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
kjetski    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   10/21/2005 4:14:11 PM
This is the USA we are talking about, there would be 10 Allied tanks for every German one. I'll take 100 Shermans over 10 Tiger tanks. -snip- And do not forget that AFV do not operate in a vacume! We did have a pretty good TAC AF back then as well!
 
Quote    Reply

hornet    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   10/23/2005 8:16:07 PM
Without doubt the US would reign supreme. Numerical superiority did provide the upper hand to win the war. As posted before the King Tiger, Tiger and Panther were really a maintenance hog. But if they had the advantages as the allied had with no issue of reliability, the German may have their fair chance to dominate the armour fight. Still King Tiger is a fearsome sight. It's like staring a locomotive from a sedan. And those 88s is one of the best.
 
Quote    Reply

Sepia    RE:Data, Corrections and a Formula   10/28/2005 6:31:08 PM
I have found an article that describes testing of captured KT by Russians: http://www.battlefield.ru/library/weapons7_r.html The articleis written in Russian and is rather long. At the end of it is a short paragraph from the original final report. The main points are: - The front armor is of low quality. - Side armor is much thiner and vulnerable. - Suspension is complicated and unreliable. - The turning mechanism is complicated and expensive. - Side transmission(?) is very unreliable. - Operational distance (without refuling) is lower by 25% than for IS. - Placement of ammunition is not convenient, except for turret. - Excessive size and weight of the tank are not compatible with armor protection and fire power of it.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Data, Corrections and a Formula   10/28/2005 7:29:28 PM
I read a translation/summary of that report. It is a facinating look at the Red Army perspective. Low quality armor. Critiques of armor quality abound for tanks of all armys. Evidently a common problem. Side armor is thinner. True for any tank. Suspension. Observed by many western experts. An example of German 'over engineering'? Steering complicated. Realative to Soviet tanks very true. Transmission unrelaible. Another item observed by US & British experts back in the 1940s. I read this stuff when I was a kid in 1965. Fuel capacity, endurance. Also well known. Ammo storage. Cant recall this criticism before. It did not seem to hamper Wittmann any. Probably true. Compared to the Panther the Tigers were overweight behemoths hardly worthy of the effort. On has to remember these reports were written knowing some Communist Party hack would review it and 'correct' the writer if there were negative inferences towards offcial policy. Hence there are often negative slants on items that may not deserve it.
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Data, Corrections and a Formula   10/28/2005 9:16:24 PM
I have alway said, read several sources....in addition, Russain authors usually are inaccurate, or forgetting manners, are lying or inept. Period... After the war, till the 60's, american authors often slanted perspectives and sometimes were inaccurate. I have found the most reliable authors/sources are British. I cant vouch for that nowadays, but I would assume that most Russian authors, weither book or magazine quite often slant history toward 'Mother Russia' and their 'Great Patriotic War.' Considering they probably never penetrated the front armour,even with the 100mm or 130mm, that explains itself, and also considering they had poor ammo storage on the IS-2/m and carried only 22-26 2-Piece ammo, they have little room to talk. I think the KT carried 68rds or so...
 
Quote    Reply

Sepia    RE:Data, Corrections and a Formula   10/29/2005 6:15:02 AM
"Russain authors usually are inaccurate, or forgetting manners, are lying or inept..." Usually true, but this is an internal technical report not intendent for propaganda. I believe that it reflects the true impression of russian engineers after conducting extensive testing. We should not dismiss it so lightly. If anyone has a reference to a more reliable and elaborated test please post it here. As to ability to penetrate the front armour, here are few more points from this report: - The quality of armour is much lower than in TigerI, Panther and Ferdinand. A hit by a single shell creates cracks. 3-4 hits create big holes. - After 3-4 hits to the front armour of 100mm to 190mm thick by armour piercing shells of 152mm, 120mm and 100mm cannons from a distance of 500-1000m, cracks appear and wielding of armour plates breaks. This leads to a permanent loss of the tank. - Armour piercing shells of cannons BS-3(100mm) and A-19(122mm) achieve penetration when hit at edges of front armour plates from a distance of 500-600m. - Same cannons penetrate front armour plates of the turret from 1000-1500m. - Armour piercing shells of 85mm cannons D-5 and C-53 can not damage the structure from distance of 300m. - Side armour plates penetrated by SU 85mm and US 76mm cannons from a distance of 800-2000m. - Russian 76mm cannons can not penetrate the side armour. - American 76mm shells penetrate side plates from a distance 1.5-2 times greater than russian 85mm shells. Notice that 122mm D-25 cannon of IS-2 was developed from A-19 howitzer, having the same penetration ability. Also SU-100 carried BS-3 or D-10 cannon with equal penetration power.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Data, Corrections and a Formula   10/29/2005 10:07:25 AM
Now that is excellent. It matches the item I read a couple years ago. it must have been a summary of what you are drawing from, or several related documents. You remarked you are reading a document written in Russian? Are you able to make a complete translation for publication?
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Data, Corrections and a Formula   10/29/2005 5:23:51 PM
I cant post a publication, only what I have learned through my studies and experiences... I can be dismissed as a pessimist if I say that report was inaccurate, esp as I am not a scientist. What I can reitterate is that I have also read technical manuals/papers done by russians about veh. and aircraft. Alot of the information was inaccurate compared to say, the 20 yrs I have been unoffically studing(and no I cant spell) Russian articles are not always propaganda or inept. Many contain inaccuracies-small or large. Some dealing with aircraft have more inaccuracies than other items per you posting-the 150mm sloped front armor was roughly equiv to over 330-345mm armour(if quality). Quite simply, there was no round then that could penetrate it-some sabot rounds came close, but still did not... Depending on the 122mm round, the standard round was not very good for its time, weither ap or apc...etc...the 122mm D-25 l/43 was better, but still not up to the task The 100mm was excellent, but not up to the job of penetrating 330+mm armour till later on in the late 40's/early 50s..... The ap 152-if it was the M-37 L/29 would not have penetrate, but probably knocked the crew out. They did field a 152mm long barrel, but it was to heavy and only a prototype(or 2 or 3) which had the mv to do the job their notion about inferior armour/quality A)a few occasions yes, and probably after march and april 45 yes, before that NO.... b)there is a reason: they were specially keen on the quality of the KT esp what it represented. shotty armour/work would not be accepted/heard of-another reason it took so long to produce. Unlike soviet tanks, they were not "slapped together c)russian, when dealing with the great patriotic war, tend to get over zealous and playing up their abilities/qualities and their equiptment...what do you think stalin would have done if the vaunted Kt-superior to the Is-2m was said to have armour of a much higher quality? In addition, when analysing their own weapons, they WERE usually fair and accurate, but comparing them to the germans, or even the allies, they magically grew in quality and capacity and ability...Sounds silly, but that is how things worked, weither "independent" or not. Until stalin was dead, no one was "independant" d)they mentioned the fer. It had bolted on armour-100mm added to the welded faceplate. This serious downgraded the quality and strength of the armour. for them to say that it was of better quality is either a lie or ineptness. It had 200mm front and verticle. To say 150mm sloped was inferior is ludicrous. Perhaps if they did get a low-quality KT, it might happen, but I doubt it I am not holler at you all, but I find it laughable when reading about a soviet analysis over this-n-that
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:Data, Corrections and a Formula   10/29/2005 5:28:18 PM
ps sepia, unless you miss typed, they did not use the 120mm...I would venture to say, they had a type... one correction on my part...I noticed that it said several rounds-what 3-4..but still I find that report hard to swallow, esp when mentioning the quality of the armour one more rant...now that I think about it...the 100mm was good, and perhaps 3-4 rounds could do some damage, but ruin it? I doubt it....I have no problem believing the info on the mantel and the sides, but the front...once again...no still, for what validity there was in the report, I still find it fishy clear as mud? SEMPER FI
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   10/29/2005 10:47:24 PM
The US had tungsten core ammo and the Germans did not. While the did use some in service it was all withdrawn to make tools well before the end of the war. This means that any Hi Vel US gun could perforate the Tiger and the germans could not do it in return.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics