Testing the King Tiger at Kubinka

[Michael Kenny]

After looking carefully into the History of this Unit I found the following quote in Scheiders TICI (page 4) 'This resulted in a mixture of Tiger I and Tiger II tanks,even within the platoons. The surplus tanks beefed up the HQ sections('102,202,302'ect.)'. Now the fly in the ointment is the action in which '502' was captured took place BEFORE they got the surplus Tigers but who now will argue that 102,202,302or even 502 was not a valid number for a Tiger!

[Alex F.]

I saw some of those M36s that were for sale, they had late 50's dates on them.

They were still in production at least through Korea, IIRC.

Alex

[Tiwaz]

Damn sure they are for sale. They are hoping some weird guy with interest in tanks and with cash to burn wants to buy one as a paperweight.

[Alex F.]

Damn sure they are for sale. They are hoping some weird guy with interest in tanks and with cash to burn wants to buy one as a paperweight.

There are many reenactment groups here in the US and in England, not to mention collectors, who would love to have an M36 in operable condition.

I'm guessing that you don't collect anything?

Alex

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Stu.G. III's and Kettenkraftrads, along with Sd.Kfz. 251's can be found regularely on auctions (like ebay, but also others...)

I think prices are around $100.000-$150.000 for a Stu.G. III - and who doesn't have that much money?

Christian

[Alex F.]

First thing I plan to do if I win the lottery is try to buy one of these operating Panthers/Tiger 1s that are still tootling around.


Alex

[b_c_ries]

I'm back , I heard that leopard sharks were off the beach at San Diego and I just had to go free-diving there, it was really cool. Now back to tanks. Christian, I feel that for a tank to be a worthwhile tank it should have a power to weight ratio at about 15 hp to the ton. As time passes and weapon systems improve this ratio and mobility is compromised. Once the ratio becomes close to about 10hp to the ton, you no longer have a worthwhile tank you have a moveable fortification or an Infantry support vehicle that can't do tank-like things such as drive around the less mobile enemy troops destroying lines of communication and supply. If you have the most mobility in your tank you only have to get around your enemy once then he can't catch or stop you from making a mess of his rear echelon and his Generals panic. If you have the slow vehicle and you out manuever your enemy he just overtakes you and you have to fight him again at the place of his choosing. That is how the French Char-Bs were beat, After driving around looking for a battle they ran out of gas. David C Clarke, I will admit that no AFV from WW2 remains a viable first line weapons system when dealing with a major military power, However M-18 Hellcats remained operational and were used in combat over 25 years after any German AFV was used. No vehicle built during WW2 has sufficient armor protection to withstand current kinetic energy projectiles but a really fast vehicle always has a chance to run away and ambush. An M-18 Hellcat with updated weapons-control and vision equipment would have better survivability on a modern battlefield than a King-Tiger with equivilant upgrades. Christian, If I were a Nazi in 1944 or 1945 I would pick the Panther it has useable mobility. But a IS-3 with German or American optics would be nice.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

b_c_ries - then, the Sherman VC Firefly wasn't very good. It had a power-to-weight ratio of 11.5.

Also, you have to bear in mind the ground pressure, the speed, the steering ratio, the speed of which the turret can turn and so on. Mind you, the p-t-w ratio was 13.2 still - and there's still a long way to 15 from this!

Christian

[b_c_ries]

I don't know how you got a 11.5 to 1 power to weight ratio for a sherman firefly, the worst ratio I've seen for that vehicle was about 13 to one and that was with the least powerful engine that was available in a Sherman the 400hp radial. I believe that most Fireflys were made from M4A3s which had 500 hp ford engines. The power to weight ratios for Shermans went as high as 16 to one using the 500hp motor and two inch frontal armor. I do suppose it would be possible to have a Sherman Firefly that had a 11.5 to one power to weight ratio but you would have to use a M4A3 Turret and Hull with the 400hp motor and put in the heavier gun. But the Heavier hull would be geared down to a 22 mph top speed to compensate for the weight and it would have twice the turret side armor as the King-Tiger. I once saw a M4A3 on display at the Rock Island arsenal, it was knocked out during the Battle of the Bulge and it took over 20 hits from a panther before its armor was penetrated on a upper turret corner. The armor didn't crack like on German tanks that take lots of hits. btw. I think a pz mkIVD has a 15 to one power to weight ratio.

[b_c_ries]

Check out http://www.onwar.com they have a fairly comprehensive list of tanks with their specifications. You can even see a four view line drawing of a Hungarian Zirnyi II assault gun as well as limited information on Rumanian tanks.

[Darrin]

I've been inside of operational T-34 tanks and I feel that compared to a Sherman they are a superior basic platform with the lower profile wide tracks and diesel engine. However the Sherman has a better designed fighting compartment and I think that a Sherman crew could reload faster and has a better view of the battle field. The drivers hatch for the T-34 is in the middle of the front armor plate and is really hard to get out of the bottom emergency hatch can only be utilized by a masochistic contorshonist, or a really short guy on fire. The Sherman by US doctrine is not designed to fight tanks but to overrun enemy infantry and support friendly infantry. Most Shermans that burned or blew-up were due to faulty ammunition storage. A common flaw of US troops is to carry excessive ammo. But to an American there is no such thing as too much ammo. The Russians that wished to look out of a T-34 had these things that looked like cast iron corks that they pushed out of the turret and they fell out and dangled by a wire that you could pull on to close the hole. Ammo was stored on the floor so imagine bending over while traveling 30kph cross country and lifting an awkward heavy object as you're being shot at. Of course the lack of proper vision was overcome in typical Russian fashion by having lots of people sit on the outside of the tank during battle. I suppose the superior vision inherent to western designs would have been useless with all the infantry clinging to the tank during battle with quilted suits, furry hats, capes and such blocking all the periscopes.

The sherman is tall but not as tall as you might expect compared to the gers tanks. The sherman 75 mm is abouyt the same hieght as the PzIV H and T34-85. The early T34-76 were much lower but the last version M43 were only marginally so. The sherman 76 mm with the larger turrent is real beastie of hieght. It was about the same hieght as panthers and tigers. But the sherman was very narrow and short compred to any other tanks mentioned. This is one of the resons for its excess hieght and allowed the sherman superior mobility in forest, towns, minefields etc... This combination made the sherman top heavy esp compared to the T34 and inexp rus drivers could get into trouble because of that.

The T34, KV and ISs were the only tanks used in sig number in desial eng. Essentiall no ger tanks used diseal. The sherman did have a varient with the diseal which the marines and all LL shermans to rus used. Diesel engines are a bit of a two edged sword they are hevier and take up more space than the equivalent gas one. Diseal burn less easily but fires are harder to put out and cause more damage to personnal. Gas burns easier but with additives this is lesss of a problem but goes out éasier and crew damage is less.

[Darrin]

Darrin

As you say yourself, the Ferdinand claimed 1:25 in losses. I don't think this is far off. The Ferdinand was a weapon meant for long-distance fighting, and when they were used as such they were extremely good. Armed with the best weapon of the war, and armoured by armour virtually inpenetratable from beoynd a few hundred metres (frontally, I mean).
The Kursk area was hill-sided, but it was still an open plain compared to the western front. This gave very good opportunities for the Ferdinands. On http://www.sturmtiger.de you can read 2 reports from Ferdinand crews during Kursk.

As for your notes on RBF, I agree with you there. It seems that it is unlikely that only 5 (or 6) tigers were lost on a month to some, but it still seems likely, as you said, that no Russian thanks whatsoever were lost in a month...
It is very often the case that Pz.Kpfw. IVs have turned into Tigers, and Panthers into Tiger IIs as well.

---

Hope I'm not getting jumped now

Actually I disbeilve the 25 enemy tanks claimed let alone killed for each ferdinad desyroyed. I found a source which gives 500 claims for the entire rgt up to Nov sometime AP. But I am not so sure about tot losses to then I know they lost 18 des duringh the first 1-2 weeks of cititadal. But they obviously had more tot des during the 4 months from july to nov as well. The ger overclaimed during this period by over 40% overall so actual des rus tanks was around 300 instead of 500 claims. Plus rus des tanks includes sent bacck to factory for rebuild which ger numbers do not. Roughly 20% extra ger tanks were sent back for rebiuld of the tot number that were des.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

I don't know how you got a 11.5 to 1 power to weight ratio for a sherman firefly, the worst ratio I've seen for that vehicle was about 13 to one and that was with the least powerful engine that was available in a Sherman the 400hp radial. I believe that most Fireflys were made from M4A3s which had 500 hp ford engines. The power to weight ratios for Shermans went as high as 16 to one using the 500hp motor and two inch frontal armor. I do suppose it would be possible to have a Sherman Firefly that had a 11.5 to one power to weight ratio but you would have to use a M4A3 Turret and Hull with the 400hp motor and put in the heavier gun. But the Heavier hull would be geared down to a 22 mph top speed to compensate for the weight and it would have twice the turret side armor as the King-Tiger. I once saw a M4A3 on display at the Rock Island arsenal, it was knocked out during the Battle of the Bulge and it took over 20 hits from a panther before its armor was penetrated on a upper turret corner. The armor didn't crack like on German tanks that take lots of hits. btw. I think a pz mkIVD has a 15 to one power to weight ratio.

The Sherman VC was based on the M4A4 chassis - this was the most produced chassis version for the Firefly. This version had the Chrystler WC Multibank engine, which produced 370hp.The average Sherman weighed about 70.000-72.800 pounds, this being about 32t. This gives 11.5.
Source: Brtish and American tanks of World War Two by Peter Chamberlain (Arms & Armour).

The Pz.Kpfw. IV had the following P-T-W ratios:
A: 12.8 (35 produced)
B: 14.3 (42 produced)
C: 14.3 (134 produced)
D: 13.2 (229 produced)
E: 12.0 (223 produced)
F: 11.9 (462 produced)
G: 11.5 (1862 produced)
H: 10.6 (3774 produced)
J: 10.6 (1758 produced)

Source: Panzer Tracts 4 and Encyclopedia of German tanks...
So, 176 Pz. IVs had a high P-T-W ratio in your eyes. Not much out of more than 8500...

Christian

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Darrin

As you say yourself, the Ferdinand claimed 1:25 in losses. I don't think this is far off. The Ferdinand was a weapon meant for long-distance fighting, and when they were used as such they were extremely good. Armed with the best weapon of the war, and armoured by armour virtually inpenetratable from beoynd a few hundred metres (frontally, I mean).
The Kursk area was hill-sided, but it was still an open plain compared to the western front. This gave very good opportunities for the Ferdinands. On http://www.sturmtiger.de you can read 2 reports from Ferdinand crews during Kursk.

As for your notes on RBF, I agree with you there. It seems that it is unlikely that only 5 (or 6) tigers were lost on a month to some, but it still seems likely, as you said, that no Russian thanks whatsoever were lost in a month...
It is very often the case that Pz.Kpfw. IVs have turned into Tigers, and Panthers into Tiger IIs as well.

---

Hope I'm not getting jumped now

Actually I disbeilve the 25 enemy tanks claimed let alone killed for each ferdinad desyroyed. I found a source which gives 500 claims for the entire rgt up to Nov sometime AP. But I am not so sure about tot losses to then I know they lost 18 des duringh the first 1-2 weeks of cititadal. But they obviously had more tot des during the 4 months from july to nov as well. The ger overclaimed during this period by over 40% overall so actual des rus tanks was around 300 instead of 500 claims. Plus rus des tanks includes sent bacck to factory for rebuild which ger numbers do not. Roughly 20% extra ger tanks were sent back for rebiuld of the tot number that were des.

Well, just the fact that you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue...

BTW, how do you know that 40% overclaim was common, and that it happened everywhere?

Also, it is true tha many Russian tanks coudl be repaired - but that does not change the fact that they were destroyed, and this would mean lowering the destruction rate for any retreating army...

Christian

[Darrin]

Darrin

As you say yourself, the Ferdinand claimed 1:25 in losses. I don't think this is far off. The Ferdinand was a weapon meant for long-distance fighting, and when they were used as such they were extremely good. Armed with the best weapon of the war, and armoured by armour virtually inpenetratable from beoynd a few hundred metres (frontally, I mean).
The Kursk area was hill-sided, but it was still an open plain compared to the western front. This gave very good opportunities for the Ferdinands. On http://www.sturmtiger.de you can read 2 reports from Ferdinand crews during Kursk.

As for your notes on RBF, I agree with you there. It seems that it is unlikely that only 5 (or 6) tigers were lost on a month to some, but it still seems likely, as you said, that no Russian thanks whatsoever were lost in a month...
It is very often the case that Pz.Kpfw. IVs have turned into Tigers, and Panthers into Tiger IIs as well.

---

Hope I'm not getting jumped now

Actually I disbeilve the 25 enemy tanks claimed let alone killed for each ferdinad desyroyed. I found a source which gives 500 claims for the entire rgt up to Nov sometime AP. But I am not so sure about tot losses to then I know they lost 18 des duringh the first 1-2 weeks of cititadal. But they obviously had more tot des during the 4 months from july to nov as well. The ger overclaimed during this period by over 40% overall so actual des rus tanks was around 300 instead of 500 claims. Plus rus des tanks includes sent bacck to factory for rebuild which ger numbers do not. Roughly 20% extra ger tanks were sent back for rebiuld of the tot number that were des.

I went and checked the achtung article again. The ferdinands were organizined into two bats one rgt. One bnt claimed 320 des rus tanks and only 13 des fredinad in Nov. Which is imporessive but the entrie rgt only claimed less than 200 more and no loss for the second bat. Some fredinad had claims to des ratios of 17:1 if the AP numbers are acurate. This was not the overall avg but a 4 month piece of time for only the best bat out of two. Nor is this correcting for ger overclaims or including fredinads sent back to factories. A VERY IMPRESSIVE FIGURE NONE THE LESS!!! The art also claims for the entire rgt up to 19 July of 120 rus tanks. If you correct for overclaiming it might be 70 rus tanks killed or sent back to rus for 18 des. Correcting for tanks sent back for repair it might be 20 ferd des or sent back for aslmost an 3.5:1 ratio that would be a fair comparison. Afterwards improvments were made in the tank and tactics and the ratio must of sored even more.

The art on AP seems to suggest there were roughly 50 surivors by late in 43 which would suggest 40 des ferd overall. That would give a 12:1 des to claims overall. Somewhere areound 8 des rus tank for each des ferdinand. Still impressive esp since it includes the bad begining but nowhere near the 25:1 or 17:1 you might think at first glance.