Jump to content


Account of the Tiger penetrated frontally in combat?

Tiger I Tiger II Penetration

  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

Kenshin2kx #101 Posted Apr 06 2017 - 22:01

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16038 battles
  • 4,734
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostDoomslinger, on Oct 19 2016 - 18:49, said:

If the Tigers were produced later in the war, there were deficiencies in the steel because of a lack of raw materials that were needed to produce high grade steel. The allies bombing campaigns were greatly affecting the supply of the minerals needed to produce high quality steel for the tanks. Some of the steel would crack when hit with an anti-tank round.

 

On another note, the Titanic had the same problem with its steel hull. There were mistakes made when they produced the steel plates and it was not of proper hardness. This caused a lot more damage or cracking of the steel when it hit the iceberg. If the steel had not been flawed, it would have been much more damage resistant, same for the German tanks of ww2.  

 

IIRC, regarding the Titanic ... there are reports indicating a likely flaw in the steel plating, the upshot being that it was prone to brittleness, particularly when exposed to low temperatures ...

Zinegata #102 Posted May 08 2017 - 08:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostMeltedGun, on Apr 06 2017 - 21:36, said:

It isn't just equipment that wins wars, it is doctrine and training. My perception is the US tended to have very flexible doctrine built around the idea of if it is stupid, but still works, then it isn't stupid. A great example of this tactical and doctrinal flexibility is how the US deployed and used tank destroyers. Check out this excellent paper: http://usacac.army.m...pubs/gabel2.pdf

 

In contrast, the development of German military doctrine was crippled by their organizational structure, and paths of command and control. This seems to be fairly well documented. A good example is by holding back half the panzer force available in Normandy, Hitler doomed his forces to destruction by detail. 

 

At any rTe, I hope you enjoy the paper on the development of TD doctrine.

 

Hitler didn't actually hold back the Panzers from going to Normandy. Over the years the details have emerged and the real story is that the German Generals were just as much to blame.

 

For instance the commander of 21st Panzer - the closest unit to the invasion - was nowhere to be found on June 6th and it only emerged thanks to French research that he was actually in Paris spending time with a mistress; which is why the Division's counter-attacks ended up being a series of disjointed thrusts conducted by individual regiment commanders. 12th SS - contrary to "sitting around and waiting" - was mobilized very quickly within hours of the first paradrops only to end up charging towards a field full of British paratrooper manikins.

 

And these were the units that actually responded the fastest to the invasion; especially when you compare them to 2nd SS Panzer which decided that the best way to get to Normandy faster was to burn a French village to the ground and shoot unresisting civilians living there because their idiot officers kept getting lost and some of them ended up kidnapped by the French Resistance.



Edselman #103 Posted May 09 2017 - 02:36

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10814 battles
  • 153
  • [H_PL] H_PL
  • Member since:
    07-24-2013
There was an account from the crew of the only Super Pershing (a T26E1-1 variant) tank to see combat during the war. They were in a field when what they said looked like a King Tiger appeared from a distance. The Pershing was pre-loaded with HE and they fired at the Tiger and the 90mm HE didn't really do anything. The Tiger fired back and the 8.8cm round bounced off the Super Pershing's armor. The Pershing then loaded AP and the round reportedly penetrated the front of the King Tiger, knocking it out. Yes, this actually happened one Super Pershing did see combat in the war it just wasn't the T26E4 variant we all know it was an earlier T26E1-1 that used a different 90mm gun and ammunition.

PrimarchRogalDorn #104 Posted May 09 2017 - 06:58

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 803
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View PostEdselman, on May 08 2017 - 20:36, said:

There was an account from the crew of the only Super Pershing (a T26E1-1 variant) tank to see combat during the war. They were in a field when what they said looked like a King Tiger appeared from a distance. The Pershing was pre-loaded with HE and they fired at the Tiger and the 90mm HE didn't really do anything. The Tiger fired back and the 8.8cm round bounced off the Super Pershing's armor. The Pershing then loaded AP and the round reportedly penetrated the front of the King Tiger, knocking it out. Yes, this actually happened one Super Pershing did see combat in the war it just wasn't the T26E4 variant we all know it was an earlier T26E1-1 that used a different 90mm gun and ammunition.

 

That never happened, as the closest Tiger II unit to the Super Pershing was something like 70km away. In addition, the T26E1-1 was redesignated as T26E4, temporary pilot #1

Edited by PrimarchRogalDorn, May 09 2017 - 19:10.


mattwong #105 Posted May 09 2017 - 15:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 30341 battles
  • 17,166
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 06 2017 - 16:01, said:

IIRC, regarding the Titanic ... there are reports indicating a likely flaw in the steel plating, the upshot being that it was prone to brittleness, particularly when exposed to low temperatures ...

 

They didn't have as much understanding of metallurgy back then as we do today.  People often overestimate the science of the early 20th century, because they consider the Wright Brothers' flight to be the dawn of the modern age, and they tend to assume that most of the industrial knowledge of the modern world came with it.

 

In truth, our scientific knowledge at that time was so limited that we didn't even know neutrons exist (seriously, the neutron was not discovered until 1932).  Our understanding of the properties of steel was similarly limited: most people even today don't know that it's the arrangement of atoms in the crystal lattice which determines how strong steel is, and they certainly didn't understand that very well back then.

 

Today, steel is tested for hardness and toughness with the Brinell hardness test and the Charpy V-notch toughness test.  These tests were both invented in 1900: just barely before the era we're talking about.  Hopefully this helps illuminate why mankind's understanding of the strength of steel was still in its infancy when Titanic was built.  They had only recently figured out how to even measure how strong steel was, never mind fully developing all of their methods for controlling how strong steel is.

 

PS. In case you're curious, toughness is the critical parameter.  Toughness determines how much energy is absorbed by steel prior to failure.  A steel which is very hard but has low toughness will fail without absorbing a lot of kinetic energy.  Titanic was made with steel that was hard, but not tough.  If Titanic had been made with high-toughness steel instead of high-hardness steel, the hull plates would have absorbed more energy before failure, thus bleeding off more of the ship's kinetic energy and redirecting it more away from the iceberg.

 

PPS. Normally, toughness and hardness are kind of like fire and ice: in order to increase one, you tend to decrease the other.  However, modern RHA (rolled homogeneous armour) has toughness and hardness which are both simultaneously far superior to the steel Titanic used, because we've greatly advanced our control of atomic microstructure.  Mind you, one would not use RHA to build ships: it's much too expensive for that.  But still, our shipbuilding materials are also far superior.


Edited by mattwong, May 09 2017 - 15:34.


mattwong #106 Posted May 09 2017 - 15:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 30341 battles
  • 17,166
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostZinegata, on May 08 2017 - 02:52, said:

 

Hitler didn't actually hold back the Panzers from going to Normandy. Over the years the details have emerged and the real story is that the German Generals were just as much to blame.

 

For instance the commander of 21st Panzer - the closest unit to the invasion - was nowhere to be found on June 6th and it only emerged thanks to French research that he was actually in Paris spending time with a mistress; which is why the Division's counter-attacks ended up being a series of disjointed thrusts conducted by individual regiment commanders. 12th SS - contrary to "sitting around and waiting" - was mobilized very quickly within hours of the first paradrops only to end up charging towards a field full of British paratrooper manikins.

 

And these were the units that actually responded the fastest to the invasion; especially when you compare them to 2nd SS Panzer which decided that the best way to get to Normandy faster was to burn a French village to the ground and shoot unresisting civilians living there because their idiot officers kept getting lost and some of them ended up kidnapped by the French Resistance.

 

Nobody likes being reminded of the multi-layered incompetence, cronyism, and small-mindedness throughout the German officer corps.  They prefer the narrative Hollywood pushed for the last seven decades, of a consistently disciplined, courageous, technically superior, and brilliantly led army which would have conquered everything and everyone if not for Hitler's stupidity.





Also tagged with Tiger I, Tiger II, Penetration

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users