King Tiger

[Copper]

In BB is this tank undermoddled?

Ive been playing a couple of scenarios lately where I have these beasts, but they seem to get knocked out from ranges that are so unhistoric by even T-34/85's.

All that Ive ever read on these babies says that any Allied tank had to get almost point blank for a kill, especially from the front.

Maybe BFC dumbed them down for CM?

[Vartuoosi]

Did you know there is no evidence, that allied tank or at-gun has ever been able to penetrate kingtigers front armor. It's mentioned in Achtung panzer-site's kingtiger-article

[Soldier]

But it can be destroyed from the side.. and rear.
Because of it's very low mobility and even worse reliability, it was better used in a defensive role, as a steel pillbox.. :)

[Vartuoosi]

Indeed. Better idea than design Kingtiger would have been just to redesigne tiger I so it would have sloped armor instead adding huge amounts of armor and better engine.

[Vulture]

But it can be destroyed from the side.. and rear.
Because of it's very low mobility and even worse reliability, it was better used in a defensive role, as a steel pillbox.. :)

Hummmmm, I would only partially agree with you here. The King Tiger had v wide tracks and therefore exerted a lower ground pressure than many tanks half its weight. For instance it could traverse soft ground better than a Sherman.

It was underpowered, but that did not necesarly limit its top speed, just the acceleration to get there. If my memory serves me correctly it was fitted with a Panther engine and gearbox/reduction gearing, which was obviously heavily overloaded.

The time from initial desgin to the first model rolling off the production line was v short, compromises had to be made..................

I agree with you on the "it was better used in a defensive role, as a steel pillbox"

Vulture

[Soldier]

I've been trying to respond to the last post, for several days now..
Why is it not taking?
Am I banned from posting?
Anyway, just in case this one gets through..

What I was getting at, with my earlier comments on the super heavies
of WWII. The tank design has gone past the practical weight limitations, for the diesel engine's power weight ratio.
The Panther, T34/85 and say Sherman Jumbo were perfect examples where this limit lies, etc.

[Copper]

I agree with you Soldier, they had gone beyond practical size.

Ironically, and where you have got it slightly wrong, the Germans would probably have had more sucess if they had used Diesel engines instead of petrol, was the JS2/3 underpowered?.

[Soldier]

The IS3(HT) had a top speed of 25mph using a 600hp diesel.
That translates to 11.7hp/ton.
Not bad for a 51 ton tank..
The german panther of equal weight, used a 700hp petrol engine and could do only a mere four miles faster tan that.

Have the Russian's had a 700hp diesel available to them (not sure) and used it, the overall weight of the tank would have gone up somewhat as well..
Could the JS3 be able to achieve the 29mph than. Possibly..
But the increase in speed would not help this tank at all.

All of the JS (HT) had one huge problem that in my opinion made them too little of a tank, for way too much bucks spend.
Their gun even though of an extremely large caliber, was still not a high velocity gun. Only of 48 calibers, if my memory serves me right.
This plus the very slow reload rate, made it a looser in a tank on tank dual, with the german high velocity and much faster firring 88mm even 75mm Panther guns.
The optics being of poorer quality (on the Russian tanks) made matters even worse.

[Phil Davies (FGM)]

I am pretty sure that the KT didn't use a Panther engine but used the Tiger 1 with bored out cylinders, this made the thickness of steel between each cylinder very thin and the strain from trying to move 65 tons of steel over rough terrain often caused the walls of the cylinder to crack and split.
The Germans as we all know didn't have time to trial the tank properly and they had to use what was to hand as the tank was needed in frontline there and then not after another six months of trials and testing.

[Vulture]

The IS3(HT) had a top speed of 25mph using a 600hp diesel.
That translates to 11.7hp/ton.
Not bad for a 51 ton tank..
The german panther of equal weight, used a 700hp petrol engine and could do only a mere four miles faster tan that.

Have the Russian's had a 700hp diesel available to them (not sure) and used it, the overall weight of the tank would have gone up somewhat as well..
Could the JS3 be able to achieve the 29mph than. Possibly..
But the increase in speed would not help this tank at all.

All of the JS (HT) had one huge problem that in my opinion made them too little of a tank, for way too much bucks spend.
Their gun even though of an extremely large caliber, was still not a high velocity gun. Only of 48 calibers, if my memory serves me right.
This plus the very slow reload rate, made it a looser in a tank on tank dual, with the german high velocity and much faster firring 88mm even 75mm Panther guns.
The optics being of poorer quality (on the Russian tanks) made matters even worse.

To be fair to the JSII, it was designed as a break-through tank, and the the design was optimised for grinding Infantry and fixed defences down with its large gun. Dealing with enemy tanks was not seen as a priority. We will all have own views on this approach....... One thing for certain it was not a great vehicle to be in in a tank v tank battle against any of the better German vehicles. In addition to the shell being huge (by WW2 standards), it was 2 part ammo with the charge being separate from the shell............. Not good..... also, the ammo load it could carry was very poor. I recently spoke to one of the guys at the Duxford tank museum here in the UK at an open day they had. He had driven the JSII they have there, and said the visibility for the driver was horrible...........

Vulture