| WW2 General Discuss Tank vs Tank in the World War II - General forums; My basic point was that the Konigstigers armour had no Molybdenum or Manganese content (maybe even no Nickel) so a ... |
My basic point was that the Konigstigers armour had no Molybdenum or Manganese content (maybe even no Nickel) so a 122mm round would make a 'scab' fly through the KT (like a HESH round) unless it hit it in the turret which would likely rip it clean off.
That is without it penetrating.
Any other vs ideas?
Likely? But didn't. Read combats against the King Tiger, they all destroy it from underneath, side or rear.
"When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004
To those in that club.
The sloped armor on the King Tiger deflected many rounds. A full-on hit from a 122mm round would have been devastating, but this was rarely the case.Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer
Dac's point is correct; 'shatter gap' and/or 'skate angle' is going to affect the results against the KT's glacis plate.
Shot down with my own weapon- thanks Dacs!
Then again this isn't guaranteed... (can't remember the probability)
However against the TigerI, this would not be the case:
http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_3.html
(IS2 vs Panther and Tiger 1 & 2)
http://www.battlefield.ru/su122.html
(Extremely short-barreled 122mm destroying a TigerI- from a German report!)
BTW: The D25T on the IS2/M was far, far better than this gun that destroyed a Tiger, admitted by Major Gomille, commander of III. (Tiger) Abteilung/Panzer Regiment.
Soviet projectiles:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_2.html#normaliz
Note; 'Normalisation' - this seems similar to the APCBC principle of Western rounds.
http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html
- Explains the effects of a 122mm HE round destroying a Panthers frontal armour (the AP bounced off!)
Whilst the 122mm AP destroyed a Tigers front at 1200m.
The lesson to remember is; don't judge Soviet designs by Western standards.
- That means you PlanD!
However, it mentions the IS2 armour quality issue.
To achieve good protection vs the '88' they could either increase armour; quality, thickness or slope - so they did all of them!
It states that the thickness was not changed, but I'm sure it was to 160mm (10mm over the max necessary!)
Also it says IS2M didn't exist WW2, but it's popular nomenclature anyway, so I'll always say IS2M!
It says that the 88mm KwK36 was unable to penetrate point-blank @ 30 degrees, thus making the Pak43 also unable at combat ranges (it doesn't say the latter though)
Again, as I have stated previously, the turret and (to a lesser degree) lower hull could be weak areas, so if the Tiger's gunner was on his mark...
I'd no idea the turret thickness was so little though!
I don't know about this Battlefield.ru site, seems highly biased to me.
Anyways...
Fact is there are absolutely no records of the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor ever being penetrated, and the 122mm D25-T gun wasnt even close to being capable of penetrating the front glacis on the Tiger Ausf.B. (Btw only nickel alloy was 'scarce' in the Tiger Ausf.B's armor)
As to the Tiger Mk.1 vs the JS-2, well I'd bet my money on the Tiger for sure. Tiger-I crews have reported JS-2 kills at distances of over 2km "Frontal engagements". The excellent sighting system in the Tiger is what allowed this of-cause.
("Reports state that in July of 1944, commander of 3rd company of schwere Panzer Abteilung 506, Captain Wakker, destroyed Soviet T-34 at the range of 3900 meters.")
The JS-2 on the other hand had a really poor sighting system, so the fact that it carried a really powerful gun didnt help it much, as it was unlikely even hitting a Tiger at more than 1000m away. But even at a distance of 1000m, it would be extremely difficult for the JS-2 to actually score a hit.
Infact the Tiger-I was a serious threat to the JS-2 even at a distance of 2km. The 88mm Kwk36 would afterall punch through 116mm of vertical armor at a distance of 2000m with its standard round, and 91mm at 30 degree's from vertical - U.S. test results.
Against the Tiger Ausf.B (Tiger II), the JS-2 only stands a chance if its a very close engagement where flanking maneuvers can be utilized to expose the Tiger's softer sides and rear. A long-range frontal attack against a Tiger Ausf.B would have been pure suicide, as the Tiger Ausf.B was designed and built exactly for this role, carrying the best AT gun of the war.
Correction, this was by Russian measuring methods, and thus equals 60 degree's from vertical by western measures.
Infact the Pak43 was capable of cleanly penetrating the JS-2's front glacis at more than 1500m away, while being capable of penetrating the front turret at distances exceeding 4.5km.
("It is reported that in early March of 1945, Lieutenant Beckmann from sPzJagAbt 88 destroyed Soviet IS-2 at the range of 4600 meters near Marzdorf.")
Nashorn crews also reported that they were able to knock out Soviet T-34 tanks at distances as great as 4000 meters, aswell as numerous kills of KV and IS-2 tanks as well as SU-152, ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns.
I'd think it was biased, but it isn't.
For eg. it says the early JS2 '44 could be penetrated by the 76.2mm ZiS-3!
and that the ZiS-3 could only penetrate a TigerI's side armour @ <200m!!
A KingTigers turret front was penetrated by a 100mm and right through the gunsight too by the looks of things - ouch!Fact is there are absolutely no records of the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor ever being penetrated
Also from what PlanD said, maybe the hull front too?
(which was also vulnerable)
Add to that the fact that the Porscheturm KT (1st 50) had a vulnerable shot-trap, like the Panther did 'till the late AusfG.
At point-blank, the 122mm could break 205mm of armour by sheer penetration.the 122mm D25-T gun wasnt even close to being capable of penetrating the front glacis on the Tiger Ausf.B.
Or rip the welds apart with HE!
To counter that:
However, from range, even a ricochet could be lethal; that big shell was capable of ripping Panther's turrets right off the hull!Dac's point is correct; 'shatter gap' and/or 'skate angle' is going to affect the results against the KT's glacis plate.
Also the bolts holding the radios to the turett walls would go ping-ponging around the turret, mechanical failure would also be likely.
I think crews have been killed by ammo and radios falling on them when this happens?
Also penetration doesn't really matter too much!
HESH rounds don't work by penetrating armour.
(IIRC HESH were available for the Soviet WW2 Naval 100mm?)
I know Molybdenum was scarce, I thought nickel wasn't!(Btw only nickel alloy was 'scarce' in the Tiger Ausf.B's armor)
PlanD said Manganeze wasn't available, I believe him. (he is from Sheffield after all!
Well even the earliest IS2's had >120mm hull armour, however as planD said it was very poor quality, also the crews didn't really know how to use the IS2.Infact the Tiger-I was a serious threat to the JS-2 even at a distance of 2km. The 88mm Kwk36 would afterall punch through 116mm of vertical armor at a distance of 2000m with its standard round, and 91mm at 30 degree's from vertical - U.S. test results
The turret was 90mm @ round though, so at 2km, yes it was vulnerable.
- Though some may have been 100mm @ round.
The IS2M was a lot harder to kill though.
Point blank they are about equal frontally, unless the K-Tiger is a 'quality' version.Against the Tiger Ausf.B (Tiger II), the JS-2 only stands a chance if its a very close engagement where flanking maneuvers can be utilized to expose the Tiger's softer sides and rear.
The 122mm could penetrate the KT's side/rear armour from quite a distance, say >1,500 km?
Yes, the KT should come out on top there (if it was decent quality).A long-range frontal attack against a Tiger Ausf.B would have been pure suicide, as the Tiger Ausf.B was designed and built exactly for this role
It was rarely used this way though.
The best gun of the war? - That is debatable, good contender though.carrying the best AT gun of the war.
Lots of Western measures get confused on this issue too!Correction, this was by Russian measuring methods, and thus equals 60 degree's from vertical by western measures.
60 degrees would make sense as it is the ballistic 'skate angle'.
Possible with APCR or APCBC.Infact the Pak43 was capable of cleanly penetrating the JS-2's front glacis at more than 1500m away
- But not plain AP.
I doubt that, but I will check.while being capable of penetrating the front turret at distances exceeding 4.5km.
90mm @ round is the same as a T34/85 (daft!) if a T34/85 was invulnerable at ranges >4km, then so was an IS2(M)!
I think the KV/85 and IS1/85 had 100mm of turret armour?
Thats a stupid step back, then again early T34's had 60mm of frontal armour, later to be 45mm!
Those are pictures of a stripped down KT being used as a test target, and the armor has been weakened considerably already by multiple hits all over.(Over 100 hits maybe) And as you pointed out yourself, the 100mm projectile hit the gun-sight, a VERY weak spot in the KT's front turret, thus it met very little resistance in the way of armor. Thus that test bares no resemblance what so ever to what the KT could really resist.A KingTigers turret front was penetrated by a 100mm and right through the gunsight too by the looks of things - ouch!
The KT's front glacis was not at all vulnerable to any 122mm D25-T round, at 'any' range. But after being hit possibly over a hundred times by other AT guns, weakening it significantly, it was bound to be penetrated at some point.Also from what PlanD said, maybe the hull front too?
(which was also vulnerable)
Very few KT's with Porsche turm's were manufactured.Add to that the fact that the Porscheturm KT (1st 50) had a vulnerable shot-trap, like the Panther did 'till the late AusfG.
According to Russian tests, against Russian test plates.At point-blank, the 122mm could break 205mm of armour by sheer penetration.That penetration figure would be quite abit lower against German armor.
Russian fairytale. The 122mm D25-T would never, under any circumstances, penetrate the KT's front glacis, period.However, from range, even a ricochet could be lethal; that big shell was capable of ripping Panther's turrets right off the hull!Dac's point is correct; 'shatter gap' and/or 'skate angle' is going to affect the results against the KT's glacis plate.
And do you know why ? Cause its impossible.
Your overestimating the power of the D25-T quite significantly.Also the bolts holding the radios to the turret walls would go ping-ponging around the turret, mechanical failure would also be likely.
A 122mm D25-T round hitting the KT's front glacis could most likely barely even be felt by the crew, as the noise of the engine and the vibration of the tank running over the terrain almost totally negated the vibration and sound of a round hitting it.
I've certainly never heard of such, as rounds and radio equipment is very safely secured inside the tank, and won't fall down just like that.I think crews have been killed by ammo and radios falling on them when this happens?
The IS-2 didn't have HESH rounds.Also penetration doesn't really matter too much!
HESH rounds don't work by penetrating armour.
(IIRC HESH were available for the Soviet WW2 Naval 100mm?)
The IS-2"M" had 100mm of frontal turret armor, and 90mm on the side.The IS2M was a lot harder to kill though.
No, the KT is very much superior in every way under such an engagement.Point blank they are about equal frontally, unless the K-Tiger is a 'quality' version.
Yes, even at 3,000m the D25-T could puncture the KT from the side, problem is the D25-T couldn't anything beyond 1200m.The 122mm could penetrate the KT's side/rear armour from quite a distance, say >1,500 km?
There is no question whether or not the KT comes out on top, it has all the advantages. The KT's gun for one is much superior in both penetration and accuracy, there's simply no way a IS-2 will win a long range engagement with a Tiger Ausf.B. (The IS-2 can't hit anything beyond 1200m anyway)Yes, the KT should come out on top there (if it was decent quality).
No, it was used quite often this way actually, just sitting and waiting for anything to come within sight of its Kwk43 gun.It was rarely used this way though.
The best "AT" gun put on a tank, it certainly was.The best gun of the war? - That is debatable, good contender though.
The KT only carried APCBC.Possible with APCR or APCBC.
- But not plain AP.
Schwartzpanzer, the Pak/Kwk43 would penetrate 124mm of vertical armor at a distance of 4.5km, and the IS-2M only has 100mm of vertical frontal turret armor.I doubt that, but I will check.
90mm @ round is the same as a T34/85 (daft!) if a T34/85 was invulnerable at ranges >4km, then so was an IS2(M)!
I think the KV/85 and IS1/85 had 100mm of turret armour?
Thats a stupid step back, then again early T34's had 60mm of frontal armour, later to be 45mm!
You're thinking about the Kubinka range KT?
- Not that one.
Not glacis, I said hull (underneath the glacis).The KT's front glacis was not at all vulnerable to any 122mm D25-T round, at 'any' range.
Anyway, at point blank it's just gonna cave in.
-Very few KT's with Porsche turm's were manufactured.(1st 50)No they were UK tests! <100m though.According to Russian tests, against Russian test plates.
It's possible, but unecessary, the 122mm didn't work by penetration.Russian fairytale. The 122mm D25-T would never, under any circumstances, penetrate the KT's front glacis, period.
I think not, armour would be chipped away and the steering clutches would likely be shot at the very least.A 122mm D25-T round hitting the KT's front glacis could most likely barely even be felt by the crew
The whole tank would likely even be forced backwards.
Similar principle, I actually think a few did (or was that SU-100?The IS-2 didn't have HESH rounds.)
If the IS2's 1st round missed and it didn't get out it was dead!No, the KT is very much superior in every way under such an engagement.
Also if the KT got the 1st shot in...
The KT was a mahoosive target though...problem is the D25-T couldn't anything beyond 1200m
Like it was in the Bulge/Ardennes?No, it was used quite often this way actually, just sitting and waiting for anything to come within sight of its Kwk43 gun.
If it was used like that it was near unstoppable, though hard to hide something that big.
The 90mm and 17 pounder were roughly equal, or better depending on your viewpoint.The best "AT" gun put on a tank, it certainly was.
No a variety was carried, the list is quite big; AP, APCBC, HE, APCR, 7.92mm etc, etcThe KT only carried APCBC.
90mm of rounded armour actually.the IS-2M only has 100mm of vertical frontal turret armor.
Found this link for those who have time and passion to read a 150 pages thesis about the strategic use of the Panzer VI, plus kill ratios, technical data etc.
http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/coll2/image/305.pdf
good reading...
"God is dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882
"Nietzsche too" - God, Aug 25, 1900
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams
In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. - Douglas Adams
There isnt any other Schwartzpanzer...You're thinking about the Kubinka range KT?
- Not that one.
Infact there are no combat records what so ever of the front of a Tiger Ausf.B ever being penetrated, and thats a darn fact Schwartzpanzer.
It wouldnt penetrate that neither Scwartzpanzer.Not glacis, I said hull (underneath the glacis).
No, its either going to bounce off, or shatter. ("Alot" of Russian AT projectiles shattered, mainly because of their poor quality)Anyway, at point blank it's just gonna cave in.
Would you call that alot ?(1st 50)
Ok, conducted where exactly ? (Please note before you answer, that I know where all UK tests with captured guns were carried out)No they were UK tests! <100m though.
Schwartzpanzer, the 122mm D25-T wouldnt cause spalling on the glacis either, if thats what your implying.It's possible, but unecessary, the 122mm didn't work by penetration.
Chipped away ?! Schwartzpanzer the round would simply bounce off, leaving only a deep dent in the armor.I think not, armour would be chipped away
Your kidding me right ?!and the steering clutches would likely be shot at the very least.
The whole tank would likely even be forced backwards.
I hope you were joking when you said that...
NO schwartzpanzer, the tank would NOT move backwards, not even an inch.
No, they didnt have it.Similar principle, I actually think a few did (or was that SU-100?
Even if the IS-2, under some miracle, got the first shot in, it was still doomed to lose in such an engagement. The 122mm D25-T was simply so inefficient at long ranges, that it posed no threat what so ever to a Tiger Ausf.B in such a scenario.If the IS2's 1st round missed and it didn't get out it was dead!
Also if the KT got the 1st shot in...
At long ranges such as 1000m or more, that has almost zero importance.The KT was a mahoosive target though...
They weren't even close Schwartzpanzer....The 90mm and 17 pounder were roughly equal, or better depending on your viewpoint.
No the list isnt big at all Schwartzpanzer. The only AP ammunition carried for the Kwk43 in the Tiger Ausf.B, was the APCBC. The HE ammunition was for infantry targets.No a variety was carried, the list is quite big; AP, APCBC, HE, APCR,
APCR wasnt carried as "There was none!". German tungsten supplies had ran out already in late 43, so the remaining tungsten was issued only to the small AT guns ammunition, as these were worthless without it.
Now why the heck would you mention the 7.92mm ammunition while we're talking ammunition for the main gun ?7.92mm etc, etc
No, 100mm of armor actually, the sides of the turret were 90mm thick90mm of rounded armour actually.
I'll get it sometime.Infact there are no combat records what so ever of the front of a Tiger Ausf.B ever being penetrated, and thats a darn fact Schwartzpanzer.
The hull was not as heavily armoured, though the big 122mm shell would be a disadvantage there.It wouldnt penetrate that neither Scwartzpanzer.
Those are possibilities, true.No, its either going to bounce off, or shatter.
Well, no,Would you call that alot ?but KT production wasn't that large...
They were IIRC used on the Western front only?
Bovington IIRC.Ok, conducted where exactly ?
That is indeed what I'm implying!Schwartzpanzer, the 122mm D25-T wouldnt cause spalling on the glacis either, if thats what your implying.
Even the short 122mm of the S122 (which was far inferior to the D25T) did that to a TigerI (whose armour was far better quality than the KT's).Chipped away ?! Schwartzpanzer the round would simply bounce off, leaving only a deep dent in the armor.
At less than 600m? The 1st shot would likely win it.Even if the IS-2, under some miracle, got the first shot in, it was still doomed to lose in such an engagement. The 122mm D25-T was simply so inefficient at long ranges, that it posed no threat what so ever to a Tiger Ausf.B in such a scenario.
It doesn't. If t did, every little helps... At range, less 'lead' is needed. The KT was also slow...At long ranges such as 1000m or more, that has almost zero importance.
The were equal or better IMHO. Penetration, RoF, weight etc.They weren't even close Schwartzpanzer....
What do you judge guns on??
No, APCR and APFDS were rare and very rare respectively. BTW IIRC I don't think HVAP (APCR) was available for the 122mm?The only AP ammunition carried for the Kwk43 in the Tiger Ausf.B, was the APCBC.
Also retro ammo may be used, '88' KwK36 etc.
I know that!The HE ammunition was for infantry targets.
There was some. Actually, in '44 all supplies went to machine tool production, it didn't run out in '43.APCR wasnt carried as "There was none!". German tungsten supplies had ran out already in late 43, so the remaining tungsten was issued only to the small AT guns ammunition, as these were worthless without it.
You're thinking about squeeze-bore, not APCR?
Definately 90mm.No, 100mm of armor actually,
Honestly can't remember.the sides of the turret were 90mm thick
No, it gives better protection, look at the IS3's 'inverted frying pan' turret.And rounded armor is also vertical.
- Unless it acts as a shot-trap, of course!
I'll be waiting patiently..
It was heavily enough armored to stop the 122mm D25-T's shell, I can assure you of that !The hull was not as heavily armoured, though the big 122mm shell would be a disadvantage there.
No, thats what is going to happen.Those are possibilities, true.
True, but still 50 ain't much at all.Well, no,
Yes.They were IIRC used on the Western front only?
No.Bovington IIRC.
Well then your wrong.That is indeed what I'm implying!
Even the short 122mm of the S122 (which was far inferior to the D25T) did that to a TigerI (whose armour was far better quality than the KT's).
You must be kidding me Schwartzpanzer !
Your not seriously comparing the 100mm "Vertical" hull armor of the Tiger Ausf.E, with the 100mm "55 degree sloped" hull armor of the Tiger Ausf.B !
Don't you know what happens when projectiles hit sloped armor as apposed to vertical armor ??
And btw where have you heard that story of yours about the SU-122 ?
Not a chance !At less than 600m? The 1st shot would likely win it.
Unless it hits the KT's gun barrel of-cause
Considering the D25-T's already poor accuracy, it has almost zero importance.It doesn't. If t did, every little helps...
The longer the range, the longer ahead of the targets axis of movement you'll have to aim. (Depending on the targets speed of-cause)At range, less 'lead' is needed.
Thats not going to help the IS-2 at all in a long range engagement, as all the Tiger has to do in such a scenario is to stay put, and open fire at the IS-2 which can do nothing but retreat and try to avoid being blown to pieces.The KT was also slow...
If thats what your sources are telling you, then you desperately need to check 'their' sources, cause thats an outright lie !The were equal or better IMHO.
Penetration at all angles, weight, optics and RoF etc etc.. all these mixed together is what counts..Penetration, RoF, weight etc.
What do you judge guns on??
In penetration power the Kwk43 clearly beats the 90mm M3 and 17pdr, no match. (The 17pdr being the closest to the Kwk43)
As to the optics, well the 17pdr and 90mm M3 both fall awfully short compared to the Kwk43 here as-well.
In weight, well all three weighed alot, the Kwk43 being the heaviest, but the Kwk43's weight is fully outweighed by its performance, that can't be said about the 90mm M3.
In RoF, well they are all pretty equal there. The Kwk43 might be a tad slower because of the large size of its rounds, but its excellent firing system more than compensates for that.
However I must add, for its size the 17pdr was truly excellent, and overall very close to the Kwk43. However the 17pdr lacked the Kwk43's HE capability and advanced optics, both of which are very important on the battlefield.
No Schwartzpanzer, I'm telling you the Tiger Ausf.B didnt use APCR rounds (And especially not APFDS cause no Tiger ever used that!), Why ? Cause there was none !.No, APCR and APFDS were rare and very rare respectively.
German tungsten supplies had ran out in late 43, so there was none for the medium-heavy tanks as the little that remained was to be used in ammunition for small AT guns only, cause they were useless without it.
No thats right.BTW IIRC I don't think HVAP (APCR) was available for the 122mm?
The Tiger Ausf.E had stopped using APCR rounds already in 43, so there was nothing left for the Tiger Ausf.B to use !Also retro ammo may be used, '88' KwK36 etc.
Besides APCBC rounds were much more effective against tanks than APCR rounds anyway, as APCR rounds were "alot" more prone to bounce off sloped armor than the APCBC rounds. The APCR was only really effective against vertical, or lightly sloped armor. Above 35 degree's impact angle, and the APCR's penetration performance drops significantly ! (Same goes for the British APDS round)
Also the APCR didnt explode after penetration, while most APCBC rounds did. And exactly this deadly feature is what would spell instant death for the entire crew of the tank which was penetrated, as the pressure of the explosion would set off the tanks ammunition, blowing it up. (The Germans and Americans both utilized this feature in their APCBC rounds)
Yes, thats right, but apart from that it is mainly to be used against infantry, and AP rounds are also preferred against light tanks, as HE rounds arent nearly as accurate.but HE can destroy a light tank or say a Cromwells flank...
Nope.There was some. Actually, in '44 all supplies went to machine tool production, it didn't run out in '43.
You're thinking about squeeze-bore, not APCR?
No, 100mm. (Some source's even quote 160mm in some places)Definately 90mm.
The IS-I has 90mm of frontal turret armor.
Well, they are.Honestly can't remember.
And a piece of good advice; Don't rely purely on your memory, thats a mistake far to often made, rather check up on the facts in a book from a respectable source.
Yes, overall it does provide better protection, but it is vertical at some point, making it very vulnerable to AP rounds.No, it gives better protection, look at the IS3's 'inverted frying pan' turret.
Yes that too.- Unless it acts as a shot-trap, of course!
Hopefully, it'll be sooner rather than later.I'll be waiting patiently..
I'm meaning under the glacis.It was heavily enough armored to stop the 122mm D25-T's shell, I can assure you of that !
Not 100% chance, you must admit?No, thats what is going to happen.
Agreed.True, but still 50 ain't much at all.
Thanks for the Porscheturm info.
The records were at Bovington. Ages ago though.
The Russians said this was only on the KT's of poor quality though.Well then your wrong.
I'm talking about hardness and malleability etc.Your not seriously comparing the 100mm "Vertical" hull armor of the Tiger Ausf.E, with the 100mm "55 degree sloped" hull armor of the Tiger Ausf.B !
I can get the link.And btw where have you heard that story of yours about the SU-122 ?
Theres a great likelihood, equal on either side.Not a chance !
It had poor accuracy, but historians inflate it. It was reasonably accurate to >1000m, though the optics weren't in the KT's league and a higher velocity is almost always an advantage for 'sniping'. It's like the AK47 really.Considering the D25-T's already poor accuracy, it has almost zero importance.
You've got that the wrong way round.The longer the range, the longer ahead of the targets axis of movement you'll have to aim. (Depending on the targets speed of-cause)
A KT cannot manouvre out of an ambush (especially on poor terrain), this claimed many.Thats not going to help the IS-2 at all in a long range engagement, as all the Tiger has to do in such a scenario is to stay put
All published data says (roughly) the same story. I've never heard too different? though they do vary of course. Some of my sources have died BTW.If thats what your sources are telling you, then you desperately need to check 'their' sources, cause thats an outright lie !
I know that, when firing APCBC, the 90mm is superior, though I dunno if that was used much WW2?In penetration power the Kwk43 clearly beats the 90mm M3 and 17pdr, no match. (The 17pdr being the closest to the Kwk43)
SVDS/APDS in the 17pdr is superior to '88' APCBC, except for the reasons you gave.
True, but not too much?As to the optics, well the 17pdr and 90mm M3 both fall awfully short compared to the Kwk43 here as-well.
True, though the weight/performance ratio of the '88' was bad IMHO.In weight, well all three weighed alot, the Kwk43 being the heaviest, but the Kwk43's weight is fully outweighed by its performance, that can't be said about the 90mm M3.
I remember a story of a destroyed Tiger where the deciding factor was a knackered loader!In RoF, well they are all pretty equal there. The Kwk43 might be a tad slower because of the large size of its rounds, but its excellent firing system more than compensates for that.
Bang-on.However the 17pdr lacked the Kwk43's HE capability and advanced optics, both of which are very important on the battlefield.
It even had an official designation, PzGr41/43 IIRC?No Schwartzpanzer, I'm telling you the Tiger Ausf.B didnt use APCR rounds (And especially not APFDS cause no Tiger ever used that!), Why ? Cause there was none !.
German tungsten supplies had ran out in late 43, so there was none for the medium-heavy tanks as the little that remained was to be used in ammunition for small AT guns only, cause they were useless without it.
BTW:- Try not to use that, it's like a red rag to a bull!I'm telling you
Cheers for the HVAP info.
I'm in slight disagreement there.The Tiger Ausf.E had stopped using APCR rounds already in 43, so there was nothing left for the Tiger Ausf.B to use !
Besides APCBC rounds were much more effective against tanks than APCR rounds anyway, as APCR rounds were "alot" more prone to bounce off sloped armor than the APCBC rounds. The APCR was only really effective against vertical, or lightly sloped armor. Above 35 degree's impact angle, and the APCR's penetration performance drops significantly ! (Same goes for the British APDS round)
Yes, but solid shot gives better penetration, research shows that APHE just isn't worth it.Also the APCR didnt explode after penetration, while most APCBC rounds did. And exactly this deadly feature is what would spell instant death for the entire crew of the tank which was penetrated, as the pressure of the explosion would set off the tanks ammunition, blowing it up. (The Germans and Americans both utilized this feature in their APCBC rounds)
Yup.Yes, thats right, but apart from that it is mainly to be used against infantry, and AP rounds are also preferred against light tanks, as HE rounds arent nearly as accurate.
160mm was the glacis thickness of the late IS2.No, 100mm. (Some source's even quote 160mm in some places)
The IS-I has 90mm of frontal turret armor.
Do you have a source?
e.g. some T34's had 60mm glacis, most 45mm.
Yes, but when I'm unsure, I always try use language/grammer that makes it known that I'm unsure? but sometimes I know I'm right!And a piece of good advice; Don't rely purely on your memory, thats a mistake far to often made, rather check up on the facts in a book from a respectable source.
Yes, the IS2's front turret/mantlet is weird; small target but relatively easy to hit.Yes, overall it does provide better protection, but it is vertical at some point, making it very vulnerable to AP rounds.
Yes, and so am I, its called the "Hull".I'm meaning under the glacis.
99.999%.Not 100% chance, you must admit?
Yes, thats what the Soviets said 'after' they had bombarded the Tiger Ausf.B with hundreds of shells with different caliber. (The Soviets never were to thorough with their tests)The Russians said this was only on the KT's of poor quality though.
That made almost no difference, because the Tiger Ausf.B's armor was as highly sloped as it was. And besides the quality of the Tiger Ausf.B's armor wasnt nearly as poor as some believe it to be.I'm talking about hardness and malleability etc.
The link ? Would you call that a respectable and reliable source ?I can get the link.
Absolutely not !Theres a great likelihood, equal on either side.
I havent run across any 'respectable' source who've inflated this at all.It had poor accuracy, but historians inflate it.
Fact is the 122mm D25-T gun was a 'really' poor shot beyond 800m.
Beyond 800m the 122mm D25-T is worth nearly nothing as a AT gun, and can only really be used as an Anti-Personnel gun.It was reasonably accurate to >1000m, though the optics weren't in the KT's league and a higher velocity is almost always an advantage for 'sniping'.
I don't really know what you mean ?It's like the AK47 really.
No, I've got that exactly right, you've just miss understood it. (Remember I mentioned the targets "Axis of movement" ?You've got that the wrong way round.
Its simple really, as it takes a round longer to reach its target the further away it is, and therefore the more deflection (Aiming ahead) is necessary to insure a hit.
Against a stationary target no deflection is necessary, and the gun only has to be elevated (Lowered/Raised) to hit at the exact range of the target.
Claims...A KT cannot manouvre out of an ambush (especially on poor terrain), this claimed many.
The Tiger Ausf.B was actually surprisingly maneuverable on rough ground for its size, and by no means as cumbersome as some believe.
Besides we're talking a long range engagement here, so an ambush is impossible.
But I do agree however that the Tiger Ausf.B would be at a disadvantage in a 'close in' ambush, mostly because of its size and long barreled gun.
Then you haven't been reading much lately !All published data says (roughly) the same story. I've never heard too different?
What ?! No !I know that, when firing APCBC, the 90mm is superior, though I dunno if that was used much WW2?
The 88mm Kwk43 heavily outperforms the 90mm M3 with APCBC rounds ! The 90mm M3 was barely better than the 88mm Kwk36, and equal at best to the 75mm Kwk42.
I mean that shouldn't be to hard figure out by yourself.
The 90mm M3 fires a 10.9kg projectile only at a mere 853m/s, compared to the 88mm Kwk43 which fires a 10.4kg projectile in excess of 1000m/s. Thats a difference of about 1,400 KJ in energy alone !
And this difference in power also clearly shows itself in the official armor penetration tests of the two guns;
88mm Kwk43 penetration data:
Penetrated 132mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000m - Official German testing with standard Pzgr.39/43 "APCBC" round.
Penetrated 139mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,187y - Official British testing with standard Pzgr.39/43 "APCBC" round.
Penetrated 178mm of vertical armor at 2,187y - Official U.S. testing with standard Pzgr.39/43 "APCBC" round.
90mm M3 penetration data:
Penetrated 106mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000y - Official U.S. testing with standard M82 "APC" round. (The only round for the 90mm M3 to be used in WW2)
Penetrated 109mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000y - Official U.S. testing with T33 "APC" round. (This round was developed after WW2)
Not even the cumbersome 'separately loading' 90mm T15 gun on the Super-Pershing could duplicate the 88mm Kwk43's penetration performance with similar AP rounds;
90mm T15 penetration data:
Penetrated 122mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000y - Official U.S. testing with T43 "APBC" projectile. (The APBC projectile had no explosive filler)
---------------------------------------
Note: German conducted tests used a more strict criteria for penetration and were against better quality armor than Allied tests.
(U.S. conducted tests were of somewhat low criteria, as the round didnt even have to pass completely through the plate to be considered a penetration)
Yes, against vertical armor the APDS round is superior to the APCBC round, penetration wise that is. However the British APDS rounds of WW2 were highly inaccurate, absolutely useless beyond 700m, and would often bounce off armor it should've normally penetrated.SVDS/APDS in the 17pdr is superior to '88' APCBC, except for the reasons you gave.
The 17pdr was much better off just using its already very effective APCBC round, as the gun itself was already powerful enough to threaten almost any German tank at long range with this round. And crews also highly preferred the APCBC round as it did much better against German tanks during the war than the APDS round.
Yes, "too much". The Tiger's optics were very much better.True, but not too much?
No ! The 88mm Kwk43 has a excellent weight/performance ratio, much better than the 90mm M3's !True, though the weight/performance ratio of the '88' was bad IMHO.
Yeah, what a 'story' huh ?I remember a story of a destroyed Tiger where the deciding factor was a knackered loader!
Yes, its Pzgr.40 or Pzgr.40/43.It even had an official designation, PzGr41/43 IIRC?
Well I didn't mean to offend you Schwartzpanzer, but try to look at it from my point of view... wouldn't you be just a tad irritated if someone persisted not to listen to what you know is the truth and kept stating something which isnt the truth at all ? (Don't take this as me saying your lying, cause I'm not, just saying that your source is faulty)BTW:- Try not to use that, it's like a red rag to a bull!I'm telling you
Well thats your choice, Im just presenting the facts.I'm in slight disagreement there.
Whoever mentioned APHE rounds ?Yes, but solid shot gives better penetration, research shows that APHE just isn't worth it.
A APCBC round and a APHE round are two completely different rounds, both relying on different ways to penetrate armor.
The U.S. and Germany both used APCBC rounds/Solid shot rounds with small explosive fillers inside which would explode after penetration, and this had no adverse effect on the penetration ability of the round at all, as the round still relies on its KE to penetrate the armor. (Not on a large explosion like the APHE round)
No, that was 120mm sloped at 60 degree's from vertical.160mm was the glacis thickness of the late IS2.
Yes, many.Do you have a source?
Even Battlefield.ru mentions those figures
None had a 60mm glacis, they all had a 45mm glacis sloped at 60 degree's from vertical.e.g. some T34's had 60mm glacis, most 45mm.
OkYes, but when I'm unsure, I always try use language/grammer that makes it known that I'm unsure? but sometimes I know I'm right!
Well it was one the first places German gunners would aim at (along with the lower hull), as a penetration there would almost always insure a 'total' destruction of the IS-2.Yes, the IS2's front turret/mantlet is weird; small target but relatively easy to hit.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks