DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
rcristi2271
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 09 May 2003, 08:15
Location: TORONTO
Contact:

#16

Post by rcristi2271 » 16 Jan 2006, 03:20

Unknown to its crew, a King Tiger had apparently been waiting in ambush at a distance of two blocks or roughly 600 yards away... At this distance, easily within its capability, the Tiger fired at the Super Pershing... In the next instant, Irwin aimed and fired a second time, just as the royal monster was moving forward and raising up over a pile of rubble. The 90mm AP round penetrated the Tiger's underbelly, apparently striking the ammo well and resulting in a tremendous explosion that blew its turret loose. With near certainty, the entire crew was killed.
So according to this account, we have a KTiger waiting in ambush and after two shots they decide somehow to move forward and to expose their underbelly to a well aware enemy. I think all this is just pure fantasy, not even a green soldier would act like that.

Regards,
Chris

User avatar
Blistex
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: 07 Sep 2003, 06:04
Location: Thunder Bay

#17

Post by Blistex » 18 Jan 2006, 04:38

rcristi2271 wrote:
Unknown to its crew, a King Tiger had apparently been waiting in ambush at a distance of two blocks or roughly 600 yards away... At this distance, easily within its capability, the Tiger fired at the Super Pershing... In the next instant, Irwin aimed and fired a second time, just as the royal monster was moving forward and raising up over a pile of rubble. The 90mm AP round penetrated the Tiger's underbelly, apparently striking the ammo well and resulting in a tremendous explosion that blew its turret loose. With near certainty, the entire crew was killed.
So according to this account, we have a KTiger waiting in ambush and after two shots they decide somehow to move forward and to expose their underbelly to a well aware enemy. I think all this is just pure fantasy, not even a green soldier would act like that.

Regards,
Chris
Especially since it is a KT. Why move when you have your front armour pointed towards the enemy? Also going over rubble would suggest that there was some manner of cover offered. Sounds like a fabrication invented to make the story plausable.

A penetration through the front would have demanded more proof, but a bottom penetration would be more believable. Although the believability of the penetration also poses questions as to the situation that would allow such a shot.

Then again stranger things have happened. I think that some of us have a special place for the KT and don't like the idea of some "freak tank" taking away it's title.


User avatar
MAX_theHitMan
Member
Posts: 965
Joined: 19 Apr 2004, 01:28
Location: Planet*Portugal

#18

Post by MAX_theHitMan » 18 Jan 2006, 19:02


User avatar
Trommelfeuer
Member
Posts: 403
Joined: 31 Mar 2003, 16:40
Location: Hamburg, Germany

#19

Post by Trommelfeuer » 18 Jan 2006, 21:38

rcristi2271 wrote:So according to this account, we have a KTiger waiting in ambush and after two shots they decide somehow to move forward and to expose their underbelly to a well aware enemy. I think all this is just pure fantasy, not even a green soldier would act like that.

Regards,
Chris
Exactly what went through my mind when I read the account. Sounds like BS to me too!

DriedConcher
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Nov 2017, 15:30
Location: MN, USA.

Re:

#20

Post by DriedConcher » 21 Nov 2017, 15:36

RB wrote:
weiss wrote:It was certainly a case of "to little to late" for the thousands of tank crewman who had already died in the Sherman and other US tanks against German armor.
Very true: Sherman was a poorly designed constraction. The Germans nicknamed it as "Tommy-oven", because it cought fire easily after a hit. Both the armament and armor was inferior compared to Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H and Panther. (except some special models such as Firefly)

RB
The Sherman wasn't made for tank to tank combat, never was. It's sole purpose was infantry support. Now, allied leaders realized that the Sherman's needed a better gun if they were to deal with the better German armour. That's why the 76mm gun was introduced.

User avatar
ChrisMAg2
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 04 Aug 2003, 09:26
Location: Hannover, Germany or Manila, Philippines

Re: Re:

#21

Post by ChrisMAg2 » 23 Nov 2017, 04:11

DriedConcher wrote:
RB wrote:
weiss wrote:It was certainly a case of "to little to late" for the thousands of tank crewman who had already died in the Sherman and other US tanks against German armor.
Very true: Sherman was a poorly designed constraction. The Germans nicknamed it as "Tommy-oven", because it cought fire easily after a hit. Both the armament and armor was inferior compared to Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H and Panther. (except some special models such as Firefly)

RB
The Sherman wasn't made for tank to tank combat, never was. It's sole purpose was infantry support. Now, allied leaders realized that the Sherman's needed a better gun if they were to deal with the better German armour. That's why the 76mm gun was introduced.
The 76mm was the standard gun for a Sherman tank. You mean the long barreled 90mm gun instead.
Regards
Christian M. Aguilar

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

Re: DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

#22

Post by Mobius » 23 Nov 2017, 16:28

This story came out years ago. On another forum one pretty good researcher found the nearest Tiger unit was about 50 miles away at the time of the incident. That doesn't clear things up if you believe some could of gotten dispersed. (Berlin is only about 60 miles away.)

BTW, the standard gun of a Sherman was the 75mm M3 gun. It was upgraded with a 76mm gun.

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

Re: DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

#23

Post by seppw » 25 Dec 2017, 17:26

Aiming way too high at 600 yards? Must have been some 14-year-olds in the KT.

EDIT: In order to shoot a PzGr39 from your KwK43 1m above the turret of an M26 that's 600m far away, you'd have to overestimate the distance by 750m. -> 1350m!!!
Last edited by seppw on 25 Dec 2017, 19:40, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re:

#24

Post by seppw » 25 Dec 2017, 17:34

" the legendary 77-ton King Tiger"
It's 69.8t.

Denniss
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 03:52
Location: Germany

Re: DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

#25

Post by Denniss » 26 Dec 2017, 02:03

metric tonnes vs short tons I assume, 69.8 tonnes = ~77 short tons

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

Re: DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

#26

Post by seppw » 26 Dec 2017, 02:15

Why can't we all just stick to metric units and the SI system?! :x :roll:

:lol:

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

Re: DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

#27

Post by Yoozername » 26 Dec 2017, 16:16

seppw wrote:Why can't we all just stick to metric units and the SI system?! :x :roll:

:lol:
https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics ... index.html

It is the Metric System and SI units, I believe...

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

Re: DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

#28

Post by seppw » 27 Dec 2017, 02:10

Yoozername wrote:
seppw wrote:Why can't we all just stick to metric units and the SI system?! :x :roll:

:lol:
https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics ... index.html

It is the Metric System and SI units, I believe...
A short ton is not a metric unit, a metric ton is.

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

Re: DUEL AT DESSAU - Super Pershing vs. King Tiger

#29

Post by Yoozername » 27 Dec 2017, 03:45

It is the Metric System and SI units, NOT 'metric-units'...The metric-based Système International or SI units are used to standardize the report or calculation of scientific quantities...The SI unit of mass, the Kilogram, is used to make a tonne (1000xKg)...which you call a metric-ton...which is a non-European expression?
The tonne (/tʌn/ ( listen)) (non-preferred SI derived unit; SI symbol: t), commonly referred to as the metric ton in the United States, is a non-SI unit of mass equal to 1,000 kilograms; or one megagram (Mg); it is equivalent to approximately 2,204.6 pounds, 1.102 short tons (US) or 0.984 long tons (imperial).

Post Reply

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