Guns of Tiger II and Super-Pershing equally powerful?

Hi,

you told me the 88mm gun of the Tiger I and the 90mm gun of the M-26 were de facto equally powerful. I just found out the guns of the Tiger II and Super-Pershing had almost the same length and muzzle velocity, so I assume they were equally powerful, too. If this is the case, Super-Pershing could have penetrated the frontal armour of the Tiger II at a distance of 1500 meters.


Can you tell me, if my assumptions are correct?

By the way: I guess I have found some data about the gun of the Super-Pershing http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns7.html
Remembering the different test criteria would 196mm at 1,371m be enough to penetrate the 150mm armour of the Tiger II?

edit: Is it true the M-26 had severe engine problems, like fires?

 

Yes, it would. The mantlet of Königstiger is 185mm. But it wouldn't penetrate the glacis plate.

 

Markus wrote:

Almost certainly. Although there is no evidence that any Tiger II was ever penetrated frontally in combat the Russians captured a few and tested one them to destruction. The 88mm of the other Tiger II penetrated the turret and actually came out the other side. As you noted, the 88mm L/71 and the 90mm of the Super Pershing were close in performance. It is difficult to draw many useful conclusions from the Russian tests because of the way that they were conducted however there is no doubt that there were a few anti-tank guns capable of frontally penetrating a King Tiger.

 

It would penetrate TigerII's frontal turret at 1375m, but not the Glacis plate ! The TigerII's Glacis would not be penetrated even at point blank by the 90mm T15E2.

The 90mm T15E2 had a velocity of around 975 m/s, whereas the 88mm Kwk43 had a velocity of 1000-1020 m/s.

88mm projectile weight: 10.2-10.4 kg

90mm projectile weight: 10.91 kg

88mm Kwk43 KE: 5100000-5400000 j

90mm T15E2 KE: 5180000 j

KE advantage: The 88mm Kwk43 has the advantage of having equal or better KE coupled with a slightly smaller diameter round, meaning more KE pr mm2.

Gun Accuracy: The 88mm Kwk43 has better accuracy, as a result of higher Vo and better refined barrell.

Optics: The 88's Zeiss optics are far superior.

Ammunition: The 90mm T15E2 has seperatly loaded projectile and charge, wich means its at an disadvantage in ROF to the 88mm Kwk43, as it used fixed rounds.

Projectiles: The 88mm Kwk43 used harder projectiles, of better quality.

Conclusion: The 88mm Kwk43 is very much superior !

The 90mm T15E2 was not ment to be mass produced as it had to many downsides, and although it was enormously powerful its firing rate was pathetic.

Best regards, KBO.

 

Two websites say the 90mm T15E2 was better, at least with the HVAP T44 ammo(1,143 m/s), the APBC ammo was slower(975 m/s). The muzzle velocity of the 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 is between 1000(APCBC) and 1130 m/s(HVAP). So I find it had to believe, the “faster” gun of the Super-Pershing could not even have penetrated the Tiger II at point blank range. Could you explain that?

http://3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm


Just to avoid a misunderstanding the "Glacis plate" is the armour at the front I marked in the picture.

 

Please do not rely on websites ! The T44 HVAP round was only good against vertical armor (same goes for the German APCR round), as soon as any slant above 40* accured, the round got really poor in penetration performance.

APCBC rounds were the best AP round available in WW2, as they were ment to defeat both vertical and sloped armor. Plus most German and U.S. APCBC rounds, carried an explosive charge wich would set off after penetration=Max destructive effect after penetration.

The 88mm Kwk43 had a velocity of 1000-1020 m/s with its APCBC round, 1130-1200 m/s with its APCR round.

Certainly..

The Tiger II front Glacis plate was sloped at 50 degrees from vertical, meaning the armor's relative thickness has effectively increased. Coupled with this, the TigerII's front glacis was a whole 150mm thick, wich most Allied guns would have a hard time penetrating in the vertical.

Yes.

Best regards, KBO.

 

OK, I understand. I was thinking faster is better when any kind of KE-ammo is used. As far as the information on many websites is concerned the raw data are correct, but lead to wrong conclusions.

Any suggestions about books on the matter? Preferably by german authors to avoid a lot of technical english.

 

I could give you lots of suggestions on English-language books, but im afraid not German language ones.

Christian Ankerstjerne might be able to help you with that.


KBO