No Tiger Tanks

[kalamona]

snip

Well, topos of my: Not that simple.

First of all, penetration tables - and every one of then! - is advisory at best.

Shooting at steel plates of questionable quality - maybe better, maybe worse - could be quite different from actually shooting at a plate on a tank, with slightly different trajectory, different angles (since the ground is not leveled), maybe brand new, maybe has some internal failures, fatigue from previous shots.... bad or good grain sizes, alignement, hardening from bad welding work, fucked up heating.... or the ammunition! Material problems, propellant problems, bore wore out.

So, miriad of dependands.

The biggest anecdotical evidences are these penetration tables. The actual anecdotical evidences, actual combat records are gave you a much better picture. Bad thing, we only now a fraction of the actual damage/penetration occurances and practically none of the non-penetration hits. So much for "real" statistical analisis.


Two more things: split seams means one thing only - the vehicle have to return back for repairs soon. If you imagined a tank falling apart... well, no. However, a second hit could be fatal. (Or not, depends of the ratio of seams failing).

Over 1,5 km you consider a lucky shot. Well, visit some shootig ranges, ask for distances and target sizes. Not lucky. If you see the target.

 

[BriefMortal]

A note on the humorous bit about the Shermans. A lot of it is Mythology

Extensive testing in 1946 showed the Firefly's 17-pdr gun, compared to the American 76mm Mk 3 was far less accurate at long ranges --the firefly was unable to reliably hit a 5 foot target past 600 meters. At those ranges, the 76mm was faster to fire, more reliably on target, and penned armor just as well.

Both had difficulty with a panther or tiger's front plate at 1000m, but could pen the sides at that range...if the firefly could actually get a hit. And neither has problems with a T-34's hull armor at 1000m

This is a 17pdr dispersion chart for firing APCBC at two thousand yards. Further, testing in 1944 showed that the 17pdr could get as much or better penetration out of its weapon firing APCBC as the US 76mm could firing HVAP. Both your points are incorrect.

It's early APDS that was the problem.

 

[BlairWitch749]

The Germans might have claimed a kill at this distance, but I severely doubt it. As far as I know, the record is about 5 km, by a Challenger 1 during Desert Storm. The Challenger 1's optics, rangefinder, and fire control are just slightly more advanced than those of the Jagdtiger. Even if such a kill did occur, it would be due to luck, not skill or the quality of German armaments.

Carius and Ernst each had more than 100 tank kills (and some of the crews serving with them had 30+)

I would trust their claims but these would be extremely exceptional shots by gunners of legendary experience levels I agree

Practically your average gunner would have success worth the ammo out to 2500 meters in that gun but anything more than that wouldn't be worth it

 

[Kou Gakei]

Carius and Ernst each had more than 100 tank kills (and some of the crews serving with them had 30+)

I would trust their claims but these would be extremely exceptional shots by gunners of legendary experience levels I agree

Practically your average gunner would have success worth the ammo out to 2500 meters in that gun but anything more than that wouldn't be worth it

Number of kills as no relevance to being able to SEE the target in the first place. At 2,500 meters the target is literally a microdot, meaning it's a matter of luck at that point.

Seriously BlairWitch749, you're better than this consuming of German propaganda.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Number of kills as no relevance to being able to SEE the target in the first place. At 2,500 meters the target is literally a microdot, meaning it's a matter of luck at that point.

Seriously BlairWitch749, you're better than this consuming of German propaganda.

That's what rangefinders and optics are for

And it does lend credibility to their claims that you are dealing with highly experienced tankers whose gunners had numerous other documented and confirmed long range kills (ernst and carius both had numerous 1800-2200 meter kills in 88mm equipped weapons)

a convoy of vehicles (which is what Ernst's battalion attacked when the kills where inflicted) traveling cross country can kick up a large amount of dust to make locating them easier, then you also have infantry closer to the enemy convoy to radio in positions for fire support

 

[brovane]

unlike World of Tanks, Pen is what matters in the real world, not damage -- real tanks don't have hit points.

the 75mm L/100 had 198mm of Penetration at 30 degree slope at 100m compared to the 88mm L/56 of 132mm at 30 degree slope at 100m.

the Panther-75 is a more powerful gun

I wasn't saying it was a good idea. I was just stating that the Germans had designs for mounting a 88mmL71 in Panther turret so mounting a 88mmL56 should be possible without turret ring size increases etc.

Also I would take a 88mmL71 over a 75mmL70 considering the 88mmL71 has greater penetration than the 75mmL70.

Wasn't the 75mmL100 only a theoritical gun anyway?

 

[Kou Gakei]

(ernst and carius both had numerous 1800-2200 meter kills in 88mm equipped weapons)

The very kills they say were luck shots that had nothing to do with skill. Did you actually read what they wrote, or just picking out what you want to believe in?

 

[Vjacheslav Malyshev]

Hell I am pretty much skeptical of every stated ability of any Soviet system ever produced ever due to their decades long history of overstating for propaganda purposes

Because obviously lying to Beria over whether or not a certain gun is better than another is good for your health.

The T34-57 is a 1941 tank. The soviets tested all their existing guns capable of tank use against captured tigers and the 85mm and 122mm were mass introduced as a result.
in 1941 the possibility of using either the 85mm or the 107mm as a counter (on a KV chassis) to rumoured german "super tanks" had been tried and shelved when those tanks failed to materialize.

And the T-34-57 was revived when the Tiger reappared.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

<image snipped>

This is a 17pdr dispersion chart for firing APCBC at two thousand yards. Further, testing in 1944 showed that the 17pdr could get as much or better penetration out of its weapon firing APCBC as the US 76mm could firing HVAP. Both your points are incorrect.

It's early APDS that was the problem.

the whole article you quote:

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly2/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly3/

from The Chieftain's article:

The target plate was a 4.5’ x 5.5’ panel 6” thick at 30 degrees fired at 1,050 yards.

APCBC was measured as going through about 7.5” of metal, but SVDS demonstrated a problem. Two impacts were observed on the target. One of the two was sufficiently shallow that it was presumed to have been a ricochet off the ground in front of the target. The other impact happened to superimpose on top of a 76mm HVAP impact, so though it went all the way through, the exact effect could not be determined. After firing 38 rounds SVDS to attain these two impacts, they gave up and went on to do something more productive with their time.

emphasis mine. 2 hits -- one a ground ricochet -- on a 4.5 x 5.5 plate in 38 shots is HORRID.

 

[BriefMortal]

the whole article you quote:

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly2/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly3/

from The Chieftain's article:



emphasis mine. 2 hits -- one a ground ricochet -- on a 4.5 x 5.5 plate in 38 shots is HORRID.

... with SVDS, like I said. Because early APDS was shit. Meanwhile, with regular AP...

 

[BlairWitch749]

The very kills they say were luck shots that had nothing to do with skill. Did you actually read what they wrote, or just picking out what you want to believe in?

I read Ernst's bio cover to cover recently, he never said that Colany's 1800 meter kills were lucky

The only shot he claims was lucky in the whole book is the one where Colany (the gunner in his Nashorn) shot a T-34 in the side from 900 meters, it flew out the other side and hit another T-34 next to it which it also penetrated and destroyed killing two tanks with one shell

 

[BlairWitch749]

Because obviously lying to Beria over whether or not a certain gun is better than another is good for your health.
And the T-34-57 was revived when the Tiger reappared.

because stating the gun which the Rodina paid you to make underperforms is good for your health?

 

[Vjacheslav Malyshev]

The person didn't even make the gun, he's some random general who thinks the D-25T is superior to the D-10T.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Carius and Ernst each had more than 100 tank kills (and some of the crews serving with them had 30+)

I would trust their claims but these would be extremely exceptional shots by gunners of legendary experience levels I agree

Practically your average gunner would have success worth the ammo out to 2500 meters in that gun but anything more than that wouldn't be worth it

I'm not sure why you would trust German kill claims, considering even the Wehrmacht didn't. Most of the German tank aces had their kill claims inflated for propaganda value.

 

[MattII]

Extensive testing in 1946 showed the Firefly's 17-pdr gun, compared to the American 76mm Mk 3 was far less accurate at long ranges --the firefly was unable to reliably hit a 5 foot target past 600 meters. At those ranges, the 76mm was faster to fire, more reliably on target, and penned armor just as well.

Somehow I doubt that last bit, the 17-pounder shell had 5 pounds more propellant, thus it left the barrel a lot faster. As for the accuracy, it's not quite that big an issue, since Panthers are in fact more than 10 feet wide. This played out by the defence of Norrey-en-Bissen and then at Lingèvres, the the first case the Firefly knocked out five Panthers in six shots, and in the second it was five Panthers in five shots.

Say what you will about 17-pounders being bad guns, but they sure gave the British a competitive edge.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

Somehow I doubt that last bit, the 17-pounder shell had 5 pounds more propellant, thus it left the barrel a lot faster. As for the accuracy, it's not quite that big an issue, since Panthers are in fact more than 10 feet wide. This played out by the defence of Norrey-en-Bissen and then at Lingèvres, the the first case the Firefly knocked out five Panthers in six shots, and in the second it was five Panthers in five shots.

Say what you will about 17-pounders being bad guns, but they sure gave the British a competitive edge.

that extra propellant was also a bad thing: it obscured the vision of the commander far worse than the US 76mm and even 90mm guns, making a second shot correction dificult

 

[BriefMortal]

that extra propellant was also a bad thing: it obscured the vision of the commander far worse than the US 76mm and even 90mm guns, making a second shot correction dificult

When you manage to knock a Panther out with a single shot you don't need a second.

 

[Kou Gakei]

When you manage to knock a Panther out with a single shot you don't need a second.

That's assuming you end things with one shot, which almost never happened since you tend to miss that first shot.

 

[BlairWitch749]

I'm not sure why you would trust German kill claims, considering even the Wehrmacht didn't. Most of the German tank aces had their kill claims inflated for propaganda value.

Carius and Ernst kill claims are extremely well documented in divisional and corp records along with surviving company/battalion witnesses

The only kill claims in the panzerwaffe of an individual I have ever heard of being not accurate is Wittman for propaganda purposes otherwise meh

Ernsts long range kills were also backed by loss tables from the US 99th division fwiw

 

[MattII]

that extra propellant was also a bad thing: it obscured the vision of the commander far worse than the US 76mm and even 90mm guns, making a second shot correction dificult

Five Panthers in six shots seems good enough to me, and this was at combat ranges too.

That's assuming you end things with one shot, which almost never happened since you tend to miss that first shot.

Five Panthers, six shots (and in the later engagement, five in five). Neither engagement took place at less than half-a kilometre either.