Most survivable tank

kenny,

Please understand I want to agree with you, but so far on this thread you have had to correct yourself twice where numbers were concerned regarding tank crew casualties by position. Whether you realize it or not you have become bogged down (confused) by their inconsistencies, and do not appear to have the statistical skills required to sort them out and develop information that is more meaningful.

I know what of I speak. I have many of the artillery ammunition supply status and expenditure reports for 6th and 12th Army Groups, as well as those for the American armies. These include monthly and seven day reports, as well as COMZ, ADSEC, and CONAND tonnage reports. This, as you might imagine this is a significantly larger data set than that for tanks, and far more complex. The SHAEF file alone runs over 400 pages, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Trust me when I say the reconciliation of these various reports presents a major challenge which has held my attention for many years. However, I remain confident that at some point in time (if I live long enough ) I will be able to sort things out sufficiently to publish a paper that explains the complexities of the artillery ammunition supply situation in the ETO, and how they affected combat operations.

Duckbill

 

Just checking that you actualy do respond because so far you have ignored my request for further explaination of this claim you made earlier.

What exactly are you trying to say/claim/insinuate?

I think you must have forgotten about it as you would never make such a serious accusation without good reason.

Yes of course you have. You just do not feel the need to post any of it in support of your position. The points under discussion here are quite specific. That you fail to illustrate your case with a single report/document/reference says it all.

 

I meant nothing insidious, untoward, or disrespectful, only that the statistical probability of the theater totals for tank losses being even numbers is very, very low. And the probability that they both happen to be even to the nearest 500 is far lower still. I was also expressing my surprise that you did not find these two highly unlikely coincidences to be “odd.” Nothing more, nothing less.

This discussion is about tank crew survivability, not artillery ammunition. How bout I post something in the artillery section?

Duckbill

 

Please do. I thought you were trying to tell me your stash had documents pertinent to the subject of crew survivabilty (or lack thereof) However if this is an invitation for me to join you then I fear you will wait in vain. Many years ago I found it was best to stick to what you know best. I have nothing but a passing interest in that area and would never dream of bearding the Lion in his own den. Advice you would do well to emulate.

 

Thanks kenny, I needed a good laugh................ Now I can't help, but think of you as a bearded lion,.... sort of like the one in the Wizard of OZ.

Duckbill

 

I hpoe I get combat pay for following this thread!!

 

Nein! Only a blindfold and a last cigarette.... :skull:

Duckbill

 

K, back on topic. The most survivable tank is probably the Tiger I, with the Tiger II in second. The reason I place the T1 in first is that its mobility is much higher. The Panther has outstanding mobility, and the Tiger is just slightly behind, yet it has a nearly invulnerable turret, and it is completely immune to penetrations from the Russian 76 and American 75.
The Tiger was immensely resistant to fire from any kind, especially assault guns. Most tanks, including the panther, will break apart when attacked with rocket artillery or large caliber HE rounds, but the Tiger was nearly immune. Otto Carius actually was forced on a suicide mission outside of Leningrad, and he was attacked by numbers of Su-122 and 152, which were twice as common as the Tiger in the winter of 43/44. His tanks were forced to use a single road which allowed the Russians to have some of the best shots they would ever get, yet they only disabled seven Tigers, and only two were destroyed when they could not be recovered by the German crews.
When it comes to firepower, thanks to the low quality of the armor of all Russian tanks, it could destroy any tank which attacked it, at nearly any range. The IS-2 was no exception, and Otto Carius actually destroyed a handful in the first engagement ever, in the fall of 1943. At the time, the Russians had produced less than 100 of them, yet the Germans were easily able to destroy them without previously coming in contact with them.
Until 1944, the Russians had less than 1400 vehicles capable of penetrating the Tiger, although only the Su-100 had reliable performance against it. The Su-122 should not be counted, as it had only one shell available and it was HE. There was an encounter with a Su-122 where it fired a round at a Tiger at only 50m, and the shell did not penetrate. It just exploded on contact.
When it comes to the 152, you can google pictures of 152 rounds penetrating panthers and not destroying them. The shells were not particularly effective, and there are instances of their shells doing absolutely nothing to Ferdinands.
So what it comes down to is that the Tiger was resistant to almost every weapon which the KT was also resistant to, while at the same time being faster and easier to deploy. When compared to its competition, the Tiger was equal to or superior. It also had a better gun laying system, which more than equaled the ground with the IS-2, which had the typical awful Russian sights.
The Su series sights only went out to 800m, so the Tiger had a massive advantage even at medium ranges.
The Tiger was just an all round great tank, and I believe that its speed and mobility makes it even more survivable than the KT.

 

What vehicle can shrug off a 152mm direct hit?

And yet Jentz gives a German account where the IS-2 scored hits with the first rounds at extreme range.....

 

I'd nominate any of the US heavy tanks, not counting the M-26. Not only did they have a decent amount of steel armor but even air makes pretty good armor when you have several thousand kilometers of it between you and your opponent.

 

on that basis - what about the Argentinian Nahuel - not one lost

 

Thats highly unlikely, and I take most stories with a grain of salt unless the person is extremely reliable as a source. You should not take stories any different than what you would believe from a modern soldier. We all know a lot of people come up with crazy stories which are not supported like facts. I actually knew a Colonel who flew F-16s, and he tried to tell me he saw a UFO outside a hanger, in the daytime, at a military base. Ya, right. This guy has newspaper articles about him, yet he is not reliable. If a source says something which cant be backed up by fact, then it should be ignored. If someone says they got hit by a IS-2 at long range, how do they know the range? How do they know it was an IS-2? Did he take a good long look while his tank was burning, pull out his rangefinder, and double check? Absolutely not. In fact, even very distinguished tank commanders like Otto Carius have mistaken their own tanks for enemy at rather short ditances. Its very unlikely someone who is under fire would be able to be so accurate and all knowing about what shot them. Most real stories talk about how they were hit and they had no idea from what or where. I simply do not believe these stories which are obviously a stretch from reality.
Maybe after you have taken a look through the tinted yellow sights of a Russian tank, you can decide for yourself if it could be done. A sight with zero zoom and only goes up to 800m is not going to be able to hit at extreme ranges, except by chance.
Even the best Russian sights ever fielded could only fire effectively at 1000m, as they use "stadia" sights which are total crap. They didnt have coincidence rangefinders, and those that did were hand held and were only accurate to 200m. Until the advent of the laser rangefinder, Russian tanks couldnt hit the broad side of a barn.
The Russian stadia sights were operated by comparing the size of the tank to a scale, and so have incredible accuracy problems. They dont take into account wind, temperature, or the different size of different models of tank. They are awful.
The 152 was so inaccurate, they used to group them together and use the periscope to fire in the general direction in the hopes of getting lucky.
I really dont believe any story about how effective they were at long range, especially if its from a foreign (non German/Russian) book, which is almost surely going to be digging for examples to make the Allies look less embarrassed.
If you would like to know more about targeting systems, check out "Janes technology of tanks", it describes just about every system of tanks in pretty good detail, although its almost totally post war tanks being compared. It does give you an idea of how the tanks match up.
Once you read about how the sights operate, youll understand why soviet tanks seem to always be very unsuccessful. It doesnt matter how big your gun is if you are close sighted.

 

Can you give us an authorative source that says Russian optics were s**t?
Actual data?

On Jentz 'Tiger I & II Combat Tactics' (page 129) you can read a deluded German account that tells of 8 x 122mm hits on one Tiger. They sure got lucky that day!


http://www.rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/sign_tanks.htm

 

Not to be a jerk, but I highly doubt that source. We would need to see the sources for the Russian source which was used, and I have a feeling it would be inaccurate because 1500m range for a stadia sight would be absolutely insanely lucky. The US used a very similar sight with exactly the same zoom, and they say it only works reliably out to 800m. They replaced their stadia sights with a 10x m10 sight near the end of the war, as it was far more effective. All tanks after the war were equipped with a sight just like those of the Germans, which came with interaded coincidence ranefinders, and only the best gunners could surpass 1500m. The Israelis managed to hit 2000m on a regular basis, but they trained almost exclusively at those ranges.
Its nearly impossible for someone to hit 1600m with a stadia sight unless they know the distance before hand.
There are a few ways the Russians could have done long range shooting, but it is not something typical in a battlefield. They would have either had to use a captured German sight, or they would have had to know the distance beforehand. Perhaps they knew the distance through recon aircraft, who knows? Maybe they zeroed the sights beforehand.
The is one thing which I am certain of, at an unknown distance, it would have been impossible to make the same shots at more than 800m.

I really recomment reading up on the performance of rangefinders, and the types.
They say the max range of the IS-2 sight is 1500m, which is absurd. Only a very nationalistic person would publish something which would be laughed at by anybody who has ever used a stadia sight. Its not your fault, but somebody is being absurd.
1600m is pushing it, and 2000m is really the farthest possible with the best rangefinders out there. Without a coincidence rangefinder, even 1000m is unlikely. Can you tell the exact range of something within a mile? I sure cant, and Im very good at that type of thing, being a pilot. I get to see known distances all the time, every time I go to a different airport, and I dont think their is a person alive who can look down an airfield and know the distance, regardless of any features. Knowing ditances out in fields and other non-standard areas is really a guess.
The west uses rangefinders which are nearly twice as long as the Russians handheld ones, which themselves only appeared decades after WWII, and they barely claim 1500m. The Russian claiming 1500m with a stadia sight in WWII is absolutely absurd. Nobody should state those kind of things in a book and expect to be taken seriously, but very few people actually know better.
For instance, would you expect someone with a 2.5x scope to hit a tank at 1500m? Even with 10x, you can barely hit a man sized target with the most accurate weapons ever made, with laser rangefinders and temperature and wind tables , how are you going to hit a tank which is slightly taller than a person, with a 2.5x sight, when you have no temperature or wind data on your cannon? Its extremely unlikely.
The T-55 uses the same gun and sights as the best Russian TD, the SU-100, and its a total piece of crap. Hitting something at 1000m is a guess. Im sure the Russians must have had some magical 1600m sight, when the Germans were barely able to do that with the best known sights of WWII.
Im sure the US would have followed the Russians if they had some great sight, but nope, they decided to use the same type of sight as the Germans, for the next 50 years. They also managed to win all long ranged engagements until the current date.
Please dont tell me the Russians can effectively shoot at 1500m with a stadia sight. Nobody who knows what a stadia sight is would believe that for a second.
This is like comparing the real thickness of Steel armor to Composite, you really cant compare them, even if they technically can be similar thicknesses.

 

No problem. The Tiger was that of Hauptmann von Villebois commader 10. Kp. GD on 15th August 1943. The account was written by Major Gomille, Commander III (Tiger) Abteilung Pz Rg. GD.
6 hits on the turret and and (suprise suprise) the Tiger was beyond repair.
I never mentioned range by the way-just remarked at how 'lucky' it was to hit a single Tiger 8 Times when your sights are s**t!

I presume the answer to my question about hard data for Soviet WW2 sights is that there isn't any?

 

I actually knew a Colonel who flew F-16s, and he tried to tell me he saw a UFO outside a hanger, in the daytime, at a military base. Ya, right. This guy has newspaper articles about him, yet he is not reliable.

I'm a little confused about who you say you believe. On the T-34 thread you said you only believe people that were in the field, the guys that had a paybook. Does this only apply to Germans in WWII? Colonels in modern air forces (I don't want to assume who he flew F-16's for) have a paybook but you don't believe them. Please, how does this work?

 

The Panther has outstanding mobility, and the Tiger is just slightly behind...

Really?

... and it is completely immune to penetrations from the Russian 76 and American 75.
The Tiger was immensely resistant to fire from any kind, especially assault guns.

Interestingly Death Traps by Belton Cooper gives accounts of Shermans taking on Panthers and Tigers and besting them (odd because he is trying to paint the picture of the Sherman as an inferior tank.) In one account he describes an encounter where the welds on the Tiger are ruptured by the impact of a WP round and the crew abandons the tank because the smoke leads them to believe they are on fire. I'm wondering how the Tiger stands up to the heavier rounds you describe while it can't handle an incoming phosphorus round? I'd be careful of using a term like "completely immune."

When it comes to the 152, you can google pictures of 152 rounds penetrating panthers and not destroying them.

Two things. First, provide a link to this. Second, explain if you think this tank was still "in the game" after being penetrated. There are different types of rounds used for killing and disabling tanks, some have exploding caps which easily cause fire and some are pure kinetic energy penetrators which rely on fragmentation doing damage/killing once penetration has occured. It would be a miracle if the crew survived the above scenario. Tanks don't have to burn to be out of the fight.

The Tiger was just an all round great tank, and I believe that its speed and mobility makes it even more survivable than the KT.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this completely.

 

I recommend you read up on this a bit. For accurate fire from any tank using WW 2-style sights the distance for the half-second flight time of the round will result in approxmately 80% hits on a stationary target 2 x 2 meters in size (eg., a tank). The one second will result in about 40%. Most WW 2 tanks at 500 meters could be expected to score in excess of 90% hits on that target at 500 meters. So, with a stada gunsight the accuracy goes up with gun velocity.
The US Army lists the average hit probability for a T55 using the TKS 3 gun sight at 98% at 500 m, 35% at 1000 m and, 4% at 2000 m. With the TSh2b-4lu telescopic scope you can almost double the hits at 1000m and 2000m. That sight is calibrated to almost 5000 meters.

Basically, stada sights depend largely on the gunner's ability to interpet the range. But, for shooting to 1000 to 1500 meters you can expect something between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 hits on a target using WW 2 technology. That isn't too bad and with a good gunner you could easily expect him to double that to 1 in 2 or 3 at those ranges.

I also suggest you peruse this sight. These guys hit pig, turkey and, chicken sized targets at 1000 yards + using black powder rifles often hitting on the first round.

Quigley Shooting Association | Shooting blackpowder cartridge rifles

I've watched them do it personally at Ben Avery Shooting Range in Phoenix more than once. Now, if some guy using iron sights on a black powder rifle can lob, and that's what they do...lob, rounds down range 1000+ yards and take out something a fifth or tenth the size of a tank in one shot somebody using a scope and a large high velocity cannon could easily do the same.

 

What has gun velocity got to do with gun sights? The target is not going to move very far in a couple of seconds.
Intuitively flat trajectory/high velocity guns are less sensitive to bad range estimates, but the role of the sight is to allow the gunner to compensate for the projectile drop during flight and for that you need accurate range figures and gun balistics tables (that are usually built into the sight itself). AFAIK WW2 tank sights had no input for wind, temperature, barrel wear, ammo quality etc and IMHO with common combat ranges well below 2000m and high first hit kill probability that stuff is a rarely useful luxury. IIRC Indian gunners in 20lb centurions were trained to quickly fire three shots at different range settings and often got the better of Pakistani patton crews that were still fumbling with the rangefinder, so on paper the M-48 had better sights but .......

A very good gunner is going to get the range right without much assistance from the sight, or if fighting defensively may actually know it from pre -combat measurements, but that has little to do with the vehicle.

BTW don't discount the Pz III survivability, early marks had side escape hatches between the tracks, not very useful if your tank is going to brew up in a few seconds but very nice to have if it's immobilized under fire as there is a much better chance one of them is out of the enemy line of sight than with top hatches.

 

Velocity determines the flat (more or less) firing range of a gun. For tank guns the half second and second flight times give distances where it is virtually certain you will hit your opponet's tank simply by laying the gun sight / gun on the top of the vehicle (eg., putting the turret roof on the cross hairs. This results in a shot that will drop no more than about 6 feet and pretty much ensures you hit the vehicle you are aiming at. It makes for a fast lay on a target.

The Israelis for example did exactly that with their tanks up through the 80's. They set the range at 1500 meters on the fire control system and using APDS or APFSDS the gun fired pretty much flat to that range so all they had to do was aim at the top of their target and a hit was virtually guarrenteed. Beyond that range they could take a bit more time and use the system as designed for longer ranger accurate fire.