Military Review

Fire on the Royal Tiger! Projectile resistance of the German heavyweight

110

November 1944. "Royal Tiger" with tower number 102 is ready for execution! Source: warspot.ru


45mm to 152mm


In previous parts the cycle about the adventures of the "Royal Tiger" in Kubinka dealt with the design features and firepower. It was the turn to deal with the resistance of the German heavy vehicle to the existing artillery pieces at that time. It was decided to shoot "Tiger B" from almost all calibers. In total, Soviet engineers chose 11 domestic and captured guns:

1) Russian anti-tank 45-mm cannon, 1942 model;
2) a domestic anti-tank 57-mm gun ZIS-2;
3) German tank 75-mm cannon KwK-42, model 1942;
4) Russian 76-mm tank gun F-34;
5) the domestic 76-mm gun ZIS-3;
6) American 76-mm cannon (pre-production self-propelled gun Gun Motor Carriage M18 or Hellcat);
7) domestic self-propelled 85 mm gun D-5-S85 (SU-85);
8) German 88 mm PAK-43/1 cannon, model 1943;
9) domestic field 100-mm cannon BS-3;
10) domestic 122-mm gun A-19;
11) self-propelled 152-mm howitzer cannon ML-20.


The 76-mm gun of the pre-production self-propelled gun Gun Motor Carriage M18, or Hellcat, was also tested on a German tank. Source: warspot.ru

The test program had a clear separation of the targets of fire. To check the structural strength of the bornehull and turret, the Royal Tiger was hit with 75-mm, 85-mm, 88-mm and 122-mm armor-piercing shells, as well as 85-mm, 88-mm and 122-mm high-explosive fragmentation shells. But to determine the tactical characteristics of the hull and turret, they fired armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation shells from calibers 85 mm, 100 mm, 122 mm and 152 mm. For the same purpose, the "Royal Tiger" was beaten by "native" German shells of calibers 75 mm and 88 mm.

Despite the fact that low-power 45 mm cannons were announced in the test program, they never took part in the shelling of the tank. Most likely, the gunners appreciated the security of the Tiger B and decided not to waste the shells. 57mm shells left a few modest marks on the giant's armor, which were not even mentioned in the final reports.


Seats of the driver and radio operator of the "Royal Tiger". Source: warspot.ru


The commander's turret from the inside. Source: warspot.ru


Power plant and transmission of the "Royal Tiger". Source: the.shadock.free.fr

Domestic shells were the priority for testing. It was with them that they hit the tank in the first place, and only then from the German guns. Naturally, first of all they fired from small calibers and then ascending. Before the shelling, Soviet engineers gutted the insides of the German "cat", removed the cannon and the tracks. Before the start, there was a clear order not to tear apart the remains of the "King Tiger" - he had to retain the ability to tow. In addition, domestic metallurgists had to conduct a thorough analysis of the composition of German armored steel, physical, chemical and mechanical properties. It was important to calculate the features of the thermal treatment of the armor steel. As you know, the last parameter is one of the key in the formation of body armor. But it was all beautiful on paper. Reality has shown that even the frontal parts of the tank cannot withstand such an intense shelling and are prematurely destroyed. The reason for this, according to the testers, was the fragility of the armor and insufficient strength. In conclusion, one can find such a paradoxical conclusion: shelling in full program was not possible due to the small surface of the tank's armor plates. If the artillerymen did not have enough projections of the German giant, then the questions should rather be asked to the developers of the test program.


The IS-4 prototype was compared in absentia with the "Royal Tiger". Source: ru.wikipedia.org

Finally, the most important thing in testing the Tiger B's projectile resistance was a direct comparison with the then-experienced Object 701, which later became the heavy IS-4. However, looking ahead, let us say that in the test report of the "Royal Tiger" there are no comparisons with the Soviet machine. Most likely, the "Object 701" was so superior to the German tank in terms of booking that there was no need for separate documentation.

The "king of beasts" dies


In a brief report from the Armor Institute specialists, it is mentioned that the steel plates of the hull are made of rolled armor, heat-treated to medium and low hardness. In accordance with the classics of tank building, armor 80-190 mm thick had a Brinell hardness of 269-241, and 40-80 mm thick - 321-286. Such a spread is explained by measuring the hardness on the outer and rear surfaces of the armor plate. All armor plates of the tank hull are flat, the connection is carried out using spikes and double-sided welding using mechanical cutting. The tower, with the exception of the sides, is also welded from flat sheets using spikes, outer gougeons and mechanical cutting before welding. In terms of chemical composition, the armor refers to chromium-nickel steel and consists of: C - 0,34-0,38%, Mn - 0,58-0,70%, Si - 0,17-0,36%, Cr - 2,05 –2,24%, Ni - 1,17–1,30%, Mo - absent, V - 0,10–0,16%, P - 0,014–0,025% and S - 0,014–0,025%. As you can see, the armor of the "King Tiger" perfectly shows the state of affairs in the German industry at that time. Molybdenum was completely gone from the armor by June 1944, and vanadium remained in trace amounts. Certain problems were also with nickel, which the Germans left until the end of the war only in armor plates with a thickness of 125–160 mm and 165–200 mm. But there were no particular problems with chromium, the Germans generously added it to the armor "Tiger B" - it became the main alloying component of tank steel.

The landfill engineers' report says nothing good about the King's Tiger's armor. Its quality was worse than that of the trophy "Tigers" and "Panthers" of the first years of release. It is not clear why it was necessary to create such a heavy tank at all, if the Germans already had a Ferdinand of a similar protection with exactly the same gun. Unless just for the sake of a rotating tower ...


Shot # 1. High-explosive fragmentation 122 mm projectile. Source: warspot.ru

Despite the preliminary plans, first of all, the Tiger B was hit by a high-explosive fragmentation projectile from a 122-mm A-19 cannon into the upper frontal plate. The distance was 100 meters, but the armor did not break through. Actually, this was not required. Description of the defeat from the report:

Separate metal snatches on an area of ​​300x300 mm. Burst the weld between the upper frontal plate and the armored ball mount cap at на of the circle. The bolts of the ball mount were torn off from the inside. The resulting blast wave destroyed the weld between the starboard side and the upper frontal plate to a length of 300 mm, after which the starboard side moved to the right by 5 mm. At the same time, the weld seam at the right spike of the upper frontal sheet burst along the entire perimeter and the armored bulkhead at the starboard collapsed. At the same time, the flame that got through the hole in the ball system caused a fire inside the tank.



The scheme of destruction of the NLD with a 122-mm blunt-headed armor-piercing projectile from a distance of 2500 meters. Source: Test Report.

The second shot hit the "King Tiger" from the same weapons, but already a blunt-headed armor-piercing projectile with a reduced charge of gunpowder and with a range of 2,7 km. The speed before hitting the armor was slightly more than 640 m / s, the projectile, leaving a dent with a depth of 60 mm, ricocheted. The third time they fired the same projectile from a distance of 500 meters and with a standard charge of gunpowder. Summary:

Dent 310x310 mm in size, 100 mm deep. On the back side, a spall of armor measuring 160x170 mm, 50 mm deep. Burst the seam between the upper frontal sheet and the roof of the hull to its full length. All the seams between the upper and lower frontal plates were burst. Driver's observation device torn off. The shell exploded.

There was little such damage, the gun was rolled back a hundred meters and another shot was fired at the Tiger B's forehead. Only this time they used a sharp-headed armor-piercing projectile. He unsuccessfully hit the area of ​​the armor weakened by the previous projectile and pierced it through. The test was not counted and the next time they aimed at the mating of the frontal plates. The shell was similar, but the range was increased to 700 meters. The sharp-headed 122mm round did not pierce the King's Tiger's forehead, but shattered the seam and created a 150mm crack. The second target was the lower front plate. Initial data: 122 mm, blunt-headed armor-piercing, distance 2,5 km. Outcome:

Dent size 290x130 mm, depth 60 mm. On the back side there is a bulge with a tear. Burst the seam at the right thorn around the perimeter.



The scheme of destruction of the VLD with a 152-mm armor-piercing projectile from a distance of 100 m.Source: Test report


Fire on the Royal Tiger! Projectile resistance of the German heavyweight

The scheme of destruction of the NLD with a 152-mm armor-piercing projectile from a distance of 100 m and the remnants of the projectile. Source: Test Report

Having prepared the ground for larger calibers, a 152-mm armor-piercing projectile was hit on the frontal plates of the hull. First, point-blank from 100 meters in the upper frontal part. No penetrations were recorded, but a 10 mm high bulge formed on the back side, as well as two cracks 500 and 400 mm long. By tradition, the seam between the upper frontal sheet and the left wheel arch liner has burst. It should be noted that 152-mm armor-piercing was struck on a previously weakened frontal part, in which not all the seams were already intact. Finally, the armor-piercing shell from the ML-20 cannon-howitzer left the most extensive destruction on the lower frontal plate. The artillerymen did not spare the tank and struck from 100 meters. Outcome:

Hole: inlet - 260x175 mm, outlet 85x160 mm, hole 130x80 mm. A break measuring 320x190 m. A dry crystalline break in the armor. Through cracks 300, 280 and 400 mm long. At the left thorn, the seam has burst along the entire perimeter.

The remains of the destroyed 152-mm armor-piercing shell lay in front of the nose of the defeated King Tiger. It was the turn of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile from the same gun. They also beat me at close range from 100 meters. They hit a ball machine gun mount, tore off the mount on the back side and left a 210-mm crack in the armor.

By the time it was the turn of the 100-mm BS-3 cannon, the Tiger-B's forehead was a pitiful sight: the armor was cracked, the seams parted, and the sheets themselves were riddled with dents. Nevertheless, they worked on the German vehicle with 100-mm armor-piercing shells with different charges of gunpowder and from different distances. The cannon successfully penetrated armor from close ranges (or caused large spalling from the rear side). By the 19th shot at the tank, the 100-mm projectile hit the hole from the previous shell, and with the 20th shot in the lower frontal part, the gunners left a hole 1300 mm long. The tank's condition was rapidly deteriorating, it seemed that further shelling no longer made sense. But the "Tiger B" was hit by the "native" 88-mm PAK-43/1. The report on this matter says:

Dent size 360x130 mm, depth 90 mm. On the back side, armor spalling 510x160 mm in size, 93 mm thick. A 1700 mm long crack formed over the existing lesions.

The same gun from a distance of 400 meters with an armor-piercing projectile pierced through the turret of the tank!

The 75-mm sub-caliber projectile of the KwK-42 cannon was already trying to find a living place in the riddled armor of the frontal part of the "Royal Tiger" hull. And I found: from 100 meters I fell under the ball mount, left only a dent and intensified the propagation of cracks along the armor. The penetrating effect of the 85-mm projectile of the D-5-S84 cannon in the SU-85 self-propelled gun was also investigated. In vain: the upper frontal plate was not pierced from 300 meters. The same result was with the S-53 gun.


The forehead of the "Royal Tiger" after 57-152 mm shells. Source: warspot.ru






By the end of the firing tests, the "King Tiger" very vaguely resembled the "king of beasts". Source: warspot.ru

The testers on the 32nd shot returned to the 122-mm cannon, but they were hitting the turret. After several unrecognized hits, a shell from 2500 meters broke both the forehead of the tower and its roof, leaving numerous cracks throughout the structure. But from 3,4 km, the blunt-headed ammunition could not pierce the forehead of the tower - it left only a 90-mm dent and cracks. Maybe due to the reduced charge of gunpowder in the case.

The recommendation for the effective destruction of the "King Tiger" head-on was the following:

The most effective method of firing at the frontal part of the Tiger B tank should be considered the simultaneous firing of a battery (3-4 guns) from artillery systems of 100, 122 and 152-mm caliber at a distance of 500 to 1000 meters.

That is, to put it simply, it is better not to enter the front of a heavy German tank at all. Only from the flanks or even from the stern.




Structural strength of the sides of the hull and turret of the "Royal Tiger". Source: Test Report

The Soviet test artillerymen hit the side projection much more successfully than the hull's forehead. 85-mm cannons pierced the vertical side from 1350 meters, and the inclined side from 800 meters. The 76-mm gun of the Hellcat self-propelled gun proved to be very good, which pierced the vertical side from 1,5 kilometers. And from 2000 meters, the "American" pierced the armor of the "Royal Tiger" in the fender liner area. Overseas weapons were clearly superior in efficiency to domestic 85-mm guns. The ZIS-3 cannon of 76,2 mm caliber could not penetrate the side of a heavy tank even from 100 meters. The result of studying the armor resistance of the sides of the hull and turret of the "Royal Tiger" was the conclusion that they are distinguished by a sharp unequal strength in comparison with the frontal parts and are the most vulnerable. You can take this as a guide to action for domestic tankers and anti-tankers.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Levers and cannon. "Royal Tiger" on trials in Kubinka

Motivated cruelty. The sorrowful adventures of the "Royal Tiger" in Kubinka
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 9 August 2020 05: 30 New
    14
    At the time of 45, 487 Royal Tigers were mass-produced. Moreover, while one such tank was being assembled by the Germans, 5 T-34s were produced in the USSR. As for the arts, by 45 the USSR had several times more than the Wehrmacht. The same can be said about assault aviation. So, considering all of the above, not only half a thousand K. Tigers were not able to change the course of the war, but even half a thousand Maus were not able to do this.
    1. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 9 August 2020 12: 29 New
      10
      The point is to shoot a 100 mm projectile from 152,4 meters?
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 9 August 2020 14: 35 New
        +4
        There is still some sense - for example, taking into account the ballistics of the projectile (the projectile will fit at a more favorable angle to the armor when firing from a maximum distance) and taking into account the possibility of turning a blunt-headed armor-piercing projectile, the armor penetration at a long distance may be greater. Also, most likely, the large firing distance was imitated by incomplete charges.
        They could have checked more, but the tiger was quickly over.
        1. BAI
          BAI 9 August 2020 15: 58 New
          +7
          There is still some sense - for example, given the ballistics of the projectile

          And who is this kind ISU-152 at 100 meters to let the Tiger?
          1. Signore Tomato
            Signore Tomato 30 August 2020 09: 39 New
            0
            Don't you see street fighting as a class?
  2. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 9 August 2020 05: 45 New
    27
    the author, as usual, a huge respect. this cycle lately is the only thing that you expect on VO.
    1. Podvodnik
      Podvodnik 9 August 2020 08: 08 New
      +6
      the author, as usual, a huge respect.


      I join. I read it with interest. I drew attention to the firing distance of 2500 m in the NLD. And more than three km are mentioned. Is it really possible to get to the right place of the tank from such a distance, and not just "into the silhouette"? Did the barrel and projectile dispersion characteristics allow this to be done? More detailed comment from the pros, if possible.
      1. Evgeny Fedorov
        9 August 2020 09: 04 New
        +9
        I am far from a pro, but I will try to comment somehow. Firstly, the report does not mention how many times they fired from 2,5 km at the frontal projection of the tank before the defeat. Shots are documented in the report solely as hits on the target. How much went into the "milk" is unknown. Maybe you hit the A-19 from such a distance for the second, third or fourth time? Secondly, it is quite possible that the NLD was not aimed at all. By the sixth shot at the tank, the testers were happy with any hit on the armor that had not been weakened by the previous round. For example, shot # 4 was not counted because a 122mm round hit the crater of shot # 3.
        1. Constanty
          Constanty 9 August 2020 14: 09 New
          +5
          And sometimes the shooting was not conducted from a fixed, close distance, of the order of 200-300 meters, just in order to be able to aim and hit certain places, and with the appropriate selection of a reduced powder charge and projectile speed, the required distance was "imitated" - for example, the mentioned only what is 2500 meters?
          Otherwise, why use reduced powder charges?
        2. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 9 August 2020 19: 00 New
          -1
          Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
          Secondly, it is quite possible that the NLD was not aimed at all.

          most likely so. one of the holes in the forehead of the tower is an attempt to hit the VLD. hit the protruding edge of the VLD. A 122mm shell tore down the edge of the VLD, ricocheted slightly and pierced the forehead of the tower. I don’t remember now, like a stupid one from 1200m.
          tell me why they didn’t attach a scheme of shelling to the forehead. it is definitely in the report. I read it bully
          and you got a little confusion with the photo there. photo TigerB with a healthy hole in the side of the tower is definitely not from tests.
          1. Evgeny Fedorov
            9 August 2020 19: 47 New
            +1

            Photo attached.
            Tiger B with a flipped side from this particular test. More, as far as I know, the CT was not shot at our ranges. It was at the end of the 152-mm guns fired at him. And there were two reports on this topic: "Report on the brief tests of the German tank Tiger B" and "Report on the test by shell shelling of the frontal parts of the hull and turret of the German heavy tank" Tiger B "
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 9 August 2020 21: 23 New
              -1
              Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
              Tiger B with a flipped side from this particular test.

              you probably do not understand. photo after the inscription "The forehead of the" Royal Tiger "after 57-152-mm shells. Source: warspot.ru"
              there in the photo TigerB with a gun... it cannot be a test tiger. the gun was removed from the fired gun before the tests.
              Apparently you used a photo from the warspot, but there this photo does not apply to tests. it just says that the hole is from ML20.
              Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
              It was at the end of the 152-mm guns fired at him.

              I assumed so. but this one looks like it was in the field in combat conditions, got its 152 in turnips. the hole is very similar to the damage to a panther that received a 152mm land mine in the turret.
              Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
              And there were two reports on this topic: "Report on the brief tests of the German tank Tiger B" and "Report on the test by shell shelling of the frontal parts of the hull and turret of the German heavy tank" Tiger B "

              right yes
      2. silver_roman
        silver_roman 16 August 2020 10: 22 New
        0
        You can feel the experience in the world of tanks, where you don't always get from 100 meters)
    2. Alien From
      Alien From 9 August 2020 12: 28 New
      +4
      I join you. The author has done a titanic work. It's a pleasure to read. We are waiting for new topics. Thank!
  3. sav
    sav 9 August 2020 05: 57 New
    16
    As you can see, the armor of the "King Tiger" perfectly shows the state of affairs in the German industry at that time. Molybdenum was completely gone from the armor by June 1944, and vanadium remained in trace amounts. There were also some problems with nickel.

    As you can see, the "war of attrition" has yielded results. Thanks to the author for the material hi
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 9 August 2020 06: 29 New
      0
      Quote: sav
      As you can see, the "war of attrition" has yielded results.

      Well, not really, in my opinion .......... "The need for alloying metals - manganese, chromium, nickel, tungsten, vanadium and molybdenum, which were not mined in Germany, was completely satisfied by the import of ores, metals and ferroalloys from occupied, allied and neutral countries. " successes on the fronts reduced the ability to produce high-quality weapons ... and thereby allowed to get even greater successes ... this, you know, the squiggle turns out ...)
      1. Maki maki
        Maki maki 9 August 2020 09: 23 New
        11
        Quote: mat-vey
        The need for alloying metals - manganese, chromium, nickel, tungsten, vanadium and molybdenum, which were not mined in Germany, was fully satisfied by the import of ores, metals and ferroalloys from occupied, allied and neutral countries

        As the successes on the fronts, the import of imported metals was depleted. Also a "war of attrition" hi
      2. zenion
        zenion 9 August 2020 17: 17 New
        +3
        Portugal supplied the Germans with all alloy metals. It went to Spain. From Spain to France and from France to Germany. This path was interrupted by the landing of the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition, when German tanks beat at a time twenty tanks of Americans and Canadians each. Then, already defending their skin, they threatened Portugal and they stopped supplying the Germans. But the Germans had a reserve until the end of 1944. And then it dried up. In addition, steel was made from German depleted ores, which required high costs. But with the Soviet guns there was a problem, and also with the shells.
    2. oldbuddy
      oldbuddy 9 August 2020 18: 32 New
      -2
      "Molybdenum was completely gone from the armor by June 1944, and vanadium remained in trace amounts. There were also certain problems with nickel"?

      I would not draw general conclusions about one tank.

      The British studied the "King Tiger" released in July 1944 (the one that now adorns the collection of the Bovington Tank Museum).

      C - 0,27%, Mn - 0,59%, Si - 0,29%, Cr - 2,15%, Ni - 0,24%, Mo - 0,20%, V - 0,08%, P - 0,015% and S - 00,028%.

      A source:
      "Armor Quality & Vulnerability of Royal Tiger", Ministery of Supply of Great Britain, 1945, page 4.

      Molybdenum is present.

      Well, it is well established that German tanks had a different composition of armor alloy, even on machines of the same brand.
      Apparently, unlike the USSR, where the composition of the armor was standardized in terms of chemical composition, in Germany the armor was standardized in terms of mechanical properties. And this was due to the presence / absence of specific alloying materials from various manufacturers.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 August 2020 10: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: oldbuddy
        I would not draw general conclusions about one tank.

        There was an article on Varspot on the armor of German tanks - I quoted it in the comments to the last article in this series:
        First of all, the Germans faced a shortage of molybdenum, which by the end of 1942 was practically excluded from the armor of small and medium thickness, and by June 1944 it was removed from armor of all thickness ranges. Nickel has appeared in significant quantities in armor since 1943. Despite the fact that it was absent in the requirements for the chemical composition, the use of this additive in the armor of "Tigers" and "Panthers" became widespread.
        However, by mid-1944, nickel was excluded from all armor thickness ranges except 125–160 mm and 165–200 mm, where it remained until the end of the war. By the fall of 1944, the use of vanadium had also practically ceased. The main alloying element in German rolled armor, which was used throughout the war, was chrome.

        Quote: oldbuddy
        Apparently, unlike the USSR, where the composition of the armor was standardized in terms of chemical composition, in Germany the armor was standardized in terms of mechanical properties. And this was due to the presence / absence of specific alloying materials from various manufacturers.

        Formally, the armor was also standardized in chemical composition.
        The requirements for firms producing armored vehicles were established by the High Command of the Ground Forces (Oberkommando des Heeres - OKH) and the 6th Department of the Armaments Directorate (Waffen Prüfen 6, abbreviated Wa Prüf 6). For homogeneous armor, these included requirements for chemical composition and hardness, requirements for ballistic testing, and in some cases, requirements for heat treatment.

        But in fact, it was exactly as you wrote - whoever had what, he doped it. Here is what ours after the war received when researching the armor of two "Tigers" and two "Panthers":
        The researched German armor from four captured tanks has a wide variety in chemical composition and steel grades.
        Armor of the same thickness for tanks of the same name has a different chemical composition. The carbon content in German armor steel is in the range from 0,32 to 0,57%, with less carbon corresponding mainly to parts with a thickness of 100 mm. The increased carbon content from 0,40 to 0,57% applies to all medium thicknesses (40–82 mm) of medium hard armor.
        (...)
        The chromium content is in the range of 1,67-2,30%, with an increased chromium content (more than 2,0%) observed in armor with a thickness of 60-100 mm. Nickel and molybdenum are not present in all investigated parts. There is no nickel and molybdenum in the armor parts 40 mm thick; in all other parts with a thickness of 60 to 100 mm, there are cases of using either nickel in the range of 0,77-1,73%, or molybdenum in the range of 0,20-0,30%, or both elements at the same time, and, finally, their complete absence, and it should be noted that molybdenum is absent in all 80 mm thick parts.
        © Warspot. Alexander Volgin. Thick skin of a German menagerie.
  4. svp67
    svp67 9 August 2020 06: 02 New
    +6
    Thank you. Interesting.
    That's just not clear this statement of the author
    It is unclear why it was even necessary to create such a heavy tank, if the Germans already had a Ferdinand with a similar protection with exactly the same gun. Unless just for the sake of a rotating tower ...

    To find the answer to this question, you need to answer another, but why do you need a fork if you have a spoon?
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 9 August 2020 06: 10 New
      +7
      well, in fact, a fork is not needed if there is a spoon) here it is more suitable why a spoon is needed if there are fingers)
      1. svp67
        svp67 9 August 2020 06: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: carstorm 11
        well, in fact, a fork is not needed if there is a spoon) here it is more suitable why a spoon is needed if there are fingers)

        Well, the "PT-ACS" ("Ferdinand-Elephant") is not needed when there is a tank ("CT")
        1. Serg koma
          Serg koma 9 August 2020 09: 15 New
          +4
          Quote: svp67
          Why do you need a fork if you have a spoon?
          This is called "Table Etiquette".
          Will you follow this etiquette when there is nothing to eat, because there is not enough banal money ???
          And nemchura people are pedantic, observing etiquette, so in times of famine, even with a shortage of food, they used a teaspoon and a dessert fork. wassat
          Pz.VI Ausf. B "Tiger II" - Price 321000 Reichsmarks
          ACS Ferdinand - Cost 237.000 Reichsmarks (numbers are very approximate)
          Quote: svp67
          Well, the "PT-ACS" ("Ferdinand-Elephant") is not needed when there is a tank ("CT")

          that is, instead of three K. Tigers, you can get, for the same money, four SPGs. In "hungry times" would you give up an extra piece? Or would "table etiquette" put pressure on your Slavic ego to such an extent that you would refuse to release the SU-85/100/152 in favor of the IS-2, which would have been produced ten times less than self-propelled guns? laughing
          Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
          It is unclear why it was even necessary to create such a heavy tank, if the Germans already had a Ferdinand with a similar protection with exactly the same gun. Unless just for the sake of a rotating tower ...

          The author of the article forgot about the Jagdtiger 8,8 CM Pak 43, the cost of which, presumably, was also lower than the cost of the Pz.VI Ausf. B "Tiger II"
          1. svp67
            svp67 9 August 2020 09: 27 New
            +4
            Quote: Serg Koma
            This is called "Table Etiquette".

            And the use of various military equipment is called "tactics"
            Quote: Serg Koma
            that is, instead of three K. Tigers, you can get, for the same money, four SPGs.

            With varying combat effectiveness. Not only price determines the "value" of military equipment
            Quote: Serg Koma
            Or would "table etiquette" put pressure on your Slavic ego to such an extent that you would refuse to release the SU-85/100/152 in favor of the IS-2, which would have been produced ten times less than self-propelled guns?

            You are poor at the material. We look, during the years of the Second World War released
            ACS SU-85 - 2650 units
            ACS SU-100 - less than 2000 units
            ACS SU-152 and ISU-152 - 670 and 800 units
            And now the IS-2 tank - 3395 units.
            And now show me where is an ORDER of less ISS? These are SU-152 and ISU-152 by ORDER less.
            And following your logic, then during the entire war it was necessary to produce only SU-85s, or even SU-76s, they were cheaper.
            1. Serg koma
              Serg koma 9 August 2020 10: 10 New
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              And now show me where is an ORDER of less ISS? These are SU-152 and ISU-152 by ORDER less.

              Quote: Serg Koma
              you would refuse to release the SU-85/100/152 in favor of the IS-2, of which would be produced an order of magnitude less than self-propelled guns?

              You probably misunderstood. The rejection of the production of ACS would lead to an increase in the production of IC, BUT, the production of ONLY tanks reduced would ON ORDER the number of "self-propelled barrels", tk. the production of a tank requires more money, time, resources.
              Quote: svp67
              And following your logic, then during the entire war it was necessary to produce only SU-85s, or even SU-76s, they were cheaper.

              This is not my logic, it is economics and opportunities (resources). Why throughout the war the main tank of the Red Army T-34 (naturally with modifications), why, unlike the Reich, the SVGK does not rely on superwafers, forcing and pushing the IS-3 and T-43/44 to the front
              Serial production of the T-44 began in 1944, but during the Great Patriotic War it was carried out on a limited scale with the aim of prevent a reduction in the production of T-34-85 during the period of large-scale offensive operations

              So the paths to the goal, in the confrontation between armored vehicles, the USSR and the Reich were directly opposite - the Reich hoped for a "piece" superweapon and a miracle, the USSR for mass character and real possibilities of the economy.
              1. svp67
                svp67 9 August 2020 10: 20 New
                +2
                Quote: Serg Koma
                You probably misunderstood. Refusal from production of self-propelled guns would lead to an increase in IS production, BUT, production of ONLY tanks would reduce the number of "self-propelled barrels" by ORDER. the production of a tank requires more money, time, resources.

                It is you do not understand that a tank and the same tank destroyer are various tools that are all needed to conduct military affairs. That's all.
                Quote: Serg Koma
                SVGK does not rely on superwafers, forcing and pushing the IS-3 and T-43/44 to the front

                Because the front did not demand this at that moment, it demanded well-tested and proven tanks, not "military trials." We were very lucky that we managed to change the generation of tanks before the war, the Germans had to do this already during the war, with all the consequences
                Quote: Serg Koma
                Serial production of the T-44 began in 1944,

                Not a very good example, believe me, the T-44 is almost a "personal story" and I know its twists and turns.
                And at the same time, when it became clear that the KV tank had exhausted itself on the battlefield, the IS came to replace it.
            2. Alf
              Alf 9 August 2020 21: 59 New
              0
              Quote: svp67
              ACS SU-100 - less than 2000 units

              1340 to April 45th.
              Quote: svp67
              ACS SU-152 and ISU-152 - 670 and 800 units


              Quote: svp67
              And now the IS-2 tank - 3395 units.

            3. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 12 August 2020 13: 33 New
              0
              Quote: svp67
              You are poor at the material. We look, during the years of the Second World War released
              ACS SU-85 - 2650 units
              ACS SU-100 - less than 2000 units
              ACS SU-152 and ISU-152 - 670 and 800 units
              And now the IS-2 tank - 3395 units.


              Well, not the most massive - the main one was the Su-100 ACS - 4976 pieces (including post-war production).
              In total, ACS built more than ICs
      2. zenion
        zenion 9 August 2020 17: 20 New
        0
        One and a half thousand years they ate using fingers, in some countries until now, but there were generations and we were born. It was so, someone took it with his hand, someone with a knife. In order not to get a knife in the hand, they came up with a fork.
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 9 August 2020 07: 16 New
      +3
      Sorry, gentlemen, but here we need to recall the reasons for the appearance of "Ferdinand". He "drew" on the battlefield thanks to, so to speak, haste - after all, even before the end of the "tiger" competition, hulls were ordered, and then, when the wrong company came out the winner, the zealous Germans converted them into SPGs. But the "royal" has already been done on a manic order. With certain performance characteristics.
      Respect to the author. It was interesting to read.
      1. svp67
        svp67 9 August 2020 07: 18 New
        +2
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        But the "royal" has already been done on a manic order.

        You might think that "Ferdinand" was born thanks to a different order ...
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 9 August 2020 07: 36 New
          +3
          Well, "frantic Adolf" put his Wishlist on, probably, to all German tanks and self-propelled guns, starting with the "Tiger" laughing
          But, all the same, the CT was created from "scratch", and "Fedya" - the symbiosis touched and "wanted".
          1. Free wind
            Free wind 9 August 2020 13: 16 New
            +1
            Porsche was absolutely sure that his tank would be taken, Hitler, Kent would not let him die. I riveted the platforms hoping for this, but ended up in the span.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 10 August 2020 10: 30 New
              +2
              Quote: Free Wind
              Porsche was absolutely sure that his tank would be taken, Hitler, Kent would not let him die. I riveted the platforms hoping for this, but ended up in the span.

              Nah, this isn't about the Porsche. Porsche was only fulfilling an order that was issued to each of the two participants in the competition for a heavy tank in July 1941 - three experimental tanks and 100 tanks of the first series.
              On May 26, 1941, when considering the state of affairs with the latest tanks and anti-tank guns with the participation of Hitler, it was decided:
              - accelerate development, ensure the supply of at least 6 tanks by the summer of 1942;
              - arm the tank with an 88 mm gun;
              - Strengthen frontal armor up to 100 mm, on-board - up to 60 mm.
              When considering the consequences of implementing these requirements, Henschel reported an increase in tank weight to 40 tons, Wa Pruef 6 took note of this.
              In July 1941, Henschel received a contract for the assembly of three VK4501 (H) prototypes and 100 production tanks. On January 3, 1942, Krupp submitted the first armored corps to Kassel, and on April 11 the first tower. April 20, the first prototype was sent to demonstrate the Fuhrer.

              Based on the results of the review on May 26, 1941, Porsche based on the Typ 100 prepared a new draft Typ 101, aka VK4501 (P). In July 1941, Porsche received an order for the manufacture of 100 serial tanks VK4501 (P).
              © D. Shein
              Hike, the Germans realized that they had delayed the design of the TT too long and might not have time to saturate parts of it by the time of future battles with the Allies (the war with the USSR in July 1941 was still considered as "small and victorious"). So we decided take a shortcut: Simultaneously make prototypes and set up serial production. The winner receives an order for further production of "tigers". The loser ... well, the Germans already had the experience of "where to attach extra chassis".
          2. Jager
            Jager 10 August 2020 23: 15 New
            +1
            Wishlist to the delight of the anti-Hitler kaolitsiya))
  5. mark1
    mark1 9 August 2020 06: 18 New
    +6
    The problem for our Armed Forces was the quality of armor-piercing shells (largely due to objective reasons), but that's why the BPS instead of the "coil" could not switch to an improved aerodynamic shape like the German ones (and whether there were any attempts) to say, from the point of view of the layman like me, it seems to be not difficult. It would be possible to conduct effective fire from 1 km or more (even from ZiS-3 or F-34). Nevertheless, such BPS appeared in our country only after the war.
    1. svp67
      svp67 9 August 2020 06: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: mark1
      The problem for our Armed Forces was the quality of armor-piercing shells (largely due to objective reasons)

      Not only in this, but also as a powder.
      Quote: mark1
      but that's why on the BPS instead of the "coil" they could not switch to an improved aerodynamic shape like the German ones (and whether there were any attempts) to say is difficult

      There were various attempts, but the weakness of the economy did not allow the transition.
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey 9 August 2020 06: 45 New
      0
      Quote: mark1
      but that's why on the BPS instead of the "coil" they could not switch to an improved aerodynamic shape like the German

      Did the Germans have a BTS in World War II, or what do you mean by BTS?
      1. mark1
        mark1 9 August 2020 06: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: mat-vey
        Did the Germans really have BTS in the Second World War?

        Wasn't it? Actually, they are the first.
        Quote: mat-vey
        Or what do you mean by BTS?

        Sub-caliber ammunition - ammunition, the diameter of the warhead (core) of which is less than the diameter of the barrel.
        (Wiki)
        It is not necessary for the pallet to separate.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 9 August 2020 07: 00 New
          0
          Well, the Germans also had coils, only higher quality workmanship - at first ... and then everything was leveled.
          And if you mean "scrap", then it appeared in everyone only after the war, and it was the first to make it in the USSR.
          1. mark1
            mark1 9 August 2020 07: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: mat-vey
            Well, the Germans also had coils

            Dive deeper into the topic (although the information is on the surface)
            Quote: mat-vey
            And if you "scrap" mean

            "Scrap" aka BPS with a detachable pallet has nothing to do with it
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 9 August 2020 07: 37 New
              0
              Quote: mark1
              Dive deeper into the topic (although the information is on the surface)

              Exactly - on the surface ... the same rapid speed loss due to low mass ..
          2. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 9 August 2020 14: 40 New
            0
            Scrap seems to be the first invented and used by the British on their 17-pounder, thanks to which the 76-mm cannon with its crowbar had penetration comparable to the 88-mm PAK-43 and 100-mm BS-3.
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 9 August 2020 14: 43 New
              0
              No, they first muddied the detachable pallet ... and then problems with lengthening began - when lengthening more than 6-8 calibers, the rotating sub-caliber ones begin to collapse ...
          3. Alf
            Alf 9 August 2020 22: 03 New
            0
            Quote: mat-vey
            And if you mean "scrap", then it appeared in everyone only after the war, and it was the first to make it in the USSR.

            Scrap with a detachable pallet was first made by the British back in 1944 and produced in such quantities that the Germans and Americans, and we choked with envy with saliva.
            1. Alf
              Alf 10 August 2020 21: 42 New
              -1
              I wonder which alternatively gifted one put a minus? What do you disagree with?
            2. _3JIou_uJIoBoD_
              _3JIou_uJIoBoD_ 12 August 2020 16: 08 New
              0
              Scrap in the meaning of an armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectile, that is, non-rotating.
  6. Thrifty
    Thrifty 9 August 2020 06: 42 New
    0
    Eugene, what kind of gun
    ZiS 3 caliber 76mm from our side participated in the shelling? They also had several different modifications released, and the range of ammunition had different destructive power! And what were the results of the shelling in the stern, or were there none at all? The conclusion, in general, is disappointing, despite the problems with alloying the armor, the tank came out very well protected, only the excess weight was in many ways the reason for its frequent breakdowns, although if the tank has heavy armor, then it cannot be attributed to medium tanks.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 9 August 2020 08: 31 New
      0
      It was written, but also into the side from a hundred meters, alas.
    2. Evgeny Fedorov
      9 August 2020 08: 47 New
      +4
      The 76 mm ZiS-3 cannon was used as part of the SU-76M. Armor-piercing projectile BR-350A. Charge weight 1,08 kg. The muzzle velocity is 652,6 m / s.
      Clarifications for the rest of the shells that were used on the sides of the CT. American 76mm gun M1-A1. Armor-piercing shell ARC-M62. Charge weight 2,25 kg. The muzzle velocity is 805,6 m / s.
      85 mm D5-S-85 cannon from the SU-85. They beat me with two shells. The first armor-piercing BR-365. Charge weight - 2,75 kg. The muzzle velocity is 804,8 m / s. Second armor-piercing all-hull BR-365k. Charge weight - 2,622 kg. The muzzle velocity of the projectile is 790,9 m / s.
      1. Uncle Izya
        Uncle Izya 9 August 2020 12: 32 New
        +1
        It looks like American shells were more effective than Soviet
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 August 2020 10: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Uncle Izya
          It looks like American shells were more effective than Soviet

          I already wrote that in the report on the shelling of the first "Tiger" in 1943 it was noted that American armor-piercing shells penetrate the armor of the "German" without significant deformations of the hull. The United States could afford to generously spend alloying additives on "consumables" - shells.
    3. Alf
      Alf 9 August 2020 22: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      Eugene, what kind of gun
      ZiS 3 caliber 76mm from our side participated in the shelling?

      ZIS-3, what else? The regiments were hardly used for this, and there were no others.
  7. Octopus
    Octopus 9 August 2020 06: 43 New
    +3
    Very good thanks.

    Indeed, you rarely meet.
  8. Thrifty
    Thrifty 9 August 2020 06: 47 New
    0
    By the way, I would like to know the approximate action on the "animal" of such a weapon as the faustpatron, could it penetrate the frontal armor? I just remember the mimicry of one of the military tankers (alas, I don’t remember the last name), a man in Berlin was on fire in Is2, hit by a faust, and it was in the forehead that he was hit.
    1. Alexander Trebuntsev
      Alexander Trebuntsev 9 August 2020 07: 34 New
      +1
      Faustpatron would have pierced it, most likely, like Isa's armor. Penetration capacity of disposable faust 150mm.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 9 August 2020 07: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Trebutsev
        Penetration capacity of disposable faust 150mm.

        there were several of them ... there were also those that could penetrate 220 mm, although they weighed more ... but in general, during the war, the Red Army used them in full - there were a lot of trophies.
        1. Avior
          Avior 9 August 2020 08: 43 New
          +3
          By the end of the war, when the fausts appeared, we had enough anti-tank artillery, and there was no direct need to use the fausts against German tanks, it was simply dangerous, the faust was used from a distance of 30 meters.
          But the fact that the bazookas that were ordered on the Lend Lease in small quantities were not used in large quantities is not clear.
          It made it possible to significantly strengthen the capabilities of the infantry in the area of ​​anti-tank vehicles, without distracting artillery.
          1. mat-vey
            mat-vey 9 August 2020 08: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            we had enough anti-tank artillery, and there was no direct need to use faust against German tanks, it was simply dangerous, the faust was used from a distance of 30 meters.

            Well, yes, well, yes ... the storming of cities does not count .. although if you consider that the engineering assault battalions with fausts not only fired at tanks ...
            1. Avior
              Avior 9 August 2020 09: 33 New
              +1
              Faust was suitable for the defense of cities when they were assaulted by the enemy - to shoot from ambushes in multi-storey buildings.
              But for us it was of little relevance at the end of the war.
              And in the offensive, shooting from 30 meters is not very good.
              1. mat-vey
                mat-vey 9 August 2020 09: 43 New
                +1
                ".... We are talking about the use of Faustpatrones by units of the Red Army, which in abundance fell into the hands of Soviet soldiers as trophies. Some sources seem to indicate the exact date and exact place where Soviet soldiers began to use Faustpatrones against the Germans. According to these data , it happened in the battles for Breslau (Wroclaw). The mastering of Faustpatrones was allegedly initiated by the Komsomol members. "In many units and formations among the Komsomol members an initiative arose - to study and use captured weapons." The young soldiers of the 309th Infantry Rifle Division were the first to do this. the successful use of Faustpatrons, the political department issued a special leaflet, which told about the “innovative approach.” The leaflet itself was to be studied by the personnel of all units. "
                "that the enemy used not known to us so far faust cartridges. And since a significant number of them were captured in the battle, they decided to use this captured weapon to fight with the enemy's machine tools. Soldiers and junior officers who knew the technical and combat properties of the faust cartridges were selected from among the prisoners." methods of their application. Trial firing at broken enemy tanks showed that this is really a formidable anti-tank weapon of close combat. Having received the necessary data, the headquarters of the armored forces and artillery of the front developed instructions for combating the "faustsy", and the political agencies launched a widespread work on explaining the methods of combating With this new weapon, the spread of methods of its use against the enemy's tank forces. Leaflets were published, a movement was launched to create teams in our units that are well versed in the combat use of faust cartridges. As a result of purposeful work in tank units, losses were noticeably reduced, and our soldiers and commanders at hastily used the weapons captured on the battlefield against enemy tanks and assault guns. " This passage is remarkable in that it allows us to establish: the captured Faust patrons were used during the battles for the liberation of Belarus, which means that this event can be dated in the summer - autumn of 1944. "
                it and so on ...
                1. Avior
                  Avior 9 August 2020 12: 42 New
                  +1
                  The battles for Wroclaw are in the spring of 1945, the Wroclaw garrison surrendered in early May 1945.

                  And I would not study history from the leaflets of the political department as a source of information.
                  The fact that the instructions for combating the faust patrons were developed, I readily believe, and then there is nothing surprising in the fact that as a result of this the losses of our tankers were reduced, but the fact that ours were massively used is rather from the field of propaganda, in reality there was no necessity.
                  1. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 9 August 2020 12: 52 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Avior
                    The battles for Wroclaw are in the spring of 1945, the Wroclaw garrison surrendered in early May 1945.

                    And I would not study history from the leaflets of the political department as a source of information.
                    The fact that the instructions for combating the faust patrons were developed, I readily believe, and then there is nothing surprising in the fact that as a result of this the losses of our tankers were reduced, but the fact that ours were massively used is rather from the field of propaganda, in reality there was no necessity.

                    "Or another case. On the outskirts of Berlin, in the vicinity of the village of Schönhagen, there was an operating German airfield of the enemy. Having received the task to destroy it, the tankmen captured more captured Faustpatrons. Having stopped the vehicles a kilometer from the airfield, the battalion commander ordered the crews to wait for his signal from the airfield and with a group of scouts disappeared In the darkness. Soon the explosions of the faust cartridges stirred the silence. The hangar building flared up. A green rocket shot up into the sky, and the battalion rushed forward. And half an hour had not passed since all the aircraft on the airfield were destroyed. "
                    “During the Berlin operation, the ability to handle the Faustpatron for many Soviet soldiers was tantamount to survival. Many of them regretted that they had not learned this earlier. In the front diaries of one of the soldiers, the following words were preserved:“ Here are two weeks without a break. Days have forgotten how to count. The Germans have a new weapon - Panzerfaust. They seized the warehouse intact, armed ourselves. We have the Faustists and we have the Faustists. Against the tank - a strong thing.
                    “After crossing the Oder, the use of Faustpatrones became a vital necessity. Marshal Batov recalled:“ The 46th corps was firmly establishing itself on the bridgehead. regular regimental artillery, 1-mm mortars, anti-tank groups trained in the use of captured faust cartridges.

                    - Is there something to fight back? How many guns?

                    - Not enough ... We managed to drag five forty-five-millimeter and two seventy ... We have two groups of faustics.

                    The foregoing will help the reader to imagine the general background against which the battles for the retention and expansion of the Zaoder bridgehead were fought. The heaviest blows fell on Varyukhin, Grebennik and partly Teremov.

                    The German command pulled up reserves and threw the 27th SS Infantry Division "Langemark" and the 281st Infantry Division against the forward regiments of our three divisions. On April 20, the Germans launched 20 counterattacks. The Red Army had a hard time. Only the 47th regiment of the Sivash division, repelling the attack of tanks along the highway near Rosuvko, released 200 captured Faust cartridges. "
                    This was a massive phenomenon, so if necessary, I will quote more ...
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 9 August 2020 12: 58 New
                      0
                      What you are telling are isolated cases in the spring of 1945, caused by special circumstances. Probably, it is possible to find other such cases, the Germans threw fausts in large quantities, they could only be used limitedly, even to the Germans.
                      How do you imagine a fight at 30 meters distance?
                      Faus is not a rocket launcher like the RPG-7 or at least like the Bazooka.
                      At that time, we did not have the slightest problems with anti-tank equipment, especially since the Germans had problems with tanks.
                      1. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 9 August 2020 13: 02 New
                        +2
                        "On March 13, 1944, the 8th division pushed the Germans and reached the outskirts of the Ukrainian city of Skalat, an important center of the German defense. However, almost immediately its units were counterattacked by large forces of German infantry, supported by twenty tanks. The offensive stopped. In the regiments of the compound at that time There was almost no artillery, so in the fight against the tanks it was necessary to use everything that was possible, first of all, captured Faust patrons. A large warehouse of these weapons was captured at the Bogdanovka station. A group of corps artillery supplies immediately left. From the units, the Red Army soldiers were quickly trained Faustpatrones, and literally three days later, the soldiers already used them in the fight against enemy tanks.This was especially effective in the 310th regiment of the 8th division, commanded by Major I. M. Leusenko. The regiment operated on the outskirts of Skalat, and the Germans threw several dozen tanks against him, nine of them were knocked out in the first hours of the battle, four of them with Faustpatrones. the occurrence is noteworthy in that it, in fact, is the first mention of the mass use of captured Faustpatrones by the Red Army against German tanks. "
                        "In general, the practice of using Faustpatrons by the Red Army looked almost the same everywhere." I will say that in the midst of battles in the city we successfully used faustpatrons. Sometimes, no fire could smoke the entrenched submachine gunners from the building. "Three into the windows of the basements - and the building is on fire, puffing up smoke. And our guardsmen rise to the attack."
                        "In the memoirs of V. I. Chuikov there is a description of a very original use of the Faustpatron to destroy the fortified defensive posts of the enemy:" Most of the fighters, especially sappers, took possession of captured weapons - faustpatrons, which were successfully used both in street combat and in the elimination of centers of resistance. During the storming of one of the forts, our engineers fired faust cartridges into the ventilation holes. The explosion destroyed the partitions in the ventilation ducts. After that, a combustible mixture was poured into the hole and ignited. The fires caused in this way forced the fort to surrender. "
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 9 August 2020 13: 08 New
                        0
                        Look carefully at what was discussed - about the use of the faustpatron as an anti-tank weapon.
                        But in reality, even if they did use ours, it was not as an anti-tank weapon, which was discussed initially, but in fact instead of grenades and thick bombs.
                        Just because there were a lot of them, abandoned by the Germans.
                        No one would release such a weapon.
                        Again, what you write is isolated cases.
                      3. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 9 August 2020 13: 09 New
                        +2
                        mat-vey (Matvey) Today, 08:52

                        Quote: Avior
                        we had enough anti-tank artillery, and there was no direct need to use faust against German tanks, it was simply dangerous, the faust was used from a distance of 30 meters.

                        Well, yes, well, yes ... the storming of cities does not count .. although if you consider that the engineering assault battalions with fausts not only fired at tanks ...
                  2. Alexander Trebuntsev
                    Alexander Trebuntsev 11 August 2020 10: 38 New
                    0
                    The Zvezda channel has shown a chronicle many times where our soldiers fired from Faust at houses during the assault.
      2. Free wind
        Free wind 9 August 2020 09: 50 New
        +1
        Bazookas were not ordered! The Americans offered them. ours broke off, Why ???? The Americans delivered about 2500 pieces, and they simply asked to check them, since the Bazookas showed excellent results, but .... it seems that ours simply disposed of them. Ignorance ?, Criminal negligence? Sabotage? Agree, it would be very useful. It's not with bottles against tanks.
        1. Avior
          Avior 9 August 2020 12: 44 New
          +1
          Faust cartridges from the bottles are not far away against the background of the bazooka.
          Why ours did not order them, it is not clear.
          The bazooka was already in 1942, at the front ours needed like air!
          But they didn't order .....
  9. Uncle Izya
    Uncle Izya 9 August 2020 12: 33 New
    +1
    So you still have to come and get
  10. Alf
    Alf 9 August 2020 22: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Alexander Trebutsev
    Penetration capacity of disposable faust 150mm.

    In the forehead, hardly, 150 mm, and even with a slope ...
  • Free wind
    Free wind 9 August 2020 07: 55 New
    +2
    Some tests cause confusion, why first hit with a reduced charge from a distance of 2.7 km, and then with a regular one from 500 meters. True, the result was surprising, there are no penetrations, like 122 mm, I honestly hoped. Well, actually there is nothing more to say about the guns. It would be interesting to understand the effect of a high-explosive shell on the tank's crew. Was there any point in hitting the tank with a land mine, even if they put some kind of piggy in there, or at least some stuffed animal. Maybe the crew really could be at least shell-shocked or something. The towers did not seem to be blown away by the hits. Although she was extremely lightweight. So the towers were torn off only by the explosion of ammunition. The body is assembled in a thorn and welded. If only for welding, it would hardly have been possible to plant so many shells, would have crumbled. Judging by the iron, the carbon content is roughly "Steel 35, or 40". In principle, steel is not brittle, it is cooked normally, it is easy to process. alloying additives: manganese, silicon, chromium, nickel, quite normal. I can't tell you about harmful impurities, sulfur, phosphorus, but there are also much dirty steels. I was just thinking to myself. Welding works well for breaking, for compression, but for shear it already works much worse. With inclined armor plates, when a blank hits, the welding begins to work precisely in shear. On the Internet, sometimes you come across tank rides. The panther behaves very briskly on all sorts of slides, hills, the engine is responsive, good luck. The tiger, you can hear that the engine gets, probably due to the semi-automatic gearbox, is not going badly. KoTe, you can hear that it's hard for the engine, it's even very hard to drag this skin on itself., At the expense of the CP and goes. Well, according to Ferdinant, there is nothing to say, there is a monster, this train was made only from friendly relations, Hitler and Porsche, in Kent's so to speak. It turns out that the Tiger could be started not only with the help of an electric starter, but also manually, with a crooked starter, the launchers also went to the Tigers, the engines from Shtilev chainsaws, moreover, it could be started from some service machines, through the cardan. Launchers and cardans were inserted into the holes for the crooked starter.
    1. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 9 August 2020 12: 35 New
      0
      After being hit by 122 landmines, the crew would stutter and ring in their ears like a bell
      1. Alf
        Alf 9 August 2020 22: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        After being hit by 122 landmines, the crew would stutter and ring in their ears like a bell

        Yes, and it became brighter in the tank, remember about the departing side?
        1. Uncle Izya
          Uncle Izya 10 August 2020 06: 53 New
          0
          Well, in general, the Germans should not have built tigers and royal tigers, TIV, the cannon was replaced, the reservation was increased in large numbers
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 9 August 2020 08: 14 New
    +3
    High-quality article, without waving a saber.
  • certero
    certero 9 August 2020 09: 46 New
    +2
    Historian Isaev said that the Germans always dragged the royal tiger with them when they broke out of the encirclement. Precisely because he was the most powerful breakthrough weapon.
    By the way, it is believed that during the fighting there was not a single penetration of the frontal armor of this tank.
  • Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 9 August 2020 10: 16 New
    -6
    = The 76-mm gun of the Hellcat self-propelled gun proved to be very good, which pierced the vertical side from 1,5 kilometers. And from 2000 meters, the "American" pierced the armor of the "Royal Tiger" in the fender liner area. Overseas weapons were clearly superior in efficiency to domestic 85-mm guns. The ZIS-3 cannon of 76,2 mm caliber could not penetrate the side of a heavy tank even from 100 meters. =
    Here it is. The 76-mm cannon of mattress mats pierced the side from 1,5 km., And our vaunted ZIS-3 could not do this even from 100 meters. Something is wrong here.
    Author! What's wrong with that?
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 9 August 2020 12: 46 New
      +6
      Author! What's wrong with that?
      Help, the Americans have a better gun! It's impossible! The author in the furnace!
      In reality, the armor-piercing shells of the ZIS-3 gun did not penetrate the side of the "Royal Tiger" even at close range.
      As a consolation for Krasnoyarsk on ZiS-3.
      After a series of hits in the turret, the weld seam between the side of the turret and the shoulder strap burst, and a through crack formed in the pursuit. After the 17th hit, the turret jammed. At a distance of 300 m, an armor-piercing projectile provoked a spalling of the side armor of the hull measuring 150 × 125 × 20 mm. Thus, the massive fire of 76 mm guns on the side, especially from close range, could end up with very serious problems for the German heavy tank. Also, a ZIS-3 projectile from a distance of 300 m disabled the commander's cupola, completely destroying the weld.
      That is, a dozen ZiS-3s with massive shelling from 300-400 meters had every chance to "overwhelm" the "Royal Tiger".
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 9 August 2020 13: 27 New
        -6
        Quote: Undecim

        Help, the Americans have a better gun! It's impossible! The author in the furnace!

        Dear, what was that now? Are you having critical days or are you in your seventh month?
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 August 2020 10: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Undecim
        In reality, the armor-piercing shells of the ZIS-3 gun did not penetrate the side of the "Royal Tiger" even at close range.

        In fact, the situation with the first "Tiger" was repeated, when the F-34 did not penetrate it into the side from 200 m, and the American 75-mm tank gun could penetrate as much from 600 m.
    2. Free wind
      Free wind 9 August 2020 13: 27 New
      0
      Sorry, but that's how it is. But these characteristics did not suit me either. At our request in England, English guns were installed on some Shermans. And then they sent to us.
      1. Alf
        Alf 9 August 2020 22: 16 New
        0
        Quote: Free Wind
        At our request in England, English guns were installed on some Shermans.

        This is what and what? And how could the Shermans get to us from England? Fireflies were not delivered to us from the word at all.
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 9 August 2020 13: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Krasnoyarsk
      Author! What's wrong with that?
      It's like that. For technological reasons, we had a complete ass with shell casings (there was not enough copper), gunpowder (a more or less modern plant was somewhere in Ukraine, did not have time to work out a lot), explosives (there was not enough tol, we used ersatz) and armor-piercing shells (here everything is completely sad. Before the war, they even took a marriage, with the resolution of the PZ "not suitable for use on armored targets (yes, this is about armor-piercing shells)" Moscow, but most importantly - a meager number of armor-piercing shells for all types of guns (1-3 shells per barrel)). Lend-Lease made it possible to turn a fat ass into a skinny one, but still an ass. If the war had started in 1942, things might have been different. I want to warn you right away: I won't give proofs - I don't remember where I read it, it was a long time ago.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 9 August 2020 14: 05 New
        -3
        Quote: bk0010
        It's like that.

        You want to say that the ZIS-3 did not "take" in the forehead from 100 meters even the T-4 43rd and later years of production?
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 9 August 2020 14: 23 New
          +1
          The Zis-3 is not an anti-tank gun. It was used for all tasks because the artillery was lost at 41. She could only take the 80-mm armor of the latest T-4 series (Pz. IV Ausf. G) with sub-caliber armor, which were extremely rare.
          1. Krasnoyarsk
            Krasnoyarsk 9 August 2020 17: 29 New
            +1
            Quote: bk0010
            The Zis-3 is not an anti-tank gun. It was used for all tasks because the artillery was lost at 41. She could only take the 80-mm armor of the latest T-4 series (Pz. IV Ausf. G) with sub-caliber armor, which were extremely rare.

            My late father fought in a separate IPTAP, which was armed with the ZIS-3. Yes, it is not anti-tank, but, one thing to name, and the second thing to apply. I will not say from what distance, but much more than 100 meters, she took the T-4 in the forehead, and therefore the Tiger in the side. Yes, the sub-caliber that my father spoke of. But he did not say that there were very few of them.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 9 August 2020 18: 33 New
              +1
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              I will not say from what distance, but much more than 100 meters, she took the T-4 in the forehead, and therefore the Tiger in the side.
              The year is important here: the T-IV 41 years old and the T-IV 43 years old are very different tanks.
              1. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk 9 August 2020 18: 53 New
                +1
                Quote: bk0010
                The year is important here: the T-IV 41 years old and the T-IV 43 years old are very different tanks.

                I was talking about the T-4 after the 43rd year of production. His forehead is 80mm. like a Tiger board.
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 9 August 2020 18: 55 New
                  -1
                  The ZIS-3 had serious problems with it, the early series of the ZIS-3 took well.
              2. Jager
                Jager 11 August 2020 00: 00 New
                0
                like the T-34 mod. 41 and 43 years old
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 August 2020 10: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          You want to say that the ZIS-3 did not "take" in the forehead from 100 meters even the T-4 43rd and later years of production?

          T-VI tank shelling results
          Side., Feed., And 82mm thick turret armor breaks through (when the projectile meets the armor at right angles):
          - Submunitions of a 45 mm anti-tank gun of the 1942 sample from a distance of 350 meters.
          - Submunition shells of a 45 mm tank gun of a sample of 1937 from a distance of 200 meters.
          - An armor-piercing solid projectile 57 mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 from a distance of 1000 meters.
          - An armor-piercing shell of an 85 mm anti-aircraft gun from a distance of 1500 mtr.
          - Armor-piercing (solid) shell of an English 57 mm tank gun from a distance of 600 meters.
          - Armor-piercing (solid) shell of an English anti-tank 57mm gun from a distance of 1000 meters.
          - An armor-piercing (solid) shell of a 75mm American tank gun from a distance of 600 meters.

          The frontal armor of the T-VI tank 100 mm thick is pierced by an armor-piercing shell of 85 mm zen. guns from a distance of 1000 meters.

          The shelling of 82 mm of the side armor of the T-VI tank from the 76 mm F-34 tank gun from a distance of 200 meters showed that the armor-piercing shells of this gun are weak and when they meet the tank's armor, they are destroyed without piercing the armor.
          © Tests by shelling the German T-VI tank from artillery systems in service with the Red Army
      2. Alf
        Alf 9 August 2020 22: 20 New
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        but most importantly - a meager amount of armor-piercing shells for all types of guns (1-3 shells per barrel)).

        Not armor-piercing, but subcaliber ones.
    4. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 9 August 2020 14: 47 New
      +1
      In fact, the Zis-3 has an initial projectile velocity of 650 m / s, while the American has 820 m / s. You will begin to compare with the British 17-pounder, in which the caliber 76-mm takes off at a speed of 880 m / s.
  • iouris
    iouris 9 August 2020 10: 18 New
    +1
    Quite a strange test methodology. As far as I know, the Germans had a high level of target designation and tank optics, so only guns that were capable of penetrating armor from a long range could be considered "armor-piercing". The rest of the guns could be suppressed by a tank from a long distance.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 9 August 2020 12: 39 New
    +2
    Despite the fact that low-power 45 mm cannons were announced in the test program, they never took part in the shelling of the tank. Most likely, the gunners appreciated the security of the Tiger B and decided not to waste the shells. 57mm shells left a few modest marks on the giant's armor, which were not even mentioned in the final reports.
    The shelling of "Royal Tiger" No. 234 with calibers 45 mm, 57 mm, 76 mm was carried out in September 1944 in Oglendów at the direction of the command of the 1st Ukrainian Front.
    Shells of 45 mm caliber could inflict damage purely theoretically when hitting certain places.
    The shelling from the ZIS-2 and ZIS-3 guns showed that armor-piercing shells are not capable of penetrating the side of a German heavy tank even from a distance of 150-200 m.
    The sub-caliber projectile made it possible to penetrate the side from 300 - 400 m.
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 9 August 2020 12: 54 New
    +1
    1. A. Shirokorad mentioned in his book "War on the Eastern Front" about the low efficiency of the domestic D-5S gun in comparison with the 76-mm Amerov-made gun.
    2. Despite the relative fragility of the armor, CT was a very serious and formidable opponent. This was especially noticeable at the end of the second phase of the battles at Lake Balaton, when the full-blooded battalions of the Royal Tigers went on the offensive under the cover (?) Of Panthers, "fours", and other types of armored vehicles.
    Losses in artillery, self-propelled guns and tanks, when meeting with CTs in units of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, perhaps did not go off scale, but the "cost" of knocking out one CT was high, despite the fact that tiger battalions met all types of artillery with a caliber of 76 up to 152 mm. There, near Balaton, for the first time, the SU-100 was used en masse, due to which, at times, it was possible to knock out the panzers with direct fire.
    In fact, in the battles near Lake Balaton in the period from January to March 1945, in combat conditions, all types of anti-tank guards of the Red Army that were in service were tested against almost all types of Panzerwaffen tanks and self-propelled guns.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 9 August 2020 14: 07 New
      +2
      Again, about the fragility of armor, Molybdenum increases the redness, heat resistance. to make it clearer, steel does not lose its properties when the temperature rises, that is, steel heated to 500 degrees will hold the projectile like steel at 0 degrees. An important property? Molybdenum improves corrosion resistance. In the mornings, the Fur Waters cried, the Tiger was rusty, without molybdenum, or they did not cry. Chromium completely replaced molybdenum. ... I am absolutely sure that there was no particular drop in the quality of the armor due to alloying additions. I admit that there was a violation of the technology of heat treatment of steel, hardening, tempering, cementing. Improving the quality of our shells. or simply.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 9 August 2020 18: 41 New
        +2
        The quality of domestic gunpowders suffered. And no supplies could replace it. As is the case with high-octane aviation gasoline. Brought both that, and another from the USA. But only in order to unwind the domestic product.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 9 August 2020 13: 42 New
    +1
    Holding 152 mm ... Serious opponent.
  • A.TOR
    A.TOR 9 August 2020 14: 03 New
    +1
    It would be interesting to observe similar tests of the "Royal Tiger" with the quality of its booking corresponding to the usual "Tiger" in 1943 in terms of chemical. composition of armor
  • BAI
    BAI 9 August 2020 15: 48 New
    0
    "Object 701", which later became the heavy IS-4.

    The "pike face" as on the IS-3 disappeared. It seems that they decided that it is not needed. And on the T-10 it was revived again, and then again it disappeared. The story is somewhat reminiscent of fiddling with a forward swept wing: it seems that they have decided what is not needed. No revived again and abandoned again.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 9 August 2020 16: 13 New
      0
      Backward sweep reincarnates once every 25-30 years, then disappears. There are, like, modes where it is optimal. However, the last version (Su-47 "Berkut") was made without the scientific support of TsAGI (Sukhoi's firm saved money), as a result, they stumbled upon the most severe buffeting, and it was all over. And the scheme is interesting.
  • BAI
    BAI 9 August 2020 16: 16 New
    +1
    The recommendation for the effective destruction of the "King Tiger" head-on was the following:

    The most effective method of firing at the frontal part of the Tiger B tank should be considered the simultaneous firing of a battery (3-4 guns) from artillery systems of 100, 122 and 152-mm caliber at a distance of 500 to 1000 meters.

    The Americans had the same thing.
    Lieutenant General of the US Army James Hollingsworth: “On November 16-19, 1944, there were battles on the Worm and Rehr rivers. The 2nd Battalion of the 67th Panzer Regiment found itself face to face with 22 Royal Tigers. We applied the TOT (Time-on-target) technique. This technique consisted in the simultaneous salvo of all available fire weapons at one target. Firing 105, 155, 203 and 240-mm guns, we forced the enemy to turn back. Three "royal tigers" remained on the battlefield. Our 75-mm and 76-mm tank guns could not penetrate the armor of German tanks. The 90-mm cannons of the tank destroyers from the 201st battalion were also powerless. Thank God we were rescued by artillery. "
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 10 August 2020 08: 23 New
    -1
    In total, Soviet engineers chose 11 domestic and captured guns

    Does the author classify lend-lease systems as domestic or trophy systems? laughing
  • Gosha Smirnov
    Gosha Smirnov 11 August 2020 03: 33 New
    -1
    a remarkable tank in terms of firepower and armor protection, but the rest ...
  • Andycomm
    Andycomm 11 August 2020 15: 54 New
    0
    In my opinion, this is a classic sabotage - to devote SO MUCH resources to large calibers and actually "score" over the incomparable cost of making cumulative shells! Fortunately, there were already German trophies ... IMHO the mustachioed man did not shoot his "fifth column" much.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 11 August 2020 21: 43 New
      0
      Ours failed to improve the cumulative shells: they did not figure out the physics of the process. They tried to increase the temperature of the jet (the shells were called armor-burning). Only after the war did things go well. In addition, the armor penetration was about the caliber, which did not solve the problem with the new German tanks for the ZIS-3.