 | 
06-26-2008, 05:29 AM
|
#16 | | Member
Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vila Real
Posts: 87
Country:  | I'll go with the King Tiger .... fenomenal and powerfull tank | 
|  | |
06-26-2008, 09:26 AM
|
#17 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Campinas - SP
Posts: 1,081
Country:  | is true that story about one tiger kills 25 shermans at once in sequence ?
__________________ 
Last edited by JugBR : 06-26-2008 at 09:27 AM.
Reason: bad english :(
| |
| | |
06-26-2008, 05:05 PM
|
#18 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cordoba - Argentina
Posts: 2,242
Country:  | King Tiger is a blimp, I dont like it.
The JS-2 was very good, but I think is overgunned for tank vs tank combat. the separate charge proyectile made it slow to reload.
The real "King" was the Tiger 1.
__________________  | |
| | |
06-26-2008, 06:36 PM
|
#19 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote: |
King Tiger is a blimp, I dont like it.
| Blimp ? What does that mean ? Quote: |
The JS-2 was very good, but I think is overgunned for tank vs tank combat. the separate charge proyectile made it slow to reload.
| Overgunned ?? The 122mm D-25T was on par with the 75mm KwK42 L/70 in terms of AT performance and nowhere near as accurate.
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
06-26-2008, 07:42 PM
|
#20 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 250
| Quote:
Originally Posted by JugBR  is true that story about one tiger kills 25 shermans at once in sequence ? | - haven't heard of a specific battle in which that has happened - At Villers Bocage Michael Wittmann scored 11 confirmed tank kills. (The story of Villers Bocage is well traveled and has many exagerated versions). It wouldn't surprise me if a few Tigers in the east achieved 25 kills in one engagement... Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesBronson King Tiger is a blimp, I dont like it.
The real "King" was the Tiger 1. | No doubt the Tiger E was the supreme tank of late '42- to early '44. The King Tiger is often dismissed as to cumbersome and in a constant state of "enginemeltdown". However the troubles suffered by the King Tiger could be overcome by veteran crews - the same went with the Tiger E - neither machine would last long if not handled with care. The thing I dont like about the Tiger I is its outdated design. The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44. Plus the upgrade from the L56 to L71 '88 meant that a King Tiger could "easily" knock out a IS2 at 2000 meters - by comparison a Tiger I had to close to 200-500 meters to penetrate the IS2's main armour. | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 07:28 AM
|
#21 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Louisville,KY
Posts: 22
Country:  | about time theres a heavy tank pole!
__________________  "Don't touch it! It's a live grenade!"last words of an anonymous German wehrmact soldier | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 03:27 PM
|
#22 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,270
Country:  | And that is all you posted? That is what we call spam. Spam is not allowed. Do you understand?
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 03:43 PM
|
#23 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,880
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet And that is all you posted? | And he spent hours crafting that post...  Quote:
Originally Posted by Danielmellbin The thing I dont like about the Tiger I is its outdated design. The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44. |
That always struck me as strange too, IIRC the design of the Tiger was being worked on in 1941, AFTER seeing details of the T-34 in action in Finland.
Unless the design was already too advanced in 1941 to alter it?
__________________  | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 04:11 PM
|
#24 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 250
| Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird That always struck me as strange too, IIRC the design of the Tiger was being worked on in 1941, AFTER seeing details of the T-34 in action in Finland.
Unless the design was already too advanced in 1941 to alter it? |
Development of the Tiger started in 1937 - but the desired specs where altered many times. I think that if the armour had been altered (as in sloped) the machine would have been delayed considerably - better to get it in the field and hurry on to the improvement (tiger II).
P.S. To my knowledge there weren't any T-34's in the Winter War - "only" some KVs. | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 07:08 PM
|
#25 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,880
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Danielmellbin
P.S. To my knowledge there weren't any T-34's in the Winter War - "only" some KVs.
| I stand corrected then. Was the Tiger's development ahead of the Panther? It would seem that they got the sloped armour idea on the Panther....
__________________ | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 07:23 PM
|
#26 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote: |
The almost 90 degree armour meant that despite its armour thickness too many AT guns could "handle" it by 43/44
| That is actually not the case Daniel, cause you see the Tiger Ausf.E featured the best qaulity armour of any tank in the world. The armor used was 255 - 265 BHN RHA armour, which was so strong that the APDS rounds from the 17pdr were ineffective against it because of the shatter effect. The same applied for the new 76mm US tank gun which proved completely unable to penetrate the Tiger's frontal armour at any distance, despite being able to penetrate up to 100mm of armour at 1,000y in US tests. However against the Tiger's armour the US 76mm APBC projectile simply shattered on impact, much to the horror of US tankers who were promised that the new gun would be effective against the Tiger out to 1,000y, infact they couldn't even hurt it at 100y!
Heck at 300m the rounds from the 122mm D-25T would occasionally bounce off the Tiger Ausf.E's armour if any angle was present, as happened in a close range engagement during 44 which resulted in the IS-2 being knocked out in return by a straight hit to the front turret by the Tiger.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland
Last edited by Soren : 07-01-2008 at 07:27 PM.
| |
| | |
07-01-2008, 08:56 PM
|
#27 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 804
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird I stand corrected then. Was the Tiger's development ahead of the Panther? It would seem that they got the sloped armour idea on the Panther.... | The Panther was developed several years after the Tiger I; as Daniel pointed out, design on the Tiger I started in '37, right about the time the plans for the PzKpfw IV were finalized. The development of the Panther started when the Germans got a rude shock on the Eastern Front after running into the early Soviet T-34's; at that time, the T-34 totally outclassed the PzKpfw IV's the Germans had been using as main battle tanks up until then. Afterwards, the Germans decided they were never going to be surprised like that again. Originally, there was some thought of simply copying the T-34 outright but, fortunately, saner heads prevailed, and an original German design was developed. It combined the best features of the T-34, while using a conventional German internal layout. Reliability problems were initially encountered, especially on the brutal Easter Front, but by the late stages of the War ('44-'45), it was probably the best all-around tank in the world.
__________________  | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 09:06 PM
|
#28 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 250
| Soren - well thats new for me - was pretty certain that the 17pdr had a good chance at up to 1000yds or more. Wouldn't a steel of that hardness crack pretty easily? (- I mean - this is before BOS) | |
| | |
07-01-2008, 09:18 PM
|
#29 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| No 255 to 265 BHN is the ideal range for armour of the period, and not brittle at all. Brittle RHA armour is in the range of 350+ BHN.
Now remember Daniel that I was talking about the 17pdr's APDS projectile, NOT the APCBC projectile. The APCBC projectile was effective against the Tiger Ausf.E way past 1,000y, while the APDS projectile would shatter on impact.
Wittmann's Tiger was supposedly taken out by a Firefly at 800m. (Although some claim it was detroyed by rockets fired from a Typhoon) Regardless the 17pdr was definately capable of punching through the Tiger Ausf.E's frontal armour at the range and much further.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland
Last edited by Soren : 07-01-2008 at 09:23 PM.
| |
| | |
07-01-2008, 09:37 PM
|
#30 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 250
| erm... the APDS rounds was capable of and had a higher velocity. As such they could also penetrate more armour than the than the APCBC - however did less dammage upon penetration ofcourse.
As for Wittmann - nobody knows how it ended - lots of stories about but I've never seen any of them backed up so far. The two you mention are the most common - and make the most sense... | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 PM. | | |
