Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Erik1
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2022, 15:41
Location: sweden

Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#1

Post by Erik1 » 20 Sep 2022, 15:27

AFAIK the "Porsche" turret had a 100mm curved front plate, which seems to have given it with a fairly significant area on the front that was effectively only 100mm, due to very little/no sloping. Tiger 1's turret had AFAIK at its weakest 135mm flat armor, and thicker in many areas. In the picture, basically the areas of the mantlet with less than 135mm thickness had an additional 100mm armor behind it. It was cast armor though, so a bit weaker than rolled.

https://imgur.com/n6cx2F3

Was the Porsche turret significantly weaker at the front than the Tiger 1 turret? That's weird, considering that the Tiger 2 was surely meant to be more powerful.
Last edited by Erik1 on 20 Sep 2022, 20:26, edited 5 times in total.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche turret" less protected from the front than the Tiger 1's turret?

#2

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 20 Sep 2022, 18:08

Yeah, the "Porsche" turret was rather oddly thin skinned frontally.

The sloped areas might in theory be tough, but that flat 100mm segment is unacceptable for a 70 ton tank.

It should be noted this turret was not designed for the King Tiger, instead it was designed for the not-built Porsche Tiger 2 expy.


Erik1
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2022, 15:41
Location: sweden

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche turret" less protected from the front than the Tiger 1's turret?

#3

Post by Erik1 » 20 Sep 2022, 19:29

ThatZenoGuy wrote:
20 Sep 2022, 18:08
Yeah, the "Porsche" turret was rather oddly thin skinned frontally.

The sloped areas might in theory be tough, but that flat 100mm segment is unacceptable for a 70 ton tank.

It should be noted this turret was not designed for the King Tiger, instead it was designed for the not-built Porsche Tiger 2 expy.
Hm, I'm certain I read that the "Porsche" turret was designed for both the Porsche and Henschel hulls. Are you sure of this? Source?

But yeah, odd indeed!

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche turret" less protected from the front than the Tiger 1's turret?

#4

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 21 Sep 2022, 14:15

Erik1 wrote:
20 Sep 2022, 19:29
Hm, I'm certain I read that the "Porsche" turret was designed for both the Porsche and Henschel hulls. Are you sure of this? Source?

But yeah, odd indeed!
The turrets shared the same turret ring diameter so they were interchangeable, and they were allegedly designed for both tanks.

However the 'Porsche' turret was designed when the end-vehicle was not yet selected, and some sources I am aware of say the 50 turrets were asked specifically for Porsche hulls, not Henschel ones, thus its fair to say it was only ever going to be used on the Porsche design aside from the initial 50 preproduction turrets which were repurposed.

Erik1
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2022, 15:41
Location: sweden

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche turret" less protected from the front than the Tiger 1's turret?

#5

Post by Erik1 » 21 Sep 2022, 18:58

ThatZenoGuy wrote:
21 Sep 2022, 14:15
Erik1 wrote:
20 Sep 2022, 19:29
Hm, I'm certain I read that the "Porsche" turret was designed for both the Porsche and Henschel hulls. Are you sure of this? Source?

But yeah, odd indeed!
The turrets shared the same turret ring diameter so they were interchangeable, and they were allegedly designed for both tanks.

However the 'Porsche' turret was designed when the end-vehicle was not yet selected, and some sources I am aware of say the 50 turrets were asked specifically for Porsche hulls, not Henschel ones, thus its fair to say it was only ever going to be used on the Porsche design aside from the initial 50 preproduction turrets which were repurposed.
I was aware that Porsche ordered them to be built but I didn't know that this could've influenced the design. IIRC the Porsche hull was less armored, with an 80mm glacis. Since Porsche didn't, aside from sloping the armor, make any changes to the hull and its internal parts since the VK4501 P, perhaps he worried about it being overweight and saw the weak turret armor as necessary?

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche turret" less protected from the front than the Tiger 1's turret?

#6

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 22 Sep 2022, 04:11

Erik1 wrote:
21 Sep 2022, 18:58
I was aware that Porsche ordered them to be built but I didn't know that this could've influenced the design. IIRC the Porsche hull was less armored, with an 80mm glacis. Since Porsche didn't, aside from sloping the armor, make any changes to the hull and its internal parts since the VK4501 P, perhaps he worried about it being overweight and saw the weak turret armor as necessary?
I'm unaware of any sources which go into detail in just what Porsche asked for, but generally you'd at least ask for some basic requirements, frontal thickness, weight, method of construction, etc.

As the design was an evolution of the Tiger P, he probably didn't realize that 100mm curved plate was insufficient for a tank of such weight.

This is the guy who really, really loved his electrical engines after all.

Erik1
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2022, 15:41
Location: sweden

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche turret" less protected from the front than the Tiger 1's turret?

#7

Post by Erik1 » 22 Sep 2022, 17:43

ThatZenoGuy wrote:
22 Sep 2022, 04:11
Erik1 wrote:
21 Sep 2022, 18:58
I was aware that Porsche ordered them to be built but I didn't know that this could've influenced the design. IIRC the Porsche hull was less armored, with an 80mm glacis. Since Porsche didn't, aside from sloping the armor, make any changes to the hull and its internal parts since the VK4501 P, perhaps he worried about it being overweight and saw the weak turret armor as necessary?
I'm unaware of any sources which go into detail in just what Porsche asked for, but generally you'd at least ask for some basic requirements, frontal thickness, weight, method of construction, etc.

As the design was an evolution of the Tiger P, he probably didn't realize that 100mm curved plate was insufficient for a tank of such weight.

This is the guy who really, really loved his electrical engines after all.
If Porsche thought he had won the contract and told Krupp that, maybe it makes sense that he could make a lot of personal requirements about armor thickness, etc, without Krupp asking what Henschel and others thinks. Maybe this created a breakdown in communications between Krupp and Wa.Preuf 6 (or whatever those in charge of the entire thing are called), as those people said that the Porsche turret was "totally unsuitable for massproduction" because of how complex it was after 50 had been made, which sounds like they didn't know much about what was going on.

And about Porsche wanting thin armor, afaik it wasn't a given in the beginning of the Tiger 2 project that better protection would be needed in the future. At first they believed a new turret with the long 88 on a normal Tiger 1 would meet the demands for, I think, 1944, though that illusion was quickly dropped. Perhaps Porsche was slow to keep up with newer knowledge. However, the IS-2 had a 100-110mm turret front and was a good enough heavy tank in 1944, so it wasn't perhaps that crazy.

FKDeane
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 01 Mar 2007, 21:26
Location: Ireland

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#8

Post by FKDeane » 04 Nov 2022, 18:35

There is too much speculation in this discussion. Erik if you read some of the Jentz & Doyle books on the Tigers and you would realise that there never was a “Porsche Turret” only a Krupp turret.
Krupp was the only designer of the turret armed with the 8,8cm K.w.K L/1 that were to be used on the Porsche designed chassis Typ 180. Fifty of these were however fitted to the Henschel designed Tiger II chassis while awaiting the completion of the Krupp designed “Krupp Serienturm”.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#9

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 05 Nov 2022, 02:12

FKDeane wrote:
04 Nov 2022, 18:35
There is too much speculation in this discussion. Erik if you read some of the Jentz & Doyle books on the Tigers and you would realise that there never was a “Porsche Turret” only a Krupp turret.
Krupp was the only designer of the turret armed with the 8,8cm K.w.K L/1 that were to be used on the Porsche designed chassis Typ 180. Fifty of these were however fitted to the Henschel designed Tiger II chassis while awaiting the completion of the Krupp designed “Krupp Serienturm”.
That's what I thought. It's not a 'porsche' turret, but intended for his vehicles.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 15:57
Location: Pa

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#10

Post by Contender » 05 Nov 2022, 16:27

Where is the turret thickness even taken from?
I assume the versuchs porsche turret (correct me if wrong) could be production turrets might have been thicker.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#11

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 06 Nov 2022, 07:59

Contender wrote:
05 Nov 2022, 16:27
Where is the turret thickness even taken from?
I assume the versuchs porsche turret (correct me if wrong) could be production turrets might have been thicker.
I think the Tiger 2 "P" in museum have been measured.

Image

Erik1
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 20 Aug 2022, 15:41
Location: sweden

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#12

Post by Erik1 » 07 Nov 2022, 10:43

FKDeane wrote:
04 Nov 2022, 18:35
There is too much speculation in this discussion. Erik if you read some of the Jentz & Doyle books on the Tigers and you would realise that there never was a “Porsche Turret” only a Krupp turret.
Krupp was the only designer of the turret armed with the 8,8cm K.w.K L/1 that were to be used on the Porsche designed chassis Typ 180. Fifty of these were however fitted to the Henschel designed Tiger II chassis while awaiting the completion of the Krupp designed “Krupp Serienturm”.
I know, that was why I put "Porsche turret" in quotation marks.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#13

Post by critical mass » 07 Nov 2022, 14:48

It´s possible they face hardened the curved front plate using deep chill, electrical induction hardening process developed for thicker plates than 50/60mm. There is evidence from british investigations that some of the turret plates of this Tiger II turret shape were FH. FH works best at moderate obliquities.
If that is found to be correct (I have not seen any actual hardness measurements of the plates in question), it would be somewhat more resistent than the legend thickness might imply. Particularely against cored sub-calibre rounds but not against the holing limit of high quality AP-shot. It would, however, also break up all ww2 anti tank projectiles, including the otherwise virtually indestructible Pzgr.39 (it was not possible in 1942 and 1943 tests to get a 88mm Pzgr.39 intactly through a 100mm induction hardened FH plate, and this result may have had significance in the choices of the Tiger 2 turret concepts of this period). Thus, removing any potential HE-effect inside the turret fromt he damage feasability.
Notice, that the later adopted Henschel turret was all-RHA, though, but compensated with increased section thickness.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 15:57
Location: Pa

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#14

Post by Contender » 10 Nov 2022, 05:25

ThatZenoGuy wrote:
06 Nov 2022, 07:59
I think the Tiger 2 "P" in museum have been measured.
Which is a versuchs tank (V2, a very early one in fact):
Image

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: Was the Tiger 2's "Porsche" turret significantly less protected on the front than the older Tiger 1's turret? Why?

#15

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 10 Nov 2022, 08:40

Contender wrote:
10 Nov 2022, 05:25
ThatZenoGuy wrote:
06 Nov 2022, 07:59
I think the Tiger 2 "P" in museum have been measured.
Which is a versuchs tank (V2, a very early one in fact):
Image
Is there any indication that the "P" turret was altered in any way throughout it's production?

Post Reply

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