Hosted by Darren Baker
What would kill a King Tiger?
blaster76
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 12:20 AM UTC
I notice that everyone keeps harping on the western side. I have not made a study, but I'll bet that the 122mm Joseph Stalin 2 could have put a nice dent in a King Tiger. If you are not fixated on a diorama showing a sherman knocking out a KT, how about a nice one of a Sherman with flipped off turret and burning (a much more real occurance) Or a KT with thrown off tread and a swarm of US /Brit infantry all over it trying to get at the crew inside
jpzr
Joined: July 01, 2004
KitMaker: 316 posts
Armorama: 270 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 12:21 AM UTC
It is my understanding there was no allied ATG capable of penetrating the glacis of the Tiger II (not sure if this includes the freakish gun on the Super Pershing though). The turret front, maybe, but the slope of the glacis caused even rounds capable of penetrating its thickness (17 pounder APDS or the tungsten-core ammo used by the US 90mm) to skip. I have seen it stated that there is no evidence the glacis was ever penetrated during the war. IIRC, there were limited instances in which the glacis failed, i.e. cracked, after being hit by a Russian 122mm round or 152mm round, but this was due to the poor tempering of the steel whose quality declined as the war progressed. This is a different ballistic outcome than a penetration, but would be interesting to model.
As far as the sides and rear, the vehicle was vulnerable even to the US 75mm at very close ranges so lots of options there.
I would also echo those who say airpower was a little overrated in terms of direct risks to tanks. I too suspect that interdiction attacks posed greater risk to the support tails of the tank units than the tanks themselves. I wish I could find the link, but I remember back in my wargaming craze a few years ago I read an article that summarized tank losses in the West. IIRC, according to this, the lead cause of tank "knock-outs" for the Germans was self-destruction by crews due to lack of petrol or bogging with no chance for recovery. I was surprised to see the numbers attributed to air attack. I can't remember the percentage, but it was less than I would have anticipated.
As far as the sides and rear, the vehicle was vulnerable even to the US 75mm at very close ranges so lots of options there.
I would also echo those who say airpower was a little overrated in terms of direct risks to tanks. I too suspect that interdiction attacks posed greater risk to the support tails of the tank units than the tanks themselves. I wish I could find the link, but I remember back in my wargaming craze a few years ago I read an article that summarized tank losses in the West. IIRC, according to this, the lead cause of tank "knock-outs" for the Germans was self-destruction by crews due to lack of petrol or bogging with no chance for recovery. I was surprised to see the numbers attributed to air attack. I can't remember the percentage, but it was less than I would have anticipated.
Easy_Co
Joined: September 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,933 posts
Armorama: 985 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 12:45 AM UTC
Most of the photo's Ive seen of knocked out K2 are either broken down out of petrol, or like the fameous Arnhem shot stuck in the rubble of a destroyed house. Ive only ever seen tiger 1's knocked out by tanks atg;s or aircraft. 
Vadster
Joined: June 28, 2004
KitMaker: 987 posts
Armorama: 444 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 01:43 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Or, at the risk of being called a smart ass, a P-51 Mustang?
:-)
- or a panzerfaust in the hands of a brave man. Seriously.
Hohenstaufen
Joined: December 13, 2004
KitMaker: 2,192 posts
Armorama: 1,615 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 03:33 AM UTC
I think I remember reading somewhere that the Arnhem Tiger was knocked out by a freak PIAT shot which ignited spare fuel or somesuch stored on the rear decks. The fire spread to the engine compartment & the crew bailed out before it got to them! However this does illustrate that the KT was certainly not invulnerable to normal Allied weapons. I read recently of a British crewed Jackson in Normandy which "brewed" 3 Panthers in quick succession from a camoflauged position. The gunner was just quicker than the Germans. OK not KTs, but you can see what I'm getting at. Also remember Wittmann, the ace of dozens of battles was knocked out by a 17Pdr Firefly because he showed them his thinner side armour, not realising they were there.
TsunamiBomb
Joined: September 21, 2004
KitMaker: 1,447 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 03:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I've seen footage on Discovery of T-34's running straight through and ramming Tigers head on, then firing, apparently this was a fairly normal russian tactic......
They made those videos for propoganda, pure propoganda. You send T-34's into a king tigers sights and they are done for.
Snakey
Joined: September 24, 2005
KitMaker: 61 posts
Armorama: 16 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 03:52 AM UTC
I remember seeing on the Discovery channel that the first ever captured Tiger was hit by a shell (don´t know if it was a tank round or an AT-gun). The round apparently hit the Tiger just between the upper hull and the barrel, causing the turret to jam. The crew abandoned the tank before they could disable it.
There was a picture showing Churchill himself standing on the tank and inspecting the damage.
It all took place somewhere in Northern Africa.
Cheers
Pelle
There was a picture showing Churchill himself standing on the tank and inspecting the damage.
It all took place somewhere in Northern Africa.
Cheers
Pelle
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 02:24 PM UTC
If you're the Red Army, one T-34-85 is enough to take on 3 Tiger IIs
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=88&lang=en
And Pelle, the tank you're thinking of is the one currently preserved at Bovington. It was abandoned after being hit by a 6pdr round from a Churchill of 48RTR
EDIT: URL changed for one with a better account of Oskin's action
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=88&lang=en
And Pelle, the tank you're thinking of is the one currently preserved at Bovington. It was abandoned after being hit by a 6pdr round from a Churchill of 48RTR
EDIT: URL changed for one with a better account of Oskin's action
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:17 PM UTC
Interesting thread:
2 points I want to make:
1) the idea of US/British infantry swarming over a KOd Tiger II to get at the crew sounds far-fetched. Fine for Private Ryan or Sargeant Fury comic books but I just don't see anyone in their right mind doing so. You'd need a lone, unsupported T2 to be out front, exposed. No supporting grenadiers or other tanks. in the vicinity. Supporting elements would certainly try to cover their mates who were trapped. And if some lone, buttoned up T2 was disabled -- call in arty to bang the heck outta them until they opened up and surrendered. How would the typical GI or Tommy even have training to mount one of them? Have you seen one in person? I can imagine someone tossing a lit can of fuel on the engine deck but trying to pry open closed hatches? Crazy sounding to me. Sarge: " Hey LT: you climb onto it, I'd rather call in the mortars!"
I'm not saying it never happened in desparate circumstances but the scenario stretches my belief. Of course crazy things have and will happen so I'm open to the contrary.
2) I too have read the statement that no frontal armor was penetrated in combat conditions. However, how can you prove a negative? It is possible to penetrate -- very difficult, granted. B. Cooper in his book "Death Traps" talks about an experiment he did with an abandoned (not burned out) T2 and a Panzerfaust he had picked up. He fired it into the turret face, just near the gunner's scope. The Panzerfaust round burned a hole clean through. This would lead me to assume that a Bazooka or PIAT round could do likewise. I wouldn't lightly say that it NEVER happened. Very unlikely, yes. Unproven, yes. But can't say NEVER.
2 points I want to make:
1) the idea of US/British infantry swarming over a KOd Tiger II to get at the crew sounds far-fetched. Fine for Private Ryan or Sargeant Fury comic books but I just don't see anyone in their right mind doing so. You'd need a lone, unsupported T2 to be out front, exposed. No supporting grenadiers or other tanks. in the vicinity. Supporting elements would certainly try to cover their mates who were trapped. And if some lone, buttoned up T2 was disabled -- call in arty to bang the heck outta them until they opened up and surrendered. How would the typical GI or Tommy even have training to mount one of them? Have you seen one in person? I can imagine someone tossing a lit can of fuel on the engine deck but trying to pry open closed hatches? Crazy sounding to me. Sarge: " Hey LT: you climb onto it, I'd rather call in the mortars!"
I'm not saying it never happened in desparate circumstances but the scenario stretches my belief. Of course crazy things have and will happen so I'm open to the contrary.
2) I too have read the statement that no frontal armor was penetrated in combat conditions. However, how can you prove a negative? It is possible to penetrate -- very difficult, granted. B. Cooper in his book "Death Traps" talks about an experiment he did with an abandoned (not burned out) T2 and a Panzerfaust he had picked up. He fired it into the turret face, just near the gunner's scope. The Panzerfaust round burned a hole clean through. This would lead me to assume that a Bazooka or PIAT round could do likewise. I wouldn't lightly say that it NEVER happened. Very unlikely, yes. Unproven, yes. But can't say NEVER.
keenan
Joined: October 16, 2002
KitMaker: 5,272 posts
Armorama: 2,844 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:27 PM UTC
I read on somewhere, and cannot find it now of course, that the steel used in the armor on the late King Tigers was substandard metallurgically due to material shortages. I am also reading Willi Fey's book and there are several instances where German tank armor, on Panther hulls, KT turrets, etc wasn't penetrated but did split along the weld seams due to the force of the impact.
Shaun
If you have two days to kill, go check out this thread...
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-8885.asp
Shaun
If you have two days to kill, go check out this thread...
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-8885.asp
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:44 PM UTC
In addition to Keenan's post, Belton Cooper also writes about a chance encounter btn a US column and a three T2 column. The lead US Sherman had a white phosphorous round in its chamber and fired first, hitting the lead T2. The intense heat and smoke generated by the round either penetrated through weak weld seams or smoke was drawn into the crew compartment -- either way, the crew abandoned the tank thinking it was on fire. I think a second T2 was also KOd this manner. However the third one knocked off several US Mediums before withdrawing.
.
.
Vadster
Joined: June 28, 2004
KitMaker: 987 posts
Armorama: 444 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
2) I too have read the statement that no frontal armor was penetrated in combat conditions. However, how can you prove a negative? It is possible to penetrate -- very difficult, granted. B. Cooper in his book "Death Traps" talks about an experiment he did with an abandoned (not burned out) T2 and a Panzerfaust he had picked up. He fired it into the turret face, just near the gunner's scope. The Panzerfaust round burned a hole clean through. This would lead me to assume that a Bazooka or PIAT round could do likewise. I wouldn't lightly say that it NEVER happened. Very unlikely, yes. Unproven, yes. But can't say NEVER.
Exactly, I have that book as well, which is where I got my panzerfaust suggestion from.
jpzr
Joined: July 01, 2004
KitMaker: 316 posts
Armorama: 270 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Interesting thread:
2) I too have read the statement that no frontal armor was penetrated in combat conditions. However, how can you prove a negative? It is possible to penetrate -- very difficult, granted. B. Cooper in his book "Death Traps" talks about an experiment he did with an abandoned (not burned out) T2 and a Panzerfaust he had picked up. He fired it into the turret face, just near the gunner's scope. The Panzerfaust round burned a hole clean through. This would lead me to assume that a Bazooka or PIAT round could do likewise. I wouldn't lightly say that it NEVER happened. Very unlikely, yes. Unproven, yes. But can't say NEVER.
The quote I've seen refers only to the glacis, not the entire front of the vehicle. And I believe this is simply based on anecdotal summaries that no vehicle was ever seen (or at least photographed) with a hole in its glacis. The turret front was definitely vulnerable to some AT weapons. Going just by the ballistic numbers (penetration tables with slope considered), the glacis was pretty much proof against any allied ATG. In theory, if you completely negated the slope, I'd imagine some of the sub-munition rounds could get through. But creating such a scenario in combat would have been a difficult proposition.
The panzerfaust had a considerably larger shaped charge than the bazooka or PIAT. From memory, I'm thinking the panzerfaust was good for about 200mm. Also from memory, the piat could get through about 100mm of armor while the 2.3in bazooka (the one widely used in WWII) could only get through about 80mm. The Henschel TII's turret front was 180mm. So, I can see the panzerfaust getting through, but not the PIAT or bazooka. Even the panzerfaust was nearing its upper limits. Of course, Cooper may have done this little experiment in Normandy and if so there is a good chance it was a Porsche TII which had a much thinner but rounded turret front. If he hit it around the sights, that would not cause deflection (relatively flat) and I'm sure the thickness there would be far less than on the Henchel's front, so I could see it getting through easily on such a vehicle. But again, not so much for the PIAT or bazooka.
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:58 PM UTC
Bazooka vs Panther
http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html
A similar trial was carried out on one of Kampfgruppe Peiper's Tiger IIs, with equal lack of success against the frontal armour.
http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html
A similar trial was carried out on one of Kampfgruppe Peiper's Tiger IIs, with equal lack of success against the frontal armour.
slynch1701
Joined: March 08, 2005
KitMaker: 340 posts
Armorama: 290 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 08:06 PM UTC
In the previous mention russian battle field websites I recently read a report about the armor on the king tiger. They did all sorts of live fire test on some captured ones. Outside of the Russian guns, they found that the US 76mm, from their M4A2's could penetrate the side from 400 or 800 yards, I forget. Follow the links others have provided. It porves to be an interesting read about the beast. Not quite as invincible as everyone believes, even against the malayed Sherman.
Sean
Sean
Part-timer
Joined: April 11, 2003
KitMaker: 361 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:00 AM UTC
M10's, being tank destroyers, were issued with "hotter" 76mm ammo for their guns than the Shermans were routinely given.
jpzr
Joined: July 01, 2004
KitMaker: 316 posts
Armorama: 270 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 02:27 AM UTC
Quoted Text
M10's, being tank destroyers, were issued with "hotter" 76mm ammo for their guns than the Shermans were routinely given.
True, but bear in mind the M10 and Sherman 76 had different guns, so there was no direct competition for HVAP for those two vehicles. That said, I have heard about Sherman crews trying to pilfer tungsten rounds meant for Hellcat distribution which makes sense since their guns used the same ammo.
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 02:27 AM UTC
Hi Jdpzr: Cooper relates that his Panzerfaust experiment was against the flat armored front of a T2 -- this leads me to conclude that it was a "Henschel" turret and not a "Porsche" one.
This is a very interesting thread!
This is a very interesting thread!
jpzr
Joined: July 01, 2004
KitMaker: 316 posts
Armorama: 270 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 02:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Jdpzr: Cooper relates that his Panzerfaust experiment was against the flat armored front of a T2 -- this leads me to conclude that it was a "Henschel" turret and not a "Porsche" one.
This is a very interesting thread!
Yep, sure sounds like the production turret. The panzerfaust was a nasty critter.
I've always been a fan of these types of discussions. These are the bread-n-butter of grog wargaming boards and you can learn a lot about weapons minutae.
melon
Joined: November 21, 2003
KitMaker: 347 posts
Armorama: 313 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 02:37 AM UTC
rust
jcneel
Joined: June 13, 2004
KitMaker: 135 posts
Armorama: 124 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 05:41 AM UTC
That's not to say that they didn't try and penetrate the front glacis - as evidensed by the Jadgtiger at Aberdeen. But I don't know the circumstances of how this occurred or what was used. In Steve Zaloga's US Tank Battles in Germany, it only says that this vehicle was abandoned after being damaged in action...
wombatq
Joined: November 21, 2003
KitMaker: 39 posts
Armorama: 27 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:23 AM UTC
Smartarse at it again...
Understrength bridge?
Weakend culvert?
Barbed wire caught in the tracks?
Just think, a dio of a K2 with the big gun pointing up and some herrnvolk trying to see if they can use it as AAA?
I really should be up this far after bed time....
Marc
Understrength bridge?
Weakend culvert?
Barbed wire caught in the tracks?
Just think, a dio of a K2 with the big gun pointing up and some herrnvolk trying to see if they can use it as AAA?
I really should be up this far after bed time....
Marc
StgGazman
Joined: November 27, 2005
KitMaker: 44 posts
Armorama: 36 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
M10's, being tank destroyers, were issued with "hotter" 76mm ammo for their guns than the Shermans were routinely given.
This would be the H.E.A.T ( high explosive anti tank) round that was issued to M10 units and highly sort after by sherman crews.
Similar principle as the Panzerfuast. A heat round had a Chemical warhead.
When a heat round hit a target, it directed a column of super-heated gas and molten metal slag through the targets armour at speeds approaching 8,230 meters/second. Igniting everything inside, ammo and people.
Pershing's didn't arrive on the battlefield until the germans where in full flight, I don't believe a pershing and King tiger ever met in battle.....I my be wrong.
How about (like the photo) a bazooka team in a laneway firing from the flank at just below the sponson, That usually killed.
Gaz
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 08:52 AM UTC
I'm not aware of any encounters btn an M26 and a T2 but there is the time when the T26E4 "Super Pershing" killed a T2, as recounted in John Irwin's "Another River, another town". He was the gunner of the T26E4. He got off the first round which glanced upwards off of the T2's glacis. The T2's return shot went beneath Irwin's "Super". Irwin's 2nd shot was timed when the T2 was going over some debris, exposing its belly. Irwin's 2nd shot hit the T2 there and brewed it up.
jinithith2
Joined: October 31, 2005
KitMaker: 108 posts
Armorama: 55 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 09:01 AM UTC
I think the M36 Jackson TD can knock it out. in the history page of the Academy instruction booklet, it said that it was one of the few tanks that could go against tigers (or maybe it was panzers, I dunno) and have some chance to crush it.
the Academy kit is axcellent for it, but it does have some imperfections... I am painstakingly finding it out one by one... mostly, they are mistakes on my side though...
the Academy kit is axcellent for it, but it does have some imperfections... I am painstakingly finding it out one by one... mostly, they are mistakes on my side though...
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.