PDA

View Full Version : more tiger tank modeling shots



XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:25 PM
Here's another render after doing some detail work around the turrent and hatchs. Just follow the link for a peek http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.threedy.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10006

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:25 PM
Here's another render after doing some detail work around the turrent and hatchs. Just follow the link for a peek http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.threedy.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10006

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:30 PM
Silly Tiger question, but, how are those engine vents protected? They look like a srapnel magnet but I don't know enough about the internals to tell.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:39 PM
Good question. I decided to leave the protective guards off so I could show the detail of the vents. I might model them though if I have to send this tank into battle http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 08:59 PM
awsome work - but:

what game is this model intended for? Can't belive it's for IL2 due to the high poly count...

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:38 PM
Where are you getting your references from? Are you using a plastic model or pictures as reference? Just curious.


<center>http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/backgrounds/Luftwaffe_poster.JPG
<marquee>Come join the Sturzkampfflugzeuge Gruppen, meet your friends, hang out, good pay ,free beer!</marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:01 PM
ohhh, superb /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:43 AM
All of my reference material has been from photos of different tiger tanks model H. That and measurements from books. I was planning on useing a model kit also but I didn't want to spend 50$ on one. So I used photos of the finished kit online.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:13 PM
LudenWulf, I see some areas where some small changes have to be made, so will send you some more scans. Plus some other scans which may be of some use.

Looking good./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Harry. "how are those engine vents protected?"

Those are not engine vents but intake/exhaust vents for the radiators. The engine had a box surrounding it which seperated the engine from the radiators. There was also a wire mesh over the openings.

spelling /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/08/0308:34AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 01:18 PM
You see, thats how P-47's were able to kill Tiger tanks. The .50 cal would slip right into the tank, take out the engine and kill all crew members! What a horrible German design... Im glad Hitler waisted a lot of resources making them insead of good tanks.

Gib

HarryVoyager wrote:
- Silly Tiger question, but, how are those engine
- vents protected? They look like a srapnel magnet
- but I don't know enough about the internals to tell.
-
- Harry Voyager
-


I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:08 PM
Thanks milo, I could use whatever photos or diagrams you have.
"I see some areas where some small changes have to be made"
What areas would those be? While I'm trying to make this realistic as possible I've decided to leave out some extra details.I'm already up to about 45,000 polys. Like the tools carried around the outside and spare cables. The real detail will come in when I start creating textures in adobe. Paint chips, dirt, soot, etc. Fun fun fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:35 PM
saw a program about tiger vs sherman, tiger was a awsome tank, some design floors tho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
very slow turret for one, 2mins with engine running
4 if not, poor crew hadto do it manly then i think..
awsome gun/amour tho
kill shermans at mile and half, sherman needed 60yards, from the rear

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:57 PM
do you plan put some "zimmerit" on it who was employed on most of late war german tank.

the zimmerit used for magnetic mines cannot be put on tank if i remenber.

very beautiful model!!

http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/signatures/enigmus.jpg

NN_EnigmuS.
Normandie Niemen virtuel.
http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:02 PM
Too bad you didn't live on the Military bases I did when I was a kid, I use to play on all kind of tanks in the tank park museums on the bases, they included:

Panthers
Panzers
Tiger (mark 1)
Whirblwuffer (can never spell that right, 4 flak cannons)
Hietzer or Heitzer
Nashorn
lot of American and British\
even 4 or 5 WWW 1 tanks, a french Renault and the British MK something, big stupid looking thing.

<center>http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/backgrounds/Luftwaffe_poster.JPG
<marquee>Sturzkampfflugzeuge 66</marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:23 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- You see, thats how P-47's were able to kill Tiger
- tanks. The .50 cal would slip right into the tank,
- take out the engine and kill all crew members! What
- a horrible German design... Im glad Hitler waisted
- a lot of resources making them insead of good tanks.

some thunderbolt pilots would fire beneath or at an angle to the tanks to 'bounce' the bullets to the thin underside.

now that's creative thinking!

Tiger I wasn't as bad as the Tiger II tho.

cheers
das

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:28 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- You see, thats how P-47's were able to kill Tiger
- tanks. The .50 cal would slip right into the tank,
- take out the engine and kill all crew members! What
- a horrible German design... Im glad Hitler waisted
- a lot of resources making them insead of good tanks.
-
-
Altough you are right about the P-47, a tiger tank was something to be reckoned with on the ground. The standard tactic for an average sherman tank, when they encountered a Tiger, was to attract attention with one Sherman and let a second one, sneak behind a Tiger and destroy its engine from behind.

This shows that Tiger tanks where not horrible at all.

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://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:38 PM
Amazing! Can't wait to see how it'll look when it's done!

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:57 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-
--
- Altough you are right about the P-47, a tiger tank was something to be reckoned with on the ground. The standard tactic for an average sherman tank, when they encountered a Tiger, was to attract attention with one Sherman and let a second one, sneak behind a Tiger and destroy its engine from behind.
-
- This shows that Tiger tanks where not horrible at all.


You are right Platypus, the average rate was 4 Shermans to 1 Tiger if I my memory is correct.
According to history books in one occasion during the first month of the D-Day landing, one single Tiger (I think it was a Tiger II "King Tiger") held a whole batallion for 48hours.

If anyone is interested visit the site of Bovington's Tank museum.
One of the six left Tigers in the world is undergoing restoration there.
http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal.htm

They were awasome steel beasts...

Talking about front armor
http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/history11.htm



S!

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:01 PM
Gibbage1,
you are a damn good 3D artist, but the Rest /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:01 PM
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- You see, thats how P-47's were able to kill Tiger
-- tanks. The .50 cal would slip right into the tank,
-- take out the engine and kill all crew members! What
-- a horrible German design... Im glad Hitler waisted
-- a lot of resources making them insead of good tanks.
--
--
- Altough you are right about the P-47, a tiger tank
- was something to be reckoned with on the ground. The
- standard tactic for an average sherman tank, when
- they encountered a Tiger, was to attract attention
- with one Sherman and let a second one, sneak behind
- a Tiger and destroy its engine from behind.
-
- This shows that Tiger tanks where not horrible at
- all.


British guidelines for engaging Pz.Kpfw V and VI with Shermans were that such engagements are only to be attempted with at least 5:1 numerical superiority, that´s why Panthers and Tigers were force multipliers on the battlefield, tying alot of allied resources and time, while having a tremendous impact on the fighting morale of allied troops wherever they appeared. Montgomery even forbid to mention Tiger tanks in the AAR´s.

75mm or 76mm ammunition could not effectively overcome a Tigers frontal armor at medium to long combat distances, while the german heavy tank could knock out M4 Shermans frontal at ranges well in excess of 1000m due to superior cannons and optics. The farthest recorded kill on a T-34 by a Tiger was reported at 3.9 Km. Even the more potent Sherman Firefly, the british modified M4 with 17 pdr. high velocity AT gun and probably the most effective Sherman in WW2, was limited by inferior optics which degraded the gunners effective range.

The Tiger had it´s share of problems as any tank in WW2, Gearbox and steering unit of the Tiger were ultra-modern for their time and were not technically matured, they took little abuse and did require a cautious and smart driver, as well as extensive maintenance. These components were interference-prone and parts wore out fast when treated improper. The very compact Maybach HL 230 was actually a good engine when taken care for, but then gear oil and fuels were of bad quality in germany, this of coarse accelerated the wearing of parts, so that not seldom the tank did only a few 100 km´s before it broke down with transmission/gear or engine damage and eventually had to be blown up. Further drawbacks of the heavy tank design in general were high weight, fuel consumption, low PS:ton ratio and relatively high specific ground pressure (although not as high as that of the Sherman), which made it alot less all-terrain than the Panther for example.

It should be considered however that under WW2 conditions mechanical reliability, as we take it as a given standard today, was rather utopical. New designs were pressed out by all nations in short time, although the prototypes would have required at least some more years of endurance testing, but there was simply no time. So the constructions had to mature in the field, and many flaws could be elimated, at a high cost on material and men however. Every AFV or aircraft design in WW2 had flaws and drawbacks, this is not restricted to a handful of tanks, but expands to the technology and construction process as a whole. For germany additional shortage of quality raw materials and forced labour sabotage of the production have to be factored in.

If the proficiancy of the crew, uninterruptet possibilities for repairs and sufficent supplys were given, the Tiger was rolling, and an extremly efficiant strong-point weapon, especially in the defense, with Tiger crews having a higher chance of survivability.

btw.
Here´s a little snippet of the "horrible" Tiger design in action:

"On 13th June 1944, a week after D-day, following a drive from Beauvais under repeated air attack, 2nd Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 led by Michael Wittmann had 6 Tigers located in the area of Hill (Point) 213 ahove Villers Bocage. His orders were to stop the advance of the 22nd Armored Brigade of the British 7th Armored Division (the famous 'Desert Rats') from advancing through the township, outflanking the German line and gaining the road to Caen. Wittmann's company hidden behind a hedgerow spotted the enemy column, which passed him at a distance of 200 meters. At about 8:00am, Wittmann attacked the British column on the main road, while the rest of his company (4 Tigers as one brokedown) attacked the British forces around Hill 213. Soon after, Wittmann destroyed Sherman Firefly and Cromwell IV and headed south to attack the rest of the enemy transport column. After knocking out 8 half-tracks, 4 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns, Wittmann reached the crossroad with the road to Tilly-sur-Seulles. At the crossroad, he destroyed 3 Stuart tanks from recon unit and reached the outskirts of the town of Villers-Bocage. While in town, Wittmann destroyed 4 Cromwell IV tanks and single half-track and turns into Rue Pasteur. Following up the street, he knocked out Cromwell IV and Sherman OP tank, reaching the main street of Villers-Bocage. At the end of Rue Pasteur, Wittmann's Tiger was hit by Sherman Firefly from B Squadron and he decided to turn back as being too far forward without any infantry support and in a build-up area. He turned in the direction of Caen to join the rest of his company. On his way back, Wittmann's Tiger was attacked by another Cromwell IV, which he destroyed as well. Back at the Tilly crossroad, British soldiers from 1st Rifle Brigade opened fire at Wittmann with their 6 pdr anti-tank gun, immobilizing his Tiger. Wittmann and his crew managed to escape on foot towards the Panzer Lehr positions 7km away near Orbois. The rest of his company at the Hill 213, destroyed the rest of the A Squadron of 4th County of London Yeomanry Regiment ("Sharpshooters") including 5 Cromwell IV and Sherman Firefly, while capturing 30 men. During this short engagement, Wittmann's company destroyed 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns. Wittmann's attack was followed by another one by Tigers of Hauptsturmfuehrer Rolf Moebius' 1st Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 and Panzerkampfwagen IV tanks from Panzer Lehr but was repulsed by anti-tank guns from 22nd Armored Brigade. Following day, British withdrew from the town leaving it to the Germans, who occupied it for next two months. The British drive on Villers Bocage and Caen was stopped cold by Wittmann's attack and following actions.
"

============================
The important thing in [tactics] is to suppress the enemys useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai and Philosopher
(More than 60 Victories in Hand-to-Hand combat.)


Message Edited on 09/08/0310:04PM by Oak_Groove

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:38 AM
synchro wrote:

-
- some thunderbolt pilots would fire beneath or at an
- angle to the tanks to 'bounce' the bullets to the
- thin underside.
-
- now that's creative thinking!
-
- Tiger I wasn't as bad as the Tiger II tho.
-

Not this SAD story again./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Is 25mm thin? Now if the bullet came in at such an acute angle that 25mm would be 100mm./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Who needed all those heavy AT guns when the .50 would do./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:46 AM
does anyone know where i could find some detail photos of the wheels on the tiger tank? the ones i'm interested in are front driving wheels, (or whatever their called) and the ones in the back. I haven't had much luck in finding good pictures of these wheels yet. any help would be great http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:51 AM
here ya go .. lotsa tiger wheelie pics



http://www.tigertank-h-e-181.com/Road%20Wheels.htm





<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:00 AM
LudenWulf wrote:
- does anyone know where i could find some detail
- photos of the wheels on the tiger tank? the ones i'm
- interested in are front driving wheels, (or whatever
- their called) and the ones in the back. I haven't
- had much luck in finding good pictures of these
- wheels yet. any help would be great /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-

Where there not shots in the info I sent you?


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:02 AM
When I was a kid, my dad fished with a Sherman driver from WWII. He always talked about the firepower and awesome frontal armour of the Tiger but said with some experiance, you just learned to out manuver them. He was in 4 different destroyed tanks. Deafened in a ear and 2 fingers gone from the last one.
He always said it was the Panther you always feared coming up against.You couldn't just run in circles from it like a Tiger because a good gunner could traverse and catch you anyway.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:06 AM
yeah there were. but i need close ups of the first and last wheels. the ones you had were the ones in the center. I've been able to find pictures of the face of these wheels but i'm trying to find views that are more from the side.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:27 AM
Oops, I forgot to scan the front wheel showing construction/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif - will be there tommorow.

For the rear wheel make a thick disk, hollow out the sides but not all the way through and insert flages. A bad photo will come as well.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:32 PM
Here's another picture after completing the wheels and drive gear. Treads are coming soon.

http://www.threedy.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10006

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:58 PM
Beautiful model!

And a big LMAO to those who say the tiger was a poor design. There were around only 1300 built. Considering the impact they made on the war, I'd say it was huge compared to any other tank. One needs at least 5 sherman to take out a single tiger and it's a bad design? Gimme a break!

Oh and be lucky DDay didn't happen in the open. Meeting a tiger in open land is quite a suicide.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:25 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
-
-
- And a big LMAO to those who say the tiger was a poor
- design. There were around only 1300 built.
- Considering the impact they made on the war, I'd say
- it was huge compared to any other tank. One needs at
- least 5 sherman to take out a single tiger and it's
- a bad design? Gimme a break!
-
- Oh and be lucky DDay didn't happen in the open.
- Meeting a tiger in open land is quite a suicide.
-
-

And how many Panzer IV did it require to "take out" a JS I or II?

Yes, lucky for the Tiger D-day was not an open battle field with no place to hide./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

nicolas stop being the ostrich and take your head out of the sand or we will have to put you in the group with the "uber" twins./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

------



Model is coming along nicely Ludenwulf./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:26 PM
What does the PIV have to do with the Tiger? Tiger = PVI

The Tiger was maybe the tank that had made the most impact. Sure it has many problems, but which tank didn't? It ruled the battlefield when it came out, and was still a very potent machine by war's end. Now if you want to claim that the sherman was better be my guest, that will probably be very entertaining.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:30 PM
Dah, nicolas you are comparing the MEDUIM Sherman tank to the HEAVY Tiger tank.


nicolas10 wrote:
- What does the PIV have to do with the Tiger? Tiger =
- PVI
-
- The Tiger was maybe the tank that had made the most
- impact. Sure it has many problems, but which tank
- didn't? It ruled the battlefield when it came out,
- and was still a very potent machine by war's end.
- Now if you want to claim that the sherman was better
- be my guest, that will probably be very
- entertaining.
-


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:33 PM
Tiger isn't a heavy tank. Maus is heavy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:35 PM
No, the Maus is a SUPER heavy tank.


nicolas10 wrote:
- Tiger isn't a heavy tank. Maus is heavy
-

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:45 PM
Well anyway the tiger appeared in early 1942. What tank of that time (Heavy or Medium) could even hope standing a chance against a Tiger?

On June 23 1944, only 109 17pdr equipped Sherman were available in France. None of the american shermans had the 76mm gun on 6 June, and the number was only of 250 in the 12th army group by 6 sept 1944. Heavy tanks were unexistant. I think only M10 and M18 had the guns to take out the Tiger, but the armour had no comparison.

The T34/85 had a pretty good gun and was a threat, but the Tiger armament had range advantage except from the DFP and nose, tiger having major advantage on mantle and turret. Sides and Rear the tiger had the advantage anywhere. KV1 wasn't a threat because of it's lousy gun. Kv85 if produced would have been a very nice match IMO, I wish it had been.

Anyway serious competition came only a couple years after the Tiger was out.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:50 PM
BTW the tiger had a hydraulic system to move the turret. Only later models didn't have it to ease production. Here again the design wasn't at fault, but rather the greed of the nazis, and the unability of their economy to follow.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:15 PM
Sorry Ludenwulf, your thread has been highjacked./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


The puny British 6pdr AT gun had no problem taking care of the Tiger./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That was on Jan 20 1943 on the Robaa Rd. with 2 Tigers stopped besides some P IVs. One was captured and ended up back in GB. The other was destroyed by the Brits.


And how many Tigers in NWE on the dates you stated? Sure they had some successes (from which the Sherman story came from) but they were quickly eliminated as a fighting force. German AT guns were much more of a threat. How many around after Falaise?


The first Tiger did not appear on the battlefield until 29 Aug 1942 and that was only 4. That is certainly NOT early 1942./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Kill, kill, kill, LOL. One does not have to kill a Tiger to put it out of action. Think about that nic.


Yes it had heavy armour and an excellent gun but it was not invincable. It is another case of the Germans not showing any 'smarts'.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:17 PM
Tiger production started in August 1942. And the first showed up around that time near Leningrad. Not very early 42 if you ask me. But nevertheless the Tiger was a tank that had the biggest impact of any tank in WW2.

The T-34/85 had it's own share of problems, and it might have a good gun, but penetration isn't everything. The 85mm would probably fail to penetrate Tiger from anything but short range. That is because the armor thickness/shell diameter ratio is in the Tigers favor. And besides that Tiger tank crews were taught to move into "mahlzeit" position setting their vehicles in a 45 degree angle towards the enemy, increasing armor protection by a factor 1.69. (80mm side armor * 1.69 = ~135mm effective plus the t/d ratio and many other modifiers in favor of thick armor.)

KV-85 was a horrendous design, and would be quite useless, it was slow, unreliable and quite dated by 1943/44.

And while some people might say Tiger was slower, that is a Russian myth produced to boost the morale on their tankers.

Just for comparison,

Panther cross country = 20km/h,
Road = 40km/h

Tiger cross country = 20km/h
Road = 38km/h


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW the tiger had a hydraulic system to move the turret. Only later models didn't have it to ease production. Here again the design wasn't at fault, but rather the greed of the nazis, and the unability of their economy to follow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is nonsense, it wasn't "greed" that simplified production on tanks, it was the lack of resources that did it. Simplifying production meant more tanks could be churned out. And in the case of Tiger the slow traverse didn't mean didly squat cause it could neutral steer very quickly. And to the despair of many very unlucky enemy tankers it would pivot around instead of bringing the heavy turret to bear.

It can't be emphasized enough that the Tiger was one of the best tanks of World War II, harsh armor quality checks, the best rolled homogenous nickel steel plating there was available, an excellent gun, excellent optics, excellent mobility, good armor protection, highest quality components, excellent crew training and the list goes on.

Regards,

Tiger.





<center><img scr="http://www.angelfire.com/pe2/gryphon/tiger_s.jpg"></center>

<center>Take a look to the sky just before you die.. it's the last time you will!</center></br>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:40 PM
Thats ok.
About the tigers, They did have the advantage of a larger gun and stronger armor. But they also had there weak points like the american and soviet tanks they fought. Atleast thats what the history channel tells me.
Here's a site with some great models of tanks and other armor. The first one of the tiger has some incredible deatil. It's become the one model that I've been comparing mine to. Hope it turns out nearly as nice.

http://models.gunpoint-3d.com/

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:10 PM
TiGeR----- wrote:
- The T-34/85 had it's own share of problems, and it
- might have a good gun, but penetration isn't
- everything. The 85mm would probably fail to
- penetrate Tiger from anything but short range.

The 85mm gun had not so much problem to pierce the tiger, except from the front but that's valid for about any tank. Look at the numbers I have from one of my tiger books:

T34/85 vs Tiger I (85 mm S53)
Front: Turret 500m
Front: Mantle 0m
Front: DFP 300m
Front: Nose 200m
Side: Turret 1600m
Side: Superstructure 1600m
Side: Hull 2900m
Rear: Turret 1600m
Rear: Hull 1500m

As a comparison basis here's the opposite stats:
Tiger I vs T34/85 (8.8cm Kw.K)
Front: Turret 1400m
Front: Mantle 400m
Front: DFP 100m
Front: Nose 100m
Side: Turret 2200m
Side: Superstructure 2100m
Side: Hull 3500+m
Rear: Turret 3200m
Rear: Hull 2100m

As you can see the T34/85 has a stronger DFP and nose as opposed to the Tiger's armour/armament, but besides that the Tiger is much better (rest of front, side for a little, and rear by a large margin.

T34/85 was a very very good design IMO.

Nic

http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/art/authorphoto/cookie.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:53 PM
Those values are very deceptive, i don't know where Jentz got them from. But he totally neglects front upper and lower hull. And what do these values mean? consider how big the DFP is, and the nose, that has got to be the smallest imaginable area on a tank. He doesn't mean the glacis as that is penetrated up to 2000m by the 88/L56

Besides that, as i said, the t/d ratio is unfavourable for the T-34/85 which means there is a reasonable chance that the munition will simply shatter.

Regards,

Tiger


<center><img scr="http://www.angelfire.com/pe2/gryphon/tiger_s.jpg"></center>

<center>Take a look to the sky just before you die.. it's the last time you will!</center></br>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 10:22 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- And how many Panzer IV did it require to "take out"
- a JS I or II?

Comparing the IS 2 to the K¶nigstiger would be more appropriate.

"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former Würgerwhiner extraordinaire

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:55 AM
It would require 1 Pz IV to knock out IS-2. The glacis and lower front hull cannot be penetrated but the turret, under favourable angle, may be penetrated up to 600m.

The side and rear are penetrated up to long combat ranges by the 75/L48.

IS-1 can be engaged at even longer ranges.

Comparing the IS-1/IS-2 to the King Tiger is not very fair since the King Tiger is 20 tons heavier.

Comparing it to Panther would be more appropriate.
The Panther has worse armor protection and, in comparison, worse HE than the IS-2.

Panther has better crew comfort, lighter ammunition resulting in a relative high ROF (IS-2 use 2 piece ammunition), excellent optics and slightly better mobility (better HP/weight ratio).

Also the 75/L70 has better armor penetration, but worse performance against very thick plates (t/d ratio).

Regards,

Gryphon



<center><img scr="http://www.angelfire.com/pe2/gryphon/tiger_s.jpg"></center>

<center>Take a look to the sky just before you die.. it's the last time you will!</center></br>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:08 AM
Well somehow this turned into a Shirman Vs. Tiger thread. Let me say this about the Shirman. It was NEVER intended as a tank killer. It was a infantry support vehicle. The Tiger was a monster of a tank killer. Sure, it took 4-1 to take one down with Shirman's, but the fact was we had 10-1 numerical advantage. US produced THOUSANDS of Shirmans and got them into the field quickly. Thats the advantage the Shirman had.

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:19 AM
Sherman, Gibbage. with an E.

http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/badges_spelling_police.jpg

"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former Würgerwhiner extraordinaire

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 08:24 PM
- You are right Platypus, the average rate was 4
- Shermans to 1 Tiger if I my memory is correct.

Well I have to correct my statement. It was rather 5,8 to 1.
The following article is in the german forum from Kimura:

http://forumsbb.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=de_il2sturmovik_gd&id=ztvyf


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

Death Traps The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II, by Belton Y Cooper

Presidio Press, 1998. 384. Dimensions (in inches): 1.05 x 6.90 x 4.20 . $6.99. ISBN:0891418148.

The technical inferiority of American to German armor in World War II is well documented and very familiar to students of that conflict. What may be less familiar is just what that inferiority meant to the men who had to take those tanks into battle. Belton Cooper was an ordnance officer with Combat Command B of the 3rd Armored Division in World War II. He trained with the division in England, and served with it from Normandy to VE day. His duties included the repair and maintenance of American tanks that had been damaged or disabled in combat. Given the poor quality of American tanks versus the German Panzers, he got a great deal of experience at it. Death Traps is an interesting and very readable memoir of a time when American soldiers went into battle with second rate weapons, and the price they paid to defeat a better equipped foe.

Coopers's book is somewhat unusual in that Cooper served in a support unit instead of combat arms. His duties, however, were anything but safe. His unit had to recover damaged tanks, sometimes under fire, and repair them as best they could. Cooper frequently found himself leading columns of replacement tanks up to the front through territory full of bypassed, but still very dangerous Germans. Once a general, seeing Cooper leading a force of seventeen tanks, asked what a mere lieutenant was doing commanding a task force. Cooper replied that he was taking the tanks up for replacements. The general commandeered the entire column and Cooper found himself deploying this massive force for action.

Cooper and his fellow soldiers entered France believing that they had in the M4 Sherman a machine that could meet the Panzers on equal terms. Combat quickly proved otherwise. The 3rd Armored suffered staggering losses in its drive across Europe. The division entered France with 232 Sherman tanks. By VE Day, it had lost 648 Shermans completely destroyed, and a further 700 had been knocked out of action and later repaired - a loss rate of 580%. Crew losses were serious as well. The death and wounding of so many trained tankers meant that infantrymen with no tank training had to be hastily drafted to fill out the division's tank crews. They were sometimes sent into battle with as little as a few hours of training. Tank crews shrank in size as well. The Sherman nominally carried a crew of five, but three man crews were not uncommon, with the commander doubling as loader. This meant a loss of efficiency which worsened the loss of experience. Lack of training and experience would then cause battlefield mistakes that would contribute to further bloodletting in the next action.

A better tank than the Sherman was available, but the Army had chosen not to procure it. The M26 Pershing was rejected, in part of because of General Patton's insistence that armored divisions should avoid and bypass enemy armor. Tanks were not supposed to fight other tanks. The Sherman he felt, being lighter, would be more mobile, and could avoid head on engagements with the Panzers. Yet despite Armored Force doctrine, tank battles took place anyway, and the Sherman usually came off second best. In fact, as Cooper points out, the Pershing was not only better armed and armored, it was the more mobile of the two machines off road. It's wider tracks gave it a lower ground pressure, something that Patton failed to understand. Thus the Pershing was better able to maneuver when an armored unit was slowed by mud and mines.

Mud and mines were encountered in abundance during the assault on the Siegfried Line. The Shermans of the 3rd Armored suffered heavily against German defenses they could neither bypass nor overcome. On November 16th, 1944, Combat Command B went into action with sixty-four Sherman tanks. Forty-eight of these were hit and put out of action in just twenty-six minutes. That same day, the 2nd Armored Division lost nearly a hundred Shermans trying to break through the German defenses. Cooper argues that with the Pershing tank, American armor might have punched through to the Rhine in November of 1944, with far reaching results. The Pershing tank was eventually procured, but none had reached the front in November of 1944. Much has been written about the failure of the Allied armies to deal the Germans a knockout blow in 1944. Most discussion of this issue has focused on difficulties of supply, and the relative merits of various strategies. (Broad front, versus a single thrust under Montgomery or Patton.) Cooper puts much of the blame on the deficiencies of America's tanks.

Death Traps is a well written and sobering book about the consequences of sending men to war with inferior weapons. It is also a reminder that doctrine notwithstanding, sooner a later an armored force must be prepared to trade punches with an armored adversary. One may hope that the men now deciding the fate of the Army's heavy tank forces, and considering the merits of lighter and more mobile medium armor, will take the time to read it.

Reviewer: Burke G Sheppard



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura