Jump to content

dora9

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, chrish said:

I just watched a documentary on the king tiger (apparently king tiger was not what the Germans called it) these things had a 12:1 kill ratio! That’s a scary by anybody’s definition!

 

Yes, the official designation was simply Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B; the inventory listing was Sonderkraftfahrzeug 182. We Americans gave it the King title. Some sources claim none of the tanks had their front armor penetrated in combat due to the armor thickness/slope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CATCplSlade said:

 

Yes, the official designation was simply Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B; the inventory listing was Sonderkraftfahrzeug 182. We Americans gave it the King title. Some sources claim none of the tanks had their front armor penetrated in combat due to the armor thickness/slope.

 

In one of my Tiger books, there are photos of a King and a Pershing that went "toe to toe". The King had several large gouges in front, but no penetrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2018 at 5:06 PM, chrish said:

Makes you (me) wonder about those super weapons! Great to build models of them but kind of happy they didn’t get them into action sooner and in larger numbers...with turbine engines

 

The effects of the "super weapons" is, for the most part, a huge myth.  Take the Tiger II for instance, with its "unpenetrable frontal armor", it was a huge failure of a tank, and had a pretty amusing in a sad way, the first battle with the Russians, where several were knocked out and never saw the T-34-85 who did them in.  See this link.   If you search around the site, linked, you can find all kinds of translated documents from the Soviet Archives, translated to English, showing the Soviets had no trouble penning the frontal armor of a TII.  There M3 90mm Gun with HVAP could also pen the Tiger II from the front, but since it was so rare, it really doesn't matter much.  One of the few cases they were used in numbers against the US, during the battle of the bulge, they barely saw any fighting because they were so slow, they were kept to the rear of the columns so they would slow down the offensive. 

 

Another problem with the legends is the legendary kill claims, and them being BS, at least on the ground front. You can make a credible case the German fighter Aces got most of the kills they claim, but it's not as solid as some like to claim. For ground combat though, most of the legendary Germans like Karl Korner are German wartime propaganda presented as the truth.  In many cases the country and unit type claimed to be in combat was not there, when checked against allied records. 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/search/label/Tiger II?updated-max=2014-01-04T00:26:00-05:00&max-results=20&start=26&by-date=false

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/12/cheating-at-statistics-12-overclaim-at.html

 

That's just two examples, I can't find offhand, the ones with US and Brit units, but you run into the same problems with the German accounts. This is a huge problem with most of the books out there on German Armor, most of the authors, take at face value, the Kill CLAIMS, and do bother to cross-check with the units they supposedly faced, to compare the numbers.  This means all those claims of 10 to 1 kill ratios are total BS. You also get into problem when you look into what the Germans considered a lost tank and what the Soviets or US did.  Hint, in the Soviet Army, when a tank got stuck in the mud, it was counted as a battle loss,  in the German army, if a wreck is recovered, but has almost no chance of being repaired without a factory, its still counted as being a tank. This makes comparing the numbers pretty dicey. 

 

Anyway, a few more words on the "Wonder Weapons",  did you know the engines in the 262 Jet Fighter lasted less than 15 hours on average?

Would you rate a tank that could only travel 150 kilometers before it had to rebuild a major part of its drivetrain as good?  I wouldn't and that tank was the Panther.  In post-war testing, when the French put new and rebuilt Panthers into a regiment and ran them for a year, and on average the final drives in the powertrain got 150 kilometers. You could put 2500 MILES on any component of ANY Sherman tanks powertrain and motor setup, (there were four motors used) and with regular maintenance, get them to 5000. The Germans had no armored vehicles that could come close to those numbers. 

 

I find it a little sad, the Allies had wonder Weapons too, but no one talks about them all that much, and in the allied cases, they worked. 

 

For example The Meteor Jet fight,  The B-29, the US 90MM AA gun system, and the proximity fuze to name a few. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by JeepsGunsTanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So after waiting for the AFV ammo racks, just received them and dry fit them to the hull. Man I would not feel too comfy with all that ammo at 6in of my shoulder!

Still have to work on the middle racks, they are too long.

 

06oBl6vh.jpg

 

The kit racks are too wide and they lack the outward angle, preventing the rotation of the turret.

 

So this is where I am right now with the King Kitty!

 

Cheers

Edited by dora9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be tank 204 from the 501 tank battalion at the battle of the Bulge december 1944. It's a new machine so that's why I will keep it fairly clean, except for the mud and some scars.

No heavy battle damages.

Still, a long way to go 'till finish line!

Edited by dora9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Man I would not feel too comfy with all that ammo at 6in of my shoulder!'

You are behind:

Driver’s front plate (Glacis): 150 mm (5.9 in) @ 50°

Lower hull front: 100 mm (3.94 in) @ 50°

Side: 80 mm (3.15 in) @ 25°

Rear: 80 mm (3.15 in) @ 30°

Roof: 40 mm (1.57 in)

Belly; Front: 40 mm (1.57 in)

Belly, Aft: 25 mm (0.98 in)

Which by any measure is a LOT of steel.

 

Love what you're doing..

 

Sincerely,

Mark

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that you where surounded by a lot of steel, but would make me feel nervous. Give me a good pair of boots and a rifle any day and some MAW to keep those beast tamed! :D

 

Cheers

Edited by dora9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a fun topic!  I have not built a tank since I was a kid.  Now I scratch build WW2 aircraft.  I could really get into one of these, but I don't think I could approach the skills you have Andre.  My brother is a tank aficionado - we have had many a discussion on the Tigers and the Shermans.  In the end scads of Shermans were the answer, but god almighty how would you like to be in a disadvantageous position with a Tiger, running for your life with an 88 trained on you.....  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one appreciate the comments of JeepsTanksGuns, there is a lot of mis-info that has accumulated over the years, and the citing of sources is fantastic for any discussion.  Parkers book on the King Kitty is invaluable. The work done is top notch, and as a basic modeling guide alone, it is worth the money. I have a few 1/16 tanks, and may wind up selling my 1/35 stuff to focus on this scale. I want to get a king kitty, and at some point a Panther. I'll hope that Trumpy does a Jagdpanther down the road, as that is one of my favs. I'd like to see some Sherman love too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...