About the King Tiger
- Thread starter RiccardoTheBeAst
- Start date
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm <--- that's quite decent reading overall about KT.
So true
Bluehawk said:
So true
Upvote
0
|
|
|
|
v
Well we all know the King Tiger amounted to nothing compared to the IS-2, greatest tank of WW2!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just one question. Why did it take a western front mod (DH) to add the King Tiger to RO when the King Tiger should have been in RO from the beginning for the heroic defence of Berlin...
This is a good question. But it is also ingame. Disguised as a Panther.
p i'm joking ). Seriously, would be nice to see it ingame.http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htmhttp://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm <--- that's quite decent reading overall about KT.
So true
The firepower of KT is absoluting devastating, but the problem is that it have a max. speed offroad of 7 km/h (the 1WW tanks were faster), continuous problem to the engine and gear, continuos breaking of track caused by the heavy weight, the tension of tracks was not set up correctly and need to be adjusted every 10-15km, the armor resitance and performance was scandalous.....the only good thing of this tank was the 88mm L/71 that has and excellent power and was the best/one of the best AT gun of WW2
Upvote
0
The link I posted does mention most of the issues related to mainetance as major issue (Albeit not as detailed as you put it), but I am not sure about armour performance being that 'poor'. One test subject that has been heavily battered and the armour is flaked, degraded and detorriated through constant test isn't exactly that reliable to give a general statement about something. It's same as I make a general statement about german firearms having very poor ammunition by picking up german lacquered steel ammunition that basically jammed the gun after 1-2 shots. It was issued in small numbers in 1945 due extreme lack of raw materials and attempt to save some of the remaining stocks
I am not being KT fanboy, but I haven't really heard any records of KT being knocked out in combat frontally. Logistical and strategic issues of heavy tanks in general is certainly problematic as by 1944 AT technology was close to surpassing any conventional armour, so as much as it might be nasty foe to face locally, we could go and debate was it really that efficient use of resources after all. It was basically the same with the regular Tiger (even though not probably as 'major'): was quite useful in several roles and lethal foe but had tons of logistical issues when you enter the large scale. High maneuverability, low operational mobility.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I dismiss all of this as smelly Soviet propaganda!
KINGER TIGER FOR TEH WIN FOR TEH RIECH!!1
Upvote
0
The link I posted does mention most of the issues related to mainetance as major issue (Albeit not as detailed as you put it), but I am not sure about armour performance being that 'poor'. One test subject that has been heavily battered and the armour is flaked, degraded and detorriated through constant test isn't exactly that reliable to give a general statement about something. It's same as I make a general statement about german firearms having very poor ammunition by picking up german lacquered steel ammunition that basically jammed the gun after 1-2 shots. It was issued in small numbers in 1945 due extreme lack of raw materials and attempt to save some of the remaining stocks
I am not being KT fanboy, but I haven't really heard any records of KT being knocked out in combat frontally. Logistical and strategic issues of heavy tanks in general is certainly problematic as by 1944 AT technology was close to surpassing any conventional armour, so as much as it might be nasty foe to face locally, we could go and debate was it really that efficient use of resources after all. It was basically the same with the regular Tiger (even though not probably as 'major'): was quite useful in several roles and lethal foe but had tons of logistical issues when you enter the large scale. High maneuverability, low operational mobility.
About the mobility: the point is not only the extremely low speed, but the fact that it has many and frequent technical problems. It is easy to hit, easy to see, easily killed by the airplanes, easy to encircle.....the mobility and the reliability of this tank are a big epic fail.
About the armour: the turret is vulnerable from all sides and the crew is subject to spalling that cause the wounding/death of the crew (this is caused by the hudge low quality of the metal used). The hull armour is bad in all sides as the turret except the front armour that is almost impossible to penetrate, but it is not invulnerable from the spalling effect and the consequences to the crew/interior of the vehicle are the same. Nevertheless, the SU-100's D-10S and the IS-2's D-25T can seriously damage the frontal-hull armour and penetrate it from 500m.
Not penetrated, but i think that the crew didn't like this.
Spoiler!
Spoiler!
Spoiler!
Spoiler!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Single tank might be easy to encircle, but I doubt it was common sight to see just some lone tank travelling around waiting to be encircled. Let's say 4-5 KTs in formation even if you had numerical superiority it would require some balls to do it, and as for airplanes... I thought every vehicle is easy to knock out by aircraft presuming the gunner can shoot somewhat straight and it has some sort of weapon to damage the weapon, whether it is alot of machineguns piercing the roof or some cannons to do some damage. Even if it doesn't blow it up like some fireworks in case if the vehicle is immobilized or gun, engine or so gets disabled it's as good as out of action.
But yes, KT was rather horrible vehicle when it came to mechanical and logistical stuff. I haven't studied KT armour at all so I am positive you are correct about that. However, again since only source you mention yourself is russian tests against a single KT that was repeatedly hammered and shot with diffrent ordnance so the fact the armour is already damaged when they fire new ordnance doesn't really make it that reliable in theory.
As for the photographs, interesting but what prevents that they were shot after it was abandoned by mechanical failure or so if we're to be annoying?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That first picture you posted is doctored here is the original:
Also the next 3 pictures are non-penetrating bazooka rounds I believe on the second picture down the KT was finally taken out by a side shot on the turret by a brave American bazooka team.
Quick post: about KUBINKA
There is a multitude of reasons as to why one should be wary of the Kubinka trials which have been discussed many times before: (obvious bias and photoshopped pictures aside)
The Tiger II had many of its parts such as the mantlet and gun removed which resulted in penetrations close to the armor openings( increases penetration by ~15+%), the condition of the hull is unknown, the hull was shot at with many different guns for a long period of time even its own 88mm kwk43 L/71 which weakened the armor plate structure so much it is admirable that the vehicle held together for so long in the first place,etc. (this a short post I would elaborate if I had time)
As of the reliability of the Tiger II the malfunctions reported can not be used to determine the KT's reliability as the report states pretty much it broke down quickly but not but how long had it been used before it was captured? or again the condition of the captured vehicle (was it repaired by the Russians? If so How did they make due without spare parts?) and whether or not this was due to unfamiliarity of the Soviet maintenance crew or tank crew with the captured vehicle. I suggest you read what American tankers thought of the KT when they tested the vehicle.... it paints quite a different picture...
Last point how is a tank discussion thread suddenly linked to fanboys? the Title of this thread is not "The IS-2 is the greatest tank ever!" or similar it seems to me that this topic is a reasonable straight forward discussion of the Kubinka Tiger II trials it is unfortunate that any time anyone brings up any German tank espeically the cat tanks it is immediately labeled a "fanboy".
Also the next 3 pictures are non-penetrating bazooka rounds I believe on the second picture down the KT was finally taken out by a side shot on the turret by a brave American bazooka team.
Quick post: about KUBINKA
There is a multitude of reasons as to why one should be wary of the Kubinka trials which have been discussed many times before: (obvious bias and photoshopped pictures aside)
The Tiger II had many of its parts such as the mantlet and gun removed which resulted in penetrations close to the armor openings( increases penetration by ~15+%), the condition of the hull is unknown, the hull was shot at with many different guns for a long period of time even its own 88mm kwk43 L/71 which weakened the armor plate structure so much it is admirable that the vehicle held together for so long in the first place,etc. (this a short post I would elaborate if I had time)
As of the reliability of the Tiger II the malfunctions reported can not be used to determine the KT's reliability as the report states pretty much it broke down quickly but not but how long had it been used before it was captured? or again the condition of the captured vehicle (was it repaired by the Russians? If so How did they make due without spare parts?) and whether or not this was due to unfamiliarity of the Soviet maintenance crew or tank crew with the captured vehicle. I suggest you read what American tankers thought of the KT when they tested the vehicle.... it paints quite a different picture...
Last point how is a tank discussion thread suddenly linked to fanboys? the Title of this thread is not "The IS-2 is the greatest tank ever!" or similar it seems to me that this topic is a reasonable straight forward discussion of the Kubinka Tiger II trials it is unfortunate that any time anyone brings up any German tank espeically the cat tanks it is immediately labeled a "fanboy".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That first picture you posted is doctored here is the original:
Also the next 3 pictures are non-penetrating bazooka rounds I believe on the second picture down the KT was finally taken out by a side shot on the turret by a brave American bazooka team.
Quick post: about KUBINKA
There is a multitude of reasons as to why one should be wary of the Kubinka trials which have been discussed many times before: (obvious bias and photoshopped pictures aside)
The Tiger II had many of its parts such as the mantlet and gun removed which resulted in penetrations close to the armor openings( increases penetration by ~15+%), the condition of the hull is unknown, the hull was shot at with many different guns for a long period of time even its own 88mm kwk43 L/71 which weakened the armor plate structure so much it is admirable that the vehicle held together for so long in the first place,etc. (this a short post I would elaborate if I had time)
As of the reliability of the Tiger II the malfunctions reported can not be used to determine the KT's reliability as the report states pretty much it broke down quickly but not but how long had it been used before it was captured? or again the condition of the captured vehicle (was it repaired by the Russians? If so How did they make due without spare parts?) and whether or not this was due to unfamiliarity of the Soviet maintenance crew or tank crew with the captured vehicle. I suggest you read what American tankers thought of the KT when they tested the vehicle.... it paints quite a different picture...
Last point how is a tank discussion thread suddenly linked to fanboys? the Title of this thread is not "The IS-2 is the greatest tank ever!" or similar it seems to me that this topic is a reasonable straight forward discussion of the Kubinka Tiger II trials it is unfortunate that any time anyone brings up any German tank espeically the cat tanks it is immediately labeled a "fanboy".
About the Kubinnka test, i wait that you enlarge the discussion, but is sure that the armor quality was really bad indipendently of the conditions in which they were captured.
About the reliability and mobility:
The Tiger had previously problem with engine (overheat) and gear. The huge improved weight of KT only improved the frequency of these problems. The tracks were breaking very often and not because the russian are not able to drive or because they had tampered them but because the weight of KT was excessive.....come on! Even the T-34 had problems with tracks and his weight was less than 1/2 than KT....the fault is not of Soviets, but of Germans that have produced a tank with a lot of technical problems and his weight multiplied the technical problems that the Tiger already had.
Also, the max speed offroad was 7 km/h and 30 km/h on road; the speed declared by the tank's manual (41,5 km/h) was never reached in ANY circumstances.
Another problem was the tracks set-up: as the first model of Panther, that was sent in battle prematurely, the KT's tracks needed a tension correction every 10-15 km of march and this is caused by the haste wich the Germans sent the KT in battle.
It also had problem of transport (not all the train can tolerate his weight, and some galleries were too small for the big dimensions of KT) and huge fuel consumption (= low autonomy).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Regarding the tracks: The Tiger I and II couldnt have had THAT many problems due to the weight, simply because there is something like ground pressure. The Tiger II actually had less ground pressure than a Panzer 4 (0.76 kg/cm2 compared to roughly ~1 kg/cm2).
This is also one of the reaons why I don't believe the tales of Tigers I's and II's frequently getting stuck in the slightest pond of mud due to their weight.
Something can be as heavy as you want as long as it has enough power to keep it rolling and has a low enough ground pressure to keep it from bogging down.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#cite_note-19
This is also one of the reaons why I don't believe the tales of Tigers I's and II's frequently getting stuck in the slightest pond of mud due to their weight.
Something can be as heavy as you want as long as it has enough power to keep it rolling and has a low enough ground pressure to keep it from bogging down.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#cite_note-19
Upvote
0
According to your reasoning the T-34's tracks are indestructible......but the battle reports tell a different story....
Then the 125 ton KARL mortar would have broken its tracks every time it attempted to move 1 cm.
The Karl was mounted directly in the battlefield as the trabuchets in the Middle ages.....and probably this "vehicle" moved only for few meters during battle
Upvote
0
According to your reasoning the T-34's tracks are indestructible......but the battle reports tell a different story....
It's quite well known fact that russians tended to have worse basic mechanics in their regular AFVs than the germans. T-34 after 100+ mile march usually had (especially the early models) some broken parts or very heavily stressed while E.G. Panzer III did not have anywhere near such catastrophic rates of failure. Lower pressure does not equal good mechanical reliability. Tracks getting stressed over long marches, constant movement among other things is mechanical feature.
The problem here is that you misunderstood mechanical reliability and some physical facts (like ground pressure relative to getting stuck) as indestructibility. Yes, we now both tiger and KT had somewhat low mechanical reliability when it came to major operational ranges but that doesn't mean they would get stuck every nanosecond they even saw a small pool of mud on a countryside.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
1) For what i know, the Panzer III and IV were very reliable.
2) You hit the point! This is what i was trying to say: the ground pressure is not the only element related with the tracks breaking.
3) Yes, yes, obviously not every nanosecond lol
Upvote
0
I still would have to say you misunderstood LemoN abit as he referred the basic cross country mobility, which is something where I've seen alot of people (not knowing any real facts) saying even the regular Tiger got stuck in the slighest pond of mud it attempted to cross compared to some other tanks. Yes, KT was bit of a hog when it came to few things but the regular Tiger certainly wasn't a bunker that barely moved when referring to average mobility capabilities and functions, not just top speed and such.
Obviously when it comes to operational range and logistics mechanical reliability is one notable issue, but in basic battlefield conditions it's rather moot point. Mechanical breakdowns can happen even in top quality eguipment given proper situation that just begs for Murphy's law.
Upvote
0