German tanks of WW2

[/IMG]

 

I am unsure of the location where these tanks were destroyed. Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, or So. France.

 

Of the picured tanks only the Tiger of picture 4 may have been in Tunisia but the roadweels look like a late model. First and third picture are a Jadgtiger so that rules out Italy and Sicily a well, the usage of the handful of JpZ VI produced is well documented so it should not be too hard to track. The Panther cannot be in Sicily as I believe there were none there, also it's a 1944 or later model. The Herman Goering division had some Tigers in Sicily but they would have been early models. Hope this restricts the search a bit.

 

There is nothing like a schwere panzer regiment, IIRC the biggest organization of the heavies was the batallion, if you exclude the two batallion 656 schwere panzejaeger regiment made up of 653 and 654 Ferdinand equipped batallions at Koursk.
A Britisk OR states that of 223 Panthers destroyed examined in 1944 only 14 were due air attack (11 to rockets an 3 to cannons) that's close to 0.5%, the best way to stop a heavy tank is to hit it's support elements and wait for it to breakdown or run out of fuel.

 

Regment is a misfired idea in my brain. I meant sPzAbt, but was thinking about the Russian heavy tank Rgt at the same time. Hitting the support element and wait unti the Tigers put themselves out is a fine idea at the big picture, but I'd hate to be the kid in the foxhole who's doing the waiting. Massived indirect artillery fire, when they could be called down tend to be effective, especially if there are 155s or over. The reason for this is that cannon fire could break their tracks.

 

And the impact of a 155er is not something to be taken lightly. The shockwaves could knock out crew members just by sheer force. Even tough the armor might not be pierced, the crew could be jammed shut inside.



Cheers...

 

The JpZ could be in the Ruhr, could they not??

 

Three things to report here.

1. This website on US tanks kick butts. For some reason its German tank database section is not accessible from homepage, but it is pretty good.

2. The Relative Armor Thickness Caculator is very useful. It can caculate armor thickness at 0 degrees impact for you if you have the base plate thickness and slope.

3. Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can't Kill Armor is an article written in the early 90s about the lethality of heavy, indirect artillery of 152/155 caliber against armor.

The jist of the test is that massed 155mm howitzer fire, used as a serrogate for Soviet 152s, utterly destroyed the M-48 tanks and M-113 APCs used as targets with conventional DP and VT fuzes.

A direct hit from a 155 PD round consistently destroyed the tank. Fragmentation from a HE round in near hits frequently damaged or destroyed tracks, main gun, antennas, wheels and vision blocks. One test vehicle was set on fire by a near hit. All externally stored equipment were, of course, royally screwed.

 

I would say in a fully loaded Tiger II the best point of aim is the rear half of the turret. Even non penetrating hits in this location are likely to cause spalling and ignite the ammunition stored in the turret bustle. The Germans did try to mitigate this somewhat by using internal screens to stop fragments. But, these were thin plates and don't cover the entire ammunition storage area.

I know if I were an experianced Tiger crewman I'd minimize storage in these racks to just a few rounds and make them the first fired in an engagement.

 

The Tiger 2 is like a puppy, you have to tend to its needs immediately or it dies....


It required a large maintenance crew to tag along because it had a weak engine for the sheer size of its amour plating. The Germans were short of said crews, not to mention oil so the hope of the Wunderwaffen died with Hitler.

 

On actual design here are some observations:

The Germans were unique in their panzers not having any great amount of castings in their construction. All the other major (and even most of the minor ones) tank builders made extensive use of steel castings for major structurial components in their tanks.

The Germans were also very conservative in the design and construction of their tanks. Up through the Tiger I all of their vehicles followed essentially the same pattern of construction. The hull was built up from plate. The superstructure was welded together and then bolted to the hull.

Turrets on German tanks had small turret ring diameters compared to the size of the vehicle. This was due to a penchant for not using overhanging turrets (ie a turret of larger diameter than the walls of the hull (ie equal to or smaller than the distance across the hull at the suspension). While this made it easy to install a turret basket, it limited the size of gun that could be installed and the general turret size severely.

Complex suspensions were the norm after their first few designs. The interleaved / overlapped suspensions and torsion bars were just too complex for wartime production. Yet, little real design innovation went into tracks that remained relatively short lived and inefficent.

Side armor on German tanks tended to be thinner than their Allied counterparts. This was likely a mistake.

The Germans also apparently never tried more than half heartedly to go to a rear drive like the Soviets and British did and, by late war the US was doing.

One especially clever thing the Germans did do was make the hull machinegun effective by providing a stable mount and telescopic gun sight. This compares to the Allies just giving the assistant gunner a bullet hose.

 

Never mind, read a post wrongly

Aglooka

 

i once asked my grandad,who was in the R.A...what is the best way to kill a tank?...he remarked...mines.cheers.

 

This only really applies to Panzer 3 and only because it was Daimler Benz had Krupp got the contract it would have a fighting compartment like a Panzer 4. Irrespective of the turret ring diameter Panzer 1,2 and 4 had hulls which overhung the tracks to varing degrees. In the Panzer 4 although the turret ring was 65" the turret was about 78" in diameter, the lower hull was 74" hull overall. From Vk3001 onwards German tanks were T shaped in cross section.

In WW2 the tanks that were relentlessly box shaped with a turret ring within the hull width were the British tanks as was the Soviet K.V. 1 & 2 with a 54" ring (the same as a Churchill). even the British Centurion turret ring was within the hull width -although it was boat shaped like the M24.

Generally speaking only U.S. tanks had the bullet hose. British and Russian tanks had sighted hull guns. Russian tanks having a tube apperture the British had many different types of sight Besa MG mounting. Crusader having a Mk18, but was not used, the Churchill having a Mk19 for Mk2 through 6,9,10 and 11 Mk21,22 and 23 in Churchill 7 and 8 late Centaur and Cromwell.

Cavalier and Centaur Mk20 had a mount linked to the periscope. A similar attempt was made to connect the hull ball mount in late rams and Shermans to the periscope but it came to nothing.

View attachment 5992
Example of a besa mount. Close view of mk19 hull mount in Churchill IV.

~Steve