Who Loves the King Tiger...... -1 reply

Please wait...

Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#101 14 years ago

Anlushac11

says nothing except either it was being used as target practice or the testers were idiots.

.......if you are more an expert then actual scientists conducting firing tests on real KT's.......well......i rest my case :)




Shove It

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

6th September 2004

0 Uploads

35 Posts

0 Threads

#102 14 years ago

whew this is getting good... oh the knowledge! :Pc:




Driver

Tomorrow Comes Today

50 XP

29th January 2004

0 Uploads

823 Posts

0 Threads

#103 14 years ago

What about that JagdTiger and how its suspension fell apart after it fired its gun once?




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#104 14 years ago
Beast of War.......if you are more an expert then actual scientists conducting firing tests on real KT's.......well......i rest my case :)

I have read reports by British and US experts firing at tanks.

ANY penetrations would weaken the armor. It was the whole reason why the Panther G removed the drivers viewport out of the front armor and gave him a top hull mounted periscope instead.

It was the reason why the T-34's replacement, the T-44 (Which became the basis for the T-54, T-55, T-62, ewtc.), got rid of the drivers hatch in teh front armor which was considered a major weakspot.

A scientist would have cut off a piece and done a Brinell hardness test, a metallurgical analysis inspecting the grains and their orientation. Whether the metal is in flakes or grains and the direction and alignment will tell alot about how it formed and at what temperature and pressure. A chemical analysis will tell what alloys, the purity, and in what ratios.

All I see are a stupid number of hits on a Tiger II that was supposed to be a test subject.

I see a listing that says that the armor was rolled homogenous steel of low to medium hardness. How do they know that withiout doing a hardness test? If they did a hardness test where are the Brinell hardness test numbers to show this? Brinell hardness test was the common method of testing and is still commonly used today.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#105 14 years ago
DriverWhat about that JagdTiger and how its suspension fell apart after it fired its gun once?

Depends on who oyu talk to about teh weight.

I have seen specs for the Tiger II listed at 63 tons while a Russian report lists the weight at 69.5 tons.

My specs show 70 tons for Jagdtiger but other sources list weight as high as 83 tons.

Jagdtiger did not way the same as a Tiger II ausf B, it was significantly heavier. The 128mm gun alone wouldahve accounted for more of a weight difference.

The Jagdtiger also used a stretched Tiger II chassis which would have also made it heavier and possibly harder to steer as well.

The Jagdtiger IMHO was probably nose heavy due to the 128mm gun and the 250mm front armor plate. Add the 128mm ammo and it would have been a beast. I have no data on that, just my opinion.

All that stress on the front steering would have nade it a mother to steer and pi




The_Transporter

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

22nd September 2004

0 Uploads

17 Posts

0 Threads

#106 14 years ago

I'l right somfin quick cause i just got .65...i honestly thin your a bit of a tool BoW and i have to agree with Anlushac11... 1 because his information honestly sound more realistic and it seems hes dont more research than you..... 2 @BoW you gotta stop belivin that russina 'propaganda' just like we have to stop beliving the german 'propaganda' which it seems the poms and the yanks agreed with when it was disputin the KT...

so any way happy huntin

Cheers




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#107 14 years ago

I don't know a lot about scientific testing of armor penetration, but I do know that the Russians are masters of propaganda. If you had captured enemy "supertanks", what better way to boost the morale of your troops than by carrying out some impromptu testing, then proclaiming loudly that the current weapons are easily capable of killing this feared enemy weapon? Especially if you figure you are going to have to fight your current allies eventually. Boost your own troops' morale, and frighten your future enemy at the same time. Heck, for all we know, they drilled the holes in the armor and claimed they shot at it. Not saying the tests are bogus, I have no idea, but it's certainly possible, and short of building a time machine, we will never know for sure, regardless of who argues which point of view and what documentation they have to back it up.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#108 14 years ago

um, BoW is right...

the kts armor was actually pretty damn bad, in quality, not quantity. to test the side armor of a kt after bulge, some 6thAD guys positioned a M36 at about 200 yards from the kts right flank. the sherman fired, and the kt was penetrated.

the tiger's armor, although not sloped or as thick, was highly compressed and of better quality. the same can be said about the elefant panzerjaeger.

oh yeah, this is not american propaganda... my grandfather was there, commander of an m36 platoon.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#109 14 years ago

For those that believe the Russian tests with the Tiger ausf B was propaganda.......why on earth would they lie after they had won the war ? That info is made public today.

Is it not more heroic to defeat enemy units that are far stronger then your own ? But that was not the case......at least not in the Tiger II auf B

Russian scientist did cut away pieces of armour and examined how it was manifactured........they had all the reason to do thourough research, because in 1944 suddenly a new enemy ultra heavy tank showed up.....and then you do want to know exactly what you are up against. There is no such thing as amateuristic shooting up a rare captured tank of that type then......you want to know all there is to know about that tank, or you won't be able to effectively counter it.

But the Russians discovered how poor quality it really was, both mechanically and armour quality wise, and just were not impressed......

They worried more about Tiger I and the Panther versions.......wich were much better and more dangerous tanks in actual battle conditions.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#110 14 years ago
Beast of WarFor those that believe the Russian tests with the Tiger ausf B was propaganda.......why on earth would they lie after they had won the war ? That info is made public today.

Russia's war never really ended until 1989. And by then, who of importance would care if the tests were real or not?

Is it not more heroic to defeat enemy units that are far stronger then your own ? But that was not the case......at least not in the Tiger II auf B

Certainly, but if your soldiers aren't sure they can, many will run away or hide. If they are told they can beat it, many may die, but they will make the attempt. That's kind of my point. It made good sense to tell the troops the KT was not as fearsome as it appeared, whether it was or not.

Russian scientist did cut away pieces of armour and examined how it was manifactured........they had all the reason to do thourough research, because in 1944 suddenly a new enemy ultra heavy tank showed up.....and then you do want to know exactly what you are up against. There is no such thing as amateuristic shooting up a rare captured tank of that type then......you want to know all there is to know about that tank, or you won't be able to effectively counter it.

Ok, but what were the original reports? The truth? Or what Stalin wanted to hear? (or wanted the West to think) Russian reports would often have 2 versions. I don't necessarily doubt these reports, but would not blindly believe them either. Healthy skepticism is a good thing :D And 1 test is never scientific.