Tiger II armor quality

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#31

Post by critical mass » 20 Apr 2020, 19:26

Ok, Michael.

However, note the difference in the two eyewitness accounts. The german account states that he "supposed" (!) that an projectile ended up penetrating. He could not verify this assumption. Its a statement of his believe at the time, not a statement of verified observation. Yes, I agree something caused damage inside the tank, but that does not need to come from the incomplete hole in the turret faceplate. It does not need to relate to a perforation in the first place. If the radio operator was injured, it indicates a damaging event has to be related to the hull, not to the turret (loader and turret crew could escape).

On the other hand, the US account definetely states that no perforation did occur. And it also testifies this was not the expression of a believe but that the statement was made in relation of an examination of the effect of shell impacts conducted after action. (as per "none of which penetrate as I will see later[/i]") -emphasized by myselfe.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#32

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Apr 2020, 19:58

critical mass wrote:
20 Apr 2020, 19:26
Ok, Michael.

However, note the difference in the two eyewitness accounts.
Happens all the time. Nothing is as clear-cut as we would like it to be and it is an error to pick only the account that bests fits your view of things.
I can give you a German account of the (uncontested) demise of a TII where the gunner claims a 8.8 cm round (fired at them in error) penetrated their side and knocked them out at exactly the same time as a Sherman rammed into the rear. True story or face-saving invention?

critical mass wrote:
20 Apr 2020, 19:26
On the other hand, the US account definetely states that no perforation did occur.
In this example you can see how US gunners despair as all their rounds bounce off a TII and it drives away intact-only it was not intact:

engagement on 22 December 1944 involving a tank of Task Force Lovelady and a tank of Kampfgruppe Peiper in the Belgian town of Parfondruy:

US veteran Charles R. Corbin recalls:
Quote:
...I went upstairs in a house on a hill behind us to observe better. There under our nose was a large German tank in some trees. After telling Plummer and Edmark we got artillery on it and flushed it out where one of Company D's tanks had a clear shot at it, and shoot it he did, but three balls of fire bounced off of it and it backed away never moving its turret. It had to be a Mark VI Tiger. It made us all wonder and I know the tank gunner was shaking his head, feeling helpless, as it backed up the railroad on our left flank. I had seen our 75s bounce off Mark V tanks before, the last time near Roetgen where they wiped out several of our tanks...


The tank was indeed a Tiger Ausf.B, number 133 of 1./s.SS-Pz.Abt.501. TC SS-Oberscharführer Werner Wendt relates his side of the engagement:
Quote:


...I started again in the direction of Stavelot trying to give my best. About fifty meters in front of the edge of the town my driver suddenly swung around our tank. The interphone isn't working, I don't know what happened. The driver drove back at full speed, passing the command post in the direction of Petit Spai. About 100 meters in front of the bridge we drive into the ditch. Only now can I see the reason for the sudden turn-around of the driver. We have received a hit into the turret ring. The shell had bounced downwards into the hull, torn off the hatch of the radio-operator, and killed the radio-operator...Fragments had destroyed the steering gear and the gearbox, oil was leaking. As the driving mechanism and gear shift was conducted by oil pressure the failing oil pressure caused the tank to run out of control. The Tiger was totally immobilized.


Here is another turret-front penetration where there is no ambiguity in the account.
penetrated0001.jpg
More views of this TII here

viewtopic.php?p=2263292#p2263292


bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#33

Post by bam » 20 Apr 2020, 22:38

The German report that states the radio operator was mortally wounded is consistent with some partial penetration of the Hull mg mount, which has the huge gouge on the left lip, and some scars further in the aperture. That hit could have dislodged parts from the inner face of the ball socket, it's gunsight, or the gun itself, launching them inside. The mg barrel itself is missing, where did it go? I don't expect its operator had time to extract it whilst baling out of a burning tank when he had mortal wounds. The Hull mg could be the source of any internal damage, without suffering from a complete penetration. I've read plenty of accounts of tank crew getting serious injuries from non penetrating hits to the outside of optics, mg, etc, caused by detached fragments flying off the inside end of those devices. Could even cause a fire, Without any penetration.

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

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#34

Post by Yoozername » 21 Apr 2020, 00:59

As far as the 5th arm. div. claim on the Tiger II above in MK's post....I imagine it would be in the area shown in this pic....It would be in the lower cut out area at the bottom of the turret frontal plate where the side plate and possibly the turret platform meet.

Image

Also, the red ellipse shows this area, it appears to have a crack in this case. Yellow circle shows the side of the turret front armor. This area is also angled to meet the side turret armor. It does not appear to have been flame cut.
crack.jpg
crack.jpg (65.76 KiB) Viewed 2237 times

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

Re: Tiger II armor quality

#35

Post by Yoozername » 15 May 2020, 18:00

test

seppw
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 01:49
Location: Central Europe

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#36

Post by seppw » 26 Jul 2020, 16:30

Yoozername wrote:
18 Apr 2020, 07:33
I don't quite buy the 'edge-effect' giving such protection. Most people have seen this. Can't really say it is a penetration, or the story behind it. In any case, it does not seem the pins were fully through the interior, or welded on that side. They are just banged in a hole, and welded on teh outside.

Image
Is that tongue-in-cheek humor in that image? The hole seems a little big for an apds round, don't you think?!

Peasant
Member
Posts: 798
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 18:21
Location: Ukraine

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#37

Post by Peasant » 26 Jul 2020, 17:40

Certain people are just desperate to find a single documented perforation of Tiger II frontal armour by 17pdr guns, so that they finally have "the proof" that 17pdr gun was capable of defeating it. Which, of course, will be immediately misinterpreted by other people, who will go around spreading the "facts" about how 17pdr gun have been killing Tiger IIs left and right. :roll:

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#38

Post by Michael Kenny » 26 Jul 2020, 18:35

Peasant wrote:
26 Jul 2020, 17:40
Certain people are just desperate to find a single documented perforation of Tiger II frontal armour by 17pdr guns, so that they finally have "the proof" that 17pdr gun was capable of defeating it. Which, of course, will be immediately misinterpreted by other people, who will go around spreading the "facts" about how 17pdr gun have been killing Tiger IIs left and right.
Never seen much of that type of argument. Have you a couple of links where we can see it being used? The example above has nothing to do with a 17pdr.
I think the problem is more the the old matra 'never penetrated frontaly'

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Tiger II armor quality

#39

Post by Alejandro_ » 28 Jul 2020, 11:44

I think the problem is more the the old matra 'never penetrated frontaly'
There seems to be evidence that it was penetrated in the Eastern front too, although in gun mantlet:

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.

Also in The Combat History of German Tiger Tank Batallion 503, pag 336 (Different translation)

In any case, Tiger II is not the only type that was "never penetrated frontally". I have never seen penetrations of the upper front hull of Ferdinand or IS-2 obr 1944.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 21:45
Location: Glendale, CA
Contact:

Re: Tiger II armor quality

#40

Post by Mobius » 28 Jul 2020, 15:13

Alejandro_ wrote:
28 Jul 2020, 11:44
In any case, Tiger II is not the only type that was "never penetrated frontally". I have never seen penetrations of the upper front hull of Ferdinand or IS-2 obr 1944.
Not in combat but in Soviet tests the UFH of the Ferdinand was penetrated twice. Both times by APCR from 75mm /L70.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 15:57
Location: Pa

Re: Tiger II armor quality

#41

Post by Contender » 05 Aug 2020, 03:49

Alejandro_ wrote:
28 Jul 2020, 11:44
In any case, Tiger II is not the only type that was "never penetrated frontally". I have never seen penetrations of the upper front hull of Ferdinand or IS-2 obr 1944.

Image
Kwk or Pak 43 penetrated glacis from 450 & 600 meters the hull suffered much spalling and broken welds.
Image
An is-3 armor test makes mention of the newer more steeply sloped is-2 being vulnerable to the KwK 43 at 600 meters.
Mobius wrote:
28 Jul 2020, 15:13
Not in combat but in Soviet tests the UFH of the Ferdinand was penetrated twice. Both times by APCR from 75mm /L70.
I am a little skeptical about these Kursk vehicle tests due to Kursk AFV acquisitions being generally in very poor shape scuttled, fire damage, etc. The Ferdinand tested for example was taken out by a soviet mine and underwent much "abuse" before being subjected to the tests quoted above during the winter.
Before:
Image
After:
Image
Furthermore there is the "ball mount" question,the Tiger P tank which the Ferdinand was based on would have had a ball mount and apparently from the pictures of the Ferdinand in the soviet tests the armor plate still retains the hole for it without any sort of armor plate or cap for it. Therefore there was effectively a rather large hole on the right side of the DFP where the armor protection is only 100 mm of naval quality armor.
Image
The BergePanzer Tiger (P) however which of course is a related design/conversion has no evidence of such a hole on its frontal plate nor did they mount a ball-mount in that position:
Image

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Tiger II armor quality

#42

Post by Alejandro_ » 07 Aug 2020, 09:33

Kwk or Pak 43 penetrated glacis from 450 & 600 meters the hull suffered much spalling and broken welds.
I was referring to actual combat; regarding Ferdinand there is this photo, but it is not really a penetration as entire plate is gone. Likely cause are several impacts of 152mm.

Image

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 15:57
Location: Pa

Re: Tiger II armor quality

#43

Post by Contender » 07 Aug 2020, 13:10

Alejandro_ wrote:
07 Aug 2020, 09:33
I was referring to actual combat;
Right, although at least with the IS-2 we have a case of the the designers concluding that the IS-2 was vulnerable to the KwK/Stuk/PaK 43 as well a record of further testing of their newer post-war IS heavy tank designs using the 88mm & 75mm KwK 42 for armor testing to ensure the armor was proof against these weapons.
Alejandro_ wrote:
07 Aug 2020, 09:33
Likely cause are several impacts of 152 mm.
or 203 mm's for that matter or hits to the 100mm section assuming this was common on the Ferdinand it would be interesting to dig up that vehicle's story.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 15:57
Location: Pa

Re: Tiger II armor quality

#44

Post by Contender » 11 Aug 2020, 01:24

Alejandro_ wrote:
07 Aug 2020, 09:33
I was referring to actual combat;
I saw this and thought of you Idk if counts but still interesting since it looks like it went through both the bottom & upper plates:
Image

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 21:45
Location: Glendale, CA
Contact:

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#45

Post by Mobius » 11 Aug 2020, 01:56

Michael Kenny wrote:
20 Apr 2020, 19:58
Here is another turret-front penetration where there is no ambiguity in the account.

penetrated0001.jpg

More views of this TII here

viewtopic.php?p=2263292#p2263292
So opposite the camera would be the side.

Post Reply

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