I understand all that, and that is the whole point. These two vehicles were considered successful even though they suffered initial problems. Again, I took Adnan's comments to be that these two were not any more successful in their first combat than the Ferdinand/Elephant was in its is all. BTW, the Tigers first combat action, I believe, was in August/September 1942, rather than early in 1942. There weren't anything but prototypes available before that point as real production began in August, IIRC.Originally posted by Mike Santos:
To RickyD and Adnan;
The Tiger I was initially "deployed" (if you can call 4 tanks a deployment) in the Leningrad area in early 1942. It was not a largely sucessful trial because of the ,imited number in action and the unsuitably of the terrain and the current tactical situation in that area. While the Tiger was excessively expensive and required huge man hours to manufacture, it was a very successful tank when view from a kills / losses viewpoint without requiring major design revisions.
The initial Panther model D was sufferred from mechanical troubles at first, but it proved even more successful (largely because or more widespread usage) once the initial difficulties were worked out. Again it did not require major design changes (it was sort of like a 1.0 software release, shouldn't have been sent out, but "marketing" (Hitler) insisted).
He 177?
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
Hi, hm, yes, what i meant was that the tiger and the panther were not successful at their beginning. But i think, it´s unfait against the Ferdinand/Elefant to say it was an mistake...
Original, this Tank should be "the" Tiger, but he was to expensive and slow, so henshel got the contract, but porsche had produced 90 of them, because he thought his tank would be the one...
The Ferdinands came first to action at kursk (north group) and had huge kill counts.. sure, some were lost against russian inf. but don´t overestimate these numbers. Some were destroyed totaly, many were disaabeled and repaired later...
In the defence battles around orel, they killed many ,many t34, in italy later, well, that wa an tactical mistake, to many hills and only few streets and most important the allied air superiority... but in italy, the tiger was also not so good... after kursk, they had a mg.
Generally, they had no turret, but the Stug or the jagdpanther had also no turret...
Some years ago, i read some informations about the 659 sPJAbtl., they were formed in early 43 and disbanded at the end of the war, mostly they had Ferdinands and had 900+ kills... not so bad, i think.
For the panthers, well, they were expensive, had many failures but were the best tank of ww2 (yes, better then an t34)
Original, this Tank should be "the" Tiger, but he was to expensive and slow, so henshel got the contract, but porsche had produced 90 of them, because he thought his tank would be the one...
The Ferdinands came first to action at kursk (north group) and had huge kill counts.. sure, some were lost against russian inf. but don´t overestimate these numbers. Some were destroyed totaly, many were disaabeled and repaired later...
In the defence battles around orel, they killed many ,many t34, in italy later, well, that wa an tactical mistake, to many hills and only few streets and most important the allied air superiority... but in italy, the tiger was also not so good... after kursk, they had a mg.
Generally, they had no turret, but the Stug or the jagdpanther had also no turret...
Some years ago, i read some informations about the 659 sPJAbtl., they were formed in early 43 and disbanded at the end of the war, mostly they had Ferdinands and had 900+ kills... not so bad, i think.
For the panthers, well, they were expensive, had many failures but were the best tank of ww2 (yes, better then an t34)
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
-
SoleSurvivor
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
work hours + material of a panther measured in US $ isn't more expensive than a sherman. A Tiger is about twice as costly
"Wenn sie jetzt ganz unverhohlen
wieder Nazilieder johlen
über Juden Witze machen
über Menschenrechte lachen
wenn sie dann in lauten Tönen
saufend ihrer Dummheit frönen
denn am Deutschen hinterm Tresen
muss nun mal die Welt genesen
dann steh auf u
wieder Nazilieder johlen
über Juden Witze machen
über Menschenrechte lachen
wenn sie dann in lauten Tönen
saufend ihrer Dummheit frönen
denn am Deutschen hinterm Tresen
muss nun mal die Welt genesen
dann steh auf u
Was just re-reading Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich and thought I'd provide this bit of Tiger trivia for anyone interested:
"In the early summer of 1942 he (Hitler) personally ordered the first of six Tigers to be thrown into battle (near Leningrad). As always, when a new weapon was ready, he expected it to turn the tide of battle. He regaled us with vivid descriptions of how the Soviet 7.7cm anti-tank guns... would fire shot after shot in vain, and how finally the Tiger would roll over the antitank gun nests. His staff remonstrated that the terrain he had chosen made tactical deployment of the tanks impossible because of the marshy subsurface on both sides of the road. Hitler dismissed these objections... The Russians calmly let the tanks roll past an antitank gun position, then fired direct hits at the first and last Tiger. The remaining four could move neither forward nor backward, nor could they take evasive action to the side because of the swamps, and soon they were also finished off."
"In the early summer of 1942 he (Hitler) personally ordered the first of six Tigers to be thrown into battle (near Leningrad). As always, when a new weapon was ready, he expected it to turn the tide of battle. He regaled us with vivid descriptions of how the Soviet 7.7cm anti-tank guns... would fire shot after shot in vain, and how finally the Tiger would roll over the antitank gun nests. His staff remonstrated that the terrain he had chosen made tactical deployment of the tanks impossible because of the marshy subsurface on both sides of the road. Hitler dismissed these objections... The Russians calmly let the tanks roll past an antitank gun position, then fired direct hits at the first and last Tiger. The remaining four could move neither forward nor backward, nor could they take evasive action to the side because of the swamps, and soon they were also finished off."
"Excuse me... I was distracted by the half-masticated cow rolling around in your wide open trap." - Michael Caine in "Miss Congeniality"
Thank you for sharing the quote. One thing I just read on this incident is that it actually happened right at the end of August, 1942. This could have been a surprise weapon in the right place and time.Originally posted by Chimera:
Was just re-reading Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich and thought I'd provide this bit of Tiger trivia for anyone interested:
"In the early summer of 1942 he (Hitler) personally ordered the first of six Tigers to be thrown into battle (near Leningrad). As always, when a new weapon was ready, he expected it to turn the tide of battle. He regaled us with vivid descriptions of how the Soviet 7.7cm anti-tank guns... would fire shot after shot in vain, and how finally the Tiger would roll over the antitank gun nests. His staff remonstrated that the terrain he had chosen made tactical deployment of the tanks impossible because of the marshy subsurface on both sides of the road. Hitler dismissed these objections... The Russians calmly let the tanks roll past an antitank gun position, then fired direct hits at the first and last Tiger. The remaining four could move neither forward nor backward, nor could they take evasive action to the side because of the swamps, and soon they were also finished off."
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RickyB:
Thank you for sharing the quote. One thing I just read on this incident is that it actually happened right at the end of August, 1942. This could have been a surprise weapon in the right place and time.
You're welcome Rick. And I agree that the Tiger was an excellent weapon in late 1942, but its WW2 track record showed that it performed best as a defensive platform, and Germany was still largely on the offensive in August 1942, so probably not too many opportunities to employ Tigers really usefully then, and there were very few operational at the time too. Perhaps as Stalingrad, with strong infantry support?
Thank you for sharing the quote. One thing I just read on this incident is that it actually happened right at the end of August, 1942. This could have been a surprise weapon in the right place and time.
You're welcome Rick. And I agree that the Tiger was an excellent weapon in late 1942, but its WW2 track record showed that it performed best as a defensive platform, and Germany was still largely on the offensive in August 1942, so probably not too many opportunities to employ Tigers really usefully then, and there were very few operational at the time too. Perhaps as Stalingrad, with strong infantry support?
"Excuse me... I was distracted by the half-masticated cow rolling around in your wide open trap." - Michael Caine in "Miss Congeniality"
Adnan,
Thev Germans lost 39 Ferdinands (Elefants) in July 1943. They had 50 eremaining operational vehicles from Aug 1943 through Jan 1944 by which time the number had been reduced to 44. Over the next six months this dwindled down to 12, then none.
I don't have any information on the number of kills at tyhe hands of elefants, but 900 is fantasy. That's more than 4 full strength panzer divisions - not possible, even Ruedel was not capable of that. The Russians didn't even have that many committed in the south during the initial stages of Zitadelle. There were less than 50 elefants left when 1st SS PZ Korps clashed with 5th Gds Tank Army. Koniev had about 800 tanks in 5th GDs, and they disn't lose every single tank! (Russian and German losses were both at around 300 AFVs that day) Not only that, If any of the Elefants were even there they would have been only 7% of 1st SS PZ's total tank strength. The Elefants were used to break through the initial Russian Inf and AT defences. They actually helped in this regard, that is until the Russian infantry got up to them to kock then out.
Later in Italy, the US / UK did not have anywhere near 900 tanks comitted. We had only one armoured division in Italt, 1st AD and it was bottled up in Anzio for a while. I'm a little rusty on British armoured units right now, (can't find my OB notes) but there was never a large scale destruction ofd allied armour in Italy (like Prochrovaka or Caen).
The reason that any were built at all was because Hitler had granted Porsch a contract for 90 vehicles. Hitler and Porsche were friends and Hitler took care of his friend. (He was actually dissappointed that the Henschel tank was the better of the two after the trials). Rather than cancel the order, they were already partly built, the vehicles were converted to the turretless AFVs, hence the Elefant.
Bottom line a waste, 100-200 Tiger Is could have been built instead but the end result would have been the same.
Lastly, I agree that the Panther, once the bugs were worked out was the AFV of choice (best of the war).
Thev Germans lost 39 Ferdinands (Elefants) in July 1943. They had 50 eremaining operational vehicles from Aug 1943 through Jan 1944 by which time the number had been reduced to 44. Over the next six months this dwindled down to 12, then none.
I don't have any information on the number of kills at tyhe hands of elefants, but 900 is fantasy. That's more than 4 full strength panzer divisions - not possible, even Ruedel was not capable of that. The Russians didn't even have that many committed in the south during the initial stages of Zitadelle. There were less than 50 elefants left when 1st SS PZ Korps clashed with 5th Gds Tank Army. Koniev had about 800 tanks in 5th GDs, and they disn't lose every single tank! (Russian and German losses were both at around 300 AFVs that day) Not only that, If any of the Elefants were even there they would have been only 7% of 1st SS PZ's total tank strength. The Elefants were used to break through the initial Russian Inf and AT defences. They actually helped in this regard, that is until the Russian infantry got up to them to kock then out.
Later in Italy, the US / UK did not have anywhere near 900 tanks comitted. We had only one armoured division in Italt, 1st AD and it was bottled up in Anzio for a while. I'm a little rusty on British armoured units right now, (can't find my OB notes) but there was never a large scale destruction ofd allied armour in Italy (like Prochrovaka or Caen).
The reason that any were built at all was because Hitler had granted Porsch a contract for 90 vehicles. Hitler and Porsche were friends and Hitler took care of his friend. (He was actually dissappointed that the Henschel tank was the better of the two after the trials). Rather than cancel the order, they were already partly built, the vehicles were converted to the turretless AFVs, hence the Elefant.
Bottom line a waste, 100-200 Tiger Is could have been built instead but the end result would have been the same.
Lastly, I agree that the Panther, once the bugs were worked out was the AFV of choice (best of the war).
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Lastly, I agree that the Panther, once the bugs were worked out was the AFV of choice (best of the war).
So why do we talk about the Tigers all the time? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Seriously, I remember some scenarios in Steel Panthers, where I saw Tigers take out Shermans in one shot (the first shot to hit), but the Panther with the 75/70 gun could hit a Sherman 4 times and not kill it. How good was that gun anyway? Between that gun and the weak armor on the sides, I still find myself wanting Tigers. Why am I wrong? I mean, I know I am wrong, but I don't know why. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
Well, at first, the KWK 75mmL70 was very powerful, i´m at work now, but if i remember exactly, a panther could kill easily at 1500 meters... the muzzle speed was greater then the KWK 88mmL56 from the Tiger I. The Panther was only 1/2 "prize" of a tiger, faster and "better" defended... the armour was with 35 Degree (?) and so it was "thicker" than Tiger I side and rear armour.... it could be well driven (the same engine like Tiger I). The tiger was too slow and large (well this is realtive)... for a defence fight against defenceless tanks (sherans, brit crusier tanks...) this dosen´t mattter, but an t34-85 was different. So, if you compare a panther battalion with an tiger battalion, maybe the tiger is "better", but you have 10 times more panther battalions....Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
So why do we talk about the Tigers all the time? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Seriously, I remember some scenarios in Steel Panthers, where I saw Tigers take out Shermans in one shot (the first shot to hit), but the Panther with the 75/70 gun could hit a Sherman 4 times and not kill it. How good was that gun anyway? Between that gun and the weak armor on the sides, I still find myself wanting Tigers. Why am I wrong? I mean, I know I am wrong, but I don't know why. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
For the game, i played games, there a t60 killed a tiger II from range 1 (East Front).... so, that means nothing. In reality, panther and tiger were feared....
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Adnan,
Thev Germans lost 39 Ferdinands (Elefants) in July 1943. They had 50 eremaining operational vehicles from Aug 1943 through Jan 1944 by which time the number had been reduced to 44. Over the next six months this dwindled down to 12, then none.
I don't have any information on the number of kills at tyhe hands of elefants, but 900 is fantasy. That's more than 4 full strength panzer divisions - not possible, even Ruedel was not capable of that. The Russians didn't even have that many committed in the south during the initial stages of Zitadelle. There were less than 50 elefants left when 1st SS PZ Korps clashed with 5th Gds Tank Army. Koniev had about 800 tanks in 5th GDs, and they disn't lose every single tank! (Russian and German losses were both at around 300 AFVs that day) Not only that, If any of the Elefants were even there they would have been only 7% of 1st SS PZ's total tank strength. The Elefants were used to break through the initial Russian Inf and AT defences. They actually helped in this regard, that is until the Russian infantry got up to them to kock then out.
Later in Italy, the US / UK did not have anywhere near 900 tanks comitted. We had only one armoured division in Italt, 1st AD and it was bottled up in Anzio for a while. I'm a little rusty on British armoured units right now, (can't find my OB notes) but there was never a large scale destruction ofd allied armour in Italy (like Prochrovaka or Caen).
The reason that any were built at all was because Hitler had granted Porsch a contract for 90 vehicles. Hitler and Porsche were friends and Hitler took care of his friend. (He was actually dissappointed that the Henschel tank was the better of the two after the trials). Rather than cancel the order, they were already partly built, the vehicles were converted to the turretless AFVs, hence the Elefant.
Bottom line a waste, 100-200 Tiger Is could have been built instead but the end result would have been the same.
Lastly, I agree that the Panther, once the bugs were worked out was the AFV of choice (best of the war).
Well, err, if you don´t belive the 900+ kills of sPnzJagBat 659, you will not belive the 2500+ kills of the ss s-PanzBat 501... in 25+ Months...
For Rudel, well, he killed alone around 500+ tanks... but he was alone....
The soviet losses...hm... first, i didn´t mean that the ferdinands killed so much tanks at zitadelle... as i wrote, mostly they hit the soviets after the russian attacks at the south front...
second, at procherovka, the germans hadn´t 300 tanks to loose... the russian losses were higher (i read about est. 400) and the germans lost about 30 (but they could repair most of them...)
The sPnzJagAbtl. 658 ad 659 were at the north front of kursk, not in the area of procherovka... so they couldn´t fight there... and Konjev had a strengh of 800 tanks, but he got new tanks every day... so it could have be possibility, that he lost 2000 tanks, but still had 500 operational... the losses for the russians in area south for zitadelle and later (July - August 43) are est. 6500 tanks, the german losses are around 900 total losses... but be careful, not every russian tank was an t34, also, at procherovka, the germans had 3-4 tiger, 20 mark IV and the rest were mark III...
and last, if you have 50 ferdinands operational in august 43, how many of them were shot down and repaired ? if you have 50 and they kill 500 russian tanks, well this is a 10:1 ratio,, not really a good rate for the germans... but, if they loose in the same time 20 ferdinands and get 20 stugIII, wich kill 300 more (against 80 stugs... and so on...) And don´t forget, most tiger and panther were disabled through fighter-bombers/art or were destroyed through the own crew...
Generally, be careful about losses in ww2... for the germans, they had strict regularities to confirm a kill, and after the war the allies get most informations about these german troops... on the other side, the allies didn´t inform the puplicity so frankly.... especally the russians, like they never told their losses in the war... (well only some lies, like in the first 6 months 1 million russians were "lost", they look form them untill now ?) maybe it is difficult to belive, like the kills in the air war, or for rudel, his kill amount of tans (he started in july 43 with tank killing..... so he had 21 months for 500+ tanks...)
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
Well SPI has some serious flaws...especially if a Sherman could survive a panther hit. The panther was a technically superior tank...it had sloped armor and so on (I would need to look at references to list a lot of the other improvements) but the Tiger I was a very good tank. It is one of the most under-rated tanks of the war. It had excellent armor (although not sloped), an excellent gun, reasonable manuverabilty (given its weight) and reasonable relialability what more do you want?Ed writes...
Seriously, I remember some scenarios in Steel Panthers, where I saw Tigers take out Shermans in one shot (the first shot to hit), but the Panther with the 75/70 gun could hit a Sherman 4 times and not kill it. How good was that gun anyway? Between that gun and the weak armor on the sides, I still find myself wanting Tigers. Why am I wrong? I mean, I know I am wrong, but I don't know why.
I've seen pictures of a knocked out Tiger I that the russians captured at Kursk. The shot that killed it was a lucky hit where a round struck next to a partial penetration (of which there must have been a dozen) on the turet and metal fatigue ment it penetrated.
I would rate the G version of the panther as a better tank (again from a technical point of view) but I think I would rather be in a Tiger I. Consider this: the Tiger I was introduced in late 42 and at the end of the war it was still a lethal vehicle; how many other tanks can you say that about?
-
Lokioftheaesir
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
PaulOriginally posted by Paul McNeely:
I would rate the G version of the panther as a better tank (again from a technical point of view) but I think I would rather be in a Tiger I.
about?
I Must agree. There is little between the panther and Tiger in defence. I would however go for the Tigers main gun as the weight of shot favours the 88mm L56 to the panthers 75mm L70. I think the larger round is more destuctive. Comment?? Modern tanks have 120mm main guns at least. Why not a hypervelocity 75?... Weight of shot*.
When rail guns are introduced to armour then this will not be an issue.
Nick
* Why is the A10's gun so leathal. Weight of shot.
General electric put depleated uranium in each round to increase weight, why?... the magic word. Kinetic. (yeh i know about sabot)
Ps. I was going to put in the fact that General Electric may have used depleted uranium in my washing machine but i was laughing so much that i could not finnish th.. .. post ... . ........ Oh dear i've busted a valve... HoHoHo....
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
-
Lokioftheaesir
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
JustaGameOriginally posted by JustAGame:
In January 1944, the Germans tested their Ju 390 prototype for it's ability to bomb New York city. The 6 engine bomber was the largest German aircraft and carried enough fuel for 32 hours of flight time. During the test flight, the prototype reached to within 12 miles of the US coast and returned safely (6000 mile flight) in just over one day.
Fantastic. Thank you for that info.
What could have been done if Germany was 'Rational' (as far as geopolitics goes)
Imagine the Tribefugal in combat.(excuse the crappy notation)
Nick
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
There is more to armor penetration than weight of shot. There is also the issue of the cross section of the shot. That is why a popular type of shot was the discarding sabot round, which was fired out of a large barrel and discarded the sabot (a lightweight plug around the main part of the round). This allowed a lighter overall round with higher velocity, lower cross section to reduce air resistance on the round so it holds it speed better, and finally a smaller cross section when it impacts the armor, concentrating as much kinetic force to a smaller area as possible. result is better penetration. Depleted uranium does the same thing - it is very dense and concentrates the energy onto the smallest possible part of the armor. Arrows work the same way.Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
Paul
I Must agree. There is little between the panther and Tiger in defence. I would however go for the Tigers main gun as the weight of shot favours the 88mm L56 to the panthers 75mm L70. I think the larger round is more destuctive. Comment?? Modern tanks have 120mm main guns at least. Why not a hypervelocity 75?... Weight of shot*.
When rail guns are introduced to armour then this will not be an issue.
Nick
* Why is the A10's gun so leathal. Weight of shot.
General electric put depleated uranium in each round to increase weight, why?... the magic word. Kinetic. (yeh i know about sabot)
Ps. I was going to put in the fact that General Electric may have used depleted uranium in my washing machine but i was laughing so much that i could not finnish th.. .. post ... . ........ Oh dear i've busted a valve... HoHoHo....
The reason for using the larger bores is that it gives the round the largest possible initial velocity, I believe. By the way, the Soviets had poor quality AP rounds during and even after the war, and made up for it by using larger caliber guns. That is part of the reason the Tiger at Kursk that was mentioned held up so well. Its armor was being smacked by large diameter rounds of poor penetration. But it worked for the Soviets. I have read that the Soviets also kept the better AP rounds they made for the Su76s, while the T34s and other tanks using this size gun got mainly HE as they were expected to fight infantry while the Su76 was tasked with fighting tanks.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
-
Lokioftheaesir
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
RickyOriginally posted by RickyB:
There is more to armor penetration than weight of shot. There is also the issue of the cross section of the shot. That is why a popular type of shot was the discarding sabot round, which was fired out of a large barrel and discarded the sabot (a lightweight plug around the main part of the round). This allowed a lighter overall round with higher velocity, lower cross section to reduce air resistance on the round so it holds it speed better, and finally a smaller cross section when it impacts the armor, concentrating as much kinetic force to a smaller area as possible. result is better penetration. Depleted uranium does the same thing - it is very dense and concentrates the energy onto the smallest possible part of the armor. Arrows work the same way.
The reason for using the larger bores is that it gives the round the largest possible initial velocity, I believe. By the way, the Soviets had poor quality AP rounds during and even after the war, and made up for it by using larger caliber guns. That is part of the reason the Tiger at Kursk that was mentioned held up so well. Its armor was being smacked by large diameter rounds of poor penetration. But it worked for the Soviets. I have read that the Soviets also kept the better AP rounds they made for the Su76s, while the T34s and other tanks using this size gun got mainly HE as they were expected to fight infantry while the Su76 was tasked with fighting tanks.
Did'nt the germans have a small bore antitank gun that 'squashed'(choked) the exterior of the round down to a smaller bore to get the effect of a sabot round?
I ca'nt remember what it was called or it's sise.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
That's right, I forgot about that. It was something like a 28 mm (or maybe 20???) and I am fairly sure it used a tungsten core. I don't remember what it was jacketed in and I can't find any references on it at hand. When they ran low on tungsten or whatever relatively rare material it used, the gun was taken out of service to conserve resources for other needs. I can't remember where the Germans used it, but it was very effective for its bore and very lightweight and thus maneuvarable.Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
Ricky
Did'nt the germans have a small bore antitank gun that 'squashed'(choked) the exterior of the round down to a smaller bore to get the effect of a sabot round?
I ca'nt remember what it was called or it's sise.
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
Adnan, It is quite possible, even likely that the Pz Jager Bn you speak of amassed over 900 kills during its existence, but not all of these were with Elefants, and certainly the vast majority were after Kursk.
Hausser's 1st SS PZ Corps lost about 300 tanks at Prochrovaka (however it's spelled) and the the 5th Gds Tank army lost about the same. Hausser had only 350 operational vehicles at the end of the day while 5th Gds had over 500. Lastly Hausser had to withdraw the next day and therefore most of the german tank losses from that battle WERE PERMANENT since they lost control of the battle field and coundn't recover the lsss badly damaged tanks. Go back and read the books, particulary Geoffrey Jukes' Kursk: the clash of armour for the details if you doubt me.
Hausser's 1st SS PZ Corps lost about 300 tanks at Prochrovaka (however it's spelled) and the the 5th Gds Tank army lost about the same. Hausser had only 350 operational vehicles at the end of the day while 5th Gds had over 500. Lastly Hausser had to withdraw the next day and therefore most of the german tank losses from that battle WERE PERMANENT since they lost control of the battle field and coundn't recover the lsss badly damaged tanks. Go back and read the books, particulary Geoffrey Jukes' Kursk: the clash of armour for the details if you doubt me.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
Well, two things... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Adnan, It is quite possible, even likely that the Pz Jager Bn you speak of amassed over 900 kills during its existence, but not all of these were with Elefants, and certainly the vast majority were after Kursk.
Hausser's 1st SS PZ Corps lost about 300 tanks at Prochrovaka (however it's spelled) and the the 5th Gds Tank army lost about the same. Hausser had only 350 operational vehicles at the end of the day while 5th Gds had over 500. Lastly Hausser had to withdraw the next day and therefore most of the german tank losses from that battle WERE PERMANENT since they lost control of the battle field and coundn't recover the lsss badly damaged tanks. Go back and read the books, particulary Geoffrey Jukes' Kursk: the clash of armour for the details if you doubt me.
First: As i wrote, the 659er haf mostly the Elefant, but with losing this tank, they refilled with Nashorn and/or StugIII/IV... so i don´t know, how many kills had the elefants had.. but a very large part was in july/august 43... after the kursk battle
second: sorry, at procherovka (12.-13.July 43, the germans hold the front and the special area attack of the russians at the railroad line from procherovka, the SS InfReg Germania from LAH defended with parts of the 1. ss PanzReg. (If i mention right, it was the 2.ss Panz.Bat)... and these guys hadn´t 300 tanks. And like i wrote, don´t compare losses with ready tanks...
An example... the 4. soviet tankdivision had at 22.June 470 tanks, after the attack of the germans, they marched to the front, loosing more than 60% through mechanical failures... they must abandoned these tanks..
For the 1.ss.Panzerkorps, they had 300 operational tanks, and they "loss" 300 tanks, but not so much "real" losses, most of them had mechanical defects or smaller damages... like a damaged chain or a damaged radio.... maybe you don´t like the truth, but hitler broke the battle, after winning it.... Hausser hit a very big hole in the front, the russians had giant losses and no alternative but to attack, but the invasion on sicilly and the rusian attack at orel forced hitler (or he belived, that forced him...) to stop the attack. I don´t know your sources, but newer researches (mostly russian and german historicans for a tv-documentation about the "damned war" shows clearly, that procherovka wasn´t the "big" tank battle with huge german losses, it was a total german victory, they didn´t use (well, the germans lost many tanks, but most of them in the retreat fightings after the fall of charkow and these tanks, mostly were destroyed by own hand (because these tanks couldn´t be repaired in time...)) I read myself books of some american/german/russian historicans, they all wrote about the burning tigers... the death of the german panzers.... well this didn´t happen there... For me it´s funny, they won, they hit the russians in the arse... but everybody tells us, how big the german defeat was... In the long run, they are right, but not for kursk, not for the south area of attack and not for procherovka...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
Well i forgot one thing, i don´t know Jeffrey Jukes, but losing tanks you don´t have sonds wrong for me... and if you have 10 historicans telling you they had these tanks their, it still isn´t true.. well the german divisional books were captured, so everybody can read them... tis is a big difference to the allied sides... most sources were long time classified, well it isn´t too good to tell everybody how hard you was kicked in your ass...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
Well, the kinetic is the key, but remember, these 120mm guns (krauss maffey, based on the original british 105 L7 Gun..) have a muzzle speed of 2000 m/s... that is really fast.Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
Paul
I Must agree. There is little between the panther and Tiger in defence. I would however go for the Tigers main gun as the weight of shot favours the 88mm L56 to the panthers 75mm L70. I think the larger round is more destuctive. Comment?? Modern tanks have 120mm main guns at least. Why not a hypervelocity 75?... Weight of shot*.
When rail guns are introduced to armour then this will not be an issue.
Nick
* Why is the A10's gun so leathal. Weight of shot.
General electric put depleated uranium in each round to increase weight, why?... the magic word. Kinetic. (yeh i know about sabot)
Ps. I was going to put in the fact that General Electric may have used depleted uranium in my washing machine but i was laughing so much that i could not finnish th.. .. post ... . ........ Oh dear i've busted a valve... HoHoHo....
For the better weapon, the 75mm/L70 could kill an enemy tank from a greater distance as the 88mmL56, with lesser kilogramms to transport... the 88mmL71, well this was a great gun... the socalled Panther II should have the 75mmL100, this was in training shots the "best" tank gun... well not really, the best one was the PAK 75mm, reduced to 50 mm and tungsten ammunition, these gun could kill 270mm armor on 1500m... but the germans had not enough tungsten...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit