Tank vs Tank

[schwarzpanzer]

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?

[plan_D]

Likely? But didn't. Read combats against the King Tiger, they all destroy it from underneath, side or rear.

[Dac]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

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?

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.

[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.

[schwarzpanzer]

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!

[Soren]

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.

Originally Posted by Schwarzpanzer

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)

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.

[schwarzpanzer]

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!!

Fact is there are absolutely no records of the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor ever being penetrated

A KingTigers turret front was penetrated by a 100mm and right through the gunsight too by the looks of things - ouch!

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.

the 122mm D25-T gun wasnt even close to being capable of penetrating the front glacis on the Tiger Ausf.B.

At point-blank, the 122mm could break 205mm of armour by sheer penetration.

Or rip the welds apart with HE!

To counter that:

Dac's point is correct; 'shatter gap' and/or 'skate angle' is going to affect the results against the KT's glacis plate.

However, from range, even a ricochet could be lethal; that big shell was capable of ripping Panther's turrets right off the hull!

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?)

(Btw only nickel alloy was 'scarce' in the Tiger Ausf.B's armor)

I know Molybdenum was scarce, I thought nickel wasn't!

PlanD said Manganeze wasn't available, I believe him. (he is from Sheffield after all! )

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

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.

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.

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.

Point blank they are about equal frontally, unless the K-Tiger is a 'quality' version.

The 122mm could penetrate the KT's side/rear armour from quite a distance, say >1,500 km?

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

Yes, the KT should come out on top there (if it was decent quality).

It was rarely used this way though.

carrying the best AT gun of the war.

The best gun of the war? - That is debatable, good contender though.

Correction, this was by Russian measuring methods, and thus equals 60 degree's from vertical by western measures.

Lots of Western measures get confused on this issue too!

60 degrees would make sense as it is the ballistic 'skate angle'.

Infact the Pak43 was capable of cleanly penetrating the JS-2's front glacis at more than 1500m away

Possible with APCR or APCBC.

- But not plain AP.

while being capable of penetrating the front turret at distances exceeding 4.5km.

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!

[Soren]

A KingTigers turret front was penetrated by a 100mm and right through the gunsight too by the looks of things - ouch!

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.

Also from what PlanD said, maybe the hull front too?
(which was also vulnerable)

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.

Add to that the fact that the Porscheturm KT (1st 50) had a vulnerable shot-trap, like the Panther did 'till the late AusfG.

Very few KT's with Porsche turm's were manufactured.

At point-blank, the 122mm could break 205mm of armour by sheer penetration.

According to Russian tests, against Russian test plates. That penetration figure would be quite abit lower against German armor.

However, from range, even a ricochet could be lethal; that big shell was capable of ripping Panther's turrets right off the hull!

Russian fairytale. The 122mm D25-T would never, under any circumstances, penetrate the KT's front glacis, period.

And do you know why ? Cause its impossible.

Also the bolts holding the radios to the turret walls would go ping-ponging around the turret, mechanical failure would also be likely.

Your overestimating the power of the D25-T quite significantly.

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 think crews have been killed by ammo and radios falling on them when this happens?

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.

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 didn't have HESH rounds.

The IS2M was a lot harder to kill though.

The IS-2"M" had 100mm of frontal turret armor, and 90mm on the side.

Point blank they are about equal frontally, unless the K-Tiger is a 'quality' version.

No, the KT is very much superior in every way under such an engagement.

The 122mm could penetrate the KT's side/rear armour from quite a distance, say >1,500 km?

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.

Yes, the KT should come out on top there (if it was decent quality).

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)

It was rarely used this way though.

No, it was used quite often this way actually, just sitting and waiting for anything to come within sight of its Kwk43 gun.

The best gun of the war? - That is debatable, good contender though.

The best "AT" gun put on a tank, it certainly was.

Possible with APCR or APCBC.

- But not plain AP.

The KT only carried APCBC.

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!

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.

[schwarzpanzer]

You're thinking about the Kubinka range KT?

- Not that one.

The KT's front glacis was not at all vulnerable to any 122mm D25-T round, at 'any' range.

Not glacis, I said hull (underneath the glacis).

Anyway, at point blank it's just gonna cave in.

Very few KT's with Porsche turm's were manufactured.

-

(1st 50)

According to Russian tests, against Russian test plates.

No they were UK tests! <100m though.

Russian fairytale. The 122mm D25-T would never, under any circumstances, penetrate the KT's front glacis, period.

It's possible, but unecessary, the 122mm didn't work by penetration.

A 122mm D25-T round hitting the KT's front glacis could most likely barely even be felt by the crew

I think not, armour would be chipped away and the steering clutches would likely be shot at the very least.

The whole tank would likely even be forced backwards.

The IS-2 didn't have HESH rounds.

Similar principle, I actually think a few did (or was that SU-100? )

No, the KT is very much superior in every way under such an engagement.

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...

problem is the D25-T couldn't anything beyond 1200m

The KT was a mahoosive target though...

No, it was used quite often this way actually, just sitting and waiting for anything to come within sight of its Kwk43 gun.

Like it was in the Bulge/Ardennes?

If it was used like that it was near unstoppable, though hard to hide something that big.

The best "AT" gun put on a tank, it certainly was.

The 90mm and 17 pounder were roughly equal, or better depending on your viewpoint.

The KT only carried APCBC.

No a variety was carried, the list is quite big; AP, APCBC, HE, APCR, 7.92mm etc, etc

the IS-2M only has 100mm of vertical frontal turret armor.

90mm of rounded armour actually.

[Parmigiano]

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...

[Soren]

You're thinking about the Kubinka range KT?

- Not that one.

There isnt any other Schwartzpanzer...

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.

Not glacis, I said hull (underneath the glacis).

It wouldnt penetrate that neither Scwartzpanzer.

Anyway, at point blank it's just gonna cave in.

No, its either going to bounce off, or shatter. ("Alot" of Russian AT projectiles shattered, mainly because of their poor quality)

(1st 50)

Would you call that alot ?

No they were UK tests! <100m though.

Ok, conducted where exactly ? (Please note before you answer, that I know where all UK tests with captured guns were carried out)

It's possible, but unecessary, the 122mm didn't work by penetration.

Schwartzpanzer, the 122mm D25-T wouldnt cause spalling on the glacis either, if thats what your implying.

I think not, armour would be chipped away

Chipped away ?! Schwartzpanzer the round would simply bounce off, leaving only a deep dent in the armor.

and the steering clutches would likely be shot at the very least.

Your kidding me right ?!

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.

Similar principle, I actually think a few did (or was that SU-100? )

No, they didnt have it.

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...

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.

The KT was a mahoosive target though...

At long ranges such as 1000m or more, that has almost zero importance.

The 90mm and 17 pounder were roughly equal, or better depending on your viewpoint.

They weren't even close Schwartzpanzer....

No a variety was carried, the list is quite big; AP, APCBC, HE, APCR,

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.

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.

7.92mm etc, etc

Now why the heck would you mention the 7.92mm ammunition while we're talking ammunition for the main gun ?

90mm of rounded armour actually.

No, 100mm of armor actually, the sides of the turret were 90mm thick And rounded armor is also vertical.

[schwarzpanzer]

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.

I'll get it sometime.

It wouldnt penetrate that neither Scwartzpanzer.

The hull was not as heavily armoured, though the big 122mm shell would be a disadvantage there.

No, its either going to bounce off, or shatter.

Those are possibilities, true.

Would you call that alot ?

Well, no, but KT production wasn't that large...

They were IIRC used on the Western front only?

Ok, conducted where exactly ?

Bovington IIRC.

Schwartzpanzer, the 122mm D25-T wouldnt cause spalling on the glacis either, if thats what your implying.

That is indeed what I'm implying!

Chipped away ?! Schwartzpanzer the round would simply bounce off, leaving only a deep dent in the armor.

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).

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.

At less than 600m? The 1st shot would likely win it.

At long ranges such as 1000m or more, that has almost zero importance.

It doesn't. If t did, every little helps... At range, less 'lead' is needed. The KT was also slow...

They weren't even close Schwartzpanzer....

The were equal or better IMHO. Penetration, RoF, weight etc.
What do you judge guns on??

The only AP ammunition carried for the Kwk43 in the Tiger Ausf.B, was the APCBC.

No, APCR and APFDS were rare and very rare respectively. BTW IIRC I don't think HVAP (APCR) was available for the 122mm?

Also retro ammo may be used, '88' KwK36 etc.

The HE ammunition was for infantry targets.

I know that! but HE can destroy a light tank or say a Cromwells flank...

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.

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 of armor actually,

Definately 90mm.

the sides of the turret were 90mm thick

Honestly can't remember.

And rounded armor is also vertical.

No, it gives better protection, look at the IS3's 'inverted frying pan' turret.

- Unless it acts as a shot-trap, of course!

[Soren]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

I'll get it sometime.

I'll be waiting patiently..

The hull was not as heavily armoured, though the big 122mm shell would be a disadvantage there.

It was heavily enough armored to stop the 122mm D25-T's shell, I can assure you of that !

Those are possibilities, true.

No, thats what is going to happen.

Well, no, but KT production wasn't that large...

True, but still 50 ain't much at all.

They were IIRC used on the Western front only?

Yes.

Bovington IIRC.

No.

That is indeed what I'm implying!

Well then your wrong.

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 ?

At less than 600m? The 1st shot would likely win it.

Not a chance !

Unless it hits the KT's gun barrel of-cause

It doesn't. If t did, every little helps...

Considering the D25-T's already poor accuracy, it has almost zero importance.

At range, less 'lead' is needed.

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)

The KT was also slow...

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 were equal or better IMHO.

If thats what your sources are telling you, then you desperately need to check 'their' sources, cause thats an outright lie !

Penetration, RoF, weight etc.
What do you judge guns on??

Penetration at all angles, weight, optics and RoF etc etc.. all these mixed together is what counts..

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, APCR and APFDS were rare and very rare respectively.

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 IIRC I don't think HVAP (APCR) was available for the 122mm?

No thats right.

Also retro ammo may be used, '88' KwK36 etc.

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)

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)

but HE can destroy a light tank or say a Cromwells flank...

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.

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?

Nope.

Definately 90mm.

No, 100mm. (Some source's even quote 160mm in some places)

The IS-I has 90mm of frontal turret armor.

Honestly can't remember.

Well, they are.

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.

No, it gives better protection, look at the IS3's 'inverted frying pan' turret.

Yes, overall it does provide better protection, but it is vertical at some point, making it very vulnerable to AP rounds.

- Unless it acts as a shot-trap, of course!

Yes that too.

[schwarzpanzer]

I'll be waiting patiently..

Hopefully, it'll be sooner rather than later. (source site is down)

It was heavily enough armored to stop the 122mm D25-T's shell, I can assure you of that !

I'm meaning under the glacis.

No, thats what is going to happen.

Not 100% chance, you must admit?

True, but still 50 ain't much at all.

Agreed.

Thanks for the Porscheturm info.

The records were at Bovington. Ages ago though.

Well then your wrong.

The Russians said this was only on the KT's of poor quality though.

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'm talking about hardness and malleability etc.

And btw where have you heard that story of yours about the SU-122 ?

I can get the link.

Not a chance !

Theres a great likelihood, equal on either side.

Considering the D25-T's already poor accuracy, it has almost zero importance.

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.

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)

You've got that the wrong way round.

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

A KT cannot manouvre out of an ambush (especially on poor terrain), this claimed many.

If thats what your sources are telling you, then you desperately need to check 'their' sources, cause thats an outright lie !

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.

In penetration power the Kwk43 clearly beats the 90mm M3 and 17pdr, no match. (The 17pdr being the closest to the Kwk43)

I know that, when firing APCBC, the 90mm is superior, though I dunno if that was used much WW2?

SVDS/APDS in the 17pdr is superior to '88' APCBC, except for the reasons you gave.

As to the optics, well the 17pdr and 90mm M3 both fall awfully short compared to the Kwk43 here as-well.

True, but not too much?

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.

True, though the weight/performance ratio of the '88' was bad IMHO.

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.

I remember a story of a destroyed Tiger where the deciding factor was a knackered loader!

However the 17pdr lacked the Kwk43's HE capability and advanced optics, both of which are very important on the battlefield.

Bang-on.

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.

It even had an official designation, PzGr41/43 IIRC?

BTW:

I'm telling you

- Try not to use that, it's like a red rag to a bull!

Cheers for the HVAP info.

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)

I'm in slight disagreement there.

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, but solid shot gives better penetration, research shows that APHE just isn't worth it.

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.

Yup.

No, 100mm. (Some source's even quote 160mm in some places)

The IS-I has 90mm of frontal turret armor.

160mm was the glacis thickness of the late IS2.

Do you have a source?

e.g. some T34's had 60mm glacis, most 45mm.

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, 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! (not here BTW ).

Yes, overall it does provide better protection, but it is vertical at some point, making it very vulnerable to AP rounds.

Yes, the IS2's front turret/mantlet is weird; small target but relatively easy to hit.

[Soren]

I'm meaning under the glacis.

Yes, and so am I, its called the "Hull".

Not 100% chance, you must admit?

99.999%.

The Russians said this was only on the KT's of poor quality though.

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)

I'm talking about hardness and malleability etc.

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 can get the link.

The link ? Would you call that a respectable and reliable source ?

Theres a great likelihood, equal on either side.

Absolutely not !

It had poor accuracy, but historians inflate it.

I havent run across any 'respectable' source who've inflated this at all.

Fact is the 122mm D25-T gun was a 'really' poor shot beyond 800m.

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'.

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's like the AK47 really.

I don't really know what you mean ?

You've got that the wrong way round.

No, I've got that exactly right, you've just miss understood it. (Remember I mentioned the targets "Axis of movement" ? )

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.

A KT cannot manouvre out of an ambush (especially on poor terrain), this claimed many.

Claims...

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.

All published data says (roughly) the same story. I've never heard too different?

Then you haven't been reading much lately !

I know that, when firing APCBC, the 90mm is superior, though I dunno if that was used much WW2?

What ?! No !

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)

SVDS/APDS in the 17pdr is superior to '88' APCBC, except for the reasons you gave.

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.

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.

True, but not too much?

Yes, "too much". The Tiger's optics were very much better.

True, though the weight/performance ratio of the '88' was bad IMHO.

No ! The 88mm Kwk43 has a excellent weight/performance ratio, much better than the 90mm M3's !

I remember a story of a destroyed Tiger where the deciding factor was a knackered loader!

Yeah, what a 'story' huh ?

It even had an official designation, PzGr41/43 IIRC?

Yes, its Pzgr.40 or Pzgr.40/43.

BTW:

- Try not to use that, it's like a red rag to a bull!

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)

I'm in slight disagreement there.

Well thats your choice, Im just presenting the facts.

Yes, but solid shot gives better penetration, research shows that APHE just isn't worth it.

Whoever mentioned APHE rounds ?

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)

160mm was the glacis thickness of the late IS2.

No, that was 120mm sloped at 60 degree's from vertical.

Do you have a source?

Yes, many.

Even Battlefield.ru mentions those figures

e.g. some T34's had 60mm glacis, most 45mm.

None had a 60mm glacis, they all had a 45mm glacis sloped at 60 degree's from vertical.

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! (not here BTW ).

Ok No worries

Yes, the IS2's front turret/mantlet is weird; small target but relatively easy to hit.

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.