Best Tank of WW2??????

Not quite mate, many/most of the stats will originate from wartime or very early postwar trials, but at no point that I'm aware of was everything tested on the same day under the same conditions, which might provide a more solid basis for dispute.
The Historical interpretation/analysis over the years from varied sources with varied perspectives is more of the 'after the event' problem if you want to stand by them too closely.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Oh, you know me... I get all worked up by hearing the word penetration


I agree Von Poop that weapon data is an iffy subject as the conditions of usage, test, actual usage are all quite different. But I'm a scientist (try to be at least) so I get wondered by numbers and statistics...

I'll stand my point on FHA tough... I'll study more on the subject and when I said Physics backs me up I meant it! Not a specific author that agrees with me but, then again, Newton was an Author. So why don't you study a bit more physics before you post?? (yes this is a joke!)
One good exercise is trying to apply quantum mechanics on the effect of AP shots against FHA

Ok, back to work...



Cheers...

 

Ever heard about lies, d*** lies and statistics I think we have a bad caso of that phenomenon here.

I still don't think you can count on succesfully engaging an "up armoured" german tank (Pz IIIh, Pz IVd, Stug IIId) with a 2lb over 1000 meters though you might get lucky.
Some more "sources"
The recent Jentz Osprey on the Stug III "short" gives 200 yards for the 50mm plates and 1500 yards for the 30mm ones (AP shot). The same books reports stugs knocking out KVIs and KVIIs and a pretty widespread use of HEAT for anti tank combat.
The Zaloga book book on the M3 and M5 reports an engagement where M3s and "long" PzIVs (late 42 so likely to be F2s or Gs) met a short ranges for what looks like a null match (the M3 company engaging frontally was decimated but another one attacking from the side avenged it, and 37mm (similar in performance to the 2lb) shells failing to penetrate a PzIV at less than 150 yards.
So it looks like theoretical pentration and behaviour in actual combat were quite different.

 

I have no idea why people are equating barrel width with penetration. Not all guns are the same, even if they have the same barrel width. Why assume that a 37mm barrel's performance will be broadly the same for all guns when clearly it is not? And why mention an "uparmoured" Pz when you don't mention the thickness or the angle the extra armour is at? As for FHA, it's more brittle and more likely to split than homogeneous rolled armour. If you want to go into detail on this stuff you should get the details right.

 

Just to illustrate my point:

Pak 36 (37mm + APC) @ 30 deg. 500m 30mm 2,444 fps(Jentz)
M6 (37mm + APC) @ 30 deg. 500m 48mm 2,545 fps(Chamberlain & Ellis)
QF 2pdr (40mm + AP) @ 30 deg. 500m 57mm 2,800 fps(Chamberlain & Ellis)

I'm afraid you just have to accept that the 2pdr was the best small AT gun of the early part of the war and in no way was it useless against an early PzIV.

 

I'll accept that fully regarding the QF2pdr.
We can mock that particular 'pea-shooter' for it's somewhat behind the times calibre when the opposition was fielding heavier and heavier stuff but not for the relative efficiency of the gun against other contemporary smaller calibre designs.

Good article from Tony Williams on these smaller guns:
37MM AND 40MM GUNS IN BRITISH SERVICE

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Equating barrel width with penetration. The formula for calculating penetration in FHA has a lot to do with cross section of the projectile. It's not just "more brittle" (actually, it's hardly the case as for example the weight factor only influences on the power of 0.2 and velocity influences just 1.21). Again, it requires more energy to "split" and again it's weaker vs APC shots tha RHA but against AP it's quite better. Anyhow, I have no problem admiting the 2pdr was the best there was! It's values against RHA are better than the other guns you showed no doubt. However I'm a bit stunned at your resilience in admiting that Jentz values might be correct for FHA. If I had the time I'd build a program to calculate those penetration factors (still it would all be theoretical but a good aproxamation could be achieved as this is Newton mechanics) but I'm a bit tied up with college projects at this moment but clearly this is a good project for my hollidays.

Oh a quote from tank Combat in North Africa:
"For example, a British 2 pounder gun (40mm calibre) firing an AP shell at a vertical plate of armour at a range of 91 metres (100 yards) finds that a 60mm face hardened plate offers equal resistance to an 85mm homogenous plate."



Cheers...

 

I did not not mean to imply all similar caliber guns are created equal, just look at a 25lb and a Pak 43 both at roughly 88 mm bore !!!
Still most early AT guns are similar in AP performance, same goes for the second generation German AFV armour. They generally had 50mm vertical front plates and 30mm, also vertical, sides. I don't believe a few degrees or mm more or less are really significant outside a testing field.
I have sufficient respect of the German engineers to believe they planned the generalized upgrade of front armour plates on AFVs to 50mm face hardned as a way to defeat first generation AT guns, while the gun they may have been mostly worried about is the soviet 45, just like the later upgrade to 80mm was made with the soviet 76 in mind, the 2lb performance was well known to them and I can't believe they would have added a couple of tonns of weight to come up with a vehicle that could still be easily penetrated at long range by it. Some combat reports I read of 2lb performance against the "uparmoured" tanks seem to confirm that the shift to 50mm plates gave the Germans a temporay lead in the gun/armour race.

BTW if you are looking for "best" first generation AT you should also take a look at the Czech and French 47mm (but not the rather poor Bohler) they had similar performance to the 2lb and a reasonable HE shell.

 

Köningstiger analysis in the nutshell


Time factor: Late summer early fall 1944 - spring 1945 (though first Köningstigers were sent to the Panzer Lehr Division (Pz. Kp.FKL 316 unit) already in March 1944 for testing)

Weight category: Heavy, 69 800 kg, nearly 70 metric tons.


Intro:

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B (Sd. Kfz. 182) aka Pz Kpfw VI Ausf. B aka Köningstiger aka King Tiger aka Royal Tiger aka Tiger II aka VK 4503 (with Serienturm (series turret) aka Henschel Turret) was intended to dominate the battlefield i.e. to be the so called “king of the battlefield”. It could dominate the battlefield, providing it was used tactically correctly and sensibly; as an ambush weapon in urban (a good example is final battles of sSS Pz Abt. 503 in Berlin) and in country areas (a good example is battles of sSS Pz Abt. 501 in Hungary). One can also consider or think Köningstiger as an armored “sniper” weapons system. Crew of 5: Commander, gunner, loader, driver and radio-operator. Armament: 8.8 cm Kw.K. L/71, two-three 7.92 mm MG 34 machineguns; one in hull, one in turret and sometimes one removable AA MG for commander in cupola.


Firepower:

Köningstiger had the most powerful main gun 8.8 cm (88 mm) Kw.K. 43 (L/71) – gun length 629.8 cm i.e. 71 length in caliber - to see operational service during WWII. Often discussed tested armor penetration stats of 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 (L/71) show e.g. penetration of

1) Pzgr. 40/43, weight of projectile 7.3 kg, muzzle velocity of projectile 1130 m/s (APDS = Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot, spins to improve performance), a high velocity sabot (sub-caliber) with tungsten core and without an explosive filler, 238 – 298 mm & on average 268 mm @ 100 m, 193 – 233 mm & on average 213 mm @ 1000 m and 153 – 175 mm & on average 164 mm @ 2000 m,

2) Pzgr. 39/43, weight of projectile 10.2 kg, muzzle velocity of projectile 1000 m/s (APCBC = Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap, spins to improve performance), a projectile with ballistic cap for stabilization and with an explosive filler, 202 – 222 mm & on average 212 mm @ 100 m, 165 – 186 mm & on average 176 mm @ 1000 m and 132 – 154 mm & on average 143 mm @ 2000 m and

3) Gr. 39/43 HL, weight of projectile 7.65 kg, muzzle velocity of projectile 600 m/s (HL = HEAT = High Explosive Anti-Tank, spin degrades performance), a projectile on the hollow charge principle, i.e. penetration power is independent of striking velocity, 90 mm @ 100 m, 90 mm @ 1000 m and 90 mm @ 2000 m. These penetration figures (stats) are tested for homogeneous armor plate @ 30 degrees from vertical (btw this is pretty much standard testing procedure even today among other penetration tests). The fourth ammo type for 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 (L/71) was Sprgr. ,i.e. high explosive shell against soft targets.

The accuracy (hit probability) examples of

1) Pzgr. 40/43 was full 100% both for practice and combat @ 100 m, 100% for practice and 89% for combat @ 1000 m and 89% for practice and 47% for @ 2000 m and of

2) Pzgr. 39/43 was full 100% both for practice and combat @ 100 m, 100% for practice and 85% for combat @ 1000 m and 85% for practice and 43% for @ 2000 m.

Note that the Turmzielfernrohr TZF 9d i.e. turret telescopic sight (3-6x zoom) of Köningstiger was the state of the art equipment at the time being. The turret traverse (rotation) speed was quite good actually 360 degrees in 9 - 19 seconds only with the hydraulic turret drive motor (required 3000 rpm). Elevation of the main gun was +15 to -8 degrees. The rate of fire depended on how experienced the crew was.

Max. range for Pzgr. 40/43 was 3000 m, accuracy @ 3000 m was for practice 66% and for combat 25%. Respectively max. range for Pzgr. 39/43 was 4000 m, accuracy @ 4000 m was for practice 42% and for combat 13%.


Mobility:

Mobility of Köningstiger was better than always claimed and thought; road speed 35 – 42 km/h (substained 38 km/h), average cross country speed 17 – 24 km/h (this was better than e.g. Centurion (A41) MBT’s road speed of 20 – 22 km/h and average cross country speed 10 – 14 km/h during Six Day War in 1967 and Yom Kippur War in 1973).

Futhermore, gradient climbing (35 deg.), step climbing (0.85 m), trench crossing (2.5 m), radius of action on hard surface (road) (170 km), radius of action on cross country (120 km), smallest turning radius (2.08 m), max. turning radius (114 m), fording (1.6 m), ground clearance (0.5 m), ground pressure (0.78 kg/cm2), and power to weight ratio (10.7 hp/ton) were all equivalent or better than most allied and German tanks.

The automotive components had some problems, mainly overtaxed drive (gear train) originally designed for 40 ton (metric) vehicle plus some leaking problems with gaskets and seal (although seal and gasket leaks could be corrected easily).

Overall and in the end of the day, Köningstiger was more mobile than most of its adversaries, though the engine could have been more powerful than 700 bhp Maybach HL 230 P 30 water cooled inline V-12 petrol engine; e.g. 800 bhp Maybach HL 234, thus increasing the power to weight ratio and speed.

The fuel consumption on the other hand was way too much, roughly 500 liters per 100 km on the road and on average 700 liters per 100 km on cross country.



Battlefield survivability:

Battlefield survivability of Köningstiger was probably the best of all WWII tanks or at least among the very best. Excellent sloped armor (Brinell hardness 220 – 350, some armor was face hardened rolled homogeneous steel – FHA, rest RHA) protection all around and especially in front: turret 185 mm @ 10 degree angle, mantle i.e. Sauerkopfblende +100 mm, glacis 150 mm @ 50 degree angle and nose 100 mm @ 50 degree angle.

The frontal armor of any operational Köningstiger wasn’t penetrated during combats – this cannot be said of any other WWII tank. Communication system of Köningstiger was very good (intercom Bordsprechanlage 1 and radios Fu 2 ultra shortwave receiver, Fu 5 ultra shortwave receiver and transmitter). Köningstiger had also a direction finding device Kurskiesel, i.e. course compass. Köningstiger’s crew comfort was very good, enough space around battle stations, good heating and ventilation system. Well placed storage racks for main gun and MG ammo.

Front silhouette i.e. front profile wasn’t too bad, but the sheer size of the nearly 70 metric ton armor made the overall silhouette quite big.



Verdict:

Köningstiger was best suited for ambush tactics in urban and country areas – as said before, it was an armor(ed) “sniper” among WWII tanks. Köningstiger failed to dominate the battlefield in a way, the current MBTs (Main Battle Tank) do, e.g. M1A1/M1A2 Abrams and Leo 2s (Leopard 2A4-6). However, Köningstiger did dominate the battlefield in its “ambush” envelope and was vulnerable out of it – i.e. in the fast mobile warfare as the Battle of Bulge showed well (KG Peiper and attached sSS Pz Abt. 501).

Köningstiger was simply too heavy at 70 metric tons as 70 metric tons is absolutely max. sensible weight for any armor (a bit too much already actually) – current MBTs like Leo 2 and Abrams are closing fast that weight mark with their additional armor and gear.

In the end there were too few Köningstigers to make any difference, grand total of 496, but they did succeeded in the domination of the battlefield in their own “ambush” envelope and thus having perhaps and probably the best kill ratio (+6:1) of any armor in WWII.

Was Köningstiger then the best tank in WWII overall?

Maybe in the terms of firepower/armor protection combo or maybe not in the terms of mobile use/weight combo, but nevertheless Köningstiger can be fairly well said to be the ancestor of both modern Abrams and Leo 2 tanks in many technical and tactical usage ways via joint American-German MBT-70 project; Kelly, Orr, King of the Killing Zone: The Story of the M-1, America's Super Tank,W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1989.

This kind of quick and dirty analysis could be made of all types of armor; tanks, TDs, AGs SP guns etc… according to the above presented criteria.


Anyway, this shouldn’t be taken too seriously, just to arise some common good discussion and to have fun.

Enjoy and have fun!

All the best,

AJJ

 

On turret rotation, the figures above are wrong. 19 seconds is the maximum rotation speed with 77 seconds being the slow setting.

See:

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12409-king-tiger-turret-traverse-speed.html

On survivability a note: The crews found that carrying ammunition in the turret bustle racks (at the rear of the turret) greatly increased the danger of being not only knocked out but violently destroyed even from partial penetrations. While Henschel did introduce spall liner armor plates inside the rear portion of the turret during production, crews often left these racks unfilled with ammunition due to this danger.

 

Is the best tank the one that is most likely to beat one of it's opponents one on one or is it the one that contributes the most to the success of the army(s) it's part of?

Reliability, transportability, producability, and compatibility are important too.

 

What do you mean by compatibility
A tank is a weapon system that should be evauluated in the context of it's contribution to victory but "best" IMHO means compared to similar designs.
The Pz II was the "right" tank for Germany in the early years, as they could not have produced Pz III and IVs in sufficient numbers to equip more than a handful of divisions. But it was not the "best", the Pz 38t was a better vehicle is nearly every respect and in it's same weight class.
The Pz VIb was in a weight class of it's own and embodied the 500lb, or should I say 68t tonn , gorilla approach, a vehicle that could defeat anything that was thrown at it and so dominate it's surrounding battlefield. This was not a bad idea, the Matilda II, KV, Tiger I and Shermans in the Pacific, proved that a handful of "500lb gorillas" can have a huge battlefield effect despite very limited numbers. But as such it was a partial success only, even if we take as good the claim that no king tiger was destroyed by a front armour hit it lacked the mobility, both because of design speed and reliability, to be completely effective. In defence it was too easy to bypass and in attack too slow and prone to breakdown.

 

I still felt the Pz. VIB was an utter waste of resource. It was good at a role that was poorly-concieved. Pz. VIB was not build just as an ambush tank, it was a heavy breakthrough offensive tank and a gap plugger. Dependability by most accounts was low. I think a 40 ton train runninga 70 ton was 'some' problem.

 

The heavy tank concept worked for the Tiger I, so I can understand the desire to create something similar for the next generation. But I agree with you that the actual implementation cannot be called a success.

 

Very goods comments, thanks. Let’s continue the discussion and have fun.

See my earlier post: How to define the best in the first place?

Criteria that need to be taken into account at least: 1) Time factor, 2) Weight category, 3) Firepower, 4) Mobility and 5) Battlefield survivability.

Note, the given time envelope and weight category.

I also wrote earlier (my earlier post: How to define the best in the first place?) that:

“There were many good tanks/SP guns in WWII within all services. Some armor was great in a certain envelope and vulnerable out of it. Hence, any comparison done by one service’s armor of another service’s armor will be tainted by A) their knowledge and opinions on what fits their bill and B) the armor is already built to some specification that wasn’t their requirements”.

Note, the given tactical use envelope too.

As said already above: Köningstiger was the best armor in its correct tactical (ambush) envelope, in its weight category and during its given time envelope. Out of these “envelopes” Köningstiger wasn’t the best armor. It was vulnerable and failed to dominate the battlefield in the originally intended way; and in the end there were too few Köningstigers to make any difference. But for sure, Köningstiger had the most powerful main gun (8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 L/71) to see operational service in tank during WWII.

Now, what WWII tank should we analyze next using quick and dirty analysis, Comet, JS-2, T-34/85, M4A3E8, Panther G or light M24?

Note, this kind of quick and dirty analysis aren’t the only way “to analyze” WWII armor, but quite fun and at least tells some of the truth regarding them. There are many different ways to do analyses.

About Köningtiger’s turret traverse

The turret traverse (rotation) speed was dependent on the main engine speed (Maybach HL 230 P 30), i.e. tank’s main engine has be running, however this doesn’t mean that the tank is moving. There were two settings for gunner to choose in the hydraulic turret drive motor: Low and high speed.

Therefore, the turret could be traversed at two different speeds selected by using a hand lever connected to the hydraulic drive. This enabled coarse laying of the main gun; fine laying was done by the gunner using hand wheels. With low speed (main engine revs 1000) the turret traverse of 360 degrees was roughly around 77 secs and with high speed (main engine revs 2000) the turret traverse of 360 degrees was 19 secs. However, with high speed (main engine revs 3000) the turret traverse of 360 degrees was 9 secs. This was done at the max. allowable engine speed of 3000 rpm.

Now, the main gun wasn’t stabilized and fine tuning needed to be done by hand, hence in order to be able to use the max. turret traverse speed, the tank needed to be immobile (i.e. not on the move) with the main engine running. Nevertheless, this was the case with all WWII tanks, since none of them had fully stabilized main guns or optics. WWII era tanks didn’t shoot their main guns while moving, except on emergency; simply because the hit probability was poor or non-existent due to the lack of stabilized main guns and optics. Furthermore, fast turret traverse in WWII tanks while moving might cause problems for both the main engine (max. emergency revs) and turret traverse motor (overloaded - whatever the turret traverse motor is depending on armor).

Additionally, depending on the gunner’s experience and the co-operation plus communication btw the commander, the gunner and the loader, the fine tuning could be done within 3-10 secs. Thus, real life traverse speed even at optimal conditions at max. allowable engine speed of 3000 rpm would be somewhere close 12 – 20 secs or even more depending on the crew.

One always needs to add the reaction time, fine tuning time, operation and communication time (btw the commander and the gunner plus with the loader) to the optimal values of traverse speeds, this would naturally apply to all WWII tanks. Of course the combat situation adds tension, stress and adrenaline, etc…, thus the smooth combined crew (co-)operation and experience are the critical factors, the smooth and fast crew action can be only achieved via hard training.

The reference books always state optimal values for all armor, just like in case of Köningstiger (9 secs. @ 3000 rpm, 19 secs. @ 2000 rpm and 77 secs. @ 1000 rpm). The reality in the field is always a bit different. A number of factors need to be taken into account, the most important factor being the competence of the crew.

I hope this helped a bit.

All the best,

AJJ

PS Leo 2’s rotation was faster than 12 – 13 secs., last time when I operated with them at least.

 

The Sherman for instance had a design limit due to the bridgeing equipment the engineers used. Also while there were diesel Shermans they were used by the Marines (because the navy had diesel fuel) and the Soviets. The army didn't use them because everything else used gasoline and the logistics problems of having multiple types of fuel are a real pain. Baiscly the tank should be designed and built to fit in with the force it's to be part of.

 

Reliability is also important. Ergonomics can be critical as can transportability. Producability and cost (in terms of critical resources perhaps?) are things that could also be taken into account.

 

Hi Lwd,

Absolutely you're right about the reliability, I agree totally. Anyway, from my perspective both reliability and transportability fall under Battlefield survivability, but I guess that's pretty much semantics, matters of opinions or perspectives under which title they fall. But, yes, the reliability is very important nonetheless.

I wrote earlier, direct quote:

All M4 variants (Shermans) are/were well known for their reliability and serviceability. Shermans may have been the most reliable and serviceable tanks in WWII, perhaps only T-34s may challenge Shermans in reliability and serviability. Hmm, Shermans vs T-34s in reliability and serviceability would be tight call.

For sure Shermans and T-34s were more reliable and serviceable than Köningstigers, that's crystal clear for everyone. Köningstiger's achilles' heel was already mentioned overtaxed drive (originally designed for 40 metric ton vehicle; vs Köningtiger's nearly 70 metric tons), which broke often especially with non-skilled drivers. As a matter of fact, most of KG Peiper's Köningstigers (sSS Pz Abt. 501) immobilized during the Battle of Bulge were due to either lack of petrol or broken drives or both previous reasons put together and particularly those Köningstigers that never even reached the front were pretty much immobilized by broken drives.

Economics, and thus also the cost and productibility (economies in scale) of war materials are very important and essential for the end result or in other words the outcome of any war (strategic issue). After all, the wars are numbers game and logistics in the end.

Hope this helped.

All the best,

AJJ

 

From what I've read the T-34 wasn't nearly as reliable as the M4 (it also had some ergonomic problems). This was very reasonable from the Soviet point of view. They were often fighting close to their factories and the expected life of a T-34 in combat especially early on wasn't very high. The US on the other hand was fighting many miles and several modes of transportation away from their factories/supply sources. It simply made more sense for the US to invest more in reliability. The US also invested a lot more in parts, support and repair training so the innate reliability differences may not have been as great as sometimes they appear.

 

With the loss of posts I am kinda lost, where were we up to? lol

Should we bring up the 5 shermans statment again. lol