Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on October 27, 2006, 10:37:00 PM
-
(http://www.3-d-models.com/3d-model_files/panther.jpg)
(http://www.3-d-models.com/3d-model_files/t2.jpg)
(http://www.wartanks.com/Kt055a.jpg)
VS
(http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/t34-85a.jpg)
(http://www.missing-lynx.com/articles/small/sbis2-1.jpg)
(http://www.scaleworkshop.com/gallery/images/is3aj_5.jpg)
Who would win this slugfest???
-
JS-2 and King Tiger would be the 2 more formidable tanks on the list. it would basically come down to who could land the hits first
-
I doubt we will ever see those tanks in AH ever :(
-
I'd go for the IS2, turret could move a lot faster, park that thing at an angle and traverse the turret round, good night tiger.
-
Germans, better optics!
-
Id have to go with the Panther. I love the king Tiger but it was slow. The panther was to happy med, of all the ones you have, Sloped armor that could bounce even an 88mm, Fast and varry manuverable, with great opticks and a fast reload as well as good view for spoting enmy.
I just finished the book "Tigers In the Mud". its fallows the career of one of the tiger aces Otto Carius and gives varry telling accounts of the Tigers abilitys. It also has some good stats for Tiger. Try this,, the turit of the tiger at its slowest turn would take 60 min, at its fastest it took 60 sec. to do a full 360 deg, turn. Yhis ment it was varry eassy for the gunner to turn on to a target and not even have to use the hand cranks to ajust if he was good.
If you are in to Armor Id highly reccomend this book.
-
If i'm a tactician, i'd place the IS-3 behind for protection, use the IS-2s as battering rams and T-34-85s as the spearhead for attack.
-
King Tiger would win a "duel" vs anything short of the JS-3, which in fairness, barely made it into the closing weeks of WW2.
88mm L71 gun fired with a higher rate than the 122mm, optics are more accurate, it would score hits 1st at range and kill quicker than the others, as well as have the protection to stand and shoot. Its gun would kill any of the ones in the contest, even a Panther.
While the IS-2 was still trying to range, it would be hit. The 122mm gun had a very slow rate of fire, and was actually not as accurate as an 88L71.
....and its turret was not slower.
We are talking slugfest, yes?, not manuever, I would pick Panthers for my army, but King Tiger for a slugfest, assuming you started at say, 3000 meters or so.
The King Tiger was an expensive, complicated tank, and it was not for fast armored exploitation...but in a standing gun duel, it was a freaking monster.
...The JS-3 would win (if it were included) simply because its armor is too good frontally, even for a long 88mm gun, it would probably survive long enough to land hits on a King Tiger, and kill it around 1000 meters or so, after being hit numerous times 1st.
-
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/abrams-122.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Squire
The King Tiger was an expensive, complicated tank, and it was not for fast armored exploitation...but in a standing gun duel, it was a freaking monster.
I heard it was 4x expensive as the Me 109s that time.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/abrams-122.jpg)
<>
-
double post
-
German technology all the way...why you ask...cuz while all the russian junk was sitting around waiting for the daylight to break the German armor would be rolling about in the dark. Notice on the Panther the little red disk? I beleive that is the german IR night vision they had under development. w00t.:t
-
King Tiger. Its German. 'nuff said.
-
Tank experts...
Which tank has the fastest turret turn-rate?
Stalin series tanks (JS-2/3)
or
Tiger series (tiger and king tiger)
?
-
Originally posted by Mathman
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/abrams-122.jpg)
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/images/chal3.jpg)
-
JS3 had great armor but its gun was no better than JS2 which could not defeat Tiger 2 frontally from normal combat ranges wheras the Tiger 2 88/L71 could penetrate the JS3 from under 1000 meters or so (going from gun/armor stats as the two never faced aech other)
So in a frontal slugfest the Tiger 2 would defeat the JS3 well before it got close enough to destroy the Tiger II.
-
Originally posted by Ball
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/images/chal3.jpg)
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-bomb-test.jpg)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Tank experts...
Which tank has the fastest turret turn-rate?
Stalin series tanks (JS-2/3)
or
Tiger series (tiger and king tiger)
?
I'm no tank expert, I can only go on my experience from playing Red Orchestra, all the russian tank turrets move nearly twice as fast as the German ones. The panther is incredibly hard to kill when in a T34/85, you have to get close and then flank it. Tigers are easier to kill than panthers belive it or not. IS2's can pack a wallop, but they are better at long range.
A common mistake people make when in Armour, is they don't have their Tank parked at a 35-40 degree angle to the threat, this gives you an excellent chance to get a few rounds in before dying. I've done this in an IS2 at 900m range and killed Tigers all day long.
Done it in a PZ IV h on a T34/85, manged to get the 34 as the h has a fast rate of fire and decent gun too.
Anyway, my 2 cents
-
I think your right Grun, the 122mm would really need to be very close.
The 88L71 has:
228mm at 100m
211mm at 500m
191mm at 1000m
*The JS3s armor is:
Turret front: 250mm (curved) (@300 protection)
Upper Hull: 120mm at 56 degrees (@180 protection)
Lower Hull: 110mm at 60 degrees (@220 protection)
The KTiger would need a upper hull hit at less than 500 meters, more than likely.
Conversely, the 122mm gun on the IS-2:
164mm at 100m
152mm at 500m
139mm at 1000m
*The KTigers armor is:
Turret Front: 185mm at 10 degrees (@200 protection)
Upper Hull: 150mm at 50 degrees (@225 protection)
Lower Hull: 110mm at 60 degrees (@220 protection)
>It wouldnt be pretty and it would depend perhaps on who got a shot trap into the upper deck, or a shot that came through the side turret.<
The JS3 would be the only one with a real chance though. The rest would not have a prayer.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-bomb-test.jpg)
(http://www.progressiveboink.com/nick/images/kick.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Tigers are easier to kill than panthers belive it or not.
I think many games only look at the thickness and slope of armor when deciding damage to tanks. One thing they seem to overlook (and something I only recently came across) is that the Tigers' armor was not your standard steel. Instead they used "rolled homogenous nickel-steel plating" that was much harder than the armor used by any other nation or in any other German tank. This would mean that a round that could theoretically penetrate the exact thickness of the Tiger's armor would in all likelihood still not harm it.
Even after the Panther was introduced, the Tiger was still the king of the battlefield.
-
Lets not forget the U.S. M-26!
-
Originally posted by E25280
I think many games only look at the thickness and slope of armor when deciding damage to tanks. One thing they seem to overlook (and something I only recently came across) is that the Tigers' armor was not your standard steel. Instead they used "rolled homogenous nickel-steel plating" that was much harder than the armor used by any other nation or in any other German tank. This would mean that a round that could theoretically penetrate the exact thickness of the Tiger's armor would in all likelihood still not harm it.
Even after the Panther was introduced, the Tiger was still the king of the battlefield.
Actually the nickel steel was utilized because of a shortage of manganese and was very brittle and less suitable for tank armour....
However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it.
This was explained by an interesting change of circumstances in the Summer of 1944. The Germans experienced a shortage of manganese and had to switch to using high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, which made armour very brittle, especially at the seam welds.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50
good info on the development of the JS series.
-
Fastest turn of a turet gos to the Tiger the first of its wate class to sport the new hydrolic system its turn rate slow was 360* in 60 min or 360* in 60 sec, at its fastest. this also made it the best at hip shots. My sorce is "Tigers in the mud" and From the arcives in Hamburg when I visited. The tank exibit was cool.
-
Originally posted by derkojote23
Fastest turn of a turet gos to the Tiger the first of its wate class to sport the new hydrolic system its turn rate slow was 360* in 60 min or 360* in 60 sec, at its fastest. this also made it the best at hip shots. My sorce is "Tigers in the mud" and From the arcives in Hamburg when I visited. The tank exibit was cool.
360 in 60 MIN??? You could not even tell the turret was moving....
I am ashamed I can't remember how fast the Bradley could rotate, but it was fast enough to make it fun just to sit in the gunner seat and spin that thing around on hi speed :)
-
I had a friend in the cor, we did that in the Bradley once, I thought it was cool to till he thru up. LOL, I hope the question about the fastest turret was in reference to WW2 otherwise I’m dead wrong and Id have to go with the new Leopards and the M1s though about the same there are little differences in them that from one tank to the next may make them faster or slower by a fraction. My daughter is assigned to the 7th PZR now as interpreter on lone from the USMC and is in Afghanistan, she sed they usually do turn faster then the M1.
-
M-26 Pershing
(http://www.chars-francais.net/images/archives/m26/m26_arcole_6rca.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ball
Germans, better optics!
-
(http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/achievements/ricardo/images/FS-R02.jpg)
-
Found this on the net. Only posting.
Interesting article from a Russian website on WWII. Discusses testing on captured King Tigers. Pretty llong but some interesting details...
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pz Kpfw Tiger Ausf B heavy tank (also called the Sd Kfz 182 "special purpose fighting vehicle type 182," according to unified designation system used by the Germans), was developed by "Henschel" under the leadership of its chief designer Erwin Anders. It was in mass production from January 1944 up to May 1945. The tank weighed 69.4 tons, and had a power-to-weight ratio of 10.08 h.p. per ton. The hull and turret were made of rolled homogenous armor plate with low to medium hardness. 487 vehicles were produced in total.
The first "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There were vehicles numbered 102 and 502. The very movement of these tanks to the loading station under their own power revealed numerous defects. At 86 kilometers, the left idler wheel went out of commission (when the bearings failed), as well as the left drive sprocket (when all the mounting bolts sheared). The high temperatures at the time, which reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 F), turned out to be too much for the cooling system. This led the right engine block to overheat and to continual overheating in the gearbox. The tank was repaired, but after that the right side running gear had completely failed. It was replaced with one scavenged from another tank, but this one almost immediately went out of commission again when the drive shaft roller bearings failed. Besides this, time and again it was necessary to change the track's elements, which were constantly breaking (cracking) due to the tank's colossal weight, especially when the vehicle was turning. The design of the track tensioning mechanism hadn't been completely perfected. As a result, the tension had to be adjusted after every 10-15 km of travel.
In the end, both captured vehicles were delivered to the NIIBT proving ground, where vehicle #102 underwent further maneuverability tests. This testing encountered severe obstacles connected with the extremely low reliability of the chassis elements, engine, and transmission. It was determined that 860 liters of fuel was sufficient for 90 km of movement over an dirt road, even though the vehicle's manual indicated that this amount of fuel should have been sufficient for 120 km. Fuel consumption per 100 km was 970 liters instead of the 700 liters according to this same (captured) manual. Average rate of movement along the highway was 25-30 km/h, 13.4-15 km/h along an dirt road. The average speed when moving over rough terrain was even worse: 6-7 km/h. The maximum speed, given as 41.5 km/h in the tank's technical documentation, was never even once achieved in the maneuverability tests.
In order to obtain an objective evaluation of the tank's armor protection, it was decided to subject to shell fire the hull and turret of the captured vehicle with turret number 502. Most of the systems and assemblies were removed for further study. The tank's armament was sent to the ANIOP for study.
The live fire tests were conducted in the fall of 1944 at Kubinka, during the course of which the following results were obtained:
"1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. A group of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor.
2. Weak weld seams appeared characteristic of all hull and turret joints. Despite careful workmanship, the seams held up to shell impacts significantly worse than they did in analogous constructions on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as the "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun.
3. Impacts of 3-4 armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells from 152, 122, or 100 mm artillery pieces caused cracks, spalling and destruction of the weld seams in the tank's 100-190 mm thick frontal armor plates at ranges of 500-1000 meters. The impacts disrupted the operation of the transmission and took the tank out of service as an irrevocable loss.
4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 meters.
5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 meters.
6. 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles from the D-5 and S-53 gun failed to penetrate the tank's front hull plates or cause any structural damage at distances of 300 meters.
7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.
8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800-2000 meters.
9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZIS-3 and F-34).
10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."
Here, for fans of the "King Tiger," it should be said that the 122 mm D-25 tank gun mounted on the IS-2 tank was the direct descendent of the A-19 gun-howitzer. Basically, these guns were different in their breech blocks (the D-25's was semi-automatic) and in a few technical details not affecting their ballistics. Consequently, the armor penetration capabilities of both guns were the same. In addition, the 100 mm BS-3 field gun and the D-10 tank gun, mounted on the SU-100, also had the same armor penetration capabilities.
During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tank's armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably."
A comment should also be made here. More malleably armor results in a smaller number of secondary fragments when penetrated (these fragments intended to kill crew and to damage tank controls), and, besides this, the armor has a smaller chance of cracking.
During testing of the weapon, the German KwK 43 tank gun gave good results in both armor penetration and accuracy, practically the same as the Soviet 122 mm D-25 gun on the IS-2 tank. At a range of 1000 meters, the following projectile impact deviations from the aiming point were observed: 260 mm in the vertical, and 210 mm in the horizontal. In comparison, for the IS-2 tank's D-25 gun, the average projectile deviation from the aiming point did not exceed 170 mm in the vertical and 270 mm in the horizontal during stationary firing at a range of 1000 meters. The penetration capability of the 71-caliber long 88 mm KwK 43 Gun, with its muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s for its armor-piercing projectiles, was 165 mm at a 30 degree impact angle at 1000 meters. In particular, the "Tiger-B" projectile went completely through the turret of its "colleague" at a range of 400 m. But in high-explosive power, the 88 mm projectile was 1.39 times inferior to the 122 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile.
The final report of 16 February 1945 on the "Tiger-B" tests stated the following:
"The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking through the armor and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.
Shortcomings:
The chassis is complex and is not durable.
The steering mechanism is complex and expensive.
The side running gear is extremely unreliable.
The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks.
The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located.
The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower.
-
A good book to read on the Tiger.
TIGER
The Tiger Tank: A British View
ISBN 0-11-290426-2
Well illus. w/b&w photos and fascinating original transcripts of all wartime Allied Tech. Reports on the Tiger I and Sturmtiger. Some very handy sketches and diagrams and great coverage of interior shots, with a good section on the Sturmtiger including a few interior shots. 264pp
Go to Bovington and you can see the Tiger.
On turret traversing
Gunner: 720 turns of his hand wheel (0.5*/turn
Commander: 595 turns of his hand wheel (~0.6*/turn)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Snip.
But in high-explosive power, the 88 mm projectile was 1.39 times inferior to the 122 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile.
[/i] [/B]
LOL.
122/88 = 1.386.
Volume anyone? :)
The page of this guy (who hosts it) has been subject to serious discussion on the validity on numerous tank related boards. He used photoshopped pictures a lot, many of which he withdrew as it became clear that they were fake.
It is however proven that the Tiger II actually had to cope with inferior armor steel, especially when compared to the Tiger I.
Matt
-
but in AH world the king tiger and the Stalin 3 tank would be monters:p
-
Originally posted by Keiler
LOL.
122/88 = 1.386.
It is wrong to use just the raw diameter to determine the explosive content of a high explosive round, one need only look at the mine shells from the german 20 and 30mm cannon to see this.
-
Fase it wed sooner get Katooshas then a KT or stallin, Id like to see the Sherman for early war at least since the T34 was After the Tiger and the sherman seen more of the war then any other tank. The panther would be a fun addition as well as the mutilda just to spice it up.
-
The churchill would be pretty nice too:)
.. because its british:D
-
Originally posted by Laurie
The churchill would be pretty nice too:)
.. because its british:D
Sherman Firefly -- because it satisfies two countries at once. :aok
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
It is wrong to use just the raw diameter to determine the explosive content of a high explosive round, one need only look at the mine shells from the german 20 and 30mm cannon to see this.
I know ;) , thats why I laughed. Simplest quess would be taking this quotient cubed, assuming similar geometry.
Matt
-
Originally posted by E25280
Sherman Firefly -- because it satisfies two countries at once. :aok
CC, a late churchill model was UK/US combo too:D
-
I got here late...where is the pic of the tiger in the first post?
-
want a good view of a Tiger in her natural environment. *grins*(http://www.geocities.com/derkojote23/52caccd0.jpg)
Or how about this one
http://www.geocities.com/derkojote23/52aa85a0.jpg
-
I play RO as well occaisionally and this discussion puts out some reload times for the tanks. I would assume this would be the average time it took to load with a well trained and focused crew. ROF I think would also help to determine which tank would score kills faster.
I also remember reading a couple months ago on those same forums about how German optics (at least earlier versions) were superior to soviet, where german tanks were killing soviet tanks before they knew where the tanks were. This is why tanks like the panther and tiger have had such fearsome reputations, but due to manufacturing and design changes didnt outlast the tanks or crews.