Best/favorite WW2 heavy tank

[Soren]

Daniel,

You don't understand I see. The APDS projectile was too weak, it shattered upon impact instead of penetrating, the Tiger's armour being much stronger. The APCBC projectile didn't have this problem.

So while the APDS projectile was capable of remarkable penetration performance against British test plates it failed miserably against the armour of the Tiger which was much tougher, experiencing something refered to as the "Shatter gap".

PS: Armour penetration is a combination of the velocity + weight (Kinetic energy), shape, size, hardness & ductility of the projectile.

[Danielmellbin]

Don't get me wrong - In 1944 I would rather be firing APCBC rounds.

But - a well made APDS round would/will penetrate more armour than a regular APCBC round. However the brittish APDS rounds where not very succesfull.

This was primarily due to accuracy issues caused mainly by the sabot - and the muzzlebreak on the 17pdr didn't exactly help. Furthermore the accuracy was also compromised by offset cores in these new rounds.

But 100mm of nonsloping Armour shattering the Tungsten Carbide Core of a 17pdr round at 1200m/s!? I dont see it happening...

[Soren]

Will a US army test report convince you ?

[parsifal]

I found a couple of interesting sites concerning the Tiger, which to me demonstrates their superiority over the opposition. Strange for me and Soren to be basically agreeing, but the tiger was the best tank of the war, and enjoyed considerable superiority over the russian equivalents (IS-2), for pretty much the reasons put forward by Soren.

Here are the links for people to look at

Achtung Panzer! - Tiger I

Tiger I Information Center | PanzerKampfwagen VI: The Legendary Tiger I

STMMain

[Soren]

The Russian site while implying the IS-2's armour was effective against most AT guns forgets to mention that the Tiger Ausf.B's 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 gun could punch a clean hole straight through the IS-2's turret & lower hull, front to back, at 4,000 + meters.

Even at 2,000m the IS-2 was highly vulnerable to the Tiger Ausf.E, which 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 gun easily could penetrate the IS-2's front turret at that distance.

[parsifal]

An interesting way to look at the tiger issue, is to assess its cost, as compared to other items. Though in my opinion the qualitative advantages of the Tiger ought not be questioned, I do wonder about its cost effectiveness

By way of comparison, here are some costs for other items of hardware available to the German army (costs are in RM)

PzKpfw II Ausf a 52640 with armament
PzKpfw II Ausf B 38000 w/o armament
PzKpfw II Ausf F 49228 w/o armament / 52728 with armament
Sturmpanzer II Bison 53000 with armament
PzKpfw III Ausf M 96183 w/o armament / 103163 w/o radio
Stug III Ausf G 82500 with armament & radio
PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 115962 with armament & radio
PzKpfw V Ausf A 174000 with armament & radio
75mm KwK 37 L/24 8000
75mm StuK 37 L/24 9150
75mm StuK 40 L/43 12500
75mm KwK 42 L/70 12000
PzKpfw VI Tiger 250800 w/o armament & radio / 299800 with armament & radio
PzKpfw VI Tiger II 321500 with armament & radio

Speer was absolutely disdainful of the tigers, seeing them as an absolute waste of resources. he constantly held up the Sherman as an example of true cost effectiveness (the Sherman 75 cost about US $35000 to produce....I dont know the currency conversion rate, but compared to the tiger, it was a fraction of the cost.

Rommel was also opposed to the exotic approach taken to the Panzerwaffe in the later years of the war. In his opinion, after 1943, the Germans would have been better off in investing in large numbers of AT guns rather than larger and larger tanks. When you consider that a 75mm AT gun only cost RM 12000, or that a Stug III cost RM 82000, this argument starts to make sense.

One has to compare the kill ratios of the tiger compared to non-tiger equipped units in order to gain some further perspective on this matter. The average kill/loss ratio for the tiger units were 5.74:1, whilst non-tiger equipped units managed a Kill/Loss ratio of 2.37:1 in the years 1943-45. If the ratio of non-Tiger equipped units are assumed to be an even mix of SGIII, PzIV and PzVs, the average cost of non-Tiger equipped units is 123000 per AFV, compared with approximately 310000 for the tiger equipped units. This translates to an average cost to Germany of RM55000 per kill with tiger Equipped units, as opposed to RM50000 for non-Tiger equipped units. In other words, it was slightly cheaper to kill enemy tanks with normal panzers, than it was with Tiger units

[Soren]

Interesting way to look at it Parsifal. However seeing that many Tiger equipped units achieved a kill/loss ratio greater than 7/1 the Tigers in these units were actually more cost efficient. But a factor which further increases the cost efficieny of the Tiger is the fact that one Tiger didn't use up as much fuel as two Panzer IV's.

[parsifal]

One of the Links i posted has the following Loss/Kill/ratio Loss summary for tiger equipped units

schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501: 120/450/3.75
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502: 107/1,400/13.08
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503: 252/1,700/6.75
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 504: 109/250/2.29
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 505: 126/900/7.14
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 506: 179/400/2.23
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 507: 104/600/5.77
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508: 78/100/1.28
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 509: 120/500/4.17
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 510: 65/200/3.08
13./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland: 6/100/16.67
III./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland: 98/500/5.10
13./SS-Panzerregiment 1: 42/400/9.52
8./SS-Panzerregiment 2: 31/250/8.06
9./SS-Panzerregiment 3: 56/500/8.93
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (501): 107/500/4.67
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 102 (502): 76/600/7.89
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (503): 39/500/12.82
Total: 1,715/9,850/5.74

The site suggests that this is the total number of Tiger equipped units.

Point taken about the fuel, there is also the cost about the crew training, and the higher cost of replacing MkIV crews because of the lower survivability of the AFV. Still, I cannot help but think that a simplified Panther would have been a better option for the Wehrmacht....

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by Soren

Will a US army test report convince you ?

probably - where is it?

[Soren]

First here's an extract from tests on a Pzkpfw.V Panther, note the Sabot round is even having trouble against the armour of the Panther which is of much lower quality than that on the Tiger. In the following tests the 17pdr APCBC does just as well as the 17pdr Sabot round.

3. Nature of Test
a. The above ammunitions were fired at the front plate of three Panther tanks. The general characteristics of the frontal armour are: Glacis Plate 85mm (3.35") at 55º and Nose Plate 65mm (2.56") at 55º. using U.S. armor basis curve, the verticle equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36") and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47"). Due to the inclination of the ground, the angle with the verticle of the glacis plates on the tanks used in this test were: 57º 34', 57º 05', and 56º 53'. The nose plate on one of the tanks tested measured 66.67mm (25/8").

b. Wide variation was found in the quality of glacis plate on the three tanks. Tank No.2 (hereafter referred to as the "best plate") sustained 30 hits as ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks Nos.1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "average plate") cracked after relatively few hits. All conclusions are, therefore, based solely on the relative performance of rounds fired at a single plate. Comparisons are not made between rounds fired at different plates. Also, the performance of any ammunition in this test cannot be considered a criterion as to the range at which it will penetrate the front plate of a Panther tank... [last few words of sentence are illegible].

c. Effectiveness was determined by balancing penetrations against the number of rounds fired and the number of hits obtained on the specific plate.

d. A penetration was defined as occuring only when the projectile passed completely through the plate. Only fair hits were considered in determining penetrations. Rounds striking edges of the plate, welds and junctions of the plate, and cracks in the plate were not fair hits.

e. The line of fire was approximately perpendicular to the lateral axis of the target tanks.

f. The 17pdr guns were fired by two superior British enlisted gunners. The 76mm gun was fired by two officers with considerable test firing experience.

4. Results of Test
a. A tabulation of the detailed results, with photographs, is attached as Appendix A1.

b. Accuracy

(1) A tabulation does not present a true picture of the comparative accuracy of the various ammunitions. With all the standard rounds, except 17pdr SABOT, the accuracy was such as to warrant attempting to hit specific parts of the front plates. In general this was successful, but some rounds fired at the lower glacis struck the upper nose, and vice versa. In addition, it was not possible to position all the tanks so that the nose was not, at least partially, hidden by the ground line. Therefore, it is felt that a better measure of accuracy can be obtained by considering the nose and glacis as one target.

(2) On this basis all twenty-two (22) rounds of 76mm HVAP, T4, and all twenty-three (23) rounds of 17pdr APCBC hit the target. Only one (1) of eight ( rounds of 76mm APC, M62, which fell short attempting to hit the nose, failed to hit the target. Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pdr SABOT were fired and only 57% [24 rounds] were hits. More rounds of 76mm APC, M62 were not fired since its accuracy had been well established in previous firing in the U.S. by two members of the board.

(3) Insufficient firing was conducted with 76mm HVAP projectile with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propellant to determine definite sight settings for a conclusive accuracy test. The results of the limited firing indicated that these rounds are of an accuracy comparable with 76mm HVAP and 17pdr APCBC.

c. Penetration

(1) At 600 yards, 17pdr APCBC penetrated the lower nose of tank No.1 (average plate), while 76mm HVAP failed to penetrate.

(2) At 400 yards, one round out of four fair hits of 17pdr SABOT penetrated the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). This was the only penetration of this plate by a fair hit with any of the ammunitions (including 76mm HVAP w/17pdr APBC propellant, 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant) at ranges 200 yards and over.

(3) At 400 yards, one round out of one fair hit with 17pdr APCBC and one round out of one hit with 17pdr SABOT penetrated the lower nose of tank No.2 (best plate). Both rounds of 76mm APC, M62 failed to penetrate, and one round of 76mm HVAP penetrated while the second round failed to penetrate. Two rounds out of two hits of 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant also penetrated.

(4) At 200 yards one fair hit with each of the standard ammunitions failed to penetrate the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). The relative depths of the partial penetrations at this range were as follows:
(a) 17pdr APCBC - 2"
(b) 17pdr SABOT - 1 7/8"
(c) 76mm HVAP - 1 5/16"
(d) 76mm APC, M62 - 1"

(5) At 200 yards firing at the glacis of tank No.3 (average plate) one round out of four fair hits with 76mm HVAP penetrated, this round, after partially penetrating, ...[illegible word]... and penetrated the plate ...[illegible word]... . One round of 17pdr SABOT penetrated and one round failed to penetrate at this range. One fair hit with 17pdr APCBC failed to penetrate, but cracked the plate. The second round striking within 6" of the first round penetrated.

(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this teast with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is expalined by Col. A. G. Cole, Deputy Director of Artillery, Ministry of Supply. Col. Cole witnessed part of the test and states that the ammunition lot furnished the board had not been proof fired. He further states that, in his opinion, the lot is of sub-standard manufacture and if proof fired would not have been accepted.

(7) 76mm APC, M62 fair hits which failed to penetrate caused no cracking of the plate of average quality. 76mm HVAP, 17pdr SABOT, and 17pdr APCBC caused cracking in varying degrees. In general, 17pdr APCBC caused greater damage to the plate than 17pdr SABOT or 76mm HVAP.

5. Findings
a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy. The board invites attention to the fact that its findings and conclusions apply only to the ammunition furnished it and may not apply to good quality 17pdr SABOT.

b. The accuracy of 76mm APC, M62 is satisfactory. However this ammunition is definitely inferior to either the 17pdr APCBC or the 76mm HVAP, T4, because of its poor penetrating power.

c. The 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4, are both highly accurate ammunitions. In the opinion of the members of the board, two of whom have had considerable experience test firing British and American tank and antitank weapons, the 76mm HVAP, T4 is the most accurate tank or antitank ammunition encountered to date.

d. The 17pdr APCBC is more effective against the front of a Panther tank than is the 76mm HVAP, T4. Its margin of superiority is not great. Neither one can be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate in one fair hit on average quality plate.

e. Combining 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr APCBC propellant offers no advantages over a standard ammunition.

f. Because of its accuracy and since the core is essentially the same as that in 17pdr SABOT, 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant may provide an ammunition superior to 17pdr SABOT as regards accuracy and to 17pdr APCBC and 76mm HVAP as regards penetration.

6. Conclusions
a. That the 17pdr SABOT of the lot tested is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition because of its inaccuracy.

b. That the 76mm APC, M62 is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition for use against heavy armor because of its inferior penetration.

c. That the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4 are considered the best antitank ammunitions available in these calibers for use against heavy armor. The 17pdr APCBC is somewhat superior to the 76mm HVAP, T4, against the Panther Tank. Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate.

d. That the possibilities should be investigated of using 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant, if 17pdr guns are made available to U.S. units.

Andrew P. O'Meara, Colonel, F.A., President.
Francis B. Shearer, Colonel, Ord, Member.
John B. Routh, Lt Col, F.A., Recorder.

[starling]

perhaps this is why allied tanks attempted to get in behind the mk6 tank.yours,starling.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by Soren

First here's an extract from tests on a Pzkpfw.V Panther, note the Sabot round is even having trouble against the armour of the Panther which is of much lower quality than that on the Tiger. In the following tests the 17pdr APCBC does just as well as the 17pdr Sabot round.

[i]3. Nature of Test
a. The above ammunitions were fired at the front plate of three Panther tanks. The general characteristics of the frontal armour are: Glacis Plate 85mm (3.35") at 55º and Nose Plate 65mm (2.56") at 55º. using U.S. armor basis curve, the verticle equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36") and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47").

Due to the angle in this test the armour is thicker than that of the Tiger I - and it can also deflect some of the shots.

Originally Posted by Soren

5. Findings
a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy. The board invites attention to the fact that its findings and conclusions apply only to the ammunition furnished it and may not apply to good quality 17pdr SABOT.

As you know this was my point all along!

-to get back on track- APDS ammo accounted for only some 6% of brittish AT crews ammo - and as such - The Tiger I was in trouble when faced with 17pdrs. Indeed it was in trouble when faced with mostly any AT-guns of 43/44 vintage. The King Tiger gave back the glory days of the Tiger I - having practically inpenetrable armour as was the case for the Tiger I in 42/43. The same goes for the gun - the L56 was begining to have some problems by 44 (although not many!) - the L71 "cured" this completely.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

Again - since only a small percentage of the AT crews ammo was APDS - then for all practical purposes the 17pdr was a threat to the Tiger I at 1000yds+ and didn't have to close to the ridiculous range you mentioned earlier.
Even if they had used APDS ammo then the problem would not have been penetrating power but rather - like I said at first - :accuracy.


All in all - The arrangement of the Tiger I's armour was by early '44 making it a waste of resources when compared to the Panther and King Tiger. (probably why it was taken out of production!).

Still waiting for any kind of proof of 100mm of nonsloping armour shattering a 17pdr APDS round's tungsten carbide core....

Originally Posted by Soren

Daniel,

You don't understand I see.

- didn't notice that part until now. You can skip the whole childish condescending part next time

[Soren]

Daniel,

The report clearly states:
The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC

As for the effectiveness of the Tiger Ausf.E's armour, you should read WWII Gunnery & Ballistics by Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin R. Bird. The shatter gap problem is mentioned there.

Also you should read up on the importance of BHN and its effect on armour effectiveness against AP projectiles, as well as face hardening and the difference between cast and rolled homogeneous armour.

Due to the angle in this test the armour is thicker than that of the Tiger I - and it can also deflect some of the shots.

That's not the point Daniel, the point is that the APDS fails to improve on penetration performance over the std. APCBC round! And so, like the board also concludes, what's the use of the round when it is also extremely inaccurate ??

Furthermore if you read Livingston & Rexford's book you'll notice that the effectiveness of the APDS round decreases radpidly with any slope, as does it for the APCR & HVAP rounds.

You can skip the whole childish condescending part next time

Never made any childish condescending remarks at all Daniel. So relax and leave be with the rollingeyes, ok?

Have a nice day.

[parsifal]

During WW II, the phenomenon known as shatter gap resulted in hits with too much penetration failing to defeat the armor.

The British noted this oddity in Libya and other North African areas, where rounds that could penetrate beyond 1000 yards would fail at shorter ranges, or hits would fail at short range and then start to penetrate further out.

The theory on shatter gap is that when hits penetrate on half the hits at a given velocity (the basis for most penetration data), there are certain impact forces on the projectile nose. If the velocity is increased and the armor thickness is held constant, the round moves armor out of the way faster, which leads to increased inertial forces on the ammo nose.

If the projectile nose is too soft, such that it absorbs much of the impact energy, the nose can shatter and break up. U.S. and Russian ammunition fell into the shatter gap nose hardness range (less than 59 Rockwell C). While British ammunition was harder than the threshold, some characteristic of the projectiles made it vulnerable to shatter gap.

With regard to Tiger armor, shatter gap normally occurs when the armor thickness is close to, equal to or thicker than the projectile diameter. U.S. 76mm APCBC hits on Tiger armor would fall into this category.

If 76mm APCBC hit the Tiger driver plate at 12° side angle, the resultant resistance would equal 109mm at 0°. With shatter gap, rounds fail when they have 1.05 to 1.25 times the armor resistance, which would result in M10 failures from point blank to 550 meters range, and then penetrate from 550m to 750m.

On M10 hits against the Tiger side armor at 30° side angle, the resistance would equal 103mm at 0°, and M10 hits would be expected to fail from point blank to 800m, and then penetrate from 800m to 1000m.

U.S. Navy tests during WW II against 3" armor at 30°, using 76mm APCBC, resulted in 50% penetration at about 2069 fps impact, and then the hits failed from 2073 fps through 2376 fps.

Firing tests with 75mm APCBC did not appear to result in shatter gap failures, suggesting that impact velocities above 2000 fps would be required for nose failure.

Prior to Normandy, the Americans calculated that their 76mm gun would be sufficient to stop Panthers and Tigers, since the 100mm frontal armor on those panzers could theoretically be penetrated to 1250m by M10's and 76mm armed Shermans. Shatter gap may be responsible, in part, for the sorry showing of those guns in France against heavy German armor.