King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Ome_Joop » 22 Dec 2012 12:35

There is another foto of that Tiger 301


Image

Image

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Ome_Joop » 22 Dec 2012 12:44

Michael Kenny wrote: This is Tiger II number '301' from sPzAbt 503
The 503 combat history says it was hit 5 times frontaly on 26.8.44 whilst in action against US troops near Fontenoy. Now as well as the 5 hits you see in the above pic there are another 5 not visible in the shadow on the lower bow plate


Image

Driver of the 301 showing those hits
(and you will see the bow machine gun still intact)

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Marcus » 22 Dec 2012 12:49

Everyone, please remember to list the sources of the images you post here.

/Marcus

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 403
Joined: 21 May 2003 13:26
Location: UK

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Alejandro_ » 22 Dec 2012 18:36

Wasn't the 152mm a howitzer calibre? Why use it for armour testing?
It had an AP round, and ISU-152 would often be used to repel German tank attacks.
However some 20 years later von Rosen heard there were 8.8 cm guns in Cagny and he re-wrote history and claimed the Tigers were victims of 'friendly fire'.
Yes, I also read your message about him getting wrong the number of Tiger-II with Henschell turrets. This is what the book about SPzAb 503 says:

Shortly thereafter, at the battalion command post, Tiger 300 took a hit on the gun mantlet -probably a ricochet-that had no penetrating power. By order of Leutnant von Rosen, the 3rd Company pulled back about 200 meters and took
up a new position there. It was not possible to determine where the rounds had come from.

Since both tanks had been penetrated from the front, the rounds must have come from the direction of Cagny, which was 1,200 meters distant. However, at that point in time, Cagny was still in our own hands. Only in 1966 was it discovered that a Luftwaffe 88mm f lak battery that had been employed in a ground role as an antitank battery. It had apparently mistaken our Tigers for British tanks and was responsible for the frontal penetrations of the two Tigers.


pag 263-265

Note that this is not the only information on Tiger-II frontal penetrations. There is another one in a report about the combats in Hungary:

21 October 1944:

...

During the short time that the Russians had been back in the city they had even been able to position a 7.62cm anti tank gun in a church steeple. For the first time, the battalion encountered the American 5.7cm antitank gun. It was capable of penetrating even the frontal armor of the Tiger. Leutnant Beyer was wounded by just such a round that penetrated his tank. Oberfeldwebel Markus and Unteroffizier Schielke were killed.


pag 310

Source: The combat history of German Tiger Tank Batallion 503 in World War II,

Finally, there is another report in Panzertruppen, probably written by Von Rosen:

The experience shows that Russians build up strong anti-tank gun positions directly behind his forward elements was proved again. Up to now, happily, the employment of American 9.2cms and conical bore (7.5cm reduced to 5.7 cm) anti-tank guns has led to only two Tigers lost as total write offs. These weapons can also penetrate the gun mantlet at ranges under 600 meters. Penetrations of the rear of the turret cause the stowed ammunition to explode and usually result in the total destruction of the Tiger.

Panzer truppen volume 2, page 220.

American 5.7cms probably refers to Soviet 57mm AT gun. It was based on 76.2mm, reduced to 57mm but keeping the same amount of powder. 9.2cms probably refers to 100mm BS-3 AT gun.
Driver of the 301 showing those hits (and you will see the bow machine gun still intact)
That photo has been modified. See original:

Image

You can find in the first book I quoted. Text that goes with:

Gefreiter WaIter Junge of the 3rd Company, Tiger Tank Battalion 503, points out battle damage on his tank, Tiger 301, at SailIy on 26 August 1944.

Erik_Moraeus
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 10 May 2013 19:08

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Erik_Moraeus » 10 May 2013 19:21

Alejandro_ wrote:There are a few books with that reference. You can find it in Osprey volume on Tiger-II:

The authors have been unable to find any photographs or other proof of the frontal armour of Tiger IIs being penetrated during combat.

Osprey New Vanguard, Tiger II, by Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle, Peter Sarson and Lee Johnson (1993), pag 36.

There is a photo that has been discussed in many forums, and that shows a possible front penetration in the turret. See below. No photo of front hull penetrations has been found.

Image


Hello everybody, I'm new here! Sorry for bumping this thread if it's not used anymore...

Anyway, I saw this thread with this photo, and I've seen this photo many times on different threads.
People use it as an example of a Tiger II with a penetrated front armour.

However... as some here wrote they have studied this photo, it seems like they dont have the information behind this photo. I bought a book about the 503rd Tiger Heavy Tank Battalion, written by veterans from it, and this photo is one of many on this book.

The tank is from the 503rd battalion, in Sailly 1944 with number 301, and the authors write nothing about it being knocked out as far as I can remember.

Simply: "Tiger 503 at the assembly area in Sailly 1944."

I might be mistaking though, but maybe the small text would have mentioned if it was knocked out.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Marcus » 10 May 2013 19:49

:welcome:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting in an old thread when you have something to add to the discussion.

/Marcus

Erik_Moraeus
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 10 May 2013 19:08

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Erik_Moraeus » 10 May 2013 21:35

Marcus Wendel wrote::welcome:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting in an old thread when you have something to add to the discussion.

/Marcus

Thank you!

To be honest I noticed after I had registered that this forum is only for the Axis soldiers history... But well, not a big deal.


Anyway, about the photo. When they write that it's at an "assembly area", does that mean basicly that it's been parked togheter with other tanks or something? If so, everyone who ever discussed if the turret is penetrated in this photo have the answer that its not, a deep bulge though.

User avatar
kstdk
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 10 Jan 2004 16:59
Location: Denmark

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by kstdk » 10 May 2013 22:05

Hello Erik

Welcome - this forum is absolutely not only for axis soliders history. If you look down the front pages index you will see diferently:

http://forum.axishistory.com/index.php

Hope you will find many interesting topics at Axis History Forum.

Best regards
Kurt
kstdk

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 May 2013 23:06

The answer is in the text of the book

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php? ... 6&p=554337


The 503 combat history says it was hit 5 times frontaly on 26.8.44 whilst in action against US troops near Fontenoy.

In the book '45 Tigre en Normandie' Didier Lodieu writes about the 28th August:

Un veritable ouragan de fer et de feu enveloppe les quatre mastodontes de la 3/503 le Tiger 301 est touche puis brule Quatre members de lequipage reussisent a s'en sortir mais le cinquieme. le radio Ricke est blesse. Ill meurt un peu plus tard.

I make that:

A real hurricane of steel and fire envelops the four beasts of 3/503. Tiger 301 is hit and burns. Four members of the crew manage to escape but the fifth, the radio operator Ricke is wounded. He dies a short while later.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 11 May 2013 00:26

:welcome: Erik


In the case of some obscure topics , sometimes replies don't come along for years :). But what is a few years, when it comes to history? Or tanks? :milsmile:


Anyway, I do think the the soldier holding that "hole", does mean something. Perhaps not a full penetration, but a partial one or a serious spall incident. Tankers by default , see alot of destruction of tanks and hurt and it is not always from a hole through armor. It is the ones that are the best/worst that they of course dwell upon and take photos of. I would guess that hit hurt somebody or something important, and was the "best" hit. I would like to see the inside of that tank in that area. That would tell us more now.

User avatar
Ome_Joop
Member
Posts: 783
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:56
Location: Noordwijk(erhout)

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Ome_Joop » 13 May 2013 23:13

I.o.w. they used the this (knocked out) Tiger for target practice which led to the other damages (hole in turret, bow machine gun, scrappings and other non penetrating hits) .
If that turret hole was so important (i guess it would have when you are in that tank then we would have had a picture of it with crew).
I can see more then 5 hits which are not on the older photo with the driver in front.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7050
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 14 May 2013 15:58

Michael Kenny wrote:
I make that:

A real hurricane of steel and fire envelops the four beasts of 3/503. Tiger 301 is hit and burns. Four members of the crew manage to escape but the fifth, the radio operator Ricke is wounded. He dies a short while later.
The wording of of this excerpt , combined with the crewmann holding that "hole". Leads me to believe, maybe that was particular hit is the one that wounded the Radio operator(DOW) rather than the bow mg hit. Through spall or splatter/partial penetration.

As to if either hit negates the "front armor invincibility of the Tiger II", I don't think it does. One is on the lower glacis/hull. not really the Front glacis or front turret armor. And the hit on the bow MG position is akin to a critical hit though a necessary design weakness for the mg position.

Sigyn
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 23:28

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Sigyn » 27 Oct 2014 00:16

Hello, good evening everyone!

I'm new here as well, and I tried to search through the forum the answer related my questions, but I had less success. I hope it's okay when I reactivate this topic.

On the Wikipedia article of the Tiger B, which include the soviet war time test, there are recently some edit wars ongoing, about the credibility of the test. Myself, I don't know much about this subject, and I would be very delighted if someone could give an explanation to me.

The Soviet test shows that the BS-3 (100mm) and A-19 (122mm) gun could completely penetrate the turret front hull of 180mm thickness from 1000-1500m. But how the A-19 with a penetration of 145mm at 1000m and 135mm at 1500m (90 degrees) could achieve that? I am a little confused and do not quite understand how that can be possible. Was the quality of the armor really that bad? I mean, isn't that a loss of 45mm strength at 1500m? Many thanks!

Best regards,
Brynjar

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 13841
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 27 Oct 2014 18:25

Welcome to the forum!

There are two main issues with the Soviet test.

The first is rather trivial. The test was done a one single vehicle. Therefore, the results can't be extrapolated to the Tiger II or German tanks in general. The test, at least as it is presented on Russian Battlefield, does not include any specific metallurgical data. This makes it impossible to compare the armor quality to that of the German tanks tested by the Americans.

The second is somewhat more complicated. When an armor piercing shot hits an armor plate, and the diameter of the shot does not exceed the armor plate's thickness, the armor is weakened in an area with a diameter approximately twice that of the shot. If several shots hit the armor plate within this area, the armor plate will be less likely to defeat the shot. The photographs that used to accompany the article on Russian Battlefield are no longer there, but a lot of the impacts were fairly closely spaced. Another point is that the shots are located close to vision and machine gun holes, which would have increased the armor penetration capability of the shot.

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 403
Joined: 21 May 2003 13:26
Location: UK

Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..

Post by Alejandro_ » 28 Oct 2014 01:37

The Soviet test shows that the BS-3 (100mm) and A-19 (122mm) gun could completely penetrate the turret front hull of 180mm thickness from 1000-1500m. But how the A-19 with a penetration of 145mm at 1000m and 135mm at 1500m (90 degrees) could achieve that? I am a little confused and do not quite understand how that can be possible. Was the quality of the armor really that bad? I mean, isn't that a loss of 45mm strength at 1500m? Many thanks!
The penetration criterion was not the same in the USSR, Germany, UK... US tests with captured ammunition gave a penetration of +150mm at 1500 meters and 220+mm at point blank range.

First round used on Kubinka Tiger-II was a 122mm OF (HE-FRAG). It was fired from 100 meters. This round did not "penetrate" as such, but ripped out chunks of the armour and broke a section of the weld. The tank caught fire on the inside. Some parts of the full document have been translated and can be found here:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/search/ ... results=20

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