King Tiger front armour invincibility..
- Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14028
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
An internal fire would very likely have weakened the armor further. Thank you for that additional information, Alejandro.
- Alejandro_
- Member
- Posts: 404
- Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
After one hit they aim at a fresh section of steel. If the hit takes place too close to a previous one it is considered unsatisfactory. In any case, hull and turret were penetrated in the front section with first hits. German documents stating front turret penetration can also be found. Soviets found armour quality lower than in earlier types and prone to spalling when hit.
I don't really understand the big deal with this "King Tiger front armour invincibility". I have never seen any IS-2 obr 1944 or Ferdinand with a front hull penetration*
* Only one vehicle that had front plate "ripped out" after being subjected to 152mm hits.
I don't really understand the big deal with this "King Tiger front armour invincibility". I have never seen any IS-2 obr 1944 or Ferdinand with a front hull penetration*
* Only one vehicle that had front plate "ripped out" after being subjected to 152mm hits.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 02 Oct 2022, 10:24
- Location: Mykolaiv
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
Alejandro_ wrote: ↑29 Oct 2014, 11:52After one hit they aim at a fresh section of steel. If the hit takes place too close to a previous one it is considered unsatisfactory. In any case, hull and turret were penetrated in the front section with first hits. German documents stating front turret penetration can also be found. Soviets found armour quality lower than in earlier types and prone to spalling when hit.
I don't really understand the big deal with this "King Tiger front armour invincibility". I have never seen any IS-2 obr 1944 or Ferdinand with a front hull penetration*
* Only one vehicle that had front plate "ripped out" after being subjected to 152mm hits.
Here is Is-2 mod44, front hull penetration. Also, I think you saw the destroyed Is-2 in front of the turret from a distance of 2600 meters from Nashorn. In the Is-2 mod44 turret on the left has the same weakly armored place, where it will also penetrate.
-
- Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
- Location: Australia
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
That particular picture isn't too shocking, the LFP of all IS2's was the same, that area is, what? 100-130mm of not very sloped armor? Even the Panzer 4 on a good day could punch through it, yet alone Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, etc.Kelller Osmik wrote: ↑02 Oct 2022, 10:46
Here is Is-2 mod44, front hull penetration. Also, I think you saw the destroyed Is-2 in front of the turret from a distance of 2600 meters from Nashorn. In the Is-2 mod44 turret on the left has the same weakly armored place, where it will also penetrate.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 02 Oct 2022, 10:24
- Location: Mykolaiv
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
Yes, the photo isn't shocking. It’s just that a person wrote that he didn’t see, and I showed him.ThatZenoGuy wrote: ↑02 Oct 2022, 15:18That particular picture isn't too shocking, the LFP of all IS2's was the same, that area is, what? 100-130mm of not very sloped armor? Even the Panzer 4 on a good day could punch through it, yet alone Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, etc.Kelller Osmik wrote: ↑02 Oct 2022, 10:46
Here is Is-2 mod44, front hull penetration. Also, I think you saw the destroyed Is-2 in front of the turret from a distance of 2600 meters from Nashorn. In the Is-2 mod44 turret on the left has the same weakly armored place, where it will also penetrate.
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
https://pzkpfw3485.tistory.com/2245178
Iirc this Tiger 2 was knocked out through the lower frontal plate by an anti-tank gun at extremely close range. I remember the 503rd's book talked about the incident. Not sure if when people talk about the Tiger 2 hull's front armor invincibility whether they only mean the upper front plate though.
Iirc this Tiger 2 was knocked out through the lower frontal plate by an anti-tank gun at extremely close range. I remember the 503rd's book talked about the incident. Not sure if when people talk about the Tiger 2 hull's front armor invincibility whether they only mean the upper front plate though.
-
- Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
- Location: Australia
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
Only way to be sure is to see the actual penetration hole on the tank.Erik1 wrote: ↑05 Oct 2022, 18:21https://pzkpfw3485.tistory.com/2245178
Iirc this Tiger 2 was knocked out through the lower frontal plate by an anti-tank gun at extremely close range. I remember the 503rd's book talked about the incident. Not sure if when people talk about the Tiger 2 hull's front armor invincibility whether they only mean the upper front plate though.
- Alejandro_
- Member
- Posts: 404
- Joined: 21 May 2003, 14:26
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
Thank you, I had not seen this photo before. Any details on unit/circumstances?Kelller Osmik wrote: ↑02 Oct 2022, 10:46Here is Is-2 mod44, front hull penetration. Also, I think you saw the destroyed Is-2 in front of the turret from a distance of 2600 meters from Nashorn. In the Is-2 mod44 turret on the left has the same weakly armored place, where it will also penetrate.
Regarding Tiger 2, those claims are made for front upper hull. The lower part can be penetrated by a some guns. For the 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
American 9.2cms is probably Soviet 10 cm BS-3.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 02 Oct 2022, 10:24
- Location: Mykolaiv
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
Unfortunately, I only know that the photo was taken in Czechoslovakia, probably in 1947Alejandro_ wrote: ↑25 Nov 2022, 12:04Thank you, I had not seen this photo before. Any details on unit/circumstances?Kelller Osmik wrote: ↑02 Oct 2022, 10:46Here is Is-2 mod44, front hull penetration. Also, I think you saw the destroyed Is-2 in front of the turret from a distance of 2600 meters from Nashorn. In the Is-2 mod44 turret on the left has the same weakly armored place, where it will also penetrate.
Regarding Tiger 2, those claims are made for front upper hull. The lower part can be penetrated by a some guns. For the 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
American 9.2cms is probably Soviet 10 cm BS-3.
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: King Tiger front armour invincibility..
Which BS-3 (100mm) hits are refferred to here?Sigyn wrote: ↑27 Oct 2014, 01:16Hello, good evening everyone!
The Soviet test shows that the BS-3 (100mm) and A-19 (122mm) gun could completely penetrate the turret front hull of 180mm thickness from 1000-1500m. But how the A-19 with a penetration of 145mm at 1000m and 135mm at 1500m (90 degrees) could achieve that? I am a little confused and do not quite understand how that can be possible. Was the quality of the armor really that bad? I mean, isn't that a loss of 45mm strength at 1500m? Many thanks!
Best regards,
Brynjar
thanks in advance,
cm