Testing the King Tiger at Kubinka

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Locked
User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

Testing the King Tiger at Kubinka

#1

Post by Marcus » 11 Aug 2002, 13:46

Many of you have probably already seen this article, but the rest of you might find it interesting:

Image
Was the Tiger really "King?"
Testing the King Tiger at Kubinka

The Pz Kpfw Tiger Ausf B heavy tank (also called the Sd Kfz 182 "special purpose fighting vehicle type 182," according to unified designation system used by the Germans), was developed by "Henschel" under the leadership of its chief designer Erwin Anders. It was in mass production from January 1944 up to May 1945. The tank weighed 69.4 tons, and had a power-to-weight ratio of 10.08 h.p. per ton. The hull and turret were made of rolled homogenous armor plate with low to medium hardness. 487 vehicles were produced in total.
The first "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There were vehicles numbered 102 and 502.
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/books ... pons7.html

Image

/Marcus

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

#2

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 11 Aug 2002, 14:02

Personally, I find that the article is somehwat suspecious. I made a list of what I think is wrong/suspecious previously:

#1 The malfunctions reported can't be used to anything. They say it broke down very fast, but how long had it been used before it was captured?

#2 The article says nothing about what unit the vehicles belonged, or even when they were captured - so we know nothing about any conditions it might have faced. Since the vehicle has Zimmerit, it must be quite early. The late production Krupp turret had just went into productions, and of course the turret will then be weaker than usually.

#3 The Russian mechanics were not trained for maintenance of the vehicle - so it is unlikely that they did what a German crew could have done to it, especially with the proper spare parts.

#4 The driving tests were most likely performed AFTER the vehicle had broken down, and then repaired (86kms is not enough to show how a vehicle operates) - so how can the results be used for anything?

#5 I have seen movies where Tiger IIs run coniderable fatser than what is mentioned in the article - on a grass field, they have been seen running with 15-20 km/h, and since this was in a column in what could appear as being on teh way to the front, the vehicles have been unlikely to run at full speed, wearing the tracks and engine down faster.

#6 The Tiger II has been hit by so many shells that any armour plate would have been completely destroyed - just look at how the plate is bulging. The mere number of shots will have weakened the armour structure so much it is admireable taht the vehicle held together for so long in the first place.
The fireing test cannot be used for anythig, as no vehicle would suffer so much damage in real combat. There are still not a single war-time picture showing penetration of the Tiger IIs frontal armour.

Christian


User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#3

Post by Marcus » 11 Aug 2002, 14:05

Christian,

Yes, I agree with your reservations about the article.

/Marcus

Roland
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 16 Jul 2002, 06:25
Location: Arizona

#4

Post by Roland » 11 Aug 2002, 15:41

Christian,

I completely agree. Your article is great!

Best regards!

Roland
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 16 Jul 2002, 06:25
Location: Arizona

#5

Post by Roland » 11 Aug 2002, 15:47

Almost forgot! Looking at the picture I think thats the same Tiger that was captured from Heavy panzer batallion 501. In that case tanks number actualy was 002, not 502. That means that russians could not even get that right!

Regards!

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

#6

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 11 Aug 2002, 17:47

Well, it does look like 502 - but given it was s.Pz.Abt. 501, the vehicle would have been one of the 45 given July-August 1944, and that means it would have been in the field for quite a long time...

Christian

b_c_ries
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002, 05:25
Location: California USA

#7

Post by b_c_ries » 11 Aug 2002, 18:30

The results from the U.S. 76mm gun are impressive especially when you consider that the USSR did not have an interest in pumping up the performance of a non-domestic product. Also consider that the M-18 Hellcat which mounted this gun could travel at 75kph and had a hp to ton weight ratio of 20 to 1. It wouldn't be that hard for a vehicle with two to three times the speed of the King and significantly better cross country performance and visibility to set up a side shot within 1000 meters.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

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

#8

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 11 Aug 2002, 18:58

Given that the numbers are correct.

The Germans own numbers are much better for the much better, though:

75mm M3: inpenetratable, except for 100m at side hull

76mm M1A1: inpenetratable, except for
1100m at turret side
900m at superstructure side
1800m at hull side
400m at turret rear
400m at hull rear

The hull side was very hard to hit, especially with skirts on. It is more likely to hit a wheel, which can imobilize but not knock out the Tiger II.

Also, the Tiger II could turn its turret around in just 9 seconds at miximum RPM - which is very fast, and enough to follow any vehicle trying to outflank it.
Also, the 8.8cm Kw.K. 43 was more than capable of taking out a Hellcat - the shortest range the Tiger II had to get in on a vehicle to destroy it was the JS 122, where the closest range was 1800m (through the mantle or the rear turret - some vehicles like the JS 3 or JSU 152 have probably been better armoured). Otherwise, all numbers are from 2000m to 3500m+.

Christian

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:04
Location: Romania

#9

Post by Ovidius » 11 Aug 2002, 19:22

b_c_ries wrote:The results from the U.S. 76mm gun are impressive especially when you consider that the USSR did not have an interest in pumping up the performance of a non-domestic product. Also consider that the M-18 Hellcat which mounted this gun could travel at 75kph and had a hp to ton weight ratio of 20 to 1. It wouldn't be that hard for a vehicle with two to three times the speed of the King and significantly better cross country performance and visibility to set up a side shot within 1000 meters.
Bad comparison.

The M-18 had the thickest armor(on turret) of 25mm. On most of it's surface, the armor had 12mm, which is enough not for a Panzerfaust, and anti-tank rifle, hand grenade etc, but even for an AP steel-cored bullet fired by good ole' Kar 98K(max penetration 13mm at 100m). It was worsely protected that even the BT-series tanks, and just like these tanks, it sacrificed protection for speed.

~Ovidius

b_c_ries
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002, 05:25
Location: California USA

#10

Post by b_c_ries » 11 Aug 2002, 23:59

The Hellcat had one thing that the BT series tanks didn't, radios for good internal and external communications. The speed is much more usefull with excellent vision and communications. They also possessed superior all around vision and lots of elbow room for fast reloading. The U.S. tank destroyers were issued tungsten cored Hyper-shot ammunition with 50% higher penetration than the std armor piercing ammunition, so your gun penetration figures would be considerably less than what a 76mm in a m-18 would actually be capable of. I believe a panzerafaust is capable of penetrating 200mm of armor so the only real defense against this weapon is to move fast and shoot first, I would rather drive a Hellcat through a field filled with panzerfaust equipped infantry than a King tiger, the lumbering barge just attracts too much attention and often can't get away before your enemy calls for air support. Don't forget the .50 cal hmg on the ring mount that can destroy light armor and blast away building walls.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

b_c_ries
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002, 05:25
Location: California USA

#11

Post by b_c_ries » 12 Aug 2002, 00:05

I believe for the resources it takes to make one king-tiger, 4-6 Hellcats could be assembled and a properly deployed Hellcat is attempting to set up an ambush not sitting in the middle of an open field.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

Roland
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 16 Jul 2002, 06:25
Location: Arizona

#12

Post by Roland » 12 Aug 2002, 06:54

Christian,

The number on the turret is 502, but its not a real one. It was repainted by russians after capture. The german number was 002. The tank was captured in August 1944 ("Tigers in combat 1" pg. 14).

User avatar
wolfen
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 02 May 2002, 06:52
Location: New Hampshire, USA

#13

Post by wolfen » 12 Aug 2002, 07:15

Roland

According to this link http://www.battlefield.ru/library/battles/battle16.html , contained in the text of the web site as "captured by Soviet forces", 502 was the original number and theres even a pic to back it up.

Roland
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 16 Jul 2002, 06:25
Location: Arizona

#14

Post by Roland » 12 Aug 2002, 07:53

Wolfen,

Thank You much for Your help. After reading the article I would like to ask who do we believe - W. Schneider or this russian article. Looking in the Schneiders book we can see that Schwere Panzerabteilung 501 did not have numbers 502. More than that, there is no identication that any number started with 5. Command tank numbers was 001, 002 and 003. In the article russians also put down T. Jenc, telling that parts of his research is "hard to believe". Basicly they are arguing that any western research is not legit. Well, I did live in soviet ocupation and I do remember what kind of wild statements communists made. In this article they also say that russians did not loose a single tank. Dozens of Tigers destroyed without los of single T- 34? Sounds a little like russian propoganda to me. In my life I learned to not to listen russian statistics too much, and unles mr. Jenc and mr. Schneider will come out to tell us that this russian article is correct I want more proof than that.

Roland
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 16 Jul 2002, 06:25
Location: Arizona

#15

Post by Roland » 12 Aug 2002, 10:00

Oh, no! Spelled mr. Jentz name wrong! My appologies!

Locked

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