The majority of them. As many as possible.out of the production how many where sent to the eastern front?
Out of those that where sent to the eastern front how many saw combat?
Upvote
0
The majority of them. As many as possible.out of the production how many where sent to the eastern front?
Out of those that where sent to the eastern front how many saw combat?
The frontal armor of the Tiger II provided the best protection possible - the front turret was 180 mm inclined at 10 degrees from the vertical, compounded with a special designed mantlet, which was immune to penetration and being jammed. The glacis plate was a 150 mm thick plate inclined at 50 degrees from vertical. There is no proof that this frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat, even tough the British 17 Pounder, when using a special APDS ammunition, could theoretically penetrate the Tiger II front armor (front turret and lower front hull, only - the 17 Pounder could not penetrate the Tiger II glacis plate), but those APDS rounds were terrible inaccurate and had a tendency of ricochet off inclined armor such as was the lower front hull ( 100 mm inclined at 50 degrees from the vertical) of the Tiger II. Even the side and rear armor protection was sufficient to eliminate any serious threat from the American 75 mm or the Russian 76 mm tanks guns. The hull was welded, as was that of the Tiger I, but the armor was better sloped, using the experience of the T-34. Hull layout was similar to that of the Panther, and the large turret was roomy although the gun came right back to the rear wall and made a complete partition longitudinally
nice quote:
Eh so the test at Kubinka is bogus then? http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=124The frontal armor of the Tiger II provided the best protection possible - the front turret was 180 mm inclined at 10 degrees from the vertical, compounded with a special designed mantlet, which was immune to penetration and being jammed. The glacis plate was a 150 mm thick plate inclined at 50 degrees from vertical. There is no proof that this frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat, even tough the British 17 Pounder, when using a special APDS ammunition, could theoretically penetrate the Tiger II front armor (front turret and lower front hull, only - the 17 Pounder could not penetrate the Tiger II glacis plate), but those APDS rounds were terrible inaccurate and had a tendency of ricochet off inclined armor such as was the lower front hull ( 100 mm inclined at 50 degrees from the vertical) of the Tiger II. Even the side and rear armor protection was sufficient to eliminate any serious threat from the American 75 mm or the Russian 76 mm tanks guns. The hull was welded, as was that of the Tiger I, but the armor was better sloped, using the experience of the T-34. Hull layout was similar to that of the Panther, and the large turret was roomy although the gun came right back to the rear wall and made a complete partition longitudinally
My Tiger II/Tiger I information is taken from Thomas L. Jentz "s "Panzer Tracts" which is one of the best German armor information book series around he has spent years researching German Tanks finding modifications or information that have gone scewed/or unnoticed by most.
Weight is VERY much of consequence and has everything to do with mobility. The mobility of a tank doesn't simply refer to how fast it can turn or travel cross-country - it also has to do deal with what type of terrain it can negotiate without difficulties. It is a fact the Tiger did not perform well in soft, muddy terrain on the Eastern Front and had trouble traversing bridges which weren't made for such heavy vehicles. In such situations they were greatly confined to the terrain from which they could fight. The Tiger's first use in the East, in the Leningrad sector, is a prime example of this. The last major offensive in Hungary, FrIf you do a bit more reasearch than just quoting that same book youll find the Tiger II/Tiger I were not slow tanks (weight is of no consequence*) at all and even reports from Americans whom captured/tested the Tiger II reveal how surpriseingly quick and manuverable they were. When the Tiger II was driven on a non-"parade" surface like mud the Tiger II had very low ground psi pressure if Im not mistaken it was lower than the American Sherman tank meaning it could manuver very well even in thick mud due to its wide tracks and low ground psi. Its funny how you quote its slow speed but do not actually give numbers atesting to its slow behavior just the opinon of the author here are the numbers again this time from my book.
Why would the Germans waste limited resources on building almost 500 tanks full of drawbacks? The only drawbacks were its weight (bridges), its poor miles per gallon, and lack of proper maintenence. These drawbacks were more than countered by the benefits.
hehehe its still a Great tank, also if i took you back to world war 2 and i told you, you have to pick 2 tanks to fight in a tank battle and one was a king tiger and one was js2, and you had to fight in one of them, what tank would you pick to fight that might save your life i rather be in a king tiger with a fast fire super gun and very good protection good optics then a slow 2 part ammo Js2You make it sound like those things were minor hindrances. Yet, on the Eastern Front,
-there were very few quality roads and heavy-duty bridges
-Germany had a long, drawn-out supply network
-the Germans were faced with far more mobile and rapid T-34s
plus all that, Germany's fuel situation was going from bad to worse after 1943. Now, does that sound like an ideal situation to deploy a heavy, mobility-limited, gas-guzzling machine designed for offensive missions, when your armed forces are ever more on the retreat?
The majority of them. As many as possible.
hehehe its still a Great tank, also if i took you back to world war 2 and i told you, you have to pick 2 tanks to fight in a tank battle and one was a king tiger and one was js2, and you had to fight in one of them, what tank would you pick to fight that might save your life i rather be in a king tiger with a fast fire super gun and very good protection good optics then a slow 2 part ammo Js2
haha, that tells me nothing!
I am not sure how wide a truck is but:solo4114 said:There's also the issue of the width of the bridge. A King Tiger is, I suspect, a good bit wider than a truck.