Armor quality of the Tiger I

[Avalancheon]

It is Tiger "241" of s.Pz.Abt. 501. http://tiger1.info/tank-page/A2R

David

That book refers to Tiger "231" of the 501st, knocked out on 31 January 1943 on the road to Robaa. It was tested to destruction in situ by the British.

http://tiger1.info/event-page/Robaa-road-ambush

David

Fascinating. So in Tunisia, the British did ballistics tests on a total of two Tigers: Tank #231, and tank #241.

In another incident, they also cut out an armor plate from the hulk of another Tiger, and fired a couple of shots at that as well.

They seemed to take these test results more seriously than the Americans, given their push to re-equip themselves with the 17 pounder gun.

[Michael Kenny]

As I read it this Tiger was in the front-line and could not be towed to the rear. After a brief and hurried technical examination it was completely demolished to prevent any possible German recovery.

[Contender]

Is there anything else related to the Tiger I E vs the 85mm?
I had read a few things that stated only the "K" round could pierce the front armor at ~ 500 meters (the other large cavity round broke up) ,I suppose its from Wapruf although the 85mm seemed to preform similarly to the Pak 40 during the Yugoslavian tests & 76mm as shown earlier in this thread. Furthermore Mikhail's book states the 122mm could only penetrate the Tiger IE frontally up to 1,200 meters given that the claim is the 85 mm can penetrate the Tiger I's frontal armor at 1000 meters what would be the point of upgrading the IS-2 in this case to the 122mm?

Also hopefully this will not further detail this thread but as far as the missing side plates (I don't see any signs of the plate remains in those pics) of the Tiger IEs posted are you quite sure these plates where not simply cut off by the Allies after combat? They tended to cut pieces off of the Tiger & Panther tanks presumably for testing although some plates were fixed famously or infamously as I'm sure you know to some Shermans & the Super Pershing as additional armor. I used to have a picture showing the Allies were cutting the side plate off a Tiger I possibly in Normandy? Unfortunately I can't find it & it seems to have disappeared off the internet.

[Michael Kenny]

Also hopefully this will not further detail this thread but as far as the missing side plates (I don't see any signs of the plate remains in those pics) of the Tiger IEs posted are you quite sure these plates where not simply cut off by the Allies after combat? .................................I used to have a picture showing the Allies were cutting the side plate off a Tiger I possibly in Normandy

Quite sure.

v Tiger side missing trvv.jpg

I have never seen a photo of a Normandy/NWE Tiger being 'cut-up' and as it is something I actively look for I am 95% certain there is no such photo.

[Peasant]

Is there anything else related to the Tiger I E vs the 85mm?
I had read a few things that stated only the "K" round could pierce the front armor at ~ 500 meters (the other large cavity round broke up) ,I suppose its from Wapruf although the 85mm seemed to preform similarly to the Pak 40 during the Yugoslavian tests & 76mm as shown earlier in this thread. Furthermore Mikhail's book states the 122mm could only penetrate the Tiger IE frontally up to 1,200 meters given that the claim is the 85 mm can penetrate the Tiger I's frontal armor at 1000 meters what would be the point of upgrading the IS-2 in this case to the 122mm?

Could it have been that the German were testing the guns at 30° angle? I'm asking this because in no way in hell the soviet 122mm could not defeat 100mm/0° at 1200m but coincidentally BR-471 shell, the uncapped AP, is rated to defeat very close to 100mm/30° at that distance.
Also, soviets decided to upgrade the IS-1's weapon after the appearance of Panther tanks during the Battle of Kursk. Evidently they considered 85mm gun to be adequate against the Tiger I.

[Contender]

Could it have been that the German were testing the guns at 30° angle? I'm asking this because in no way in hell the soviet 122mm could not defeat 100mm/0° at 1200m

It's not a German test it's apparently a soviet finding for the BR-471 from combat employment which was "proven in a Kubinka January 1944 test" (book's text) there are no angles or further details mentioned. I don't recall what Rexford claimed regarding the 122mm BR-471 performance vs the Tiger I's frontal armor but the figures given here for the Panther are what he used in his treatise on armor penetration. The 122mm BR-471 penetrates @ 600-700 meters vs the Panther's "front armor" which he took to mean glacis I suppose. Here's a snippet from another russian publication:

(I don't own this one).
Slightly different yet related: I have periodically come across some mention about the 85mm K shot not performing well vs slopes especially vs Tiger I E plate can anyone shed some light on this?

Also, soviets decided to upgrade the IS-1's weapon after the appearance of Panther tanks during the Battle of Kursk. Evidently they considered 85mm gun to be adequate against the Tiger I.

The belief was that the 85 mm should have been adequate until the IS-1 was deployed against German vehicles including Tiger I's & it became evident after initial combat losses that the 85 mm was not adequate vs the Tiger IE. This led to to calls for improving the armor (reshaped hull was tested vs the Kwk 36 & intended to be proof against it) & fast tracking the 122 mm at least that's the gist of the book.

I have never seen a photo of a Normandy/NWE Tiger being 'cut-up'.

You learned something new then in any case keep any eye out and please post it up if you find it or PM me if that is more convenient. Also I don't see the remains of the side plate in your photo are there more photos that show where the side plate went? I don't believe vaporization has been declassified yet (first ET's then everything else) so we must assume the plate must exist somewhere

[Michael Kenny]

Also I don't see the remains of the side plate in your photo are there more photos that show where the side plate went?
Vaporization, I don't believe is declassified yet so we must assume the plate must exist somewhere

The bent-up hull roof-plate and the displaced turret ring-guard tells you how the side came away from the hull. It was a violent parting of the ways.

[Contender]

the 85mm vs PakK 40 Yugoslavian tests

Just for interest & comparison. I can't access my other HD atm so I borrowed this from CM who posted this elsewhere if that's ok?

The bent-up hull roof-plate and the displaced turret ring-guard tells you how the side came away from the hull. It was a violent parting of the ways.

Yet, I don't see the side plate I assume there are more pictures of this vehicle which would be useful for more visibility & different perspectives or perhaps it would be easier to pretend I'm hard of seeing and point out the side plate with nice shiny flashing red arrows please.
Sorry if this stated before but out of curiosity when & where did this take place?

[Contender]

It would seem also the the 85m k-52 M 1939-1944 flak gun (the tested weapon vs the Tiger I E armor's) has a higher muzzle velocity than the tank variation between 800-880 m/s vs 790 m/s. Any thoughts?

[Peasant]

It would seem also the the 85m k-52 M 1939-1944 flak gun (the tested weapon vs the Tiger I E armor's) has a higher muzzle velocity than the tank variation between 800-880 m/s vs 790 m/s. Any thoughts?

No. it's 100% not.
Edit: hold on I'm gonna research it for you.

Alright the higher muzzle velocity is that of the 85mm AA gun KS-18, developed in 1944, with a longer 67 calibers barrel. The 52-K 85mm Mod.1939 AA gun and the tank guns had the same ballistics with 800m/s muzzle velocity with either AP shell.

[Contender]

Ty, just what I came across as in here:

and the soviet manual:




It appears to be a bit like the A-19 vs the D25t , the A19 is a bit faster (see to DDR charts & I believe soviet figures) although WWII soviet round velocities for were incorrect & corrected sometime in the post war I don't know how that would impact these velocities therefore more research or comments from someone more knowledgeable than I on this subject is needed. There was some interesting comments when I came across these about the 85 mm round being different for the flak vs the tank gun variations.

Is this place more empty than I remember? It seems slow.

EDIT

Alright the higher muzzle velocity is that of the 85mm AA gun KS-18, developed in 1944, with a longer 67 calibers barrel. The 52-K 85mm Mod.1939 AA gun and the tank guns had the same ballistics with 800m/s muzzle velocity with either AP shell.

Sorry I didn't notice your edit until just now. The T-34 85's main weapons ( either cannon) are rated around ~790 m/s I saw some soviet numbers @ 780 m/s (might be for HE I have to look it up again) so we are looking a slight slightly faster round for M1939.

[Peasant]

-- snip --

I suppose. I was getting my numbers from a cold war edition of the manual. The war time, 1943 manual for the D5-S gun on SU-85 SPG gives the muzzle velocity for the AP shell as 792m/s.

We are getting quite offtopic here. Let's hope that mods will not mind.

Edit: Although this part of the T-44 manual mentions that ZiS-S-53 gun has slight differences in ballistics compared to the D5-S used on the SPG, so there might be no error at all and they actually had different muzzle velocities.

[Mobius]

Alright the higher muzzle velocity is that of the 85mm AA gun KS-18, developed in 1944, with a longer 67 calibers barrel. The 52-K 85mm Mod.1939 AA gun and the tank guns had the same ballistics with 800m/s muzzle velocity with either AP shell.

The AA gun seems to be 55.2 calibers in length.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/85-мм_зен ... ода_(52-К)

[Peasant]

The 1945 manual for the 85mm gun ZiS-S53 confirms that all the following guns had the same ballistics, only differing in the angle of departure. I assume the latter is the result of a different relative position of the gun and gunsights.

The AA gun seems to be 55.2 calibers in length.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/85-мм_зен ... ода_(52-К)

Yes? But as you can see in the scan above, quite often several guns can have different overall length while having the same rifled length.
About the AA gun: the firing table from 1941 does not list any AP projectiles but the HE shells seems to have higher (800m/s) muzzle velocity with the same type and weight of propellant. I'm baffled. Communist sorcery, I guess.
But actually, I believe all these guns have exactly same ballistics, only at different times the numbers were rounded using different criteria.

[Mobius]

-- snip --

I suppose. I was getting my numbers from a cold war edition of the manual. The war time, 1943 manual for the D5-S gun on SU-85 SPG gives the muzzle velocity for the AP shell as 792m/s.

We are getting quite offtopic here. Let's hope that mods will not mind.

Edit: Although this part of the T-44 manual mentions that ZiS-S-53 gun has slight differences in ballistics compared to the D5-S used on the SPG, so there might be no error at all and they actually had different muzzle velocities.

While I've found both muzzle velocities for the 85mm gun in the same document there are slight ballistic differences if you look for them.

85mm BR-365 792 800.jpg