I think that, assuming competent crews, of course, and at least somewhat open terrain, the T29 is very much more likely to win in a shooting match against a King Tiger. There are existing samples of both at Aberdeen Proving Grounds (APG), available for inspection, and at Ft. Knox (no KT, though). Regrettably, I never managed to make time to talk to the Ordnance Museum curator about any of the vehicles or guns on display. “Russian Tanks of WWII”, by Tim Bean and Will Fowler, mentions (p141) an attack of 14 KT (501st Heavy Pz Rgt.) upon 11 JS-2s (71st Independent Heavy Tank Rgt.) in August 1944 on the Vistula near Sandomierz, Poland. “Skilled tactical handling” (implicitly by the Russians) and starting the engagement at 600m resulted in 4 KT destroyed, 7 damaged, for 3 JS-2s destroyed and 7 damaged. The wording suggests that the KTs were destroyed by side shots. 600m seems very close for heavy tanks, and these German crews may have been very inexperienced. On the other hand, they were attacking, and the Russian crews in 1944 were quite good. The 100mm APHE projectile has 25% more kinetic energy than the 88mm, the 122mm has 58% more. It would be interesting to see a battle damage assessment. How many tanks were damaged/destroyed by armor penetrations, and where, and how many tanks were damaged/destroyed by impact (turret jammed / displaced from turret ring, etc), and how many were abandoned due to track breakage, etc., are important questions. I might have to make one or more retractions. Kalaloch’s facts and assessment are essentially correct, but the T29‘s 105mm gun (39lb AP projectile, 3000f/s, from Hunnicutt via Kalaloch) suggest performance equivalent to the Russian 100mm gun (M-1944 D-10), as fitted in the SU-100 (35lb APHE projectile, 2930f/s, 185mm at 1000meters). I think that Hunicutt’s penetration figures for the 105 are not correct because they are too low, and may simply be typos in his book. The T29 also has much more armor. “British and American Tanks of World War II” by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, has some useful data on the M26 series and the T29, 30, 32 and 34. The standard M-26 weighed 92,000lb. The T29 weighs 138,000lb (46,000lb more). An experimental heavy assault version, the T26E5, had its turret armor increased to from about 5 inches to 11 inches, and it’s hull front increased to 6 inches. Total weight 102,000lb. Implicitly, the turret sides remained 90mm thick. Estimating that the T29 turret is 1 foot (30cm) taller and 4 feet (1.2m) longer, doing some calculations, adding an extra 2”/50mm of armor (only on the turret sides) gives about a 34,000 pound increase. Yes, this is a rough estimate, but it’s meant as a reality check. My guess is that the T29 had 5-6 inches (127-152mm) of armor on the turret sides, and the turret probably weighed 25-30 tons. Again, next time I visit the Ordnance Museum ………. Upside is that the KT is probably wasting shots shooting at the front of the T29 (turret: 11”/280mm, hull: 4.9”/125mm @ 45 = 7.2”/183mm) beyond 500m, possibly at any range. A side shot needs to be from close range. A turret weight of 25-30 tons means that the 88 was unlikely to have enough kinetic energy to jam or otherwise harm the turret. Downside is that, at 25-30 tons, turret traverse may have been unacceptably slow. The German 128mm has 2.2 times the kinetic energy of the 88mm and 75% KE more than the Russian 100mm. I think that the T-29 hull front would have been vulnerable, probably starting around 2000m (mainly due to slope), the sides from 2000m, maybe over. The KE impact damage is difficult to assess. The U.S. T34 (a T29 with the 120 AA gun) or the T30 (similar but 6500lb heavier; 155mm gun) would likely have redressed any imbalance. Shooting the other way, and excluding the 105mm HVAP round, the T29 probably is wasting its time shooting at the front of the KT. There is a chance that hitting the turret might cause buckling and jam the turret. Even though the KT side armor is 80mm with a 20deg slope (~85.7mm) rolled plate (1.2 * 85.7=104mm), this isn’t much slope for a large, high-velocity late-war weapon. The KT side is vulnerable at long range (2000m+). Somewhere, there’s probably a battle report, with the results, of an SU-100 shooting and hitting a KT, but I’m not aware of one. I’m guessing that its automotive performance is only slightly inferior to the KT, or at least the power train wouldn’t break if not pushed too hard. The rate of fire may be a bit low, probably about the same as a JS-2, but the turret is much larger. This particular 105 might have 2-piece ammunition. I should have asked, but I only thought to take pictures of the ammunition display in the upstairs exhibit. It and the British L7 have separate development histories. The JS-2 is an interesting comparison. German reports indicate that Tiger Is could not kill them at 1000+ meters or so, and Elefants had the same problem at 1500-2000m. Assuming that the

Interesting comments about Sandomierz. It seems that the engagement was somewhat forced upon the germans under less than ideal conditions. Heavy ground fog with difficult, muddy conditions contributed to some tiger IIs immobilized/bogged. I believe at least one had sank to the top of the hull. Further, because of fog, engagement ranges were considerably shorter than recommended for the 88mm/L71. I don't believe that any tiger IIs were killed by a front hull/turret penetration. In fact, I've heard that was the case throughout the war, but that could be a fish tale. I believe that this battle marked the entry of the King Tiger on the eastern front. I also understand that the Kampfgruppe cdr. came into considerable criticism for his tactical handling. Great post.

"I can’t find any information on calculating ballistic critical angles." I recall something on that in the Journal of the Royal Artillery (Britian) from the 1940s. Will try to recover it for you. From Hunicutt: On the frontal hull glacis the T25 had a additional inch over the T20, 22, 23, and the T26 had a inch beyond that. A more important difference was the superior slope to the frontal plate on the hull of all these. Similar to the Panthers angle. A second advantage was the lower profile. Significantly lower than the M4 or either Tiger. The frontal target area is not much greater than the Panther and the hull down aspect is superior to the M4 and Tigers. I also notice looking at Hunicutts chart the M26 is superior to the Tigers in climbing embankments, rubble piles, walls, tho not quite as good as the Panther. Hunicutt identified more than one 'superarmored' T26 in the ETO in 1945. Possibly as many as four. I didnt save that info in my collection sorry.

S-2- thanks for the vote of confidence. Does your source have any specific details of damage and of how each tank was destroyed? I suspect that the destroyed JS-2 were punctured, then burned, but that the KTs deflected any front hits. I’m guessing that the KTs abandoned due to enemy fire were hit from the side, and I’m wondering how many were simply killed in the usual way and how many were killed via impact (turret buckled, spun and no longer traversable, displaced from ring, etc.). I need to correct one of my numbers; the T25E5 hull front is 6” thick, not 5 (wrong Excel cell on my part), so it appears to be roughly 215mm thick, and the front vulnerability range drops to possibly 500m. This makes the possibility of vulnerability to damage via impact much less, and I suspect that the slope virtually guaranteed a ricochet. I’m inclined to believe the story that no KTs were ever killed from the front. The hull front thickness and slope offer slightly more protection than the T29. The Henschel turret face is very thick and not particularly large, since the turret sides are visible from the front, and may represent 25% of the target area. Their vertical slope is still 20 degrees, but their horizontal slope might be 80 degrees. The saukopf mantlet is effectively impenetrable from the front and also covers a significant portion (30%?) of the turret face. Moving 30 or more degrees to either side changes the target picture considerably. The sides become much more of the target area. Thinking out loud, I’m wondering just how much of the M47 turret design was influenced by the Henschel KT. They both seem to have a pyramid-in-its-side turret front (gun comes out the pyramid top; reasonably clear for the M47, not very obvious for the KT) instead of a half-cylinder with a large and thick mantlet in front and a bustle in back. The Panther schmalturm shows KT influence. The M48 went back to a cylinder (actually more of a hemisphere). The M60A1 has a bit of a nose (clearer from the front). Things changed not long after. As a side note, looking at the Porsche-turreted KT from the front (actually from 10 to 30 degrees to either side of the front), the turret and hull lines are almost identical to a T-34/76A (1940 model). “Russian Tanks …” (see my previous post) p 80 is one good example to look at, and there are others. Just trace the edges where the hull front, top and sides meet, the edges for the turret front, top and sides, then compare. But we've all seen this. This suggests that the T-34 was actually the most influential tank of WWII (but there is already a thread on this topic). I suppose that, to some degree, the Germans really did copy the T-34. I wonder if Dr. Porsche intended this. My guess is that I’m off on a different thread by now. Sometimes my thoughts wander a lot. Carl S– Thanks; I would appreciate any information on calculating critical ballistic angles that you can provide. A link or title would be great. Yahoo searches return all sorts of hits on optical stuff, but nothing on ballistics. Determining ricochet vs. penetration is of interest. I remember on reference in a book, years ago, but I can’t remember the book title, so I can’t access the bibliography. Using Excel to calculate moments of inertia, radii of gyration, gyroscopic stability, etc., gives me all sorts of numbers, and they’re all fun but meaningless without a sanity check. Modern stuff focuses on high-velocity spheres, some sort of normal impact, or long-rod penetrators (ricochet might happen if the plate is sloped at least 75deg from vertical), and this doesn’t help with WWII design analysis. Yet another thread.

INfact, the German King Tiger tank was the best tank ever made in the final months of ww2, it had no rival. It combined the best of both home grown German tiger design and Russian armour design which the germans learnt from the t34 and coppied to thier own standards. The king tiger was the zenith of the technology at that time wihout a doubt. I would have to disagree, in the final months of the war the british centurian was being fielded, as history has shown the Centurian was the best tank of the 50's let alone the late 40s, whilst it didnt see combat and its production was halted post war had the war continued it would have started to replace other tanks in the british tank regiments, it would have certainly given the tiger II a hard time

Go to http://www.achtungpanzer.com. Under "additional articles" are a couple of stories- 1.)battle account of Sandomierz, 2.) Comparison of tigers and late-war Soviet armor. Can't remember much about either, nor, for some reason, can I open the links to the articles. Printed off Sandomierz last year, but threw it away. Oh well.

I have read anecdotal information from the US 2nd Armored Division (et. al.), regarding frontal shot kills using 90mm HVAP on the Porsche turreted Tiger-II's, via downward deflection. This was from the shot-trap formed by the curvature of the turret facing, deflecting the round downwards into the gunner's station feet; or the loaders. A similar experience was had by the Pz V Ausf D's and A's, so by the production G's a "bar" was placed along the base of the mantlet to prevent these downward deflected shots. Still and yet...there were some 90 Porshe turrets built for the KT, and although prettier than the chunky looking Henschel model, were clearly inferior in protection. I just read through this thread again, and will later post the source material I have on frontal hit turret crew-kills from spalling on the KT. One thing that still slays me, though...The Soviets produced three superior AT guns; some were and some weren't mounted in AFV; the long barreled 57mm, the D-10T 100mm and a 107mm weapon which for a number of reasons they just could not work the bugs out of. There are photographic examples of T-34's being mounted with the 57mm weapon in the defense outside of Leningrad; Winter '42, I believe; and this was a clearly superior armor-penetrating weapon to any of the 76mm guns they fielded. While I certainly understand the KE advantage of the 122mm, the Soviet 100mm was clearly the equal of the L/71 88mm; although it bespeaks something that that Soviets had to go a further 12mm to get the same results. Apologies for the rambling...will post the source data shortly.

"I’m inclined to believe the story that no KTs were ever killed from the front." Great analysis but I have to call you on this. When I did research at the US Army Infantry School on a paper on the Ardennes Campaign, I remember 2 mongraphs written by 2 different soldiers who reported that a KT had been killed by a hit on the frontal slope and was destroyed. It saved their platoon. Of course, the hit was from a 500 lb bomb dropped by a P-47....a VERY lucky shot!!

"...Of course, the hit was from a 500 lb bomb dropped by a P-47....a VERY lucky shot!!" Ahhh...not fair nor sporting, do you think? Of course, I'm not too sure of the fairness between M-1 rifles and 88mm L71 guns with, what, 180mm of front turret armor.

Arbalest...I looked at the magazine artical, & sorry, it does not have any formulas. The meat of it concerns the shape and composition of AP rounds 1939 to 1944, and the behavior of different types of armor (cast or rolled) when ht by AP rounds. The artical is from a 1940s issue of the Journal of Royal Artillery. The current version of that magizine does have a web site, but I've not found articals that old archived on it. It is easy for me to send copies. That & one or two others from the same magizine may look good in your refrence library. If you are interested contact me directly: email>[email protected].