Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

King Tiger in modern tank warfare?

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Boba Nette, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. Lyndon

    Lyndon New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    via TanksinWW2
    I believe King Tigers actually DID knock out King Tigers by mistake. I can't remember off hand where or when but it did happen.
     
  2. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    another case of friendly fire :angry:
     
  3. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    "Friendly fire": One of the biggest oxymorons in the universe. :roll:
     
  4. Maybach

    Maybach New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The king Tiger was a petrol engined tank, too large for transport. i had this conversation with a member of the present day German Army who relyably told me that the Tiger 2 was a hunk of rubbish. It was heavily armoured, but not fast or manouverable. the armour was steel, which would not stand up to modern tanks. take a look at the T-82, it has a similar make up, solid steel srmour and the russians have installed reactive armour. If the tank had anough fuel to manouver around the abhrams or leopard, it would be hit while its still out of range, the tigers gun is high velocity, but effective range is less than modern weapons, all in all it was a bad design for 1945 and even worse now
     
  5. Paul Stebbings

    Paul Stebbings New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cambridge, U.K
    via TanksinWW2
    Going back to Sturm Tiger's original comment, I have read something similar. The TigerII would had still been a good tank in the mid 1950s but after that it would have been left behind unless it was upgraded ie gun, fire control and a bit more armour. It was a big tank for its punch compared to post WW2 tanks, a bit tall! The 1965 Centurion was much better than the 1945 one. Remember French used Panthers after the war.
     
  6. Lyndon

    Lyndon New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    via TanksinWW2
    Doubtless the King Tiger would have been upgraded post WW2. In fact it was planned to be upgraded in June 1945. I'm sure they would even have come up with a much better engine at some point.
     
  7. Lyndon

    Lyndon New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    via TanksinWW2
    How would he know? It's hard finding similar views from people who actually served in it. Now, the Jagdtiger on the other hand was another story. :D
     
  8. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Doubtless the German soldier was looking at the Tiger II through the eyes of a modern soldier. From that point of view, it is without question a piece of junk, especially when compared to modern MBTs. The same can be said for any tank of WW2.
     
  9. Lyndon

    Lyndon New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    via TanksinWW2
    And any plane etc etc.
     
  10. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    The Abrahms and Challenger MBT's would survive the King Tiger hits.

    I think even the 105mm, with the latest AP rounds, could defeat the King Tiger's armour.
     
  11. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Let me Refrase what you said in the right manner "Front Glacis, Big problem !!!"

    The 88mm L/71 gun could not penetrate the front of the K-Tiger at ranges exeeding 300m. And thats during favorable conditions.

    If i remember it correctly some tests with the Kwk43 were done in Kassel Germany against a front glacis plate of an K-Tiger, but im not sure. However the Reports of that test were confiscated by the Russians after the war, and hasnt been seen since.

    Regards, KBO
     
  12. 2ndLegion

    2ndLegion New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Israel
    via TanksinWW2
    Using King Tiger against the great Russian, British, French, American, and more recent German tanks is suicide.

    The question is would King Tiger defeat the T 54/55 T62, or M60?
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    In an individual engagement, yes, probably.
    In the overall conflict, I would back the guys without the Tiger 2.
     
  14. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    This is ridiculous! Why would the 88mm L/71 be perfectly able to penetrate more than 100mm of armour of its opponents but not of its own? And don't get at me with superior steel or armour techniques; the King Tiger's armour was generally of low quality because of all sorts of shortages and bombings.
     
  15. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Because of the frontplates 50* slope, its very simple.....
    No other ww2 tankgun will penetrate a 150mm 50* sloped plate at 300m, exept the kwk44 128mm gun offcourse...

    Take a look at Greg pitts topic about the value of sloped armor.

    And allthough this has nothing to do with this the Armor quality of the KingTiger's was only bad in some of the first produced not the later ones, allthough it was never as good in quality as that on the TigerI.
    The same goes for the panther, the first produced of them also suffered from bad armor quality.

    Regards, KBO
     
  16. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2


    I can assure you that the Abrams doesnt have a meter of armor in the turret. I have seen one and I can tell you for certain that its not true :wink:
     
  17. Gatsby phpbb3

    Gatsby phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Chobdam (sp) armour is superior to ordinary steel armour of course...
     
  18. Cyrax

    Cyrax New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    King tiger

    The king tiger was definatly a tank of its day but you guys are pushing it when comparing it to the abrams tank. If you boys think the abrams is weaker than a king tiger than how in the world would American forces in Iraq manage? :bang:
     
  19. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Probably a ''not true'' story...
    About the Cobham armor, the only country that uses it is the UK, i've also heard a story of UK and US sahring information, but the Abrmas armor has depleted uranium in its armor, as far as i know the Challenger1 or 2 don't use this material.

    The Leopard also uses somekind of variant of the ''Cobham'' armor, i think the Merkava/Ariette uses it also, many tanks uses it.

    I know the Leopard's frontal armor is comparable to 880mm of homogenous steel, I think the Challenger and Abrams have about the same thickness, i also had a picture of a Leopard2 with's reviews how thick the armor is on every place of the tank.
    I can tell you the frontal hull armor can't be penetrated by any weapon.

    And ofcourse the King Tiger would be blown to pieces by modern tank, i think even the CV9035 would penetrate the side armor with its 35mm cannon, from 5000 meters i think.

    Roel: There is no Leopard2a7, only different variant of the Leopard2a5/a6, Spain has the most advanced Leopard2a6 with add-on armor and improved command control system.
     
  20. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    It is untrue ! The 120mm L/44 Gun on the Abrams is powerful enough for knocking out another Abrams at over 2km away.
     

Share This Page