 |
|
King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets (/showthread.php?tid=62197) |
King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets - Dan Caviness - 07-05-2012 Hello Fellow Blitznardians: Some time ago we corrected a range issue with the Tiger tank that had it's 88mm (8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56) limited to a 12 hex range vs. hard targets. Mercifully, dare I say blessedly, we didn't argue over the practicality or actual usage of such shots, it was corrected to be "rational" and concurrent with other late war Axis 88mm tank equiped variants that had longer ranges vs. hard targets. I.E., the Nashorns, Elefants, Jag VI's, and even the PAK 43 AT variant, all of which basically used the same gun. Recently, playing Borisov in a team game, I've had the pleasure of wielding a few King Tigers and their hard target range is also shorter than it should be with the same 12 hex limit. (We are getting disemboweled by peiper and tiger88 but that's neither here nor there.) (Must one be emboweled prior to disembowelment?) It does bring to mind some notable late war examples of Tigers and King Tigers making remarkable last stands against massed Russian armor such as Seelow Heights where those long shots were taken to deadly effect. I believe Jason took care of the Tiger revision with his usual quiet grace and dignity and I humbly request the same be done for the King Tigers even more powerful (8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71) round and longer (6.24 meter vs. 4.94 meter) barrel. In addition the King Tiger's higher muzzle velocity and operating pressure required the abandonment of the traditional Teutonic monobloc barrel with a two piece designed to handle the wider driving bands which coupled the increased loads better. In practicality this was an aid to barrel replacement rather than to velocity, but it meant Tiger II barrels were tighter, generating higher muzzle pressure. Some may find it of note to consider the L/56 would penetrate 83mm of case hardened plate at 2000 meter whilst the L/71 was capable of piercing 132mm at that range. Of course these ballistic test plates were typically angled at 30 degrees and substantially greater thicknesses could be center punched depending on angle. Some may not. I would also consider the advantages of a ballistically capped penetrator round vs. the older tungsten cored version but some would accuse me of obsession. Rightly so of course, but I'm trying to quit and am no longer in denial. Factor in coriolis force effects from the Earth's rotation and I'd also like to see shots taken to the east (pro-spin) more effective than those to the west (anti-spin)... but... some well meant physicist would call me on the centripital effects based on latitude...possibly with scientifical attitude... Regards, Your Bombastic Ballisticist RE: King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets - Crossroads - 07-05-2012 This reminds me of my pet peeve, the Stu-40 /StuG IIIG vs. PzKpfw IV H/J comparison: - StuG IIIG (L/48) has the shortest range, 8 - meanwhile, PaK 40 (L/46) ATG has range of 10, and - PzKpfw IV H and J (L/48) is able to fire 12 hexes. Would anyone know why the difference between the assault gun and tank carrying the same gun system having such a difference in range? I am not aware of any difference in optics etc... By the way: a brilliant post !!! 
RE: King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets - Dan Caviness - 07-06-2012 Thanks Petri...long winded but the content the Blitz has come to expect...and deserves...  ... ...While I don't know of any reason those weapons should possess different ranges, ballistically speaking, I think you may have hit on a possible explanation, that being optics. I suspect the PAK 40 used iron sights or a barlow scope, whereas PZ IV's and most all German WWII tanks used rangefinder (stereoscopic or binocular) vision aids. Specific to late war PZ IV's and Stugs I know many were re-fitted with longer caliber (48 vs. the original 40 length) and this would help explain the better longrange capability. Many, not all. The PAK 40 was a unique animal that served well throughout the war which at first stymied many Allied ballistics experts until it was discovered that the rifling on those AT barrels actually had increasing twist (from 1/18 to 1/24, breech to muzzle). This would cause the muzzle velocity to drop slightly, but one must assume this would have increased downrange accuracy. A possible (but confusing) explanation for different range capabilities? :whis: Years of handloading my .270, 30-06, and 7mm Mag have taught me that all bullets find a peak accuracy somewhere well below their maximum velocity. Eventually you push the round so hard you lose rotational stability, resulting in increased spread. In the worst cases "key holing", or the case where the round has begun to tumble in mid-flight are the result. It's possible this was the reason for the variable rifling. Then again it could be the designers were accounting for something as simple as a solid (one shot) breech block design vs. a gas operating semi-automatic ejection system. Only theorizing here...of course...
RE: King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets - Von Earlmann - 07-06-2012 (07-05-2012, 09:50 PM)Dan Caviness Wrote: Hello Fellow Blitznardians: Cool stuff......and did you know the eastern most point of the USA is named WEST Quoddy Head?........... :-)........Just in case any of us ever get on jeopardy or millionaire. VE RE: King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets - Crossroads - 07-06-2012 The eastern most point of my home town is called Westend... I've always loved the passionate discussion on units within this particular scale especially... The discussion of whether a certain value should be "8" or "10" or how about "7", keeping in mind the late war lack of tungsten, while including the magnetic field variations the Aurora Borealis have in the northern theatres of war (which by the way Dan forgot to mention in his otherwise excellent OP)... As for the excellent German 75mm gun: I recall PzKpfw IV F has a L43 and it has a range of 10. I really do not understand why the excellent L/48 also available to StuG III Gs is given such a handicap. The StuG IIIG's performed magnificently in Finnish front, of course "enjoying" an advantage of mostly having been deployed in defensive, stalking duties with terrain providing good cover. Most of the kills were made in the range of 30 - 150 meters (!), so from that aspect the range discussion on my behalf is more of an academic nature. Such was the trust on the weapon type, that given the scarce resources available to them the Finnish weapons engineers worked hard on joining the two excellent platforms: the mobility and reliability of T-34 chassis with the capability of L/48. (Or more likely I assume: with L/46 of PaK40 that were available in good numbers). The plans did not bear fruit at the end of day, what a shame, that would have been an interesting addition to EF unit types: A T-34/L48 + optics! What a beast that would have been! Maybe I should provide a few for some What-If purposes... 
RE: King Tiger Range vs. Hard Targets - Dan Caviness - 07-06-2012 Dammit Petri!!!!....how did I miss magnetic field variations??? BRILLIANT!!!  What got me started on that ever increasing not to mention confusing and fertilyzer laden diatribe concerning ballistics was a memorable forum rant by our brothers who play War in the Pacific (WITP). Now realize...we may have it bad for wargaming...and there is no cure...but it does get worse... With a strategic game like WITP you are looking at a year, maybe two or more, to finish a complete game. This means these guys care...maybe a bit too much...and they were arguing over why Japanese battleships should derive a defensive advantage due to the fact that their steel plates were riveted 10 rivets to the meter while the American battleships were only riveted 12 to the meter.... WHAT???...  ...but, in all fairness, a riveting conversation...Not just arguing, passionately arguing, with threats of quitting the game and hidden agendas and possible death threats for all I know. OK, no death threats, I think bloodshed was avoided...barely... I almost chimed in but somehow my smart ass input would NOT have improved the situation...:whis:...so I enjoyed it from the sidelines. (Hopefully none of those guys are CS members or I just made some new friends with my big mouth...  ...all in fun of course and no bad intent other than holding up the mirror...) Regards, Dan ps: I'm thinking we have some real Army guys in this club who may actually be able to explain why ballistics may change between tanks, tank destroyers, AT guns, etc.? pps: Because we care. ppps: Earl...when you live in Maine you need to be aware of the easternmost point in the US or you get wet... It does beg the question of where and what happened to EAST Quoddy Head? |
){kind=link}