Best tank

Sorry, but no. I only have general information about steel plate tolerances.

 

Well today i managed to get my hands on a book that i was looking for some time Germany's Tiger Tanks VK45.02TO Tiger II-Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle,so maybe i will found out more about this one in it.

 

A very good book, the best on the market on the Tiger II, though it doesn't have this particular piece of information.

 

Like you say in that post, the situation was handled well tactically, probably by experienced crews. This does not mean the JS-2 "didn't have trouble" with the Tiger II at 600 meters, just that it was capable of dealing with them. If the same combat situation had occured with Panthers as opponents the JS-2s would no doubt have had an easier job.

 

The frontal armour of a Tiger 1 was easier to penetrate than a Panther.
The best biased Soviet info on the net:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=44

to read about JS-2 development, and vs German tanks.

And for the best German (especially Tiger 2 and Panther) biased info on the net:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

The 88 mm with the right ammunition (APCR-tungsten core) was successful against the frontal armour of a JS-2...but afgain tungsten was in short supply and most Tiger 2 AP ammo was APCBC and not so effective.
Just as an aside the Germans mostly saved the tungsten for 57 mm AP ammo and below, as these were virtually useless without it.

But how silent everyone was about reliability and flexibility, can't beat those Russki diesel engines, power to weight ratios etc. Tiger 2's were way underpowered in comparison and used so much fuel for a measly 38 KPH top speed.


Here's some quotes from Actung Panzer site:


"...they (Panthers) burnt too easily, the fuel and oil systems were insufficiently protected, and the crews were lost due to lack of training." - Heinz Guderian.

"It is suggested to the Red Army to use such German tanks as StuG III and Pz IV due to their relability and availability of spare parts. The new German Panther and Tiger can be used until they broken down without trying to repair them. They have bad engines, transmission and suspension." - Department of Weaponry of the Red Army, late 1944.

if there is a certain supply of the best ammunition available then wouldn't you give it to the best and most experienced crews, such as an ace like Karl Borrmann who destroyed 36 JS-2's with the APCR ammunition.
Also the front of a tank is not all frontal armour, there are the tracks, driver's slit, turret, turret ring etc.

There's a picture on the Russian Battlefield site of a Tiger destroyed by an 57 mm Soviet anti tank gun,who would think that was possible. Germans too would use their 20x4 flak guns against tanks with success. You hit anything enough times, or once in the right spot, you gotta stop it.

Russki crews were pretty sure of themselves in their "invulnerable" JS-2's and were prone to follow orders and inexperience made for easy targets and less skill at finding targets; and they were building a lot of tanks, which means a lot of inexperienced crews.
Check out what Israel did in the various Arab-Israel Wars, they could sight, fire off rounds and manouvre faster than of their opponents and it showed in the results, 4 tanks destroying a division of Egyptian tanks....I read that somewhere, you'll have to look it up yourselves.

After all, the initial German success was not their excellent Mark 1 tanks, but their training and tactics. the best tanks (at that time) the Germans had, they got from Czechoslovakia. France had better tanks, poorer tactics.

Generals in the German army preferred the Panther to the Tiger for offensive capabilities, (most notable was Model), citing speed, manouvrability and rate of fire.

 

I don't think you can really consider the Panzer I excellent in anyway at all.

 

I certainly think its possible - after all the first Tiger to be knocked out by the allies in North Africa was knocked out by a 6lber (which is roughly 57mm).

You really are trying hard here. Quoting the Achtung panzer site is less than reliable as some of the information is not exactly accurate or skewed. As far as reliability goes that's a two edged sword -afaik the t-34 engine life was measured in hours rather than track life/mileage etc so If that is the case then it's diesel engine could be less reliable.

Check out the Tank Riders book where you'll find many mentions of columns having to stop for maintenace and of vehicles frequently falling out due to breakdown. The same probably applied to the Axis vehicles so I can't see any advantage for either side.

I don't often take part in discussions but when I see someone so obviously trying to skew/portray information to suit their own view and trying to force everyone else to accept that as gospel it comes over as immature - particularly when discussing events over 60yrs ago. The allies (and that includes the USSR) did win you know.

Try to be less aggressive and argumentive in your approach. I'd also check out these topics on other forums and you'll find what the members here are arguing is mirrorred there. Try Axis History forum for one.

 

Absolutely. I was talking about the Tiger II though.

Simon: I think the remark about the Panzer I was sarcasm.