Re: M26 Pershing
 

Is all this whoopla over the so-called "bad" steel of the King Tiger from that ONE source:
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bo.../weapons7.html

or is there anything else to back it up? After reading through that article, I have decided that based on that ONE series of tests on two vehicles, concluding that all king tigers suffered from shitty armor is preposterous.

Especially from that particular source!

Re: M26 Pershing
 

The report of a king tiger being destroyed with a 57mm at gun was from Battlefield.ru

For some reason it seems every source on the net referrs to that damn site and it's questionable facts.

p.s. never trust reports taken from the field, how many pics have you seen labled "German Tiger Tank" when it's really a Panther or a Panzer IV.

So far the only reliable site on the net seems to be http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ .

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Re: M26 Pershing
 

How did you ever hapen upon that?

Usually whenever something *.pdf starts to load I hit Alt+F4 as soon as I can.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

In my opinion 90% of these war-time-stories are at least exagerated, try to remember some details after 50 or 60 years... .
It´s not only the russian stories, but also most of the german stories of a single Tiger tank killing 10 or more enemy tanks...

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Oh REALLY, now? Why the German troops advancing from Finland's soil eastwards didn't get anywhere, while Finnish troops pushed on far ;)

Well, obviously German troop quality was superior to the Russians, which were put into the army when they basically could point the rifle in the right direction :D

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Best tank in the world is only as good as its crew. In most cases the Germans had both good tanks and combat experienced crews who had faith in their vehicles.

As for the .pdf file I did a Yahoo search for Tiger II ausf B and metallurgy

This is from Actung Panzer's site:

"The Kingtiger No.102 was tested at Kubinka proving grounds. The results of tests made in 1944 were as follows:


1. Unsatisfactory reliability of the engine and transmission;
2. Complicated mechanical components; low range and average speed of 20 km/h;
3. Armor quality was lower than on Tiger I and Panther, after 3-4 direct hits there was significant damage and fragmentation but no penetration; welding was of poor quality;
4. The front armor plate cannot be penetrated, but heavily damaged by 152mm and 122mm armor piercing / high explosive shells fired by artillery pieces. The result is the damage of the tank’s mechanical components;
5. The armor-piercing shells of anti-tank guns BS-3 (100mm) and A-19 (122mm) can penetrate the front armor plate of the turret from 1000 to 1500m;
6. The sides armor plates can be penetrated by Soviet 85mm and American 76mm anti-tank guns from 800 to 2000m; it was reported that American ammunition was more effective;
7. Soviet 76mm Zis-3 and F-34 guns were unable to penetrate any of King Tiger's armor;
8. The Kingtiger’s KwK 43 gun performed very well and can be compare to Soviet 122mm gun of the IS-2 tank.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Giving the soviets a King Tiger to test and evaluate is like giving a 1 ton gorilla a crystal rocking chair. After they're done looking at all the shiny parts they're gonna sure as hell break it.

The T-34 required a hammer to change gears, it's no wonder most of the captured german tanks broke down on their way to russia for post war testing when untrained tankers are given 50-60+ ton monsters.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

A Tiger II from schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 was also the last German tank to be destroyed in the war. It was blown up by its crew in Austria on May 10, 1945.
and thats it ?

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Whether the Soviets captured the King Tiger or NOT, they still broke at a horrendous rate. Read that of 14 Tiger II's on a roadmarch to their position, 10 never made becasue of mechanical failures. It was NOT a reliable vehicle.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

They did suffer from automotive failures in the beginning, but once they were corrected the Tiger II had an operational status at the front of 58%, almost equal to the 62% of the Pz.Kpfw. IV.

It is true that many of the failures were due to their drivers poor skills and training. Many drove their first Tiger II for the first time when they were unloaded at the front.

Many of the faults could be corrected by field modifications and proper maintenance was paramount.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

The problem with proper maintenance, and even proper construction, is that they require logistics. You have to get the engines, final drives, fuel, oil, replacement vision blocks, tracks, road wheels, etc. to them to fix them. That was difficult in '44 and impossible in '45.

And...while I trust Soviet data the LEAST when it comes to reports (especially where evaluations of Western equipment are concerned from that era...don't get me wrong some of it is VERY good...the problem is there are usually multiple data sets (the stuff they fed Pravda and the stuff they gave to Uncle Joe) German "readiness" data from '44 and '45 is suspect. There was a lot of telling folks what they want to hear. Especially where the Tiger II is concerned...this was the tank Hitler personally thought could win the war. Along with the jet that would singlehandedly win the...along...er...nevermidn. :D

In other words...late war German readiness data that comes from the Germans is probably less than accurate.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I have other data concerning the Tiger II taken to Kubinka. Reading how the Soviets managed to wrestle 68 tons of dead weight back to Russian for testing is almost a comedy in itself.

It goes hand in hand with the story of the US encountering a Jagdtiger that broke down on a road and after spending 2 days trying to move the Jagdtiger, it was decided it would be easier to reroute the road around the Jagdtiger.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Well Blitz, I don't doubt the sources really, they're more reliable than the post-war "rumors-made-facts" about the Tiger II really.

I'm really sick of those, aswell as the suspicious tests and reports. Especially the ones found on the net. Don't get me wrong here, the Tiger II wasnt invincible at all but nor was it made out of plywood.

I agree with you about the logistics. It was easier to keep a few tanks running with the spare parts and time they got than trying to make all operational, still, Tiger II's fought well. IIRC 5 Tiger II's defended the Reichtag til the bitter end and they were, indeed, cut off from supplies.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Here be the facts as I see them (Seems kinda judgemental doesnt it?)

1) Tiger I's armor was a high nickel content steel which made it very strong and elastic. This means when a a/t round hits and fails to pentrate the armor can flex and not spall off on the inside. Panthers armor seems to also be of good quality early on.

2) The Maybach engine in the Tiger and Panther, once the bugs were worked out proved to be very reliable , if not maintenance prone. In the Panther the lighter vehicle weight gave a excellent power to weight ratio. In a Tiger I the vehicle was well powered but there was not alot of power reserve. Meaning that if a Tiger I became stuck or tried to tow another Tiger I the strain often casued the engine to fail.

3) The Germans, in an attemt to make the armor plate better able to withstand the heavier 122mm a/t penetrators and 122mm and 152mm shaped charge rounds tried to make a tougher face hardened steel armor plate. While its toughness is not in doubt the flexibility is and while not penetrated direct hits caused spalling which means the plate could not flex as much and the remaining energy casued the inside of the armor face to break off in a shower of high velocity shrapnel.

4) Late in the war and faced with a manpower shortage, the welding quality of the Tiger was either a) Of poor quality due to inexperienced welders b)Lack of suitable materials resulted in poor quality welding rods c) the new boron process resulted in a surface that the Germans hadnt counted on so some early production Tiger II's had some poor quality welds until the problems listed were worked out. d) The Germans were so rushed for the tanks that the welding job was rushed. And being someone who has experience welding you cant rush the job. The bead has to be applied in a smooth even manner.

Being how the war situation was maybe they were so rushed that the bugs never had time to be worked out.

5) While the Panther and Tiger ran well on the Maybach with the Tiger pushing the stress point, King Tiger went right over the line into the unreliable and breakdown prone areas. This could also be related to early production models as it was with the Tiger and Panther and later version were fixed. The even heavier Jagdtiger was a breakdown waiting to happen.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I'm not trying to contradict you...just adding some data and my viewpoint is all. Data, especially historical data, is such a difficult thing to discuss. Everyone pulls out all sorts of stuff they have (which is cool because you find stuff you've NEVER even heard of) but there's always the "I read it so it must be true" factor, too.

I'm trying to take away anything from the King Tiger...it's truely impressive...but I think people in general are too willing to think that since it's an "improvement" to the Tiger it's better. And it's interesting in that the improvement is actually sort of a step back when you think of how many Panther's and Tiger's the King Tiger kept Germany from making.

Look at the Sherman. There are lots of reasons (not all of them good) why there wasn't a transition to the M26 earlier (lord knows they could have...how much shorter the war would have been with 20,000 M26's) one of the reasons was that the US did not want to take the time to switch major production lines from Sherman's to Pershings. Instead they looked at the loss of production during those months it would take to retool the major production lines and decided it wasn't worth it in terms of numbers. That's sad. Same reason the War Department had for no making P-38K's. Sad.

Slightly off topic...but something that should make any P-38 lover cry:
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html

<sigh> It would have had a 5,000fpm + climb rate <sob>

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Yeah I agree with that Blitz.

@Anlushac:
Yes that is mostly true, part from that the weight of the vehicle wasn't the biggest problem. Most breakdowns in mentioned circumstances were in the transmission that was designed for a 40 metric ton vehicle. Most of the Tiger II's engine fires were due to leaking seals and gaskets, as a result of the heavy workload and bombing raids at the factory and assembly plants.

This was also the case with the JagdTiger, turretless as it was it had to rely on moving the entire tank for aiming, something the transmission and tracks didnt like on a vehicle that heavy.

By the way, I don't entire agree with you about the armor, I'd say that the late-war Tiger IIs poor armour quality wasn't just becasue of the weld seams, but the poor quality of the metal itself, as they were low on manganese and had to use hard-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, making it far more brittle (especially along weld seams).

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Also, remember that the winners write the history books.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Anyways, any news on teh Pershing?

PS: Killor, I love that chicken in your avatar. It makes me laugh. :lol:

Re: M26 Pershing
 

They better not throw Pershings everywhere!

I'm quite surprised that we, the ignorant mob, were asked about the M-26, haven't FH got some trustworthy facts people making sure things aren't going all unrealistic?

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Hehe...you mean the "secret" M26's @ El Alamein? :D

M-26's should be on any Post-Jan/Feb '45 map. Maybe a bit earlier for gameplay purposes...they were at the front of III Army's advance.

Before that we should have Jumbo's and M4A1 76(W)'s.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Yes, the Jumbos sound nice! :) I'm also for not putting the Pershing where it doesen't belong.

Killor;

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive4.jpg

:lol:

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Yeah Blitz sounds good, it's not entirely realistic but I think we all feel that it's needed for gameplay!

However, if I see some gun penetrating the Tiger II's frontal armour I'm bound to get mad. Not a single Tiger II got it's front penetrated in battle (not talking about torn-off armour plates, splintering etc)

By the way. Realism lovers out there. Maybe this is a sick idea but it could be nice to see splintering effects on tanks that had them, ie the IS-2 etc. What I mean is that you'd get a loss in health by sitting in a tank that gets hit powerful enough for the splintering to occur. This would be some sort of "not a penetrating hit but I still get scared" thing. Like it? :uhm:

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I like the spall effect. :D

The M26 shouldn't be able to punch through the front armor...but it should be a one shot kill to the sides (hull)...Tiger or Tiger II.

Maybe a captured skin for the Tiger II, too. }>

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tige...ptured-Big.jpg

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Yep!

Nice picture btw!

Ain't much left of the Zimmerit on that Tiger II :mad:

Would be cool with skins like that tho, I don't like the "Straigh from the Factory" look really.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Just a few facts on the .6 tiger:

Its still a beast on the battlefield, but its also the stiffist brick ive ever driven.

Tanks, it has no problem with, it can eat shermans and t34s like popcorn (although, most tanks can take a shell to the front armor)

Infantry on the other hand, poses a problem. The tigers turret turns about as fast as the mobile howitzers in DC, wich makes tracking infantry difficult. Also, with the slow turret speed, its very hard to pan for targets, wich limits your FOV. Basicly, if you want to target something, you have to turn the whole tank (wich is realistic)

I was playing yesterday and Omni was a us infantry with a bar. He sat on my ass for almost 5-10 min before i could kill him. And that was only 1 guy. Id imagein tigers will get bogged down VERY easily if they do not have propor infantry support because they are sooooo unmanuverable.

Tigers take some skill, and some patiance. They arnt the most forgiveing tank out there no more. Later on I switched to the much faster, and more manuverable sherman, because it was getting to be a pain to kill infantry with my tiger.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Sounds great McGibs! even tho the Tiger I had pretty good characteristics when it came to negotiate terrain. It actually had exceptional suspension..

Wel lwell it still sounds better tha before! Great news and thx for the info!

Re: M26 Pershing
 

its fine nogotiating terrain, its turret just isnt fast.

That and the main gun doesnt have HE shells, wich makes a BIG diff.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Great news McGib...sounds cool for us Sherman drivers.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Well, that okays I guess. The handling on terrain was excellent as well as maneuverability. The turrent traverse was hydraulic and could traverse at a rate of 6 degrees per second..... not real fast.

It did however carry both HE and AP rounds!!! So THAT is a BUMMER!

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I see no problem with the new Tiger for me atleast. when I am in a tank i allmost allways turn the hole tank a round. it's faster and you will also have the front amor were your enemy is.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Only problem with it, is you cant drive in one direction and shoot in another. Youd be surprised how much this hinders your tanking abilities. You have to stop and face your target, and cant really run and gun.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Sherman 76mm M1A1 an penetrate Tiger I's front armor at close range using the APDS round and 90MM M3 can penetrate the Tiger I's front armor at medium range.

King Tiger will be the Lord of Battle over all that it sees. Its the buttraping Sherman Firefly, M26, M36, or IS-II that will prove its downfall.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

King Tigers turret rotation speed was related to engine speed. At 2000rpm the King Tiger could rotate the turret 360deg in 19 seconds. Slowest speed on motor was 360 deg in 77seconds. If you had to manually crank the turret, bring lunch.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I think there is one new map that could have both the M26 and the KoenigsTiger except I am not sure if the M26 was deployed there.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Thers alot of tank type maps it would fit nicely into i think.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Didn't know about the King Tiger... interesting. I wonder if it is the same mechanism as the Tiger I? Doesn't seem like it. Seems better actually. 360 degrees in 19 secs is fast! The Tiger I was 360 in 60 secs but I'm not sure if that was just nominal or the fastest it could rotate. It did have a seperate drive mechanism however.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Nope. Tiger I was old dog slow. Thats why the tactic of turning the whole vehicle. Tiger I was very manuverable and the crew could easily turn the vehicle much faster than turning the turret only.

I dont currently have data on Panther turret rotation speed.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

The rotation of 60sec is the fastest it can manage, the slowest it would rotate was 360deg in 1 HOUR

Re: M26 Pershing
 

...
Um.. what is that manual or something?

Re: M26 Pershing
 

King Tiger - 700 turns of the gunners manual traverse wheel for 360 deg rotation. 680 turns on the loaders wheel for 360deg. rotation.

Tiger 1E - best time for power trverse is 360 deg in 60 sec.(6 deg a second as mentioned). I assume the 360deg in 1 hr was for the manual traverse

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I wouldn't want to be caught cranking that thing 700 times. Did the Tiger drivers just rev the engine up temporarily to make the turret rotate when they needed it? Also, is the gun elevation also linked to the same hydraulic system?

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Yes they would rev the engine to speed turret revolution. And the power traverse was used to get the gun in the general direction. The manual traverse and elevation was then used for the fine tuning to actually lay the gun on target.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

In an emergency the King Tiger could traverse its turret 360 degrees in 9 seconds, yes NINE seconds. They would slip it into a crazy gear that was hard on the mechanism and wheeled it around like crazy.

Without the emergency gears the turret traversed 360 in 19-77 seconds. (19 seconds @ 2000 engine RPM).

Source: New Vanguard 1

Re: M26 Pershing
 

:lol:

I got to play with a Sheridan once...the power traverse was too inaccurate so they'd use manual (and they'd break the power one when they dropped them out of C-130's) and OMG what a bitch...not to mention the train wreck when you fired that 152mm gun. UGH.

But I digress.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

um, no, the info i have is that it was with the least pressure on the rocker plate that made the turret turn, i dont know what the manual rate is.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Are you asking about the game engine or real life?

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Germans were to dumb to put a diesel in the tiger. Allies are lucky tiger did not have a diesel they would have had a lot more trouble. Tanks need torque not horsepower, this would also have a postive effect on the turret rotation speed.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

A Junkers Jumo 207 version rated at 700hp would have been good.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Germans had so much explosion problems with that piece of shit maybach hl230. Allies would have had it in for them had the germans have had enough intelligence to use a diesel in a 58 ton vehicle. I am pretty sure the junkers 207 is an aero engine, would not work at all, and a diesel engine in a plane is justs bad as a a gas in a tank.