Tiger 1 Armour?

On this picture, of a Tiger 1, there seems to be a "cross hatching" on the armour:

Does anyone know what this is? Thanks.

 

Your link was not entered correctly so I don't know which photo on the Armour sites Tiger page you are referring to. Having looked at it I'm not sure what crosshatching you see, as the only thing resembling that description are Tigers with Zimmeritt and which in some cases is battle damaged. A good example being the 4th photo on the page.

http://fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

 

excellent site , is there any true about the turret being very acurate but
very slow to rotate ?

 

What do you mean with an accurate turret? I am sure it could be rotated precisely enough to satisfy gunnery needs. Optics and ballistics are more important factors when it comes to accuracy.

 

I think the reference is to the relatively slow speed at which the Tiger turret rotated... compared to the Sherman for instance.
Commanders such as Michael Wittman tended to compensate by having the driver turn the tank in the direction of the shot to speed things-up a bit. Then the gunner only need make some small corrections to bring his gun on target.
Of course Wittman was an 'ol STUG-commander, so he was used to limited traverse.

Tim

 

Ah I see.

The problem of slow rotation is relative to the distances involved in a firefight, isn't it?

 

tiger traverse

I was under the impression that the Tiger 1 turret traverse was low geared and was driven by a hydraulic motor that took it's drive from the gearbox, thus when the main engine was stopped, the turret had to be traversed by hand; this I think is the reason for the slow traverse saga.

 

Merlin is correct. Tiger's turret rotation was dependent on the engine rpm. For fine ajustements, and in case of crisis, the turret could de rotated by hand.

Like you said, Wittman was an 'ol STUG-commander, and that's the reason he was turning the whole vehicle. It has nothing to do with slow traverse of the gun ...

 

It could be a factor, Selesque. Turning the whole vehicle has the additional benefit of presenting the target with the most armored side, namely the glacis plate.

 

accurate pointing was also needed for the designed use , long
distance overreach, picking target at more than 1000m or ambush
In counter attack , acting as the hard tip of a panzer wedge , it's armor
was more important as it's fine accuracy, pretty much taking the heat
for the lesser vehicles

 

For lighter tanks, or SPAT guns, is a factor to turn the whole vehicle. The gun has limited traverse (for the later). But for tanks... Is not that simple. First, the turret can turn faster then the vehicle. In case of Tiger, 56 tons of it turning on spot, that is a real chance the crew will need to go out and put back the track that broke.

Actually, the Tiger was designed to have both protection and firepower, including accuracy. I remember something about the british capturing a Tiger in North Affrica, bringing it in UK, and testing it. It seems that they were ammazed by the fact that a Tiger could hit a target at 800m with first shot, and if fired in quick folowups, 3 projectiles would hit the target before accuracy was lost. But I can't remember exactly all...

Tigers were really excelent tanks. Never in the neaded quantity tough...

 

the russians have a saying ,

" quantity as a quality all of it's own "

 

actually I thinks thats a saying on tank shows on the Discovery chanal. ie. top 10 tanks.

 

Well, if whole german army would have been isued Tigers or Panthers instead of what they had, even if outnumbered, there would have been no quantity is a quality in it's own. But for T34's vs. MK3 And Mk4's, it works.


"Quantity has a quality all its own.", so spoke Joseph Stalin... Not a russian saying.

Other quotes “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”, “Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”, “In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance.”, “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?”.

 

Sure there would. It is all a question of numbers. Even if the German Army was exclusively equipped with Tigers and Panthers, they would still be hopelessly outnumbered, and would still have lost the war.

The T-34's "quality" in a battlefield is far superior to the Panzer III, and about equal to the Panzer IV. The battlefield also consists of more than just tanks when viewed in the tactical perspective - and especially so in the strategic perspective.

 

Like you said yourself, the tactical and strategical situation both consist of more than just the number of tanks. In the case of the German defeat, I would emphasize the influence of command and replacement of losses...

 

....

 

What is the point of such a post, Gunter?

 

the quantity point is all about multiple pressure points , from winter 42
the russian could create local overwhelming superiority .
didn't always break the line, but often enought .
it involved throwing thousands of moujiiks to their death , not to mention
the "schrafbats" penal , batallions "redeming their faults trough blood "
and used for working out where the machineguns where located .

:-? :-?

 

Wait hold it a bit.. Didnt the Russians ahve a bunch more thanks than Third Reich when it was invaded? Most were obselete, so therefore quantity is not always such a great quality.