King Tiger in modern tank warfare?

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.

 

another case of friendly fire :angry:

 

"Friendly fire": One of the biggest oxymorons in the universe. :roll:

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

And any plane etc etc.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

In an individual engagement, yes, probably.
In the overall conflict, I would back the guys without the Tiger 2.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Chobdam (sp) armour is superior to ordinary steel armour of course...

 

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:

 

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.

 

It is untrue ! The 120mm L/44 Gun on the Abrams is powerful enough for knocking out another Abrams at over 2km away.