Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK
duck    6/13/2004 7:02:51 AM
Which tank is better
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
flamingknives    British Armour doctrine   9/22/2005 2:48:08 PM
If British armour was designed solely for exploitation, why was their main gun only good for killing tanks?
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:British Armour doctrine   9/22/2005 3:30:59 PM
Because you are supposed to use your machine guns during exploitation phase. I am not saying it makes sense but. Remember, the Brits had infantry support tanks (Matilda, Churchill, Comet) and the cruiser tanks (Valentine, etc.) Of course they then had a bunch of American armor which goofed some things up.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:British Armour doctrine, US tank doctrine, TD doctrine   9/22/2005 6:40:39 PM
Just to clarify things can anyone quote or accurately summarize these three doctrines? I have good refrence for the TD doctrine. any trys for the other two?
 
Quote    Reply

Jungle-Man    Iosif Stalin tank series beats them both   9/22/2005 6:54:46 PM
I wuld have to sa that the IS-3 or if you dont believe it saw any action the IS-2 was superior to both the T-29 and the Panzer VI (King Tiger). In terms of of armament the 3 were roughly equal with the T-29 and IS-2 having a slight advantage over the king tiger. In terms of protection the T-29 held a slight advantage over the 2 others. But what gives the IS-2 a definitive edge over the others is mobility, the T-29 and king tiger could barely move while the IS-2 could breeze along at 37 kph cross country, not to mention the fact that the T-29 barely had enough fuel to travel anywhere.
 
Quote    Reply

eatmee    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   9/22/2005 9:56:43 PM
Size of gun or tank does not necessarily mean it is a better tank and i will tell u why. Very big tanks may have a big gun and that may have firepower, but in terms of manouverability, speed, gun directing flexibility, reload rate/rate of fire and the anti-infantry capacity of tanks matters more. So does the ability to produce tanks fast. For all these factors the king Tiger tank is superior in every respect and would ealily out manouver a t29 and destroy it, only chance the t29 would have would be to be at a large distance to get a shot at it with the tiger caught in the open, but even then it would be hard to it the tiger. The king tiger would easily destroy such a rigid and monofunctional tank like the t29. The t29 was not designed as a MBT anyway but only very specific as a siege tank for blowing up bunkers e.t.c good at that but not fighting against other tanks, or infanrty. Likewise the german sturmtiger was a fearsome beast that was desgned as and an-ti infantry weapon that could blow up entire buildings, but against other battle tanks it would not have much of a chance. INfact, the German King Tiger tank was the best tank ever made in the final months of ww2, it had no rival. It combined the best of both home grown German tiger design and Russian armour design which the germans learnt from the t34 and coppied to thier own standards. The king tiger was the zenith of the technology at that time wihout a doubt.
 
Quote    Reply

eatmee    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   9/22/2005 10:13:23 PM
so King Tiger VS T29 = T29 BUSTED Like wise King Tiger VS sherman = Sherman a smouldering wreck roasted
 
Quote    Reply

kalaloch    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   9/23/2005 9:49:39 AM
I've seen some good, accurate information posted about the T-29; I use the information printed in "Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank" by R.P. Hunnicutt and printed in 1988. One of the outstandng, and legitimate, difficulties in producing a larger heavier tank than the M4 Sherman for use in the ETO was the ability; or inability; to rail-ship the tanks. The T1E2, and later the "production" M6 was a difficult prospect for the various rail lines and tunnels and switching yards through the continental United States. Two M6A2E1's were completed to test the turret and armament for the proposed T-29, with the 105mm T5E1. On 14 December, 1944, the heavy tanks M6, M6A1 and T1E1 were classified as obsolete and scrapped; except for one T1E1. The 105mm T5E1 during test firing of a 39 pound AP round (T32) reached a MV of 3000fps. A 24.6 HVAP round had a muzzle velocity of 3700fps. 63 rounds of 105mm ammunition would have been stored. Procurement of the T-29 wasn't approved until April 12, 1945 (which makes the odds of a realistic match-up moot). One of the four original pilot T29's was directed to be armed with the T53 120mm gun, and was redesignated the heavy tank T34. The first T29 arrived at Aberdeen Proving Ground in October, 1947. Heavy tank T29 #8 was armed with the T5E1 in gun mount T123 and modified for the installation of a coincidence range-finder T31E1 and a number of panoramic telescopes to evaluate their use during indirect fire of the main gun. The baseline; original; T29 would have had a maximum frontal turret thickness of 279mm (gun mantlet/shield), and 102mm at the hull front at 54' fromt vertical. It's weight, combat loaded, would have been right around 70 tons, and a listed maximum speed on a level road of 22mph. The T5E1 105mm gun, firing a APBC-T shot is listed as penetrating 135mm of homogenous armor at 30' at 1000 yards, and 84mm at 60' at the same distance; with a penetration of 119mm at 2000 yards at 30'. The 88mm L/71 Kwk43 (PaK43) data I have is taken from the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" revised addition, produced by Chamberlain, Doyle and Jentz in 1978. Firing the Pzgr40/43 APCBC, the maximum penetration at 30' from the vertical at 2000 meters would have been 153mm; ranging down to 237mm at 100 meters. Taken at "face value", the Tiger-II could not have penetrated the thickest armor of the T29 at even 100 meters. But, that's also assuming that; somehow; these two killers would have closed to that tight a range in the first place. The maximum frontal armor of a Pzkw VIb was 180mm at 9' from the vertical. Assuming "typical" tank vs. tank shots, either could have proved fatal to the other at ranges closing below 1500 meters; with an edge being given to the T29's thicker frontal armor, and the closer to flat plane angle of the Tiger-II's frontal turret armor (Henshcel turret). Whoever got off the first, accurate, shot would matter. Much as I love the German tanks of WWII, I would have to give the edge to the T29 with the 105mm gun and its HVAP ammo.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym    RE:KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK   9/24/2005 5:10:07 AM
"so King Tiger VS T29 = T29 BUSTED Like wise King Tiger VS sherman = Sherman a smouldering wreck roasted" This is the USA we are talking about, there would be 10 Allied tanks for every German one. I'll take 100 Shermans over 10 Tiger tanks.
 
Quote    Reply

kalaloch    RE:100 Shermans vs 10 Tiger-II's   9/24/2005 8:39:57 AM
I would take you up on that; and have those ten Tiger-II's; IF I get to pick the battlefield. On a wide-open plain, or steppe, I have every reason to believe that those ten Tiger-II's could systematically masacre those 100 M4's. Now, if we're talking close terrain (Ardennes) or built-up urban areas, then your Shermans would have a fair shake. But take even Operation Goodwood; sans Allied air support; with the Germans in possession of the high ground coupled with the superior optics, range and ammunition of the L/71 88mm...it's just another target rich environment. But I do appreciate what you're saying, and in Western Europe during WWII there just weren't many oppportunities for the Tiger-II to get those long range shots. And before someone starts screaming about the 17-pounder and its APDS...at 2000 meters, a Pzkw VIb could sustain a first shot hit from the Firefly, and then promptly kill the offender. Pseudonym does have a valid point, no matter what I say, though. Nazi German industry just had no chance of cranking out enough of those gorgeous creatures to compete with the tens of thousands of clunker M4's. Good thing too, else we all might be eating more saurkraut every week.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:100 Shermans vs 10 Tiger-II's and beyond   9/24/2005 11:17:10 AM
Neither did the Reich produce enough aircraft to fight off the Allied airforces. The Tigers and Panthers probably spent more time dodging Allied aircraft, or awaiting interdicted fuel and ammo than fighting Shermans. There were also the problems of mechanical relaibility. Neither were the German fighting Shermans on a open steppe. The largest concentrations of armor engagements were in places like Normandy with its many orchards, villiages, and infamous bocage style fields; or the Ardennes with its forrests and hills. Occasionally the German found battlefields with less concealment, such as around Arracourt. But that worked to the Allies advantage as the airstrikes and artillery could find targets easily. Still I'd prefered a replacement for the M4 fielded in late 1943 or early 44. The T20 thru T26 models all had significant advantages. Better armor than the M4 series, lower profile than the Tiger and Panther, much better mobility than the Tiger, better quality mechanicals and relaibility than the Tiger, and the 90mm gun. The 50+ T26 that saw combat in 1945 proved their ability vs Tigers and Panthers. More importnt the T26 proved armor superiority to the many other German AT weapons that destroyed the majority of the M4 Shermans.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics