WHY Is This?

Almogavar · Post by **Almogavar** » Sun Oct 22, 2000 12:34 am

The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets and an overtaxed drive train originally designed for 40 metric ton vehicle. The first five production series Tiger IIs (Fgst.Nr. 280001-280005) issued to the Panzer Lehr Division were in such poor automotive condition that they were destroyed to prevent capture without having been used in combat. The first unit, s.PzAbt. 501 sent to the Eastern Front outfitted with Tiger II, arrived at front with only eight out of 45 operational, mainly due to the failure of the final drives. The test done in Kubinka used Tigers from this unit. S.Pz.Abt.505 was ordered out of the Eastern front on 7 July 1944 to reorganise at the troop training grounds at Ohrdruf. The 505th were sent their first six Tiger IIs from the ordnance depot on 26 July. Of these , two were traded with the 501st and two others had immediate automotive failures. The other 39 Tiger IIs were shipped from the ordnance depot between 10 and 29 August. Immediately losing three to fires due to leaks in the engine compartment. The 505th worked closely with Henschel technical representatives to correct many of the deficiencies before being sent to the Eastern Front.
With mature drivers, taking required maintenance halts, and modification of key automotive components , the Tiger II could be maintained in a satisfactory operational condition.
I didn’t know the drivers, they might be POWs (von Paulus) or excellent Russian tank crews (Stalin). Only I said that the first vehicle series experienced numerous automotive problems, same that Panther, or transmission defects in early T-34 (more T-34s were lost in 1941 to mechanical trouble than to enemy action) and this is not propaganda.

Almogavar

------------------
Desperta ferro.

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 9:40 am

Almo WOW!! now that was a report

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:41 pm

The original report that started this tread is ambigious as to the knowledge of a Tiger II and operation by an inexperienced crew may or may not have contributed to the breakdowns of the tanks. We can only speculate.

I had occasion to recover a Soviet BRDM and ship it on a trailer. I have a college engineering degree and I was assisted by a very experienced maintenance warrant officer. We were both at a loss as to how to operate the thing. We eventually borrowed a large crane and lifted it onto the trailer. After that a pair of wheels stuck out too far for safe transportation so they had to come off. We removed every bolt in sight but could not pull the wheel. Finally we found some bolts that were covered and got the wheels off.

Now I submit that unless the Soviets had German crews that were cooperating, they probably had similar problems.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Heartland · Post by **Heartland** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:02 pm

I don't think it would have been healthy for Russians to fudge internal reports. Propaganda is one thing, internal technical reports another. Also, the absolutely miserable (make that miserable reliability of the King Tiger is well documented, so I hardly see how this can be disputed.

What I do find interesting, and quite surprising, are yet another set of internal reports from the Kubuinka testing ground (fall '44) which are translated at http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons7.html for those interested. It states that the King Tiger had worse armor compared to the Tiger I and Panther, due to very poor armour quality at this stage in the war. Quote from the translation:

"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. Groups 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 metres. 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 metres.

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 metres.

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 metres.

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 metres.

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."

Not really related to the subject at hand, just thought somebody might find it interesting if they haven't seen it before...

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 10:40 am

You might all be right, but don´t you know the kill ratios of TigerII compared with American or Soviet standard tanks?
(I quote from memory, so the numbers might be a little wrong)
TigerII-Sherman 1:6 (means 6 Shermans killed before one Tiger was killed)
TigerII-T34 1:9
So you can see when a Tiger II reached the fighting zone it caused real trouble for the enemy. In France most Tigers were destroyed by planes.