KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK
duck 6/13/2004 7:02:51 AM

Which tank is better

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Sabre 11/30/2006 4:53:33 PM

The TigerII at Aberdeen was hit on the glaccis, but not penetrated. I grew up in Aberdeen - I remember, as a child, putting my fist into the dents in the frontal armor where the shells hit - and bounced off! I remember thinking how whoever fired those shells at that King Tiger probably died shortly thereafter.

Quote Reply

Jeff_F_F Upgunned 12/29/2006 9:47:05 AM

For a relatively static defensive war either tank is fine. But neither would have been terribly useful to the allies from 1943 on. By 1943 the Germans had committed to fighting a defensive war on the eastern front. Kursk was intended to shorten their defensive line so that they would need fewer forces to maintain it while they attempted to bleed the Soviet armies dry. (Yeah, I know, fat chance of that happening, but desperate times make for desperate delusions.) In this context tanks such as the Tiger and King Tiger seemed to make sense for Germany. Neither Tiger was suitable for sustained offensive operations as the large number of King Tigers abandoned by their crews druing the Ardennes offensive after breaking down or ran out of gas demonstrates.

Germany could not have conducted the early offensives with either Tiger, nor with the T29. Those offensives demonstrated that comparisons of "quality" in the narrow sense of comparing gun and armor power are not terribly relevant. The massively greater "Quality" of the British the French heavy tanks and their equally massive failures in the face of less powerful and also numerically inferior German tanks. Allied tactics committed their tanks piecemeal allowing German tanks to achieve local numerical superiority to defeat the lighter tanks. Stukas destroyed the heavy tanks that were occupying static positions, and advancing ones could be smashed by 88mm Flak guns. The lesson of airpower in particular was certainly one that the Allies learned well. Unfortunately they also learned the lesson that destroying tanks was not the job of tanks, which was not the best one. The T-34 does seem to have made an impression, though - The U.S. T35 which later developed into the M-10 Wolverine bears a strong superficial resembleance to the T-34, but is on a chassis based on the M4. Unfortunately this gives it a higher profile and much lower power to weight ratio than the T-34, but the gun and the slopped armor on the turret and hull appear nearly identical to the T-34.

On the allied side, the British forces were very willing to develop a variety of specialized vehicles, such as the "funnies" used during D-Day, so it is not suprising that they would modify some of their Shermans with 17 pounder guns. They were also probably inclined to develop more powerful tanks because their tactical and operational doctrine emphasized a more deliberate style of warfare than did the Americans. In this style of warefare T29s might have been more useful. The Americans emphasized avoiding enemy tanks whenever possible and instead advancing where the opposition was least intense, as the Germans had done in their early attacks on France and the Soviet Union. While doing so would still have been possible while fielding tank units with a mix of Fireflies and Shermans as the British did, the American system made the issue seem less urgent. The T29s would have become a logistics, recovery, and maintainance nightmare during the rapid American advances across France. When the American offensive did grind to a halt, in the Hurgen Forest, the T29 would have been even more useless than the M4 due to its reduced mobility.

It is also worth noting that the 75mm Sherman was a better tank for fighting entrenched infantry and AT guns than the 76mm armed sherman, and much more so than the Firefly. It was designed to fire indirect fire when needed - either directed by a full-fledged artillery fire direction center or by a tank commander parking his vehicle in defilade and crawling to the crest of a hill with a field telephone to adjust rounds onto enemy AT gun positions. The M3's gun was equipped to function the same way and this was quite usedful in African desert since the 88mm Flak was the German army's primary tank killer in the early part of 1942.

Also there was extensive discussion of the Soviet 100mm tank gun. This gun was not equivalent to the 88mm L71 gun in penetration. It was midway between the L71 and the original 88mm L56 gun. Much more equivalent to the 75mm L70 gun in the panther. The T54 which appeared shortly after the war is notable because at 37 tons it was lighter than a Panther, yet had frontal armor about 20mm thicker than a KT - 200mm turret/120mm hull. As the successor to the T-34 it also was very mobile. Unfortunately the KT was indeed the pinacle of WW2 German technology, but that technology was a dead end. The essential technologies to make the T54 were already established in the T44 prototype which was never produced because it was not needed as Germany was already collapsing.

Quote Reply

Arbalest 2/23/2007 3:19:36 PM

“For a relatively static defensive war . . . Neither Tiger was suitable for sustained offensive operations as the large number of King Tigers abandoned by their crews druing the Ardennes offensive after breaking down or ran out of gas demonstrates.”

A quick check of previous posts on this thread, dealing with various KT operations immediately before and during the Battle for Berlin, shows that with an experienced crew, the KT was quite suitable for extended operations. True, it was not as fast or as reliable as a Pz. IV, but the speed of German advances was frequently faster than the Pz. IV.

Tanks abandoned due to being bogged down points to crew/leader failures rather than design flaws. Many of the crews equipped with the KT were relatively inexperienced; inexperienced crews tend to make mistakes.

As far as the 1944 Ardennes Offensive is concerned, the Ardennes, once thought to be impassable to tanks, were seen to be passable, but still not good tank country. The abundance of trees made the average engagement range well under 1000m. Long-range shots very much less common than on the steppes of Russia or the farm land of Poland and eastern Germany.

The German units committed to the Ardennes Offensive would have had far better use on the Eastern Front, where engagements at 1000-2000meters were easily possible.

It is also important to note that the Ardennes Offensive was a political decision, an attempt to split the British and Americans, rather than a good military decision. Tanks running out of gas points to a German logistical failing, if not a poor strategic decision.

“Germany could not have conducted the early offensives with either Tiger, nor with the T29. Those offensives demonstrated that comparisons of "quality" in the narrow sense of comparing gun and armor power are not terribly relevant. . . . ”

Comparing gun power and armor thickness was, and still is, of primary importance.

The Matilda II made quit

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 9/15/2012 10:31:21 PM

A quick review of all of the previous posts on this thread reveals that all data found by all posters indicates that no KTs were ever suffered a frontal-armor penetration.
If I recall correctly, the KT at Aberdeen had the armor on the right side of the turret removed for analysis. The tank was then repaired to look "original"; whether the original armor was replaced, or some sort of patch was used is unknown to me. Implicitly, some "damage" may be due to an oxy-acetylene torch.
A link, or any specific reference, to the "DoD history/publication foto files" that you mention, would be of considerable interest. If you have anything, please post.
I do not argue that the T-34 series was the best tank of WW2 (although I will argue that it was the most influential), but from 1940 to the appearance of the Tiger I, the T-34/76 (or maybe the KV-1) was the best. This discussion is a separate thread.
My point is that, for a given time period, the average model T-34 was technically better than the average M4. The crews, of course, could change things either way. However, when the latest WW2-version M-4 met the latest WW2-version T-34, the M4 was shown to not be the better design.
I do not argue that the M4 was a bad tank; it was quite good until the appearance of the Tiger I and the Panther. All M4s should have been up-gunned with the 76mm gun in 1943, but the correct solution was the M-26, as the first version was the same armor and gun class as the Tiger I and Panther.
Your point "Mobility and producability are every bit IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT that fire power and armor protection." is essentially an improved version of the theory behind the US armor doctrine in WW2. It was shown to be incorrect then. Looking at current tank design, the main gun and armor are the two most important factors. Other threads on the Armor board ("Bring Back the Tank Destroyer?", "M1AG", "Light Tamk ...", etc.) discuss the reasons.
For a historical event of the KT’s combat record, I refer you to my posting http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-14987.asp)." target="_blank">link

Of particular interest to you should be the link recounting Karl Körner's retreat to Berlin (in a single KT). Please pay attention to the distance traveled, the number and type of Soviet tanks destroyed, and the fact that only 1 KT was involved.
This is a case of ancidotal evidence in the face of statistical evidence. It is just not realivant.
While your wargame may indicate that 35 Shermans stood a reasonable chance of killing a single KT, you should be aware of the fact that you are playing a simulation or game that reflects, among other things, the designer's approximations and simplifications for playability.
No, in actuality, they figured it took five Shemans to reliably kill a KT tank. Four get shot up while they race around to get a side or rear shot in. The 35-1 figure is the number of Shermans made and used in WW-II comp'd to KTs.
Again, the real, historical events of Karl Korner’s retreatIs just not realivant. and the later actions in Berlin, show that the KT was quite a good weapon system. Remember, the M4A3E8, while a good tank, was not in the same league as the T-34/85, and certainly not the JS-2. Fortunately for the Allies, the KT appeared very late in the war, and in small numbers.

If your wargame cannot recreate actual historical performance, events and outcomes, at least 50% of the time, then your wargame is a game, not a simulation, and you should not rely on the results. To be a good simulation, it should agree with historical scenarios at least 93% of the time.

The KT was a bad tank because each two of them caused three Panthers not to be built.
And acording to several museum curators, the KTs in their possetion were either abandoned, or destroyed as the marks on them indicated. Some of those marks were from 17 pounder APCR, or APDS shot perforations completely through the frontal glacias plate.

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 9/15/2012 10:45:23 PM

a couple clarifications:

the m-4 was NOT a good tank after 1942. Period. The Italians produced alot of tanks of m-14/32 class in the early yrs. SO? large numbers do not equate to quality.
The only good quality of the sherman was that it was mechanically reliable.

It is true that better models appeared and some with good armour and a better gun, but when they did appear, their upgrades only made it more survivable, not equal. Its only saving grace were the rounds carried.

It was a good tank for the 8th army in the desert. It was good in the pacific, but it was woefully outclassed after 43....sorta like the zero after 42 or the He-111 after 40.

The T-34-based on some threads comments could be counted as the best tank of the war...
1)it has the first effective slope of armour.
2)It was very reliable
3)it was fairly fast
4)It was fairly maneuverible
5)It was easy to upgrade
6)when introduced, it was hard to knock out-cant be claimed by the m-4
7)its upgrade-t-34/85 was farsuperior to any m-4 upgrade during the war
8)combined, more were produced by the end of 45 than the m-4(but up till may 45? I am not sure, I think the m-4 has the lead, but total production of model goes to the t-34)

BUT.....the t-34, from the battle field prospective was outclassed by the panter by far. Only in the area of mechanical reliability was it better
The pather was FAR superior to it in both models when comparing armour and firepower-even the 85mm. Its speed was not much less, and during combat, the extra 2-3 mph was not a deciding factor-few tanks went max. speed in battle-only on good roads....
the t-34 did not have basic communications till in mid-late 42.
The panther, contrary to poplular belief, was generally mechanically reliable after mid 43. early on...no, and it kept the reputation from kursk. After that, they had time to work on it and though they never made it AS reliable as the t-34/M-4, it was still good in late 43 and onward

-I have read a couple of accounts of where m-4 crews stated that the panther was more maneuverible due to the larger tracks and more powerful engine-the panther generally had almost a 16hp/tn ratio while the m-4 had a massive 11.2/tn up to 13.5hp/tn....and it was actually slower than the panter!!!I think few people realize that(this)

As far as the King Tiger...Ok, I have not seen the all the info, but as Arblast writes, if there was penetration, it was on the test range, NOT on the BATTLEFIELD.
Was it shooter who said "it was only 150mm" -I think indication that at 150mm, it could easily be penetrated by weapons, who, when looking on the performance charts can penetrate that, and 200+mm.
In actuality, the thickness was 150mm, but its effectivness was the equivilent of about 212 mm345mm due to the angle and the quality of the steel/production process(for those not sabatouged(sp))-In the last 2 months or so of the war, quality went down, so it was not the equiv of 345mm... APDS and APCR rounds cut through the frontal armor like a hot knife through butter.

not even at point blank could the 90mm penetrate-I think even with APFSDS(?)rds. Tell the Germans this who used M-48s after the war.

To sum it up: The m-4 was obselete by late 42/early 43. Yes and no... It was infirior to most other tanks in the firepower/armor race, but that is totally irrealivant!
The T-34 was the best when introduced in 41, but eclipsed by the panther by aug of 43

The T-34 had it's defects and they were availible in numbers, just not as many as M-4s!

Quote Reply

45-Shooter Just a quick reply? 9/16/2012 2:49:55 PM

Because the procurement of military equipment is a very complex process and not really related to most of the stuff that most of the folks who post on this board think is important, I'll just list some of the particulars.

1. The M-4 Sherman was probably the most reliable tank made in the history of tanks. It's only real competitor is the M-1 Abrams which is not even close. The heavier a tank is, the harder it is on the automotive components and the lower it's "Strategic" Mobility.

1A. The sherman had three defects, small turret ring=small gun, relatively thin, but well sloped armor and high silhouette making it an easy target. This last is the most important of all three.

1B. The advantages not already mentioned are large ammunition capacity of effective HE ammo, excellent fire control system, primitive stabilization system which would allow fire on the move at area targets, like blinding WP/Smoke between you and the shooter and turn key drivability with power steering.

2. The T-34 which looks better on paper because of it's low silhouette and very slightly greater slope to it's frontal armor, which was not quite as thick as that of the M-4 early on. 45-51MM. But it's two man turrit WO a basket, lack of optics and radio in every tank condemn it to nearly last place in the list of mid to late war tanks. Quote from US assessment at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland; "Although in theory an effective overall shape, armor suffered from build quality issues, especially of plate joins and welds, as well as the use soft steel combined with shallow surface tempering, all this was noted by US engineers at the Aberdeen Proving grounds. In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition. Furthermore, I would note the notoriously frail traks which could not drive 200 Kilometers over good roads, or turn in mud WO breaking.

The following is a war time account of the effectiveness of the T-34's armor and relative impunity when faced with available German anti-tank guns of the time: Remarkably enough, one determined 37 mm gun crew reported firing 23 times against a single T-34 tank, only managing to jam the tank’s turret ring”.And now the very best part; "although the German anti-tank gun crew managed to score 23 hits, the T-34 referred to did not manage to hit the AT gun once!"

Weapon caliber (cm)	% lost
2.0	4.7
3.7	10.0
Short 5.0	7.5
Long 5.0	54.3
7.5	10.1
8.8	3.4
10.5	2.9
Unknown	7.1

I would point out that in spite of the above antidotal evidence, that the Russians decided that 10% of their T-34s were knocked out by 37 MM Guns! Also note the strategic loss figures published by the Reds post war in red and yellow below; The impression that it made was to influence greatly subsequent tank development throughout the world!

Conclusions;

Soviet tanks had a generally rough and ready finish, and lacked many ergonomic and refinement features which were deemed essential by German and to a large extent by Allied tankers as well. That there were more Soviet tanks produced during the war than were destroyed (approximately 44,900 of the 55,550 T-34s produced were lost), regardless of the individual tactical performance of each, ultimately helped to win the war. The Soviets achieved strategic success, but paid an exceptionally high price; approximately 44,900 of the T-34s were lost out of a total of 96,500 fully tracked AFVs lost compared with only 32,800 for the Germans (this includes all SP guns, SP artillery, and several thousand vehicles captured when Germany surrendered on the East Front) during all of WW2.

Quote Reply

HeavyD 9/17/2012 2:39:11 PM

Fanboy arguments need to be put into perspective. One way to look at it is on paper: best combination of gun, ammo, fire control, armor, mobility, reliability. This is actually a "which design is better" question. But the slope gets slippery from there.

The reality back in the day, however also included crew training, quality of materials (many Tiger II's were cited to have been made with low-grade steel which compromised the design), and other issues arising from shortages and desperation. And this is all before the vehicle is put into the field facing a combined-arms enemy.

Take a top-quality build, fill it with fuel, equip it with the best ammo, give it a top-notch crew, and then what? Is it part of an assault or is it hull-down in a defensive position? Are it's flanks protected and does it have full infantry support? We all know how Elefants fared when swarmed by ground troops...

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 9/17/2012 4:37:59 PM

I agree completely! The problem comes when you try to compute a value for the Sum of those things and cost, both in labor and materials. gun/fire power, ammo ( quantity), Fire Control, Armor, Tactical Mobility, Strategic Mobility, Reliability and efficiency are widely regarded as the basic tenants of AFV Worth. To find a "Score" each of those quantities is assigned a number based on it's "Probibility of Sucess" in each area under the most demanding scenario. Gun/fire power is determined by computing the weapons system's ability to destroy an opposing tank, since that is any tank's most dificult task. If we choose to set the KT as the best in class, not a true expectation if you count 105 and 128 MM guns-etc, it would be given a probibility of 1.00 in that catagory. Then ammo load would be what ever fraction it's number of rounds divided by the number of rounds in the tank with the largest supply of ammo. Say 90-95%, or 0.95, just for explanitory purposes. Fire control is good, but not great, so it gets a .85 score? Armor is also 1.0 because I think most would agree that it had the best package of WW-II? Then comes Tactical Mobility. This is the first point where the KT really falls down. I doubt that it is half as good as the M3/5 Stuart and certainly not 2/3rds as good as the Sheman? So it's score is .67, being most generous!!! Then Startegic Mobility? This is not a straight division, because the base infrastructue of roads and Bridges is weighted to a certain minimum weight, so it gets the square root of it's difference in mass between the M-4 and it self, say .73? Then comes the great bug-a-boo and bane of the KT's life, Reliability! .1 being most generous again! Then Efficiancy, the KT burns twice as much fuel to go from point A to point B as the T-34, so it score is .25! Half squared because of the drain on other elements that transport that fuel and the fuel they burn to do it, etc. I will not go into cost in either man hours or materials, but I am sure that all of you can make your own asumptions about them. So as a start we have 1X.9X.85X1X.67X.25X.1=0.1281375( Not counting the cost which would drag this low number even lower.) You can use your own numbers as you like, but I am willing to bet that the M-4 Sherman score much better than that!

In the figure above ALL elements must work together because if any one of them fails, the whole fails! This type of computation is what causes me and many others to think the M-4 Sherman was, in spite of all of it's inferiorities, the better all around tank. Note that I never claimed that one on one it was nearly as good as the KT, but that the 35 Shermans in the field easily out performed as a whole, the single King Tiger! And that is what is important, all the rest is just wishfull thinking!
I suspect that it's every boys fantasy to have indestructible armor with over powering strength in the form of the biggest gun, etc.. But in the real world lots of better ALWAYS BEATS the few of the best!

Quote Reply

ww2 addict king tiger vs t29 hv 1/19/2013 1:14:29 AM

t-29 is a b***h 2 pen wen its hulled down due 2 its turret.its turret has the most armour on it.the 90mmdoes average pen,however the 105mm has ok pen and CAN kill a king tiger in a single shot.

Quote Reply

ww2 addict 1/20/2013 1:27:34 PM

depends on the driver operater and other + the gun and turret and other factors.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT