IS-2 vs King Tiger? Who would win this duel?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Locked
Igorn
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 12:13
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

#16

Post by Igorn » 09 May 2006, 16:24

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:The price doesn't really matter in itself, as Germany had tons of money, including large gold reserves.
This is really strange statement. The reality was different. ReichMinister Albert Speer is witnessing that already in November 1943 Germany had catastrophic shortage of strategic war materials (e.g. oil, manganese, nikel, chrome, tungsten, silicon) necessary for continuation of the war. According to Speer already in November 1943 it was clear to him that the war will be over latest by Jan 1946 because of depletion of the last reserves of the chrome mines.

So, one can see that a tank price and consumption of the precious war materials required for it manufacturing really mattered. And I would like to see some evidence that Nazi Germany had in 1944 when Tiger II was put into production "tons of money, including large gold reserves". Even if we count gold smelted from the teeth crowns of murdered Nazi death camp prisoners even then by mid of 1944 Nazi Germany didn't have large gold reserves.
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote: I disagree. The JS-3, while certainly a potent tank, had a very low rate of fire and low ammunition storage capacity. The 8,8 cm Kw K 43 also had better anti-tank performance than the 122 mm. D-25T. In mobility, the JS-3 and Tiger II were quite similar.
We already discussed this issue many times and I don't want to waste my time with you on this. I just advise you to compare the weight, armor protection, gasoline consumption and engine reliability of both tanks and then make your conclusions. You can also check an average time Tiger II spent in repair for various reasons vs. time it was operational, or check what bridge in Russia or Europe could sustain its weight of 67 tons, or see how easy in railroad transportation Tiger II was and then compare it with JS.

Best Regards from Russia,

User avatar
JagdAlex
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 29 Mar 2006, 03:40
Location: Montreal, Canada

#17

Post by JagdAlex » 09 May 2006, 16:36

Ammunition: 88mm - 80 rounds (Porsche turret), 86 rounds (Henschel turret)
7.92mm - 5850 rounds


According to this site: http://www.worldwar2aces.com/ .But maybe they are wrong :| Anyway it is still roughly 3 times more than the IS-2.


User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#18

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 09 May 2006, 16:44

You are referring to raw materials now, which is different from the monitary price. The Tiger II did require some raw materials to make, however it didn't require more than five times the raw materials it took to make a JS-2 (or JS-3, for that matter), as was otherwise suggested by comparing the production figures directly.

I have been looking for the page where I found an overview of the German monitary assets at the end of the war for some time now, but with no result. It did mention quite massive amounts of both gold and cash money.

As for comparing the two, could you please post some statistics on JS-3 maintenance and reliability in wartime? Statistics on the JS-2 would also be welcome. So far, noone has been able to provide me with large-scale statistics (and not just for a couple of units, or individual vehicles). Without equal statistics, you can't compare the reliability, and thus can't make any conclusions as to which is better.

Railroad transport was quite easy for the Tiger II. It was simply loaded onto the railroad cart, and driven off. It wasn't necessary to change to transport tracks in most cases, as railroad bridges and tunnels were generally wide enough to accomodate the combat tracks.

The operational radius was also sufficient for most purposes, when used properly.

Christian

User avatar
JagdAlex
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 29 Mar 2006, 03:40
Location: Montreal, Canada

#19

Post by JagdAlex » 09 May 2006, 17:09

You can also check an average time Tiger II spent in repair for various reasons vs. time it was operational, or check what bridge in Russia or Europe could sustain its weight of 67 tons
The main subject here is where there any real advantages in a duel between these 2 monsters: regarding the armor, the firepower, the rate of fire, the mobility of the tanks, taking into account that the 2 crews are equally competent. We do not want to know the repair time vs the time it was operational or if a bridge was able to sustain the weight. The King Tiger is in your face about to shoot your IS-2 at 1200m...it is a duel that only one will survive. Which tank you want to be in? That is the real question of this topic! :D

We all know that the Germans should have concentrated a lot more on producing more JagdPanthers and Panthers instead of trying to build massive monsters like the Tiger II and JagdTigers and in that regard the IS program succeded more than King Tiger and JagdTiger program. After all the JagdPanther got exactly the same gun as the King Tiger but with a lower profile and a lot more speed and maneuvrabiliy. There is a guy who work at my hobby store, his grandfather fought on the eastern front with the Russians and he was telling me that his grandfather told him that the Jagdpanther was the most feared tanks they have encounter, it was fast with an incredible gun, he was shooting you coming out of nowhere and got back into the woods as quickly as he came. He say that they feared them more than the Tigers and King Tigers.

Igorn
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 12:13
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

#20

Post by Igorn » 09 May 2006, 19:39

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:You are referring to raw materials now, which is different from the monitary price. The Tiger II did require some raw materials to make, however it didn't require more than five times the raw materials it took to make a JS-2 (or JS-3, for that matter), as was otherwise suggested by comparing the production figures directly.
This is interesting. It is known that manufacturing of Tiger -I was much more labor intensive and expensive compared to Soviet T-34. Tiger II was even more expensive and labor intensive in manufacturing compared to Tiger I (source: http://www.achtungpanzer.com). For your information JS-2 required almost the same labor efforts as T-34 and hence required much less labor efforts and was much cheaper in production compared to both Tiger-I and Tiger-II


Some information in this regard from the excellent book of Daniyar Ibragimov:

When one is talking about creation of the JS-2 tank it is important to stress the following points. War demanded necessity of drastic improvements of combat and technical characteristics of heavy tanks to ensure on-going superiority over enemy tanks. Attainment of these goals was combined with considerable reduction of labor (man-hours) and widespread application of the details and parts from other tank models like T-34. We have to underscore some other peculiarities of JS-2 tank. It had the highest score of armor weight to tank weight ratio -47%. Equally high was the volume of combat compartment to the total tank volume ratio -49.2 % while the motor-engine compartment vs. total volume ratio was 38.6%. Compared to T-34-76 JS-2 had 2-3 times superiority by armor protection, engine provided comparable mobility while both tank required almost equal labor in man-days, which was 35% less compared to KV-1
Unprecedented economy of the precious strategic materials and labor was implemented on JS-2. Application of high voltage power to harden shafts and gear-wheels provided annual savings over 25 million rubles annually per factory. Torsion suspension along with extremely reliable work in combat conditions required 30% less labor compared to spring ones applied on T-34. In order to provide the highest reliability and combat efficiency a number of complex and labor intensive nodes was applied on JS-2. However it didn’t affect total labor requirements.
We have to note that Soviet engineer thought remained the height of its position, innovative approach. Gun fire power and armor strengthening didn’t convert a tank into a pillbox or armored monster.

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:I have been looking for the page where I found an overview of the German monitary assets at the end of the war for some time now, but with no result. It did mention quite massive amounts of both gold and cash money.
As always when it comes to prove you either have your facts on paper only, which for some reason can not be scanned or can't find required paper. Once again, according to Albert Speer, the Reich Minister of Economics by mid of 1944 the Third Reich was almost bankrupt and due to to catastrophic shortage of the strategic war materials had to stop the war by latest Jan 1946.

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:As for comparing the two, could you please post some statistics on JS-3 maintenance and reliability in wartime? Statistics on the JS-2 would also be welcome. So far, noone has been able to provide me with large-scale statistics (and not just for a couple of units, or individual vehicles). Without equal statistics, you can't compare the reliability, and thus can't make any conclusions as to which is better.
OK. In this case post your statistics on reliability of the Tiger II including average time it spent in maintenance and repair first. Then I will look for statistics on reliability of JS-2

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:Railroad transport was quite easy for the Tiger II. It was simply loaded onto the railroad cart, and driven off. It wasn't necessary to change to transport tracks in most cases, as railroad bridges and tunnels were generally wide enough to accomodate the combat tracks.
I really want to see some prove that it was "quite easy" to load and unload Tiger-II -WEIGHT 68 tons on and from the railroad cart. Maybe you will also tell us why both Tiger -I and Tiger-II had combat tracks and transportation tracks if they could be easilly loaded in combat tracks on a normal railroad track. You also promised to provide evidence that Tiger-II supposedly successfuly fought on transportation tracks on the eastern front and could drive on transportation tracks from Russia to Germany. I have to see these evidence yet.

Best Regards from Russia,

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#21

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 09 May 2006, 20:34

This is interesting. It is known that manufacturing of Tiger -I was much more labor intensive and expensive compared to Soviet T-34. Tiger II was even more expensive and labor intensive in manufacturing compared to Tiger I (source: http://www.achtungpanzer.com). For your information JS-2 required almost the same labor efforts as T-34 and hence required much less labor efforts and was much cheaper in production compared to both Tiger-I and Tiger-II
Was it more than five times as labour intensive, then?
As always when it comes to prove you either have your facts on paper only, which for some reason can not be scanned or can't find required paper.
This time, I can't remember the book. That is one. Perhap you could explain to be the other times where I have been unable toname my source?
Once again, according to Albert Speer, the Reich Minister of Economics by mid of 1944 the Third Reich was almost bankrupt and due to to catastrophic shortage of the strategic war materials had to stop the war by latest Jan 1946.
That seems odd, compared to the money Germany did have available. Consider the large sums of money which were left in Swiss banks after the war as well. For a country which was nearly bankrupt, it seems like Germany was quite rich.
OK. In this case post your statistics on reliability of the Tiger II including average time it spent in maintenance and repair first. Then I will look for statistics on reliability of JS-2
I have previously posted statistics for reliability and statistics based on the type of losses experienced by all units equipped with Tigers. To my knowledge, there is no overall statistics made for the length of time it took to repair a Tiger. I never asked you for this, however - I only asked you for general reliability. Besides, you made the claim, so it is up to you to back it up with references.
Maybe you will also tell us why both Tiger -I and Tiger-II had combat tracks and transportation tracks if they could be easilly loaded in combat tracks on a normal railroad track.
How should I know?
You also promised to provide evidence that Tiger-II supposedly successfuly fought on transportation tracks on the eastern front and could drive on transportation tracks from Russia to Germany. I have to see these evidence yet.
I never made any such promises. Try reading what I'm writing, rather than making things up.

User avatar
JagdAlex
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 29 Mar 2006, 03:40
Location: Montreal, Canada

#22

Post by JagdAlex » 09 May 2006, 20:37

I should have named this Thread: Igorn vs Christian Who will win this duel? HEHEHE! :roll:

Ok Ok Igorn we got your point Russia gone the way of effeciency and Germany gone the way of technology but ultimately the gamble did not paid off. They were on their way to the effecient way with their E series but the war was over already! Anyway it is clearly understandable when the World is against you that you need a technology wonder to even think being able to turn the tide.

But I would like you to tell us from the situation that I have already described 2 posts above what will be your choice in the heat of combat.... :wink:

Lastly...
Please, dear god, just use the search function before someone like Igorn gets in here...
I did no know who the hell was Igorn when I first read that post...now I know! :D

Igorn
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 12:13
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

#23

Post by Igorn » 09 May 2006, 21:41

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
This is interesting. It is known that manufacturing of Tiger -I was much more labor intensive and expensive compared to Soviet T-34. Tiger II was even more expensive and labor intensive in manufacturing compared to Tiger I (source: http://www.achtungpanzer.com). For your information JS-2 required almost the same labor efforts as T-34 and hence required much less labor efforts and was much cheaper in production compared to both Tiger-I and Tiger-II
Was it more than five times as labour intensive, then?.
Definitely manufacturing of JS-2 and T-34 was much less labour intensive and cheaper in production compared to Tigers and Panther. And it is not that important whether it was four times or five times less labor intensive. What really mattered that USSR outperformed Nazi Germany in tank production. And let's not forget that economies of occupied Europe (e.g. France, Netherlands, Belgium, Chechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia etc) were mobilised for the military needs of Germany while considerable part of USSR was invaded by Germans during the war.

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
As always when it comes to prove you either have your facts on paper only, which for some reason can not be scanned or can't find required paper.
This time, I can't remember the book. That is one. Perhap you could explain to be the other times where I have been unable toname my source?.
I refer you to the thread called ''Another look at the tank race between the Germans and USSR'. In this thread you said the following:
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
This is really interesting. May I see a real examples, confirmed by documents that during railroad transportation to Russia it was not necessary for Tigers to change the tracks from combat tracks to transportation ones?

The document I have is in paper form, so I can't show it to you online.
And when I asked you to post a scanned document I never got it. The same thing happen with your another claim that allegedly
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:The Tigers could be driven from Russia to Kassel (in the western part of central Germany) with its combat tracks, and it was suggested by s.Pz.Abt.506 that even on the western front, the Tiger IIs were transported with their combat tracks on. Besides, it was perfectly possible for the Tigers to maneuver using transport tracks.
Again, pls. tell us when this event took place. Tiger of what unit was involved. When you say "Tiger could be driven from Russia to Kassel in Germany" from what place in Russia: Stalingrad? Kursk? Orel? What was the distance to Kassel? How long did this trip last? What was the fuel consumption? How many breakouts happened during this trip? Where is the documented prove that this event took place?


Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
Once again, according to Albert Speer, the Reich Minister of Economics by mid of 1944 the Third Reich was almost bankrupt and due to to catastrophic shortage of the strategic war materials had to stop the war by latest Jan 1946.
That seems odd, compared to the money Germany did have available. Consider the large sums of money which were left in Swiss banks after the war as well. For a country which was nearly bankrupt, it seems like Germany was quite rich.
Can you post us data on what were the gold reserves of the Nazi Germany as the second half of 1944? Then let's compare these reserves with gold reserves of USSR, USA or Britain as of 1944.


Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
OK. In this case post your statistics on reliability of the Tiger II including average time it spent in maintenance and repair first. Then I will look for statistics on reliability of JS-2
I have previously posted statistics for reliability and statistics based on the type of losses experienced by all units equipped with Tigers. To my knowledge, there is no overall statistics made for the length of time it took to repair a Tiger. I never asked you for this, however - I only asked you for general reliability. Besides, you made the claim, so it is up to you to back it up with references.
I can recomend you a good book where you will get some data on the reliability of the Tigers II in combat - Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II by Christopher W. Wilbeck, which is available on amazon.com. Wilbeck points out in great detail, the end result of designing a tank with very heavy armor and extreme firepower was a tank that was very heavy and extremely expensive and time consuming to manufacture The Tigers were very prone to breaking down (mostly because of their weight, which strained the entire mechanical system), could not cross most of the bridges in Europe, and had to be shipped by train to the battlefield (they would break down if they had to be driven for any great distance). There were only a few Tigers ever manufactured (1,348 Tiger Is and less than 500 Tiger IIs ), and even fewer that actually showed up on the battlefield. They guzzled gasoline, were extremely slow (with an average speed of about 4-9 miles per hour on rough terrain or dirt roads - well below the stated maximum design speed of 25 mph), and had an extremely short combat radius and duration. The high kill ratios when they did engage in combat were offset by their tendency to either run out of gas or break down in combat, which resulted in large numbers having to be abandoned (more than were destroyed by Allied tanks). Because of the immobility and limited numbers of the Tiger tanks, it was possible to avoid confronting them with tanks, and instead, Allied forces would try to bypass and isolate them, or destroy them with heavy artillery or airpower.

There were other major weaknesses - for instance, the German Army was the only one of the major armies in Europe to not have minesweeping tanks. Inexplicably, the Germans persisted in using these precious few Tiger tanks to "bull-through" minefields, a tactic that led to long trails of busted Tiger tanks whenever a unit encountered a minefield, leaving few to carry out the attack at the other end of the minefield. The Germans also suffered from a lack of sufficient retrieval vehicles that could handle the heavy Tigers. This led to the abandonment of many Tigers that could have been repaired had they been retrieved. Wilbeck gives the statistic that each Tiger I tank cost 800,000 Reichmarks, which was equivalent to the weekly wages of 30,000 people, and required 300,000 man-hours to produce.

As far as JS-2 is concerned I recommend you books of Ibragimov, Zaloga and Pavlov.
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
Maybe you will also tell us why both Tiger -I and Tiger-II had combat tracks and transportation tracks if they could be easilly loaded in combat tracks on a normal railroad track.
How should I know?
Since you are the moderator and Wehrmacht tank expert on this forum not me.
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
You also promised to provide evidence that Tiger-II supposedly successfuly fought on transportation tracks on the eastern front and could drive on transportation tracks from Russia to Germany. I have to see these evidence yet.
I never made any such promises. Try reading what I'm writing, rather than making things up.
Here what I wrote in the thread 'Another look at the tank race between the Germans and USSR'
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:

You fail to realize, though, that it usually wasn't necessary to change the tracks. The Tigers could be driven from Russia to Kassel (in the western part of central Germany) with its combat tracks, and it was suggested by s.Pz.Abt.506 that even on the western front, the Tiger IIs were transported with their combat tracks on.

Besides, it was perfectly possible for the Tigers to maneuver using transport tracks.
Best Regards from Russia,

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#24

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 09 May 2006, 22:55

And let's not forget that economies of occupied Europe (e.g. France, Netherlands, Belgium, Chechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia etc) were mobilised for the military needs of Germany while considerable part of USSR was invaded by Germans during the war.
This is only partially true. It is true that these countries were milked for raw materilas, however these raw materials did generally not include what Germany needed most of all: steel and oil. German military production was, with the exception of Chezcoslovakia and Austria (which was considered part of Germany by Germany), kept within Germany's boundaries.
And when I asked you to post a scanned document I never got it. The same thing happen with your another claim that allegedly
I didn't scan primarily because I haven't received permission to scan it from the person who sold me the copy. Besides, what difference does it make if I scan it or not? You don't ask of me that I scan my books, after all.
Again, pls. tell us when this event took place. Tiger of what unit was involved. When you say "Tiger could be driven from Russia to Kassel in Germany" from what place in Russia: Stalingrad? Kursk? Orel? What was the distance to Kassel? How long did this trip last? What was the fuel consumption? How many breakouts happened during this trip? Where is the documented prove that this event took place?
1) What difference does it make where in Russia they were transported from? As far as I know, the majority of railroad bridges and tunnels would be encountered within Poland and Germany
2) See above
3) There is no information on how long the journey lasted. This wouldn't be very useful anyway, since railroad transport times would vary depending on traffic
4) I have no idea, however coal wasn't in as dire need as oil
5) Since the Tigers would be assumed to be quite static while being transported, my guess would be none
6) A report from the commander of 506.s.Pz.Abt.
Can you post us data on what were the gold reserves of the Nazi Germany as the second half of 1944? Then let's compare these reserves with gold reserves of USSR, USA or Britain as of 1944.
As already mentioned, no. I don't see what a comparison will help, though.

As for the information you present, the speeds you quote is certainly wrong. It is also incorrect that more were abandonned than were destroyed by Allied tanks (the number of combat casualties was higher than the number of non-combat casualties). There is no evidence that the Tigers were any more likely to break down than other tanks. Your idea of evelopment and destruction by artillery and airpower would also warrent that there were a large amount of Tigers destroyed by artillery and air power, which was no the case.

Furthermore, the excerpts I've seen from unit commander's reports certainly doesn't give the impression that the Tiger was used a pseudo-minesweepers, but rather that the German mine clearing efforts in general were lacking, on occasion. Besides, the lack of a mine clearing vehicles isn't exactly a design flaw of the Tiger, is it?

Regarding the price of a Tiger I was 299,800 Reichmark. The export price was 645,000. I have no idea where the 800,000 figure comes from.
Since you are the moderator and Wehrmacht tank expert on this forum not me.
Being a moderator does not give me unlimited wisdom over both known and unknown information (unfortunately). As for being an expert, you said that, not I ;)
Here what I wrote in the thread 'Another look at the tank race between the Germans and USSR'
I am referring to transporting Tigers (i.e. railroad transportation), not driving the tanks themselves.

Christian

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

#25

Post by Yoozername » 09 May 2006, 23:55

Igorn wrote:
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:The price doesn't really matter in itself, as Germany had tons of money, including large gold reserves.
This is really strange statement. The reality was different. ReichMinister Albert Speer is witnessing that already in November 1943 Germany had catastrophic shortage of strategic war materials (e.g. oil, manganese, nikel, chrome, tungsten, silicon) necessary for continuation of the war. According to Speer already in November 1943 it was clear to him that the war will be over latest by Jan 1946 because of depletion of the last reserves of the chrome mines.

Best Regards from Russia,
Its not only strange, its immaterial. Its not a financial matter but a strategic economic matter.

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#26

Post by Christian W. » 10 May 2006, 00:02

Pls. take my sincere congatulations on the 61st Anniverssary of the Victory Day, which is celebrated in Russia today and drink some vodka for the winning Russian Army who crushed the Wehrmacht.
I did not know that Soviet Union won the war alone or that Soviet Union consisted only of Russia...:roll:

And perhaps you would also like to drink for Soviet agression, imperialism and crimes? Invasion Poland, the Baltis States and Finland, deportation and death of millions of people and Katyn massacre eg.
Last edited by Christian W. on 10 May 2006, 02:31, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JagdAlex
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 29 Mar 2006, 03:40
Location: Montreal, Canada

#27

Post by JagdAlex » 10 May 2006, 01:12

F/PAUL wrote:
If you read Jentz's books you can see that the JS-II was vulnerable to the Tiger-II's gun at ranges where the Tiger-II was immune from the JS-II'a main armament


If you check http://www.battlefield.ru and read books of Zheltov, Pavlov, Suvorov or Katukov you will see that Tiger II was vulnerable to the JS-2 122mm gun at the ranges where JS-2 was immune from the Tiger II.
According to this source: http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/Quart ... tiger2.htm I am affraid that again it was the Tiger II who was immune to the armament of the IS-2 after a certain range and the IS-2 was not, from the Tiger II.
By the end of 1942 the german High Command put request for a modified Tiger heavy tank which would include sloped armor and the mighty 88mm L71,2. With a muzzle speed of about 1,000 m/s this weapon was able to pierce a 185mm thick sloped plate by 30º on a distance of 500 metres with standard armor piercing rounds: it was sufficient to take out the latest IS tanks while remaining out of enemy counterfire.
And also according to that site the Tiger II was not that bad at least not as bad as our friend Igorn was saying:

The 88mm L71 KwK 43 tank gun, joined by the excellent optics, was able to pierce any enemy tank on long ranges; front armor was able to whithstand any enemy anti-tank gun, large battle tracks permitted the tank to offer a ground pressure of only 0.74 Kg/cm2 (when the tracks sunk of 20 cm in the ground), speed of a remarkable maximum of 41.5 Kmh and a cruising one of 38 Kmh on roads and 15-20Kmh on open terrains.

The turret rotation speed was even more stunning, capable of turning by its hydraulic gearing system (connected and depending from the engine) of 360 degrees in 19 seconds (with the engine at 2,000 rpm) for fine adjustments and in less than ten seconds at the fastest speed (engine at 3,000 rpm, difficult to archieve because of engine's overheating). The lowest speed for a full turn was 70 seconds: low speed was used (and needed) for long range aiming/shooting (the ideal role for the Tiger).

Reliability continously improved: a March 1945 German report stated that the operational ratio of the tank in frontline units was 59 percent of the strength, second only to the Panzer IV with 62 percent and much better than Panther at only 48 percent. This is against some common ideas which want the Tiger II as a big, slow and unreliable monster. Many faults were overexploited by inexperienced drivers but with mature drivers and the needed pauses for restoring and maintenaince reliability greatly increased.

Its capabilities of negotiating obstacles were comparable to or better than that of the other German or Allied tanks. Improvements also took the Tiger to had to mount an integrated range-finder but the production of the modified turret, which had to start in July 1945, never took place because the end of the war.

User avatar
vad26
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Nov 2005, 13:12
Location: Sevastopol

#28

Post by vad26 » 10 May 2006, 13:37

It is necessary to consider also, that the Soviet shells were the worst quality. Partially it justifies much greater calibre of guns (as indemnification). Both almost full absence cumulative shells, which could affect considerably ability of the Soviet tanks (not only ÈÑ) to destroy German tanks.

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004, 16:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

#29

Post by Ome_Joop » 10 May 2006, 15:54

Igorn wrote:
This is interesting. It is known that manufacturing of Tiger -I was much more labor intensive and expensive compared to Soviet T-34. Tiger II was even more expensive and labor intensive in manufacturing compared to Tiger I (source: http://www.achtungpanzer.com). For your information JS-2 required almost the same labor efforts as T-34 and hence required much less labor efforts and was much cheaper in production compared to both Tiger-I and Tiger-II
Why this statement is completly wrong....
labor intensive...
first of all a Is-2 has more roadwheels vs a T-34 (12 vs 10) and it even has return rollers (6) and bigger and more tracklinks...wich means definetly more expensive and labor intensive....
2nd a bigger and heavier tank needs more welding wich always means more labor expensive...
3rd working with 45 tons vs 30 tons...means an increase of workload and labor (you simple need bigger machines)!
So that almost the same labor must be taken with a very big grain of salt

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

#30

Post by Yoozername » 10 May 2006, 17:48

The T34 design had been built for years. Its 'price' had dropped significantly as manufacturing processes were streamlined. I doubt the JS tanks had time to really approach a T34 in terms of manhours or 'cost'. Even the Soviets realized that the early JS were too 'cheap' and that non-penetrating hits could knock it out. Hence the armor redesign.

The Tiger tanks turrets were very expensive to build. The Tiger I had its horseshoe shaped turret that must have been bent to shape. The Tiger II also had 'bent' turret sides.

Locked

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”