The Pershing, IS-2 and Tiger 2

check book" german tanks fo WW II by george forty"

 

I don't think the Tigers gun, whos penetration at that range was about 171mm, is going to penetrate the front turret and mantlet (Over 200mm slanted armor). I have also read several documents saying we only lost one Pershing in Europe and that was to a Nashhorn.

 

You´re both rigth in a way. On February 26 1945 a T26E3 was ambushed by a Tiger I. Two crewmen were killed and the T26E3 was disabled. But they repaired it and it was back in action whitin a few days. Another T26E3 was disabled when hit twice by a 150mm field gun. But only one T26E3 was ever completely destroyed, when ambushed by a Nashorn SPG. It was hit at point blank range.

 

The Tiger I had a had a hand rotated turret, the Panther had an electronic powered turret.
I believe the Pershing was also electric powered, what about the IS-2?

 

The Panther used a system that allowed them a faster turret-turning speed the faster the tank itself was moving. Same goes for the Tiger II. So they had to be moving to have a descent turret speed. The Pershing has no such limitation.

 

At short range the penetration of a gun is much more than at a further distance. The Tiger's gun had a penetration of 171mm/30 degrees at 100 meters, but at 60 yards this must have been quite a lot more. Almost any tank can disable any other at that point-blank range, not saying that the Pershing was a bad tank, not at all.

 

The Sherman also featured the power traverse turret, BTW.

 

Did such a system require an extra electric engine to be fitted to the tank?

 

I don't think so, it was just a matter of applying a new design to the tank.
Correction for Mutant Poodle, the Tiger I had electrically powered traverse turret, the hand-crank mechanism was a back up.
Let's forget the maneuvers, shot from the side or from the rears, range of engagements, or gas-consumption. Personally, if two tanks are squared off against one another face to face, I put my life insurance in the Tiger II over the Pershing and the IS-2, providing the armor are made of high quality steel.

 

the is2 would have been a real beast to stop. it had its fault, but it was heavily armoured, carried a gigantic gun, easy to fix, and pretty light for a heavy tank (weighed the same as a panther?). when u.s. forces saw it for the first time in 45', they were kind of surprise (shocked).

 

On February 25th 1945 one Tiger I knocked out a Pershing in Elsdorf. This was a Tiger from Schwere Panzerkompanie 'Hummel'. Unfortunately the Tiger became bogged down in the debris of a house and had to be left behind sabotaged.

 

The T26E3 was repaired and was back in action whitin a few days. It was ambushed at night btw. Another T26E3 knocked out one Tiger I and two PzKpfw IVs single-handedly on February 27, the Tiger I from a distance of 900 yards.

 

But the Pershing was still knocked out and put out of action even though it wasn't totaly destroyed. A great many Tigers, King Tigers and Panthers would also have been recovered, repaired and sent back to action if the tactical situations weren't aginst the Germans as it was in most situations later on in the war. Look at all those pictures of 'knocked out' German tanks. Most could have been salvaged and repaired. Many of their tanks were self destroyed because they never had the time to recover them.

The Tiger I that the Pershing knocked out was apparantely 'sort of' ambushed also as the Tiger didn't see the Pershing and nothing penetrated it frontally looking at the picture(there is a mark on the mantlet but it doesn't look like it was a penetrating shot and it looks too small for a 90mm shot anyway. Maybe it came from the earlier encounters when the Tiger was causing much destruction against the other U.S armour??). A 'lucky' shot hit the Tiger in the 'belly'. A second shot hit the track and a third shot penetrated the turret (side??). That is if we are talking about the same Tiger? I'm not aware of too many Pershing v Tiger I encounters.

The Tiger I was available for combat as early as late summer 1942. The Pershing wasn't available until almost 2 and a half years later. They were roughly on a par. Pershing didn't outclass the Tiger I and there is certainly no combat records that show this simply because the two tanks hardly met each other.

 

The Pershing was lighter, more reliable, had a more powerful gun, and had thicker armor. I really don't think you can get much more out classed than that.

 

Apparently (according to wwiivehicles.com) , the Pershing's 90mm M3 was as formidable as the 88mm L/71 and slightly superior to the 75mm L/70. It completly outclasses the older 88mm L/56.

At 1000m, the penetration value (in mm) for armor sloped at a 30 degrees rates thus for each gun:

90mm M3(HVAP): 200, 195
88mm L/71(APCR): 192
75mm L/70(HVAP): 150,149
88mm L/56(HVAP): 138

As you can see, the 90mm seems the superior weapon amongst all 4 guns and their corresponding tanks.

 

I've never seen that kind of stat from the 90mm. Read from many sources that it was inferior armour penetration than that of the 17lb. And the 17lb did about 160mm penetration. read that the 90mm did only about 140mm. The problem was the inferior shells.

 

IS-2 hands down. No sense listing my reasons.

:smok:

 

This seems odd. For one thing, I have never heard of German shells designated High Velocity Armour Piercing, so how could the German 75mm L/70 gun have been tested with such a shell in a comparing combat evaluation? Furthermore, the German KwK43 outclassed all Allied guns in penetration from its first appearance in late 1942 till the end of the war.

I agree with Danyel that the Pershing completely outclasses the Tiger I in everything, from firepower to mobility. The TigerII is a different matter which seems to be the point of this discussion.

 

The Armor-piercing composit ridgid rounds were their equivalent to HVAP.

 

Equivalent, I know, but not equal. A source considering them to be that isn't very reliable.