both" is definitly a wrong answer.

SkyChimp
02-14-2004, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
SkyChimp your thinking of the 3rd armourd division not what you said if you want a good account of things read the book "DEATH TRAPS the survival of an american armoured division in world war II" it is written by belton y cooper and he was a ordance officer responiable for bringing up of new tanks recoverind knocked out ones and reporting on all things within this sphere it is a very good book he was there fore many events and can comment directly on the "super pershing " that was mentioned..im to tired to write a bunch ..just go get the book ////ISBN 0-89141-814-8

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have it, but have read it.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-14-2004, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:

still no match for the King or jagd, heck, i doubt any tank gun other than another german gun could knock out a jagd.. heck, just let it drive around and break or run out of gas, probably the best way to beat it lol...

if playing a video game that didnt tank break downs into effect, iam sure king tigers and jagd tigers would rule the game easy...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This tells me you don't know anything about the gun on the Super Pershing. Do a little research before making your German-invincibility assertions.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-14-2004, 09:20 AM
And BTW, even the heaviest German tank was a wuss compared to the American T28. It's 105mm gun firing at 3,700 fpm could have penetrated that frontal armor of the heaviest German tanak, passing all the way through, and exiting the rear. And it would have been impervious to the fire of the German 88mm.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28-a.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28-superheavy.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28-PM2.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Boandlgramer
02-14-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And BTW, even the heaviest German tank was a wuss compared to the American T28. It's 105mm gun firing at 3,700 fpm could have penetrated that frontal armor of the heaviest German tanak, passing all the way through, and exiting the rear. And it would have been impervious to the fire of the German 88mm.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28-a.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28-superheavy.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28-PM2.jpg

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


skychimp , you know the " Maus " ?

edit a link : just for interest:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm

wow thats i call weapon :
Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.

100m / 223 mm
500m / 212mm
1000m /200 mm
2000m / 178 mm
3000m / 156 mm
4000m / 140 mm


Pzgr.40/43 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)



Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:negrFY2J26MJ:www.thienemann.de/img/rauber_5.jpg
Wachtmeister Dimpfelmoser in Verfolgung von R√¬§uber Hotzenplotz, der auf sch√¬§ndliche Weise Oma‚¬īs Kaffeem√ľhle in seinen Besitz brachte.
Gut, dass es Wachtmeister gibt , unbestechlich und tapfer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Sat February 14 2004 at 08:44 AM.]

panther3485
02-14-2004, 09:42 AM
Hi guys!

Some of this is very interesting and it's nice to see others with an interest in armour, however........

For those not knowledgeable in this are, much of it could be confusing, even misleading.

Might it not be more helpful if we confine our responses to those AFVs that actually went into series production, officially entered unit service AND saw action before the war ended?

The M26 Pershing itself met these criteria, but only just made it time-wise.

Just a suggestion!

Best regards to all,
panther3485

SkyChimp
02-14-2004, 09:51 AM
For a 1946 scenerio, the T29 would be neat:

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T29-a.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T29.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Zen--
02-14-2004, 10:44 AM
The Jagdtiger had 286mm upper hull armor after adjustment for the 60 degree slope and IIRC 269mm of armor on the turret front. The Kingtiger having the same hull has the same armor and somewhat less on the turret front. The Panther had 177mm upper hull armor and 228mm on the gun mantlet, with 104mm on the turret front itself.


I'd like to see ballistics information on any of the 'What If' American heavy tank guns we are discussing....I doubt that any of the them could defeat the frontal armor of the tigers and jagdtigers in service, though the Panther might be another story.

This isn't pro German propaganda, their tanks were actually extremely well armored. America lagged behind in heavy tank design and production during WW2 and afterwards. In addition, American tank guns did not generally have the same penetrative power as the higher end German guns of the same caliber...the American 90mm had nearly the same performance as the German 88mm L56 and the 76mm gun nearly the same as the German 75mm on the MkIV-J series. But the 88mm L71 (KWK43 IIRC) of the Kingtiger was greatly superior to the 90mm of the Pershing and the 75mm L70 of the Panther exceeded the 75 and 76mm of the American tanks...only the 17 pounder (77mm) of the British has similar performance of the Panther's 75mm gun.

It's not an anti American statement or a pro German one to look at the statics themselves...German firepower was higher than most allied nations, optics were very well done and for many of their tanks armor protection greatly exceeded anything that the allied service guns could penetrate.


Just simple facts...let's not let nationalistic bias lead us to think that either Germany was so superior they were invincible, or that America could destroy them without a problem. There is much much more to tank combat than simple figures of armor protection vs penetration...the larger the tank the less mobile it is on the battlefield and ultimately it is mobility with combined arms that wins in armored warfare...not having huge invincible pillboxes that lumber along at 2 mph (like the T28 and the Maus for example...neither of these tanks were effective in a war scenario, they were confined to limited roles by virture of their size and speed).


This has been an interesting thread, tanks are my favorire subject.

S!!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

MandMs
02-14-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
The Jagdtiger had 286mm upper hull armor after adjustment for the 60 degree slope and IIRC 269mm of armor on the turret front. The Kingtiger having the same hull has the same armor and somewhat less on the turret front. The Panther had 177mm upper hull armor and 228mm on the gun mantlet, with 104mm on the turret front itself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the Jagdtiger get a turret?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/jagtabe.jpg

GR142_Astro
02-14-2004, 11:04 AM
Again, we are missing the essential truths of armored warfare. This bad boy took down huge numbers of your German uber-trakken-ze-splorchers:

http://www.ferreamole.it/images/m24/m5a1.jpg

No Opel Blitz fuel trucks, no go.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

____________________________

"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limosine anyway."

Aaron_GT
02-14-2004, 11:08 AM
Zen wrote:
"optics were very well done"

Indeed the optics ranging system on
the very late war 'schmalturm' equipped
tanks was borrowed for, I believe, the
M48, a Pershing derivative. (The Pershing
gave birth to the M47/48/60/103 line).

German tanks also suffered from overcomplexity
of suspension. The overlapping long torsion
arm system would give a good ride, but isn't
that suitable for maintenance in combat
conditions, I'd wager, as it requires a
lot of effort to work on the inner wheels,
and is just very complex. It's a bit like
some of the more complex hyrdomatic suspension
systems that have been tried over the years
worked well in controlled tests, but not
in combat-type situations.

Also the fuel systems seemed to sometimes
be lacking, and uprating of engines in Panthers,
as an example, required extra fuel to be
sent through the system for additional cooling.

JG26Red
02-14-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:

still no match for the King or jagd, heck, i doubt any tank gun other than another german gun could knock out a jagd.. heck, just let it drive around and break or run out of gas, probably the best way to beat it lol...

if playing a video game that didnt tank break downs into effect, iam sure king tigers and jagd tigers would rule the game easy...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This tells me you don't know anything about the gun on the Super Pershing. Do a little research before making your German-invincibility assertions.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not worried about the "super pushing", in reality around only 20 pushings saw action...

JtD
02-14-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Do a little research before making your German-invincibility assertions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a little later:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And BTW, even the heaviest German tank was a wuss compared to the American T28. It's 105mm gun firing at 3,700 fpm could have penetrated that frontal armor of the heaviest German tank, passing all the way through, and exiting the rear. And it would have been impervious to the fire of the German 88mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like to say:
Do a little research before making your American-invincibility assertions.

Zen--
02-14-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Zen wrote:
"optics were very well done"

Indeed the optics ranging system on
the very late war 'schmalturm' equipped
tanks was borrowed for, I believe, the
M48, a Pershing derivative. (The Pershing
gave birth to the M47/48/60/103 line).

German tanks also suffered from overcomplexity
of suspension. The overlapping long torsion
arm system would give a good ride, but isn't
that suitable for maintenance in combat
conditions, I'd wager, as it requires a
lot of effort to work on the inner wheels,
and is just very complex. It's a bit like
some of the more complex hyrdomatic suspension
systems that have been tried over the years
worked well in controlled tests, but not
in combat-type situations.

Also the fuel systems seemed to sometimes
be lacking, and uprating of engines in Panthers,
as an example, required extra fuel to be
sent through the system for additional cooling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is the 'catch 22' of German tank design in the late years...overly complex, too heavy and not mobile enough. The only opponent tanks have to deal with are not just other tanks...it is aircraft, infantry and artillery to name a few. A tank must be well armored enough to withstand other tanks, but that is by no means the most important aspect of what a tank does. Take for example the American M4 Sherman...in many ways a maligned tank because it couldn't stand up effectively against the heavier German tanks. But it was simple, robust and strategically mobile and could be built in numbers capable of overcoming it's tactical deficiencies against other tanks. Tanks spend a lot of time supporting infantry and the lack of firepower and armor was not an issue in that capacity, virtually any tank is better than none at all in the world of the grounder pounder. The success of the Sherman on the battlefield was strategic and logistical...these are the reasons the US lagged behind in heavy tank design. Heavy tanks were simply not needed on a strategic level.

Late war American hypotheticals like the T28 were not put into production for a number of reasons, not the least of which is they tended to lack strategic mobility which is a serious handicap for armored vehicles.

Being a former tanker and student of armored warfare, I don't have a problem saying that American heavy tanks were outclassed on the battlefield even before they were deployed. It was a trend the US had in tank design that started before the war. When the Pershing arrived, it was not the definitive heavy tank, it was superceded by the latest German tanks and was roughly comparable to the Tiger I in firepower, though it had greater armor protection and reliablity. Late war Soviet designs were also already ahead of the US designs and that trend continued into the 80's until the advent of the M1 Abrams tank.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Zen--
02-14-2004, 02:52 PM
[
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:

still no match for the King or jagd, heck, i doubt any tank gun other than another german gun could knock out a jagd.. heck, just let it drive around and break or run out of gas, probably the best way to beat it lol...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fact is, these two tanks had frontal armor protection so high that even other Tigers and Jagdtigers couldn't destroy them at battlefield ranges. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single production gun that enough penetration to defeat them...no Soviet, US, British or German gun could do it IIRC.

The famous 88L71 (KWK43) could penetrate 226mm of armor at 25 meters, but as I said earlier the upper hull on the Kingtiger was 286mm effective thickness. The Soviet 122mm found on the IS2 and IS3 tanks could penetrate 204mm armor at 25 meters and the 90mm on the Pershing is something like 160mm at 25 meters as I recall. It was less powerful than the 75mm L70 on the Panther tank, despite being larger caliber.


Kingtigers and Jagdtigers were the most heavily armored tanks deployed in numbers, minus the IS3 tank of the Soviet Union, which btw was the first true main battle tank design put into production.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

PzKpfw
02-14-2004, 03:51 PM
*Panzer Regiment 8:

Effect of our weapons against the American Mark III (Pilot), known as "Grant 1" in a British manual:

a. Clean penetration of the side at a range of 500 meters when hit perpindicular to the surface by 5 cm Pzgr.38 rounds fired by 5 cm Kw.K. L/42 or L/60.

b. Defintly determined to be penetrated from the front at a range of 200 to 300 meters by the 5 cm Kw.K L/60.

d. Not a single penetration of the Mark III (American Medium tank) was achieved at a range of 700 meters by any kind of 5 cm round.
2. Effect of the 7.5cm tank gun in the American tank:
a. Even when striking at sharp angles, penetrations were achieved on the front of the Pz.Kpfw. III and Pz.Kpfw IV at ranges from 1200 to 1400 meters.
b. Cleanly penetrated the front of the Pz.Kpfw.III with additional armor (20 mm spaced armor in front of 50 mm base plate) at a range of 500 to 600 meters.

*See: Jentz Thomas L, Panzer Truppen Volume 1 pp. 178 - 179.

The common German tank in Afrika was the PzKpfw III with fewer numbers of PzKpfw IVs. The Grant could deal with the PzKpfw III & IV out to 1400m yet the PzKpfw III could not defeat the Grants frontal armor above 700m.

The Shermans arrival was signifigant as the Sherman 75 was more then a match for the bulk of German tanks in Afrika/Tunisia, includeing the lang PzKpfw III/IV's.

The Sherman remained the equal of the workhorse of German Panzer Div, the PzKpfw IV till the end of the war, both could kill each other frontaly at all battle ranges and their were many more Shermans then PzKpfw IVs, the Germans due to inept production programs, as well as inept production programs began in the Aircraft & Armor industries in 1941 could never afford a 1 on 1 trade, with the US/UK/USA.


Below is an interesting read:

*The preferences of the crews for lighter, more maneuverable Panzers was recorded in a report written on November 1944 by Albert Speer on his trip to Italy during 19 to 25 October 1944:


"On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers.

The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.

All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun.

This desire by the troops corresponds with conditions that will develop in the future as a result of the drop in production capacity and of the fact that, because of a shortage of chrome, sufficient armor plate can't be produced to meet the increased production plans.

Therefore, either the number of Panzers produced must be reduced or it will be necessary to reduce the thickness of the armor plate. In that case, the troops will unequivocally ask for a reduction of the armor thickness in order to increase the total number of Panzers produced"

*See Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Vol. 2 pp.150-151

So the Sherman was not obselete etc when it entered combat in 1942 vs the main German tanks of the period Ie, PzKpfw III J 50L60 or PzKfw IV F-2 75L43. Small numbers of Tiger E did not change the balance either.

What did change the balance was encountering large numbers of PzKpfw V's in Normandy.


Regards, John Waters

Manos1
02-14-2004, 03:51 PM
Nice links guys, Thanks!

Tanks is my favourite subject, too.

Those ever visiting Northern Germany, here is a nice link:
http://www.munster.de/e2_germ/panzermuseum/highlights.htm

And in the UK of course,
http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/home.html

And some info about one of the very few "operational" Tiger Tanks today http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
www.Tiger-Tank.com (http://www.Tiger-Tank.com)

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/pilotsforum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/temp/4th_FG2_new1.gif
Hellenic-SQN (http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr)

Platypus_1.JaVA
02-14-2004, 04:02 PM
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/images/ahlstrom_marmon_herrington_01.jpg

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/JaVAPlatypus-1java.JPG (http://www.1java.org)

SkyChimp
02-14-2004, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Just like to say:
Do a little research before making your American-invincibility assertions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, which German super-tank did you say could withstand the T28's or T29's 105mm? With a velocity of 3,700 fps, it had a range of over 12 miles.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

pourshot
02-14-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm sorry, which German super-tank did you say could withstand the T28's or T29's 105mm? With a velocity of 3,700 fps, it had a range of over 12 miles.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ouch that one would hurt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Zen--
02-14-2004, 05:31 PM
12 mile range is irrelevant in combat effectiveness of a main gun on a tank.

The M1 Abrams original 105mm can be fired 89,000 meters at a 44 degree angle (about 55 miles) but it's maximum effective range against tanks is about 4000 meters depending on the armor of the target.

The question is penetration ability and probability of hit....no tank gun is going to hit another tank at 12 miles, take it from me they just don't fight that way.

Driving a tank up on a ramp to achieve 40 some degrees of elevation for indirect fire is one thing (and was actually done), firing at another tank is something else entirely.


For practical purposes the T29's 105mm gun will be limited to about 3000 meters unless fitted with special optics like those used on the Nashorn and that 3000 meters is dependant on the target involved. Shooting at a MK IV might be possible, but not a really heavy tank like the IS3 or Kingtiger.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Zen--
02-14-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

I'm sorry, which German super-tank did you say could withstand the T28's or T29's 105mm? With a velocity of 3,700 fps, it had a range of over 12 miles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Respectfully, I'll say that either the Kingtiger or Jagdtiger could withstand hits from it, at least to the upper hull plate. As I said earlier, I can't think of a single production gun that could defeat those two vehicles, but I don't have the ballistics of the T29's gun handy. I'm reasonably confident the T29's 105mm can't do it either but would actually be interested to know if it could.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Chuck_Older
02-14-2004, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>no tank gun is going to hit another tank at 12 miles, take it from me they just don't fight that way.


-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed!
But I think the point was that the weapon had enormous velocity in it's projectiles, not the effective range at which it could engage an enemy.

105mm vs 1945 era tank armor.... I would argue that even if the shell did not penetrate the fontal hull armor, the shock of the hit would kill or incapacitate the crew with multiple broken bones/injurious impact on equipment inside the tank. The tank might survive, but the crew would be in a bad way.


~edit

12 miles...wouldn't the Earth's curvature restrict optical targetting at that range? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Sat February 14 2004 at 06:14 PM.]

NegativeGee
02-14-2004, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
The Jagdtiger had 286mm upper hull armor after adjustment for the 60 degree slope and IIRC 269mm of armor on the turret front. The Kingtiger having the same hull has the same armor and somewhat less on the turret front. The Panther had 177mm upper hull armor and 228mm on the gun mantlet, with 104mm on the turret front itself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the Jagdtiger get a turret?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/jagtabe.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he is refering to the front armour of the gun compartment. The JagdTiger almost looked (say side profile wise) as if it had a turret, unlike most of the German Assault Guns and Tank Hunters.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Zen--
02-14-2004, 07:47 PM
IIRC the visible horizon at SL is 17 miles, but only in the desert or on the ocean will you get that distance naturally.

I kind of figured the point was the muzzle velocity but the way the comment was phrased sort of implied that 12 miles is a significant factor in how tank gun performance is measured. It is for artillery, it's not for tank guns...I kinda felt a clarification was in order.

The effects of concussive impact for a non penetrating hit vary depending on the size of the projectile and the armor of the target, but generally effects range from ear, nose and eye bleeding to burns and scalding on crewmen near the point of impact, to physical concussion of the crew members and possible broken bones from the shock wave radiating at the point of impact. Paint burns from heat release where the hits occured, which can fill the tank with acrid fumes and smoke, fuel can occasionally be ignited, gunsights damaged and mechanical apparatus rendered non functional (turret traverse can be jammed, hydraulic lines ruptured etc)...but all of that is on a case by case basis, there is no formula that says X round hitting X armor plate will cause X damage consistently.

In the early months of the invasion of Russia, German tank crews could often cause panicking of the crews of the heavier Russian tanks by bombarding them with HE rounds, because the effects to the crew can be psycologically overwhelming. There are numerous cases where the Germans achieved just that, and also numerous accounts where they did not--because the crew in question was disciplined and held their ground under intensive fire. (KV2 tanks come to mind).

Likewise the German panzer crews were well trained and disciplined and were technically well versed with their vehicles. They could and often did take repeated direct hits while continuing to fight, trusting in the durability of their tanks. Concussive effects of non penetrating rounds is real...but much of the results depends on the discipline of the crew involved because the tank is not suffering catastrophic damage on the hit.


And about the Jagdtiger having a turret...the more accurate term is fighting compartment but to a tanker a turret is a turret. Some move and some don't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif For the crews that have to fight in them, not having a movable turret is a terrible handicap in combat but the vehicle is less expensive, less complicated and can generally fit a larger gun, so the tradeoff can be justified by designers, especially if resources are short.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

MandMs
02-14-2004, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:


I think he is refering to the front armour of the gun compartment. The JagdTiger almost looked (say side profile wise) as if it had a turret, unlike most of the German Assault Guns and Tank Hunters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Is that enough winkies?

For someone to claim they are interested in armoured vehicles and then make such a basic error in the description of a vehicle. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Menthol_moose
02-14-2004, 08:26 PM
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html

some nice weapons testing on the king tiger.

Should help some of the arguements on this topic.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Zen--
02-14-2004, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:


I think he is refering to the front armour of the gun compartment. The JagdTiger almost looked (say side profile wise) as if it had a turret, unlike most of the German Assault Guns and Tank Hunters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Is that enough winkies?

For someone to claim they are interested in armoured vehicles and then make such a basic error in the description of a vehicle. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Error smerror

I was speaking of the perspective of being in the hot seat...when shooting at tank, assault gun or other vehicle, if it has a box on top with a gun sticking out of it, it's a turret simple as that.

Not only am I interested in armored vehicles, I was a tank commander in the US Army. I'm alright with armored vehicle history and know the difference between the two kinds of vehicles...don't sweat the small details, stay on the point of the post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

MandMs
02-14-2004, 08:37 PM
Relax Zen. The post was not for you, though the original was.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I heard this place was full of dowdy old 'stick in the muds' with no sense of humour or of having fun.

ps. From what I have seen, this place is full of really intelligent people. So intelligent they think a .50" can penetrate the belly armour of a Tiger.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif One has to be careful what one types as it will be believed.

NegativeGee
02-14-2004, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>MandMs wrote: http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifIs that enough winkies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we are reaching acceptable winkie levels now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Chuck_Older
02-14-2004, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:


The effects of concussive impact for a non penetrating hit vary depending on the size of the projectile and the armor of the target, but generally effects range from ear, nose and eye bleeding to burns and scalding on crewmen near the point of impact, to physical concussion of the crew members and possible broken bones from the shock wave radiating at the point of impact. Paint burns from heat release where the hits occured, which can fill the tank with acrid fumes and smoke, fuel can occasionally be ignited, gunsights damaged and mechanical apparatus rendered non functional (turret traverse can be jammed, hydraulic lines ruptured etc)...but all of that is on a case by case basis, there is no formula that says X round hitting X armor plate will cause X damage consistently.

Formerly TX-Zen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate your experience in this topic, but I wonder: is the concussive effects you posted for more modern tanks, or for WWII era armored vehicles? I know that some US tanks were hamstrung because of their rivetted hulls- the rivets popped out and perforated the crew on a concussive hit. I beleive all German armor was fully welded, but would experienced, trained German tankers be able to 'tough it out' from a hit by a 105mm weapon, something they would not be accustomed to at all? The main injury I'm considering is the breaking of both the driver's legs. And if you happened to have, say, an arm leaning on the hull during that hit, wouldn't you have a fair chance of breaking it? What about the guy aiming or even just manning the main weapon, when a concussive round of that size hits a WWII era tank? Did the German tankers even wear head protection? I know that on some heavier German tanks, the turret was held in by it's weight. Wouldn't a hit by such a large shell have enough energy in it to move that turret independently of the hull? Shouldn't that potentially incapacitate anyone in the turret by simply jarring them into unconciousness? I never have been hit by a 105mm sheel in a steel box http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but I got hit broadside by a van once, in my car. That vehicle was going about 40mph, I was almost stationary. The impact knocked me right the **** out, even though the damage did not go into the passenger compartment (yes I know my convertible is not an armored fighting vehicle http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif but that van was going less than 3700 fps, too)

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

JG26Red
02-14-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html

some nice weapons testing on the king tiger.

Should help some of the arguements on this topic.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have said this before, and will say it again, how stupid do you think people are? anyone who believes what soviet testing on german weapons is clueless. they hated each other and didnt respect any of each sides weapons.. anything printed by a soviet source about something they faced on eastern front in WW2 will not be trusted by me... never... remeber, these are the same pukes who said the 190 was nothing.

Zen--
02-15-2004, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:


The effects of concussive impact for a non penetrating hit vary depending on the size of the projectile and the armor of the target, but generally effects range from ear, nose and eye bleeding to burns and scalding on crewmen near the point of impact, to physical concussion of the crew members and possible broken bones from the shock wave radiating at the point of impact. Paint burns from heat release where the hits occured, which can fill the tank with acrid fumes and smoke, fuel can occasionally be ignited, gunsights damaged and mechanical apparatus rendered non functional (turret traverse can be jammed, hydraulic lines ruptured etc)...but all of that is on a case by case basis, there is no formula that says X round hitting X armor plate will cause X damage consistently.

Formerly TX-Zen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate your experience in this topic, but I wonder: is the concussive effects you posted for more modern tanks, or for WWII era armored vehicles? I know that some US tanks were hamstrung because of their rivetted hulls- the rivets popped out and perforated the crew on a concussive hit. I beleive all German armor was fully welded, but would experienced, trained German tankers be able to 'tough it out' from a hit by a 105mm weapon, something they would not be accustomed to at all? The main injury I'm considering is the breaking of both the driver's legs. And if you happened to have, say, an arm leaning on the hull during that hit, wouldn't you have a fair chance of breaking it? What about the guy aiming or even just manning the main weapon, when a concussive round of that size hits a WWII era tank? Did the German tankers even wear head protection? I know that on some heavier German tanks, the turret was held in by it's weight. Wouldn't a hit by such a large shell have enough energy in it to move that turret independently of the hull? Shouldn't that potentially incapacitate anyone in the turret by simply jarring them into unconciousness? I never have been hit by a 105mm sheel in a steel box http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but I got hit broadside by a van once, in my car. That vehicle was going about 40mph, I was almost stationary. The impact knocked me right the **** out, even though the damage did not go into the passenger compartment (yes I know my convertible is not an armored fighting vehicle http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif but that van was going less than 3700 fps, too)

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually modern tanks tend to be an 'either or' proposition when hit by main gun fire...either the round overmatches the armor or it bounces off (or often sticks in the armor plating). Modern western tank guns pack devastating firepower, Warsaw Pact guns less so due to differences in compression technology among other things. Some of my associates who served in the first gulf war claimed that some of their tanks were hit by T72 125mm main gun rounds -- and the crews did not notice, nor did the M1 tank suffer any ballistic shock effect. I wasn't there, I haven't seen those tanks first hand and all the ballistics reports are classified. From the instructors at FT. Knox Armor School that I have spoken with, they confirmed what others have said. They are the experts, so I take it at face value. This doesn't mean it's gospel to me, only that I cannot disprove those accounts, so I let them stand by virture of overlapping anecdotal evidence. Modern tanks tend to be very well designed and durable vehicles and often have ballistic shock protection on various vehicle components.

The comments I made about the effects of ballistic shock/concussive effect are a hodgepodge of accounts from the various WW2 books that I have read. The points made are an overview of the general effects that large caliber non penetrating rounds have had on a variety of vehicles hit and are from WW2 tank crew recollections.

As for them not being accustomed to taking large caliber hits...while you can't say with certainty that 100% of the German tank crews lazily endured such beatings, a good number of them did on the Eastern front and many of those soldiers also served on the Western front. At least some percentage of German tank crews were battle seasoned enough to understand that they were in no real danger...a trait that could get them killed through overconfidence. There are stories of Panthers and Kingtigers sitting in the open picking off advancing US tanks, only to be destroyed by artillery, airpower or cleverly aimed tank fire to exploit weak spots in the tanks armor protection. I also can't say that proves overwhelmingly that German tankers knew they were indestructable, but my real point is that some percentage could and did take advantage of their tanks designs, something that most western crews would never dare to. What this tells me is that the risk of crew injury from non penetrating hits was low enough that crews felt 'safe' enough to fight their tanks in this manner. As a tanker myself, that says alot to me.

WW2 tank turrets, like modern ones, are all held on by gravity, it's because of the nature of their design. Think about the kinetic energy contained in a tank main gun round...there are stories of 122mm gun rounds blowing the turrets off German tanks, there are stories of 88's doing the same to Russian tanks, but personal opinion is that while possible, this is a rarety in the extreme. A Kingtiger turret weighs in the ball park of 10-20 tons. I would find it highly unlikely that a 15 pound projectile could move with enough force to dislodge something that heavy.

What is more likely is that the round detonates the ammunition stowage which causes an explosion of such magnitude to blow the turret off the tank. That is entirely possible and is a fairly calculable effect depending on tank design. The Soviet T72 for example stores all of it's ammuntion directly under the main gun breech in the turret, a hit to this ammunition deck can and does blow the 10 ton turret clean off the vehicle, so it is possible in that regard. As for WW2 vehicles, based on logical deduction on my part only, I wouldn't believe stories of that nature on a large scale. Here and there possibly, but not as the norm.

I've been in a couple of car accidents myself and know the general sense of what you are saying, but the situation with tanks is of a different scale. Until you get one stuck in the mud, it's really difficult to appreciate the mass of these things, even WW2 tanks. Keep in mind that AP rounds fired from tanks do not destroy the target at all, most tanks are able to be put back in service with relatively minor repairs after being knocked out in action. Penetrating rounds tend to kill the crew by shrapnel, or more often by fire or burns...detonating the ammunition or igniting fuel and hydraulic lines is the primary cause of tank destruction on the order of 85% of the time. That means that almost nine times out of 10 a tank is rendered combat ineffective by burns to the crewmen and fire damage to the internal components, only 10% of the time is something like the engine or main gun hit that causes the vehicle to be no longer battle worthy.


Effectively then what destroys tanks is not destruction of the vehicle per se, it's crew casualties and fire damage. Concussive hits have a very low probability of achieving that effect, therefore other than misfortune on the part of the crew, most everything depends on the discipline of the tank crew receiving fire that cannot actually penetrate the tanks armor.



To MandMs, wooops, sorry, thought you were talking to me. No harm no foul.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Boandlgramer
02-15-2004, 01:48 AM
Zen, very informative post , well done.

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:negrFY2J26MJ:www.thienemann.de/img/rauber_5.jpg
Wachtmeister Dimpfelmoser in Verfolgung von R√¬§uber Hotzenplotz, der auf sch√¬§ndliche Weise Oma‚¬īs Kaffeem√ľhle in seinen Besitz brachte.
Gut, dass es Wachtmeister gibt , unbestechlich und tapfer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Zen--
02-15-2004, 02:23 AM
I should also clarify that German panthers on the eastern front withstood repeated hits from 122mm gun fire from the IS2 and ISU122 tank/SP gun. Both of those types could not penetrate the upper hull of the Panther at greater than 800 meters, so it is likely that Panthers would be able to tough out engagements with these kinds of vehicles, effectively they were pretty used to large caliber gunfire and the 105mm used on the T29 should really have been no surprise at all, other than the obvious that it would have been considerably better than anything the Germans had seen before, but still not as large as the heaviest Russian guns.

Another elaboration on the turrets being held in place by gravity is that the components are very tightly fitted together and in many ways there is no movement at all outside the circular traverse pattern. What this means is that in effect the turret is considered part of the hull when receiving hits...it will not be moved enough on it's own to get ripped out of it's mounting because they do not lay flat on the hull, they extend downward into the vehicle also, sort of like the turret sits on a stem or hollow post inside the hull.

One last thought is that German tanks tended to have the heaviest armor on their upper hull or glacius plate, but they tended to have weaker frontal turret armor and less thick lower hull armor. (All tanks have considerably less side and rear protection than the front, the notable exception being the Tiger I from 1942, and this is normal, it's an inherent limitation of tank design because of weight and space factors.) This glacius plate was the largest area hit percent wise if the tank was in open country, but tended to be inefficient use of weight and because the turret armor was lower, tended to make the vehicle slighty more vulnerable in a defensive position. The turret was hard to hit, but less protected so if a hit was achieved, the vehicle could be more easily knocked out.

The Soviets pionered the MBT concept with a small, heavily armored turret riding atop a heavily armored hull. The difference was that the tank got less hull protection but much much greater turret protection and the end result was actually a more efficient use of weight for a given protection level. That tended to make the overall vehicle smaller which helped reduce the chance of the hull being hit in the first place and made the vehicle better able to fight on the defensive or from a hasty firing position on the offense. The trend has continued on to this day and with good reason, it is a highly effective methodology but one that was not well understood by any army back in WW2.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Aaron_GT
02-15-2004, 02:48 AM
"The Soviets pionered the MBT concept with a small, heavily armored turret riding atop a heavily armored hull. "

The Germans also, at the very end of the war,
used the Schmallturm. Was this influenced by the
same thinking?

Jippo01
02-15-2004, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Soviet T72 for example stores all of it's ammuntion directly under the main gun breech in the turret, a hit to this ammunition deck can and does blow the 10 ton turret clean off the vehicle, so it is possible in that regard.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to be exact, only half of the ammo is there (on the loader 'carousel'), rest of it scattered all around the fuselage increasing the probability that if the penetration happens at least one of the rounds is hit and detonated. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good points about the non-penetrating hits, etc.. I recall a story where a crew of a lighter tank (IIRC T-34) was shell shocked enough to abondon their mount after couple non penetrating 76.2mm cannon hits. But of course this is all very much depending on the case. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also somebody mentined riveted armor - that was abandoned very early in the war because of it's vulnerability.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

JtD
02-15-2004, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I'm sorry, which German super-tank did you say could withstand the T28's or T29's 105mm? With a velocity of 3,700 fps, it had a range of over 12 miles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed my point.

SkyChimp
02-15-2004, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I'm sorry, which German super-tank did you say could withstand the T28's or T29's 105mm? With a velocity of 3,700 fps, it had a range of over 12 miles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed my point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I didn't. For your quip to have any meaning, the statement I made that produced your response would have had to have been wrong.

Now, was it? Again, can you answer my question?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Zen--
02-15-2004, 08:50 AM
Chimp, you know I respect your knowledge of aviation, but this line of thinking on the 105mm is way off, unless you are enjoying a bit of trolling. (In which case, enjoy!)

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

JG26Red
02-15-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Chimp, you know I respect your knowledge of aviation, but this line of thinking on the 105mm is way off, unless you are enjoying a bit of trolling. (In which case, enjoy!)

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

comon ZEN, you know skymonkey... if he sees anyone post something about a german weapon, he will point out a american one that is better... lol.. or, at least HE thinks is better lol..

SkyChimp
02-15-2004, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Chimp, you know I respect your knowledge of aviation, but this line of thinking on the 105mm is way off, unless you are enjoying a bit of trolling. (In which case, enjoy!)

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No answer?

Zen, did that T29 mount a 105 that fired the same round as a contemporary field artillery piece?

I've already seen people in this thread discount the 90mm on the Super Pershing as being second rate, equal only to the 88mm on earlier Tigers. Nevermind the fact that the 90mm gun on the Super Pershing was not the same 90mm as on the M26 Pershing. The Super Pershing's gun has penetration capabilities fully equal, or superior, to that of the 88mm on the King Tigers. Read the book "Another River, Another Town." Apparently, the Super Pershing had little difficulty with the Tiger II.

Now, tell me about the 105 on the T29, which was specifically developed to counter tanks like the Tiger II. I'm interesting in hearing about it.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-15-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:

comon ZEN, you know skymonkey... if he sees anyone post something about a german weapon, he will point out a american one that is better... lol.. or, at least HE thinks is better lol..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm just not inclined to believe in the German Aryan super-man myth. They were just people, who made weapons, with good points and bad points, just like everyone else. I've long been free of the belief in all German superiority. Read enough, JG, and one day you may be, too.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Chuck_Older
02-15-2004, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
[QUOTE]Also somebody mentined riveted armor - that was abandoned very early in the war because of it's vulnerability.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was me. Like I said, the German armor we're talking about was welded.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

MandMs
02-15-2004, 10:36 AM
Any truth that the Pike had crappy welding? Supposidly the front just opened up when hit.

JtD
02-15-2004, 10:56 AM
There are a couple of things that make this a poor statemant. I don't really mind this beeing posted, esp. since I learned about that T-28 monster that way. But I don't think it is okay to post this am complain about other peoples posting qualities, even worse, attacking them for it. So now, what makes this statement a poor statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And BTW, even the heaviest German tank was a wuss compared to the American T28. It's 105mm gun firing at 3,700 fpm could have penetrated that frontal armor of the heaviest German tanak, passing all the way through, and exiting the rear. And it would have been impervious to the fire of the German 88mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The haviest German tank was heavier, bigger and had a bigger gun than the T-28.No T-28 ever saw service, faced a German Tank let alone destroyed it.
The T-28 was no AT weapon. I fact, because of it's limited mobility it was totally unsuited to fight tanks.
It absolutely bollocks to assume that a rather small projectile after piercing an inclined steel plate of considerable strength is still in condition to pierce more layers of metal and also another inclined steel plate at the rear of the vehicle. The only way to put a round completely through a Tank is to make a hole first, than fire.
And last but not least, the most powerfull version of the 88, the 43 Pak (i.e. mounted in Jagdpanther) could pierce 311mm at 90‚? and 0 meters. Afaik that is about the thickness of the side armor and way more than rear, top and bottom armor.
So there is basically nothing true except for the 105 mm and the 3700fpm.

To answer the question you brought up: AP capabilities totally depend on distance and angle of attack. It is save to assume, that even the King Tigers frontal armor would have stopped the 105mm when beeing fired upon from maybe 45‚? sideways at distances longer than nil.

So long for theory, in practice the 105 is certainly enough to do the job, as are 12" of armor. It just isn't invincible.

Zen--
02-15-2004, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Chimp, you know I respect your knowledge of aviation, but this line of thinking on the 105mm is way off, unless you are enjoying a bit of trolling. (In which case, enjoy!)

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No answer?

Zen, did that T29 mount a 105 that fired the same round as a contemporary field artillery piece?

I've already seen people in this thread discount the 90mm on the Super Pershing as being second rate, equal only to the 88mm on earlier Tigers. Nevermind the fact that the 90mm gun on the Super Pershing _was not_ the same 90mm as on the M26 Pershing. The Super Pershing's gun has penetration capabilities fully equal, or superior, to that of the 88mm on the King Tigers. Read the book "Another River, Another Town." Apparently, the Super Pershing had little difficulty with the Tiger II.

Now, tell me about the 105 on the T29, which was specifically developed to counter tanks like the Tiger II. I'm interesting in hearing about it.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure why you are being so caustic, or at least thats the way it's coming out in text. If am under the wrong impression, my apologies naturally.

I'm not saying the 105mm gun was an ineffective weapon, nor am I saying the German heavies were invincible. I am saying that a 12 mile range has nothing to do with the guns effectiveness, it is a misleading statement and not relevant to tank to tank combat. Further, I said earlier that I was unaware of a single PRODUCTION gun that could defeat the upper hull armor on the German heavies, but the 105mm is something I don't have figures on so I can't comment specifically. Based on my knowledge of ballistics and relative weapon performance, I would say that the 105mm would have a chance, though at short ranges naturally. Against the lower hull armor or the actual turret front the chances are much greater on Kingtiger but no so great on the turret front of the Jagdtiger, which was much better armored than the Kingtiger.

As for me telling you about the 105mm, I'll kindly put the ball back in your court (as you are fond of doing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Since you brought up the point of this gun being superior, I think the burden of proof falls on you, not me.

For whatever it's worth, I am more than willing to see actual specs on the gun. If this changes my perception of it, that is fine as I am always willing to be shown things in greater detail. I haven't studied every single weapon in history and frankly can't remember details on everything I've ever read about either, I operate from a general understanding of WW2 weapons smattered with common sense, I don't claim to be an expert.


Again, if I am misinterpreting the tone of your post, I apologize, but it seems you are coming across as rather snippy. If I am in error, please forgive the possible short sound of my reply.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Kampfmeister
02-15-2004, 07:01 PM
From what I have been reading in these posts, Zen not only seems to have an intimate knowledge of armored warfare, something I've also been interested in most of my life, but actually was a tanker in the military. Please correct me if I am wrong, but he is the only one on this thread that has actually operated a tank. So I find myself trusting the information that he presents a little more than someone who is just picking information and data out of a book. Remember, in the end it doesn't matter how big of a gun you have on your tank, what matters is how well you use the one you've got http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SkyChimp
02-15-2004, 07:01 PM
It's not my intent to sound caustic. I simply don't understand the propensity to dismiss the 105mm of the T28 and T29 was being incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of the King Tiger.

I don't know the specifics of the gun. Neither do you. So to simply dismiss it as being unable to perform its intended task seems arbitrary.

I do know the allies had in their possession Tiger Is and Tiger IIs and that the T29 was specifically designed to counter heavies like the Tiger II, even though it was ultimately never needed.



Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Menthol_moose
02-15-2004, 07:28 PM
"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."

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html

[This message was edited by Menthol_moose on Sun February 15 2004 at 06:46 PM.]

Kampfmeister
02-15-2004, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
It's not my intent to sound caustic. I simply don't understand the propensity to dismiss the 105mm of the T28 and T29 was being incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of the King Tiger.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Good point SkyChimp, I have to agree with you on that one.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Menthol moose
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
I posted such information, but it gets dismissed as "russian properganda".
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________


Well you sometimes have to take Russian military information from that time period with a grain of salt. I have yet to see anything where Russian equipment is not deemed superior to anything else. It was a very interesting post though. One thing that definitely stands out is the fact that German armor was no longer being manufactured to higher quality standards because of the lack of strategic materials. One has to wonder however, how well this armor would have stood up to all of the test firings had it been of a higher quality like that which equipped the German tanks at the beginning of the war.

By the way Menthol moose, isn't that the Australian Prime Minister lying there naked in that inner tube? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Menthol_moose
02-15-2004, 08:28 PM
[QUOTE]One thing that definitely stands out is the fact that German armor was no longer being manufactured to higher quality standards because of the lack of strategic materials.QUOTE]

Yeah... I think thats a important part of the article. Im not taking all those points are fact, but it does raise some interesting points.

Yes.. it is the PM in a inner tube !

"In 1952 he won a beer skulling
competition at the University of Western Australia by skulling three schooners
in 9.3 seconds. Then in 1954 at Oxford he got a ******ss Book World Record
for skulling 2.5 pints in 12 seconds. After he finished pissing up at uni
he became President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. "

Our Bob Hawke, ex PM

You can see where the stereotype comes from http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Zen--
02-15-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It's not my intent to sound caustic. I simply don't understand the propensity to dismiss the 105mm of the T28 and T29 was being incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of the King Tiger.

I don't know the specifics of the gun. Neither do you. So to simply dismiss it as being unable to perform its intended task seems arbitrary.

I do know the allies had in their possession Tiger Is and Tiger IIs and that the T29 was specifically designed to counter heavies like the Tiger II, even though it was ultimately never needed.



_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok very good then, I apologize for assuming anything about your previous posts. Let me clarify my position then also, just so there is no misunderstandings here either.


First off, everything does revolve around the fact that neither one of us have specific information on the performance of the 105mm gun. We've both said that. I must say very clearly that I am absolutely NOT saying the gun will never defeat the frontal armor of the German heavies.

What I am saying is that to my knowledge, the allies never fielded a single production gun capable of doing that job. Combine that with what I know from experience about tank gunnery, about the general history that I know of tank evolution and add to that a 'logical assumption', I'm saying that it's unlikely with the technology of the day that the gun could defeat those kinds of heavy tanks.

Thats it...nothing more. No US bashing, no uplifting the German heavies on a pedastool. I'm simply not like that, never have been.

I recognize quality though and give credit where credit is due and genuinely try to be as impartial as I can. I feel it's a waste of time to believe anything other than facts.


In the case of this 105mm gun argument, I can mention several reasons why I think the gun could not do that job. Some of them I already have, like the bit about no production gun could do the job and the allies not fielding guns with the same performance as the high end German guns. This is historically true...as a trend.

There are other examples I can give why the gun could have actually done the job, one being the British 105mm gun fielded shortly after the war...the same gun used on the M60 tank and the earlier versions of the M1 Abrams tank, a gun that stayed in service for over 40 years and STILL remains a highly effective battlefield weapon system, despite the same 40 years of continual tank improvement to counter it. What that means to me is that there are rare moments of design genius that produce weapons that stand the test of time...but my question and/or reservation about this particular American 105mm gun is simple. Is it that kind of gun?

All countries in the world were in a massive arms race during WW2 and tank combat was one of the most important aspects of that arms race. No country seemed to be able to field a tank gun capable of detroying these German heavies, so my logical question is, what makes the American gun so special? To say that a tank was specifically designed to defeat another thank is important on the one hand, but history is also full of examples were such intentions failed to achieve those results. Then you have examples of the British 105mm (M68 in American service) that have not only stood the test of time, in a way they defined it.

I can see both sides of the fence to be honest, though in this case I am not playing both sides, I am saying that I don't feel it was likely the American 105mm could get the job done (based only on logical extrapolation from other related factors and nothing more).


Without knowing the specifics, my instincts tell me no. As I said earlier though, any chance to learn greater detail is welcome to me, I have not had the time nor the inclination to make this my lifelong pursuit, though I have read extensively on the subject and done a bit in real life as well.


S~~ and sorry if I came across short myself.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Zen--
02-15-2004, 10:19 PM
That article on the Russian tests of the Kingtiger was very interesting, I have read similar data before.

In addition to it being interesting that the armor quality was deteoriating on the latest German tanks, I found it very interesting for 2 other points:

The frontal upper hull armor plate failed after repeated impacts due to faults in it's construction, even if the rounds didn't penetrate (bad news for tankers!)

No mention was made of the effects of direct hits to the upper hull armor itself...only the effects for hitting the weld lines and joints. Say what you like about Soviet data being propaganda (and some of that is true, grains of salt are on occasion necessary) but the omission of what happens with hits that are the norm in combat tells a whole other story itself. The armor can be defeated by hitting the weld lines, which are generally not as strong as the main plating, but apparently the Soviets could not fire directly through the armor itself. To me this says alot and actually coroborates how well armored these tanks were. (production quality is another matter and one that is far more important, but lets stick to the FB world of perfect production for the moment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)


It's an interesting article, but I personally don't take it as gospel either for a few reasons, some of which have been mentioned. It's main point to me is to give considerations for possibilities. You will not find the truth in any one source, you usually have to compare and contrast many sources and arrive at a best guess, imho anyway.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

pourshot
02-15-2004, 11:49 PM
Have a look at that artical again and look at hit No25 it goes all the way through the turret,I think it said it was a 88mm round.That would take some power so what makes that weapon so much better than the rest?

Does anyone have a ballistics chart for these guns?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Zen--
02-16-2004, 01:20 AM
"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."


This is no surprise, the Kingtiger front turret armor was relatively weak, a design 'flaw' common to tanks of that age. Most vehicles you will find from that period have less turret front armor than the upper hull armor because the turret was thought to be a low probability hit area. The Kingtiger's turret, while large enough compared to other tanks, is still much smaller than the enormous upper hull surface area and so was not armored as well. As the caliber of guns increase, they have a general trend toward less accuracy as well, it is reasonable to suppose back then that any gun capable of penetrating the turret armor would have a very low chance of actually scoring a hit in that area on the average and hence the armor is less. Still more than enough to protect the vehicle from smaller caliber weapons with higher accuracy though.

The reality was very different from that though and higher caliber weapons generally had reasonable chances to hit and to hit specific areas if the gunner were a good shot. There are stories of US tanks bouncing 76mm shells off the ground under Panthers in order to negate the effective slope of their lower hull armor and successfully destroying them. Also on the subject of the Panther, the orginal production version had a very round gun mantlet. Enemy gunners can and did fire into the underside of it to cause the round to be deflected into the drivers compartment which had the normal 25mm range of armor (as opposed to the 228mm of the mantlet) and later models had a lip added to the mantlet to reduce that chance.

So accuracy of the large caliber guns, thought to be low, was actually relatively close with the smaller guns. German tank designs suffered somewhat from this on the tactical level.



I don't have figures handy, but the 100mm and 122mm guns mentioned above had penetration very close to the 88mm L71 of the Kingtiger. The 122mm was less (about 204mm at 25 meters compared to 226mm at 25 meters for the 88) and I don't recall the Soviet 100mm, though IIRC it was actually higher than the 122mm gun.


Kingtiger weak spots were the turret front and the lower hull plate, though weak is relative to the gun fired at it. For the big Soviet guns, those were the places they tried to hit, for most other guns it was more problematic.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

[This message was edited by Zen-- on Mon February 16 2004 at 12:30 AM.]

panther3485
02-16-2004, 02:29 AM
Hi guys!

Sorry, just can't stay out any longer even though I know that many of you are just messing about (not serious, that is).

First, figures for the armour thicknesses of 'King Tiger'.

Hull sides, upper - 80mm
Hull sides, lower - 80mm
Hull rear - 80mm
Hull front, lower - 100mm
Hull front, upper - 150mm
Hull roof - 40mm
Hull floor - 25mm
Turret sides - 80mm
Turret rear - 80mm
Turret front - 180mm
Turret roof - 40mm

Now, as you will see from these figures, there is no part of the frontal armour thickness that could EVER be described as 'weak', or even 'relatively weak', at least NOT BY WW2 TANK STANDARDS. (Comparison with modern MBTs is, of course, another story).

When referring to Allied tanks and/or tank destroyers that might have opposed the King Tiger, I will confine myself only to THOSE THAT WENT INTO SERIES PRODUCTION, WERE ACCEPTED FOR UNIT SERVICE AND SAW ACTION BEFORE THE WAR ENDED.

Sorry gentlemen, but anything else is (IMHO) not properly relevant to the intended point of this thread.

Considering all Allied vehicles under the above criteria, only a very limited number were equipped with weapons powerful enough to seriously threaten the frontal armour of King Tiger.

But what makes even this discussion almost passe is the very small number of King Tigers actually produced (489), not to mention their huge weight (68 tons) and the problems the germans had keeping them serviceable and properly supplied in the field.

Having said all the above, parts of this thread have been very enjoyable and some of you obviously do know quite a lot!

Keep on keepin' on, guys!

Best regards to all,
panther3485

JtD
02-16-2004, 02:34 AM
Zen (& Skychimp), following your approach (to estimate gun performance by logic) it seems totally possible for the 105 mm gun to penetrate the TigerII's front armor from anywhere between 11 and 1 o'clock, maybe even 10 to 2.
The 88L71 KwK (TigerII) fired a grenade of 10kg with 1000 m/s. It penetrated 225mm at best. Basically the same gun, the 88L71 Pak (Jagdpanther) fired a special AP round with a weight of 7 kg and a muzzle velocity of 1130 m/s. It managed 311mm at best.
This is enough to defeat a TigerII's armor. The 105 had a bigger projectile with the same muzzle velocity and therefore shouldn't have less AP performance. I estimate 400mm (which is about as much as more modern 105mm guns have).I think Skychimp is right if he says the gun could do the job. (But it wouldn't exit to the rear. Nor is the T-28 suited to tank warfare.)

Oak_Groove
02-16-2004, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
"which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters"

what tank can do this!!! lol.. wow<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M26 Heavy Tank armor protection on the upper front hull equalled 6.9 in. (175mm), and 4.4 in. (112 mm) on the front turret, the actual armor thickness was 4 in. (102mm) in both locations. Going by performance charts, the 8,8cm KwK L/71 w PzGr40/43, which was arguably the most potent tank mounted gun operational at that time, was able to penetrate armor plates (95-105 kp/mm‚¬≤) of 153mm / 60‚? at 2000m.

Against the 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 w PzGr 40/42 it would have probably been a close call too, against common belief the Panther‚¬īs gun was actually more potent against armor than the Tiger I‚¬īs 8,8cm KwK36 L/56. This is because bigger projectile calibre alone doesn‚¬īt equal increased armor penetration, it‚¬īs actually a dead end in terms of KE projectile design. If you increase the size of a projectile to add mass, an unequal greater amount of kinetic energy is needed to achieve penetration due to bigger projectile diameter, to the point where just increasing the projectiles size failed to keep up with armor developments. That‚¬īs one of many reasons why modern tank KE projectiles are subcalibre fin stabilized discarding sabot rounds; you basically take a large bore diameter (120mm or 125mm) so a big propelling charge can be deployed, and a projectile made of high density material that is much smaller in diameter than the bore. The result is an extremly fast projectile with high mass but small diameter. A maximum of penetration performance is therefore a product of mass, velocity and a projectile diameter as small as possible. In WW2 projectile velocity was primarily achieved by increasing barrel length in relation to calibre diameter, anything under 40 caliber lengths was regarded as insufficent for tank main armanent by the german industry.

XP2500 OC'ed 11x200
768MB TWINMOS DDR 400 3-3-2.5-11
A7N8X-D Rev. 2.0/Bios 1.7
SAPPHIRE R9700 Atlantis
2 x IBM IC35040 40GB
Syncmaster 957P
Win XP Pro SP1
DirectX 9.0b
nForce UDP 2.45 w/3.75 Audio
Catalyst 3.7

[This message was edited by Oak_Groove on Mon February 16 2004 at 01:49 AM.]

Manos1
02-16-2004, 02:44 AM
I went to the address

http://home.earthlink.net/~crcorbin/index.html
(The Persing vs. Panther in Cologne story)

WOW!
I think there is a lot more there reading the stories than these discussions about which gun/elevation/distance gentlemen.
A lot of people died there.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


If anyone has other interesting links please post.

~S~

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/pilotsforum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/temp/4th_FG2_new1.gif
Hellenic-SQN (http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr)

[This message was edited by Manos1 on Mon February 16 2004 at 01:57 AM.]

Blutarski2004
02-16-2004, 07:47 AM
COMPARISON OF US 90mm GUN MODELS

-------------------Model M3-----Model T15E2-----T54----------

Bore---------------3.543 in-----3.543 in--------3.543 in
Length of Bore-----50 cal-------70 cal----------68.4 cal
Chamber Capacity---300 cu in----488 cu in (est)-465 cu in
Total Weight-------2450 lbs-----3420 lbs--------3480 lbs
Max Pressure-------38,000 psi---41,500 psi------40,000 psi
Max RoF------------8 rpm--------4 rpm-----------6 rpm

.....

MUZZLE VELOCITIES:---Model M3------Model T15E2------T54

M82 APCBC/HE-T ------2650 fps(early)
M82 APCBC/HE-T ------2800 fps(late)
M304/T30E16 APCR-T---3350 fps
T33 APBC-T-----------2800 fps
M71 HE---------------2700 fps
T43 APBC-T-------------------------3200 fps
T44 APCR-T-------------------------3750 fps
T42 HE-----------------------------3200 fps
APBC-T (type unknown)-------------------------------3200 fps
APCR-T (type unknown)-------------------------------3750 fps
HE (type unknown)-----------------------------------3200 fps

.....

ARMOR PENETRATION (at 30 degrees obliquity)

90mm M3:-------500 yds-----1000 yds-----1500 yds-----2000 yds
M82 (early)----120mm-------112mm--------104mm---------96mm
M82 (late)-----129mm-------122mm--------114mm--------106mm
M304/T30E16----221mm-------199mm--------176mm--------156mm
T33------------119mm-------117mm--------114mm--------109mm

90mm T15E2:----500 yds-----1000 yds-----1500 yds-----2000 yds
T43------------132mm-------127mm--------124mm--------122mm
T44------------244mm-------221mm--------196mm--------173mm

90mm T15E2:----500 yds-----1000 yds-----1500 yds-----2000 yds
AP (T43?)------132mm-------127mm--------124mm--------122mm
HVAP (T44?)----244mm-------221mm--------196mm--------173mm

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
02-16-2004, 08:04 AM
SkyChimp,

I will agree that the US Model T29/T30/T34 heavy tanks were probably viable designs for battlefield use. The T28 was not and should not be considered as much more than a technology tester.

Some details on the T28 which bear out this point -

Battle Weight-------95 tons
Engine--------------Ford GAF V8 @ 410 hp
Maximum Speed-------8 mph
Fording Depth-------3 ft 11 inches
Vertical Obstacle---3 ft

Getting this Saint Bernard puppy across the vast majority of European bridges would have represented a major engineering operation; it was over 14 ft wide.

The T28 required a crew of eight! - TC, driver, co-driver, and a five man gun crew.

And check out that power to weight ratio ;-)

It is also fair to point out that the T28 was in fact a heavily armored self-propelled gun rather than a true tank. It had no revolving turret and its gun traverse was limited to 10 degree L/R.

BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Mon February 16 2004 at 07:20 AM.]

Jippo01
02-16-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget inclination of the armor which only increases relative thickness of the armor, but also makes penetrating much more difficult because of the striking angle.

For example the before mentioned T-72 has in the range of 300mm of layered armor in the upper front hull, which translates to something like 1000mm due to it's inclination. Also if the shot is fired from a side angle and not directly from front, the relative thickness is again multiplied by the angle.

Also one very important factor in penetrating armor is the projectile diameter/armor thickness ratio. If projectile diameter is less than armor thickness penetration becomes more difficult with ordinary AP ammunition.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Zen--
02-16-2004, 10:02 AM
30 degree slope increases effective thickness by 50%
60 degree slope increases effective thickness by 100%


From the data above on the Kingtiger front hull, the plate is 150mm thick, when modified by it's nearly 60 degree angle, it becomes 286mm effective thickness.

The panther had an 80mm front hull plate, when factoring in the slope of the hull, it becomes 177mm effective thickness.


The T72 turret actually only has a slope equivalent to about 30 degrees...it's effective armor protection is on the order of 500mm after adjustment. There were several variants with increasingly thicker front turret armor as time went on though.

Shots that do not come from the direct front are also affected by this as well...shots range from what is called Front 30, Front 45 and Front 60. What this means is that for shots that don't come in from the direct front, the effective armor thickness is also multiplied by the Front angle as well...meaning that even moderately armored tanks can have nearly impenatrable frontal armor if attacked from high angles off...but the flip side is that while the frontal armor becomes a smaller oblique target, the side armor becomes more and more exposed with higher probability of hitting it instead of the front. Since side armor is typically much much lower than the frontal armor, tank crews prefer to put the front directly toward the enemy and not try to play the angles with Front 30 etc...though in combat shots come from all over the place, so it's important for gunners to understand these concepts.



My comments on the parts of the Kingtigers frontal armor being 'relatively weak' are not a comment on the tank itself, just a comment on the turret protection vs the upper hull protection and how that relates to big guns. The tank was not uniformly protected, so it is worth clarifying what part of the tank is being engaged because it does make a difference.



For JTD, thats a perfectly logical assumption and I agree with you in concept, you make a valid point and this is good logic to me. My reason for disagreeing with it in general is related to experience with a lot of other things. Say basically that I have enough secondary information to be less inclined to think it's possible rather than more inclined but still definately leave the possibility wide open. I'm no expert really, just going on best guesses.

And Oak makes really good points also...there is much more to ballistics than just the size and speed of the round in question and bigger does not mean better. His points are why you see the 88 L71 outperforming the much bigger Soviet 122mm and is partly why I say that while the 105mm sounds impressive, there is more to it than just a bigger projectile moving at the same speed.



Modern tank guns use the Sabot round that he described and have penetrave power far in excess of anything fielded in WW2...ver much greater. Unfortunately most of this information is classified as well for obvious reasons, but I have been around the Army to get a reasonable idea on probably effects. The firepower is simply staggering.



This is a very interesting thread...I am really enjoying seeing how it's going, nice to see something that doesn't degenerate into a flame fest.

S!!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Blutarski2004
02-16-2004, 10:16 AM
Gentlemen,


Go here for a very interesting, but mathematically slightly dense, evaluation of armor, projectiles, and the relationships between them -

http://www.warships1.com/index_nathan/

Most valuable.

BLUTARSKI

Jippo01
02-16-2004, 10:16 AM
Turret in T-72 is much weaker compared to hull. Hull is also more steeply sloped. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That is why I talked about the Hull. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Turret is almost vertical in front although the hit area to the vertical parts is very small. Rest of the turret is then very thin and very steeply sloped and it is very difficult to determine the thickness with one's eye without cutting a turret in half.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Zen--
02-16-2004, 10:23 AM
Woops, misread hull and saw turret...my bad!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

JG26Red
02-16-2004, 10:42 AM
Skymonkey... you know what you sound like? Us LW fans who say the TA152 or D0335 would wax the 51 and 47s buttoxs, but the allied dudes come back and say, hey, only a few or none of them saw action...

now its totally reversed here... lol...

PzKpfw
02-16-2004, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
"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."


This is no surprise, the Kingtiger front turret armor was relatively weak, a design 'flaw' common to tanks of that age.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tiger B turret front was very well protected, mainly more so then it's adversaries; with 180mm @ 10‚? vs Ie, an Pershing's turret front's 102mm @ 90‚?. The glacis armor protection on the Tiger B was 150mm @ 50‚?.

Concerning the Soviet tests on the Tiger B and its authenticy; I can say, the same Tiger B is shown with the :same damage: in another article on the RB with an earlier date at another location.

An Soviet report on cause of loss on their tanks in 1944 showed over 65% were lost to 'turret front penetrations'. Which led to the design of the IS-3 turret front.


Regards, John Waters

Zen--
02-16-2004, 04:10 PM
No argument there JW, my point is relative protection. Most tanks were designed with the best protection on the upper hull surface, statistics in combat proved this was not the optimal solution.

Nice to see you back btw, hope everything has been well on the home front for you.

S!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen