The Superior King Tiger

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

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

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs,
destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them
after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and
support.

Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what
a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it
really was?

Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some
time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You
might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite
often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45
time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time
and resources that they needed in other places.

A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had
with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites
(the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188
tons of weight in the damned thing.

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm

I wonder what the rough field performance was? Max speed for mobile warfare?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:06:39 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:


Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).


Quite, think of all the fist fights at allied airbases, typhoon and jug
pilots going at it hammer and tongs, to try and decide who'd have the
pleasure of plugging it.

8 x 60lb RPs or 8 x HVARS delivered at a suitable angle is really going to
mess up someones day.


greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:06:39 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

Quite, think of all the fist fights at allied airbases, typhoon and jug
pilots going at it hammer and tongs, to try and decide who'd have the
pleasure of plugging it.

8 x 60lb RPs or 8 x HVARS delivered at a suitable angle is really
going to mess up someones day.

The problem was that the thing had enough armor on it to shrug off most
light/medium rockets, and would certainly have been tailed closely by a
flock of AAA in the "Whirlwind" category. Of course, it was big enough
to be a target for the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs. Wouldn't you like
to have some film of *that* little scenario?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

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

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure

The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.

However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.


and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks. The 620
hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the addition of
fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best engines:
diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so easily as
the German and Allied tanks.


The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

In article ,
(Eunometic) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

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

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure

The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.

....a quagmire in places like Stalingrad, for example. Gee, I guess it's
lucky for the Germans they never tried to move into Russia.

Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.

When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
isn't going to help. Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
easily as the German and Allied tanks.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote in message om...
In article ,
(Eunometic) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

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

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure

The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.

...a quagmire in places like Stalingrad, for example. Gee, I guess it's
lucky for the Germans they never tried to move into Russia.

Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

They experienced the coldest winter in over 100 years after a
succesion of the mildest.



However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.

When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
isn't going to help.

I'm afraid it very much does. Peak ground pressure is a key
characteristic of track performance. The German tracks were very good
at this. (they were vulnerable to packing with mud and freezing if
not cleaned out)


Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
T34 was champion of all tanks.


and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The Germans were massively outnumbered. In that situation quality is
usually your only hope. In addition tanks like the Panther and Tiger
1 were needed to cope with tanks such as the T34 series that shocked
the Germans and the smaller number of super heavy soviet tanks already
in evidence then.

The German tanks had better optics and electric rather than manual
turret traverse as well.

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV. In fact the
shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
development.

AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
having to deal with the German armour.


The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
easily as the German and Allied tanks.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages. The use
of rubber running wheels as on the Sherman was I believe impossible
due to the Germans rubber shortages.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin. A Panther was no slouch at 35 mph (faster than a
Sherman) and even the tiger could manage 25 mph. The T34 with good
speed and but a massive power to weight ratio was very difficult to
deal with. Acceleration is more key than top speed and a good crew
will use it to avoid exposing themsleves. Basically the Germans
calculated that they would need to develop gas turbines for their
tanks as no gasoline engine could do the job especialy on the octane
rating of fuel they had available to them.

The ****ty fuel situation was because Speer cut back expansion of the
syn fuel industry and its underground dispersal since the war was
supposed to be over in 2 years and thus it would be a waste to invest
in it rather than more pointy things.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


Oh, wait. They did. Oops.

They experienced the coldest winter in over 100 years after a
succesion of the mildest.


Which is irrelevant when considering the ability
of the vehicles concerned to deal with mud.



However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.

When you have a much higher overall pressure, a lower peak pressure
isn't going to help.

I'm afraid it very much does. Peak ground pressure is a key
characteristic of track performance. The German tracks were very good
at this. (they were vulnerable to packing with mud and freezing if
not cleaned out)


That doesnt sound like a good thing


Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
T34 was champion of all tanks.


30% was more than enough.


and very high fuel consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a
landmark). Add in the very high maintenance problems, and you had
a really tough, sorta-mobile fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The Germans were massively outnumbered.

Which was at least partly a result of their design decisions

In that situation quality is
usually your only hope. In addition tanks like the Panther and Tiger
1 were needed to cope with tanks such as the T34 series that shocked
the Germans and the smaller number of super heavy soviet tanks already
in evidence then.


Trouble is the Soviets could turn out a T-34 in 30% of
the man hours required for a Tiger

The German tanks had better optics and electric rather than manual
turret traverse as well.


Indeed, these factors made production more complex of course

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV. In fact the
shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
development.


In fact the Sherman was 1942 design that was more than a
match for PzKfw III and IV it was designed to counter
and its engine was reliable and efficient.

AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
having to deal with the German armour.


That and the tank destroyers with 90mm and 17 pounder
anti-tank guns


The 620 hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the
addition of fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best
engines: diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so
easily as the German and Allied tanks.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages. The use
of rubber running wheels as on the Sherman was I believe impossible
due to the Germans rubber shortages.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin. A Panther was no slouch at 35 mph (faster than a
Sherman) and even the tiger could manage 25 mph.

Consider the Soviet Army appraisal of the Sherman (with high pressure
76mm gun) in comparison to the T-34/76

Quote
To the head of the 2nd Department of the main Intelligence
Department of the Red Army
Major-General Khlopov

Evaluation of the T-34, KV-1 and Sherman M4A3 Tanks
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds

General Comments
From the American point of view our tanks are slow

snip

Armament, the F-34 gun is very good, it is a simple very reliable and
easy to service.Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity is significantly
INFERIOR to the American 76mm gun

snip

9) Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of
our tanks, thick armour and relaible armaments, the succesful design
of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American
tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvarability, firepower, speed
and reliability.
/Quote

The T34 with good
speed and but a massive power to weight ratio was very difficult to
deal with.

Its power to weight ratio wasnt that superior , the T-34 had
a power to weight ratio of around 16 hp/ton from a 420 hp engine
The Sherman had a 400hp engine and a power to weight ratio
of 13 hp/ton

Acceleration is more key than top speed and a good crew
will use it to avoid exposing themsleves. Basically the Germans
calculated that they would need to develop gas turbines for their
tanks as no gasoline engine could do the job especialy on the octane
rating of fuel they had available to them.


Horsefeathers, the T-34 used diesel engines which will run
on very poor quality fuel

The ****ty fuel situation was because Speer cut back expansion of the
syn fuel industry and its underground dispersal since the war was
supposed to be over in 2 years and thus it would be a waste to invest
in it rather than more pointy things.

This is just silly, Speer didnt become Minister of War production
until after the death of Fritz Todt in Febuary 1942. He was
responsible for finally putting the economy of the Reich on a
war footing, more than 2 years later than was necessary.

Keith

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.

You mean "Most of the problems the German tanks had related to reality".

You also seem to be forgetting just how much the Germans were expecting from
an already maxed out engine in most of their tanks, overstress it and it
dies.

In message , Eunometic
writes
Chad Irby wrote in message news:5XCnc.137
...
Especially when that mean ground pressure can be
*twice* that of lighter tanks, or similar tanks with wider tracks.

As I recollect it was not quite that big a difference: maybe 30%. The
T34 was champion of all tanks.

Nonsense: the Panther was designed tracks-up as a T-34 killer and
one-for-one was much superior. Trouble was, the Soviets could produce,
field, maintain and supply many more T-34s than the Germans could
Panthers.

And in terms of armour and firepower the T-34 was utterly outmatched by
the Tigers... it was an excellent if austere medium tank, but even the
Soviets felt the need to augment it with the KVs and then the Josef
Stalins.

For shorter distances, due to (once again) higher fuel consumption.
High speed doesn't help if you end up parked waiting for the fuel
trucks. With the lousy German fuel situation by 1945, higher
consumption was the *last* thing they needed.

The Germans were massively outnumbered. In that situation quality is
usually your only hope.

They were outnumbered from choice - they dug the hole and kept on
digging.

A sherman would have been roast chicken to the Soviet armour despite
its relibility since it only approximated the Pzkfw IV.

Which explains why the Soviets rejected the large numbers of Shermans
they were supplied...?

For that matter, they accepted and used significant supplies of
Valentines, which were no great shakes in the armour or armament shakes
but were at least agile and reliable.

In fact the
shermans absurd shape was a result of it having been designed for a
horizontal radial engine: itself a signe of neglecting engine
development.

You realise the Sherman was four inches lower-slung than the Panther?

AFAIK see the air superiority spared the allies lighter armour from
having to deal with the German armour.

Air superiority was hugely overrated as a tank-killer (though effective
at denying them supply and scaring crews into flight).

German armour died when it met Allied armour, or when it met Allied
anti-tank guns. Sometimes it gave good account of itself, occasionally
it managed spectacular results, but mostly the recollection of an
Achilles commander held for stopping counterattacks: you got into
position covering the approaches and camouflaged properly, you let the
Germans get within a thousand yards so the 17pdr was firing battlesight,
and then you could be sure that the first or second shot would be
enough: and you displaced quickly not for fear of return fire, but
because they'd be calling artillery on you.

Defence is always easier than attack and the Germans spent most of the
war being pushed out of defensive position after defensive position.
Their few counterattacks were generally disasters.

Higher reliability with simpler and lower-performing engines gave them a
much more effective force than they would have been able to field.
Really neat tanks that don't work will generally lose to "good" tanks
that run under most conditions and are easier to fix.

Most of the problems the German tanks had related to either teething
problems that would be overcome, teething problems in manufacture and
often simply inferior materials due to quality and shortages.

In other words, yet again failure to cope with the reality of their
situation. If you're short of key strategic materials, do *not* design
vehicles dependent on them. If you're short of POL, don't design
gas-guzzling tanks. If you're outnumbered, remember that quantity is as
important as quality and make sure you have *enough* tanks as well as
*better* tanks.

I don't know how mobile the Sherman was compared to a Tiger or Panther
in rougth tersin.

Better than the Tiger, slightly outmatched by the Panther.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...


The German tanks had higher average ground pressure than the Russian
tanks which have very low pressures due to the quagmire they had to
handle.


Given that the Panther and Tiger were both designed to fight
Russian tanks in Russia this seems to hint at poor design

However the German technique of interleaving large diameter wheels
produced lower peak ground pressure despite heavier mean ground
pressure than other nations MBTs so they did not suffer in terms of
mobility.


The records of their deployment suggest otherwise


and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress.

The German tanks were still faster than most British tanks. The 620
hp Maybach V12 was being improved to over 800hp by the addition of
fuel injection. In reality the russians had the best engines:
diesels with low fuel consumption that did not brew up so easily as
the German and Allied tanks.


Indeed but the British and Americans were able to keep
their armoured formations adequately supplied for the
most part. The Germans were not.

Keith