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

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#111 14 years ago

USMA2010um, 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.

Once again NO ONE HAS EVER QUESTIONED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PENETRATE THE SIDE ARMOR.

Its 80mm. The M36's M3 90mm cannon firing its basic APCBC ammo can penetrate 120mm at 1000m. If would have been suprising if it had not penetrated.

As mentioned above the armor was brittle. It was not as good as the Tiger I's high nickel content steel but it was not soft steel. It was hard enough to deflect AP rounds, the problem was it was like a pane of glass. It rejects impacts to a point and then it shatters.

And if the Soviets had such good ammo on the proving ground why didnt they use it in the field? Why were no Tiger II's found on the battlefield with holes through the front armor. There were plenty of US and Russian tanks shooting at them.

But all we have is a Russian report of "test firings" on a tank, all 63 shots.

Who was the propoganda reports for if not Russian troops? How about teh Western Allies still in Europe who were starting to field their own heavies like the M26 and Centurion. If the Soviets could take out a Tiger II what chance did a less armored m26 or Centurion have?

And remember Patton was very vocal before he died about the US driving east and figthing the "comies" now rather than later. Patton also advocated us reequipping what was left of the Germans and have them fight with us against the Russians.

So there is reason for Soviets to think we were going to attack and Stalin was paranoid anyways.




Driver

Tomorrow Comes Today

50 XP

29th January 2004

0 Uploads

823 Posts

0 Threads

#112 14 years ago

Please refer to the King Tiger now as the Royal Tiger. As such as what it is in the game currently. :p :D




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#113 14 years ago

Anlushac11Once again NO ONE HAS EVER QUESTIONED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PENETRATE THE SIDE ARMOR.

Its 80mm. The M36's M3 90mm cannon firing its basic APCBC ammo can penetrate 120mm at 1000m. If would have been suprising if it had not penetrated.

As mentioned above the armor was brittle. It was not as good as the Tiger I's high nickel content steel but it was not soft steel. It was hard enough to deflect AP rounds, the problem was it was like a pane of glass. It rejects impacts to a point and then it shatters.

And if the Soviets had such good ammo on the proving ground why didnt they use it in the field? Why were no Tiger II's found on the battlefield with holes through the front armor. There were plenty of US and Russian tanks shooting at them.

But all we have is a Russian report of "test firings" on a tank, all 63 shots.

Who was the propoganda reports for if not Russian troops? How about teh Western Allies still in Europe who were starting to field their own heavies like the M26 and Centurion. If the Soviets could take out a Tiger II what chance did a less armored m26 or Centurion have?

And remember Patton was very vocal before he died about the US driving east and figthing the "comies" now rather than later. Patton also advocated us reequipping what was left of the Germans and have them fight with us against the Russians.

So there is reason for Soviets to think we were going to attack and Stalin was paranoid anyways.

Listen to him, he knows what he's talking about. It's very easy to make steel very hard, you only just have to add more C to the alloy, and use some hardening processes (Only needs energy), and you get some very hard steel. But: this steel is prone to cracking, and it shatters when enough energy is used against it. It won't bent at all. That's why you need stuff like nickel, it allows you to have harder steel without sacrificing too much flexibility.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#114 14 years ago
DriverPlease refer to the King Tiger now as the Royal Tiger. As such as what it is in the game currently. :p :D

Technically there is no such thing as a Royal Tiger or King Tiger. That term was never officially adopted by German officials. It is officially a Tiger II ausf B, SdKfz 182

There were Tiger II ausf B's with turrets designed by Porche or Henschel but all cast by Krupps.

The term "King Tiger" comes from a report in 1944 that refers to Tigers and King Tigers.

In todays world it has become accepted practice to refer to Henschel turret design Tiger II's as King Tigers and the Porche design turreted Tiger II's as Royal Tigers.




The_Transporter

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

22nd September 2004

0 Uploads

17 Posts

0 Threads

#115 14 years ago

well i'l be...you learn somfin new every day.............

cheers




Frontal Lobe

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

21st March 2004

0 Uploads

9 Posts

0 Threads

#116 14 years ago

Nice discussion about the KT

I really like him in game, even if I get rarely the chance driving him, because of the legions of KT-campers.

What I love in BotB is a single KT raider in the allied main base. He usually freaks out all the allied team including myself. I saw it more than once, that this single tank killed about 20 allied players and conquered the last flag. Very funny! What I still miss is in FH is the nice sound of the heay tanks in Battlegroup42. This is the first time I remember, that I heard a realistic tank-sound in a game. Its fantastic, if you are behind a US-ATG on the "Wacht am Rhein" map and you hear this realistic sound of the Kt long before you can see him, you are rally scared. The technical discussion between BoW and Anlushac reminds me on some debates in different forums concernig various different scientific topics. I can tell you, that you wont be able to find out, who is right, if you dont have at least a minimum of scientific education. If you do have, you already know, that Anlushac is right and that the russian experiments do not fullfil any scientific standards. During that time in soviet history there are known many cases of scientific misconduct in the sovjet union. It was no secret at all, that science was often times few more than a servant of the party, especially when there were national interests involved (even if there also existed some excellent scientists in the USSR). That doesnt necessarily have to be the case here, but at least those shooting on the KT were obviously very unprofessional and the interpretation was certainly always in favor of the soviet propaganda. And BoW, you are wrong if you think, in case of crappy science there is some sort of a correct result which is secret and available for later publication. Usually the results are fitted to the expectation instantly. In such cases there exists rarely any documentation of correct results wich could be used for later publication. Also it is, as has been said, no heroic task to kill any tank from the side. Even the Jagdtiger was knocked out by simple Shermans, if he showed them his flank. The only tank of that time I know with heavy side armor is the "Maus", and of that Monster only a few prototypes existed wich were never used in combat. If you like to know, what killed the KT in the Ardennes durnig the BotB, just take a look at the landscape and keep in mind, that the germans suffered heavily from lack of fuel. Sending heavy tanks through the winter-ardennes is as similar operational failure as was the US-attack through the huertgenwald a few weeks before. If you have the chance, visit the two spots and make your own picture. Hürtgenwald is only about 50km from St. Vith. By the way, if you visit the Ardennes, you can take a look at a KT of Peipers group at La Gleize (near Spa). After is was abandoned by his crew beacuse of lack of fuel and captured by US-troops, the US made some (also not very professional) tests with bazookas and found out, that the bazooka coulndt penetrate the KTs amo from neither side. See you in game Frontal_Lobe




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#117 14 years ago

I know what the Ardennes look like ( at least the Belgian part of them ) ;)

And that Tiger II ausf B armour lacked the required alloy elements to make it good quality armour is something not only the Russians confirm. Several sources confirm that, including German ones. That had nothing to do with the state the factories were in, but that the Germans in the last stage of the war were cut from the sources where they used to get these materials. They were no longer able to produce Panzergranate 40 anymore neither......for the same reasons.

Other hardening processes ( like Hartmann said ) make steel harder but also more brittle. That was confirmed by the Russian tests were the armour cracked open after being hit by a common 152 mm HE round ( SU 152 assault guns fired these rounds ) It is not unusual a tank's armour fails when being hit with such heavy grenades, but then the welding that connects the plates together fails, not the armour plate itself like in the captured Tiger II.

The alloys that were nessesary to make steel armour both hard and flexible was !!! MISSING !!!

Therefore the Tiger II ausf B was many times weaker then it should have been. The protection overall was weaker then a Tiger I, despite it was 2 x as thick in some places and at a sloped angle. It's 80 mm protection in the side wasn't comparible with that of the Tiger I, it was far weaker.

Now i won't say this colossal tank was an easy target with it's massive thick and sloped frontal armour and very dangerous long barrel 88 mm cannon, but it remains a fact there are a lot of photographs from a lot of obviously diffrent Tiger II and diffrent places that really look like villages and battlefields and not pre-set up firing ranges, Tiger II was taken out by relatively small and common field guns and tank guns, and by common heavy artillery fire.

There are even pictures - not the ones of the firing tests, but after a battle - it is penetrated right trough the front of the turret ! Now if it had been good quality armour, frontal armour penetration would had been impossible ! No cannon ever penetrated the front armour of an Elephant/Ferdinand !

Now bad quality armour, an engine and transmission streched far beyond their capabilities, breakdowns chance that made travel further then relocating a few km unlikely, fuel consumption that could not be supported in that stage of the war, inpossebility to cross most local bridges because it was too heavy, and so on and so on....be very happy it isn't like this in FH !

It was a mobile bunker made of steel, and i guess since the Germans were fighting a retreating war such a relative stationary bunker with a large cannon still had use for them. But when they broke down, ran out of fuel or ammo, were flanked, ambushed ( by virtually any enemy AT capable cannon ) or had to go up aginst heavy Russian armour they were lost.

Maybe at the Ardennes most were lost due to fuel shortages ( it is a historical fact it was a desperate last attempt break out operation ) but on the Eastern front most of them obviously had holes in them and burned out.......




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#118 14 years ago

Beast of War I know what the Ardennes look like ( at least the Belgian part of them ) ;)

And that Tiger II ausf B armour lacked the required alloy elements to make it good quality armour is something not only the Russians confirm. Several sources confirm that, including German ones. That had nothing to do with the state the factories were in, but that the Germans in the last stage of the war were cut from the sources where they used to get these materials. They were no longer able to produce Panzergranate 40 anymore neither......for the same reasons. [/quote]

I agree with you....but the point of this argument was and I quote

"The real Tiger ausf B or "King Tiger" was a cumbersome mobile bunker, but then made out of soft steel.....yes, soft steel. It's only protection came from that soft steel was very thick, and was positioned at a well sloped angle. The armour was supposed to be of much better quality, but when the "King Tigers" were manifactured the nessesary alloys for good quality armour steel were not available anymore......"

The only thing you need to harden steel is heat and pressure. How that steel is quenched will also effect its hardness, common quenching materials include water, cyanaide, and oil. Adding materials affects the way that steel acts under stress. Chrome, nickel, vanadium, molydbendum, and boron are some ofd the additives.

Beast of War Other hardening processes ( like Hartmann said ) make steel harder but also more brittle. That was confirmed by the Russian tests were the armour cracked open after being hit by a common 152 mm HE round ( SU 152 assault guns fired these rounds ) It is not unusual a tank's armour fails when being hit with such heavy grenades, but then the welding that connects the plates together fails, not the armour plate itself like in the captured Tiger II.

The alloys that were nessesary to make steel armour both hard and flexible was !!! MISSING !!! [/quote]

No one ever said it was better or that it was not brittle. Once again, the argument was your statements that the Tiger II ausf B was made from soft steel. What I have been trying to show you was that since Germany was out of nickel, chrome, and IIRC molydbendum then they had to resort to exotic methods to make armor. Boron and Vanadium are two additives they used. Alot of current knowledge in using Boron steel came from German research in WW2 making Boron Steel armor for the Tiger II. Boron steel is now used in several new vehicles, the Volvo XC90 to name but one.

here is some good info about heat treating. http://www7.taosnet.com/ebear/metal/heattreat7.html

I did not disagree with you on the welding, I have even mentioned before about a Tiger II being hit in the front armor by a Sherman 105 that fired a White Phosporous shell into a Tiger II's front armor cause thats all it had. The impact of the round popped the weld seams, the smoke came into the Tiger II through the cracks and the crew bailed thinking their tank was on fire from the smoke and IIRC were cut down by MG fire during the firefight.. The Tiger II was captured still operational.

Again not questioning that the steel was brittle, but there is a lot of difference between you now admitting the armor was brittle and your earlier statement that the Tiger II was made out of soft steel.

[QUOTE=Beast of War] Therefore the Tiger II ausf B was many times weaker then it should have been. The protection overall was weaker then a Tiger I, despite it was 2 x as thick in some places and at a sloped angle. It's 80 mm protection in the side wasn't comparible with that of the Tiger I, it was far weaker.

Now i won't say this colossal tank was an easy target with it's massive thick and sloped frontal armour and very dangerous long barrel 88 mm cannon, but it remains a fact there are a lot of photographs from a lot of obviously diffrent Tiger II and diffrent places that really look like villages and battlefields and not pre-set up firing ranges, Tiger II was taken out by relatively small and common field guns and tank guns, and by common heavy artillery fire.

There are even pictures - not the ones of the firing tests, but after a battle - it is penetrated right trough the front of the turret ! Now if it had been good quality armour, frontal armour penetration would had been impossible ! No cannon ever penetrated the front armour of an Elephant/Ferdinand !

Even if the side armor had been of the same quality as the Tiger I's it would not have made a difference. The side armor was not sloped enough to gain any real advantage and Allied A/T guns and AP rounds had improved to where 80mm of armor angled 25 deg from vertical wasnt a problem.

The Tiger II pics you posted looked to have all been knocked out by side shots. Again that was never in question. And the 152mm you keep mentioned fired a HEAT round capable of penetrating up to 200mm. The problem with HEAT rounds as we all know is that they have to hit close to flat against the armor to work properly or else the explosive force isnt focused on the armor and partial or no penetration occurs.

I never questioned the turret front being penetrated. Its 180mm of vertical steel. A IS-2's 122mm gun firing APCBC or the US 90mm firing the late war HVAP ammo could penetrate the Tiger II's turret front at 1500m. The Tiger II's turret relied more on having a small forntal area frontal area and sloped gun manlet to deflect rounds away from the turret face. This made it difficult to hit.

[QUOTE=Beast of War] Now bad quality armour, an engine and transmission streched far beyond their capabilities, breakdowns chance that made travel further then relocating a few km unlikely, fuel consumption that could not be supported in that stage of the war, inpossebility to cross most local bridges because it was too heavy, and so on and so on....be very happy it isn't like this in FH !

It was a mobile bunker made of steel, and i guess since the Germans were fighting a retreating war such a relative stationary bunker with a large cannon still had use for them. But when they broke down, ran out of fuel or ammo, were flanked, ambushed ( by virtually any enemy AT capable cannon ) or had to go up aginst heavy Russian armour they were lost.

Maybe at the Ardennes most were lost due to fuel shortages ( it is a historical fact it was a desperate last attempt break out operation ) but on the Eastern front most of them obviously had holes in them and burned out.......

The way you describe the Tiger II's reliability they would never have made it into the Battle of the Bulge since, according to you, they would have broken down within a few miles from the Jump off point. Yet they did advance in combat and were encountered many miles from the start point.

Tiger II's on the Eastern front had to move from staging and repair depots to the front. And often times they did this on their own power. And they still managed to fight, kill amny Soviet tanks, and retire at end of day. Sure some broke down or ran out of gas. Every tank that served in the Gulf War in '91 had breakdowns, Tiger II was no exception and even also remember every tank has it teething problems til the bugs are worked out. Early T-34's had bd trannys, early Panthers had bad trannys and cooling system, early Tigers had bad engines, early Shermans had engine problems, and Tiger II's had their problems which were worked out.

The point is THE TIGER II WAS CONSIDERED RELIABLE WHEN MAINTAINED PROPERLY AND DRIVEN PROPERLY. Tiger II's had to be driven with care. It was easy to burn out a clutch or mess up a shift fork if not shifted properly and inexperienced drivers often overstressed and overheated the motors by running too many rpms. I cant make it any plainer than that.

There is also no argument that the Tiger II's gulped fuel. Off road and in combat fuel usage was feet per gallon, not miles per gallon.




Frontal Lobe

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

21st March 2004

0 Uploads

9 Posts

0 Threads

#119 14 years ago

BoW: Did you know, that in difference to the common view, the sky is in fact red?

Anlushac: No, the sky ist blue, because the air, it consits of, scatters the blue light more than the red light due to what we expect from Rayleigh-Scattering.

BoW: Yes but in late 67 some gifted russian researches took a Color-Spectrum and actually found out, that the sky is far more red that blue.

Anlushac: Under certain circumstances, during some special times and under specific angles indeed there can be certain segments of the sky, which are more red than blue. During sundown or sunset, close to the horizon it is often times the case, that water (clouds) oder dust particels with their Mie-Scattering-behaviour scatter much more red light than blue light. This is well known to all of us, but doesnt change the fact, that overall the sky is far more blue than red which allows us to call the sky, at least in the first (an may be also in the second and third) approximation blue.

BoW: Yes, as I said, the sky is more red than blue.

The "pattern" of this debate ist well known, but for sure BoW will ot change his optinion whithin the next thousand years.

By the way, I know of only two german tanks which were made of soft steel. The A7V of WW1 and the "Grosstraktor", of which 3 existed and did some (more police than combat) service in Denmark. Anlushac, can you confim or do you know more?

cu Frontal_Lobe




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#120 14 years ago

Frontal LobeBoW: Did you know, that in difference to the common view, the sky is in fact red?

Anlushac: No, the sky ist blue, because the air, it consits of, scatters the blue light more than the red light due to what we expect from Rayleigh-Scattering.

BoW: Yes but in late 67 some gifted russian researches took a Color-Spectrum and actually found out, that the sky is far more red that blue.

Anlushac: Under certain circumstances, during some special times and under specific angles indeed there can be certain segments of the sky, which are more red than blue. During sundown or sunset, close to the horizon it is often times the case, that water (clouds) oder dust particels with their Mie-Scattering-behaviour scatter much more red light than blue light. This is well known to all of us, but doesnt change the fact, that overall the sky is far more blue than red which allows us to call the sky, at least in the first (an may be also in the second and third) approximation blue.

BoW: Yes, as I said, the sky is more red than blue.

The "pattern" of this debate ist well known, but for sure BoW will ot change his optinion whithin the next thousand years.

By the way, I know of only two german tanks which were made of soft steel. The A7V of WW1 and the "Grosstraktor", of which 3 existed and did some (more police than combat) service in Denmark. Anlushac, can you confim or do you know more?

cu Frontal_Lobe

BAH! I just went outside and its dark blue with shiny spots.

Not up on the A7V other than it had 30mm frontal armor and its armor was of such bad quality it did little to protect the 18-22 man crews. Except for warships, WW1 armor was little more than boiler plate. Also the A7V had very poor ground clearance so it had problems negotiating rough ground and trenches.

IMHO the Grosstraktor reminds me of the Russian T-28 and T-35 designs.

Yes there were some Grosstraktor prototypes built in mild steel, and there were also some Leichte traktors made as well.