http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/pz5.htm An interesting profile of the history and specs. associated with the Tiger II. Early on, it states that there's no photographic or otherwise documented evidence of Tiger II kills by frontal penetration. I was aware of a significant shot trap issue with the Panther. I wasn't aware of similar issues with the King Tiger. Kalaloch seems to say there is an issue with driver kills resulting from the trap.

It seems that there are no confirmed, or even reported, front armor KT kills via another tank. Sandomierz, Aug 1944, Budapest, Nov 1944, Lisuv, Jan 1945, Borbalamajor, Hungary, Jan, 1945 are all battles involving KTs, but the battles are described at battalion-and-higher levels. I waded through a few other discussion forums. I should do more severe edits to limit my mind-wandering from getting off-topic. S-2: www. achtungpanzer.com seems mostly off-line (Linux stuff?). Keeping my popup blocker set to max while there was a good idea. However, it mentions that a KT has been at Ft. Knox since 1992 (in the museum; I was there in 1986). Interestingly, two KTs remaining in Berlin in April 45 managed to encounter at least 30 T-35/85s, at very close range, before being abandoned, but no JS-2 or JSU-152s, even though there are many pictures of such vehicles at Berlin. I’m slightly surprised, because the Russian 100mm and 122mm AP rounds have the ability, on paper, to kill a KT from the front. I suspect that the Russians tried, more than once, and eventually realized that tactics, not trading shots, were the answer. http ://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/pz5.htm has a paragraph or two about Karl Körner and his KT during their retreat to Berlin in April 45. Apparently, 200m engagements with heavy tanks were not uncommon, and the kill probabilities were high. In reading the accounts, I get the impression that surprise was important, and the shock and awe of the KT counted for very much. The Porsche-turreted KT is a bit of a question mark. It isn’t quite as heavily armored as the Henschel turret, and the curved front creates a shot trap, but again, I think that there is no instance of a KT kill from a turret face deflection to the hull top. Additionally, the Panther’s hull top armor is 15mm, the KT’s 40mm (2.6x thicker), which makes a kill from a ricochet much more difficult. This seems to be a different type of kill mechanism. The judges rule the P-47/500lb bomb kill inadmissible on a technicality (we were looking for “miter saw”, not “wrench”), as the data fits better with the KTs lost to bomb damage at Kassel in April 45. Kills at Anzio/Salerno are also inadmissible, if for no other reason than the term “displacement” makes the Allied side ineligible (also wrong type of tank, both sides). K is correct; the Russian 57mm probably would have been a better choice for the T-34 than the 76mm, as it penetrates an additional 35mm or so (104mm @ 500m). More rounds and probably faster loading, but a weak HE. The 57mm might have made a difference in that the German tanks killed probably would have been killed sooner. However, there's a psychological side to having a much smaller gun ..... The 88L56, 85mm and US 90mm propellant cartridges are very similar in size (somewhere I have pictures from APG), which implies similar chamber pressures, and the AP and HE projectiles have similar weights. The performances are reasonably similar. The Russian 100mm cartridge is larger, commensurate with its caliber; it’s roughly the same size as the NATO 105mm. The 88L71’s advantage over almost everything else in its class was due to a very much larger propellant cartridge, and, implicitly, chamber pressure. The 88L71 drove its AP projectile at about 3280f/s, the 88L56 (same projectile weight) at 2650f/s, with an appropriate performance increase. The downside is reduced barrel life for the 88L71 and increased logistical support required. Back to the T-29 vs. KT question, I think that, except for very close ranges or fluke shots, both tanks would be wasting shots. I think that this would always be true for the KT; if the T-29 hull shots don’t bounce, then things change drastically. I suspect that neither turret is susceptible to impact damage, but comparable evidence one way or the other would be useful. The T-29 has an edge from the side. Everything else seems to be a question mark.

Yeah, sorry about the site, but it did suffice on the "Panzer Profiles" section to providing more anecdotal gruel. I did a re-read of "Panzertruppen 1943-45", by Thomas Lentz, but nothing. Interestingly, the best bet for allied forces seems to be flanking the beast, thus forcing it to displace. Counting on a KT to bog or break down was THE only measure that possessed any predictability.

I've run across a couple of descriptions of KT that were hit by WP or smoke rounds from US or Brit tanks. The crews abandoned the vehicals apparently because of the noxious & toxic smoke, or perhaps thinking they were on fire.

Earlier tank vs warship was mentioned. I cant find any refrences for naval gun velocitys and ammo mass on my shelf here. Anyone have handy that data for say the USN 5" or similar Brit destroyer guns of 1944?

The only data available is for the US 5"/38. The reason for this is that the doctrine of the day called for smaller ships to carry and fire only HE or common rounds, because it was felt that for guns of that size they would do more damage than AP rounds (i.e. destroy/damage open gun mounts, damage optics, radio and radar antennas, etc.). Only the US had an AP round for their 5", though the Brits had an SAP round for their 5.25" (80 lbs) and the Soviets for their 130mm/50 (73.9 lbs). No penetration information was abvailable. For the 5"/38 the data was as follows: AP Round weight of shell: 54.0 lbs. Muzzle velocity: New Gun 2600 FPS. Average gun 2500 FPS. Penetration: 127mm @ 4000 yds. 102mm at 5000 yds. There was data for the older 5"/51 that was mounted on the pre-treaty BBs, but the performance was below that of the 5"/38. Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm

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. I think the Soviets wanted guns on their tanks that could be used for dual purpose...anti tank and anti infantry. The 76mm gun on the early T-34's maybe wasn't as good as the 57mm vs tanks but worked much better vs troops. The 76mm could still penetrate the armor of the Pz III's and PzIV's. This later extended to the 122mm guns on the JSII's....as good as the 88mm on the King Tiger for anti Armor...very effective vs troops. Also didn't rely on "Special" ammo i.e. APDS, etc which I don't think they used in any significant amounts.

Re ship vs tank. It was me that mentioned it. My Dad was in 79th Armoured and had a regimental history book. In it was a photo of an area where laagered KT's had been hit by 16" shells from British naval bombardment. Tanks had been upended and at least one turret dismounted and lying apart from its hull. However, there was no evidence from the photo that the armour had been penetrated (apart from the dimounted turret).

"Tanks had been upended and at least one turret dismounted and lying apart from its hull." Penetration arguments hardly seem relevant in this case. I've seen similar photographs and read some of these accounts. The 8" (203mm) projectiles of the midsize crusiers were not far behind in destructive ability.

This reminds me of a story from my Infantry Officer Advanced Course When I was there at FT Benning in 1984, the big, bad Soviet tank was the T-80. In every class we had, the instructor would always say about some US weapon, “…but it will not penetrate the frontal slope armor of the T-80 tank.” They said this about the DRAGON, TOW, 105MM APFSDS-T, everything. Then we had the class from the USMC on amphibious warfare. A portion of the class was naval gunfire support. In the class we talked about the capacity of the 5/38 or 5/56 caliber guns which could provide support. Then the instructor showed a picture of the USS WISCONSIN and started talking about the 16 inch guns. He then turned to us and said “And Yes, the armor piercing round of the 16 inch gun WILL defeat the frontal slope armor of the T-80 tank.” He was so proud!