Naval History Forums

Hello,

Taking into account the tanks available (and used in battle) in WW2, I thought I compounded their frontal armor and gun penetration data for seeing the ranges at which they are vulnerable to each other.

I came up with the following list:

1. King Tiger (180mm max armor, 165-193mm penetration at 1km)
2. JS-2 (160mm max armor(?), 105-130 mm penetration at 1km)
3. Pershing (110mm max armor, ~120-180mm penetration at 1km ) *
4. PantherG (120mm max armor, 111-149mm penetration at 1km)**
5. Tiger (110mm max armor, 99-138mm penetration at 1km)***
6. Sherman Firefly (89mm max armor, 100-125mm armor penetration at 1km)****

* If the Pershing uses HVAP rounds, he would be ahead of the JS-2, on no2.
** If the Panther uses APCR rounds and the Pershing normal APC, the Panther takes 3rd place
***If the Tiger uses APCR rounds, and the PantherG and Pershing normal APC rounds, the Tiger would be 3rd, surpassing PantherG and Pershing.
****If the Firefly uses APCBC rounds and the Tiger normal rounds, they would be very, very close.

Notes:
- I can't find the max frontal armor of the JS-2. I found it at 100mm, 120mm and finaly at 160mm (similar to the JS-3...) in some places.
- for this little theoretical test, I assumed all guns had the same accuracy, and that each shot would be a killing one.
- all engagements are to be executed frontaly
- all penetration figures are given against a steel plate at 30* from the vertical
- armor quality considered the same for all the tanks
- the obvious missing tank is the JS-3. I left it out because it did not see real action in WW2. If it woudl have, it woudl have been on no2, surpassing JS-2...

Alecsandros.

You mean that these are the strongest 6 tank types in that order? I miss the T34/85 (7th place)

What about the Jagdtiger, Elephant Tiger, Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV/L70, (J)SU152, (J)SU122, SU100, SU85 and the series of USA TD's (M10 aso)

VeenenbergR wrote:Alecsandros.

You mean that these are the strongest 6 tank types in that order? I miss the T34/85 (7th place)

What about the Jagdtiger, Elephant Tiger, Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV/L70, (J)SU152, (J)SU122, SU100, SU85 and the series of USA TD's (M10 aso)

I only introduced tanks; of course the rankings would be very different if including tank destroyers.

I wanted to make a top 5 initialy, but the Firefly is so close to the Tiger when using APCBC ammo that I felt it deserved a place amongst the best.

Cheers,

alecsandros wrote:Hello,

Taking into account the tanks available (and used in battle) in WW2, I thought I compounded their frontal armor and gun penetration data for seeing the ranges at which they are vulnerable to each other.

I came up with the following list:

1. King Tiger (180mm max armor, 165-193mm penetration at 1km)
2. JS-2 (160mm max armor(?), 105-130 mm penetration at 1km)
3. Pershing (110mm max armor, ~120-180mm penetration at 1km ) *
4. PantherG (120mm max armor, 111-149mm penetration at 1km)**
5. Tiger (110mm max armor, 99-138mm penetration at 1km)***
6. Sherman Firefly (89mm max armor, 100-125mm armor penetration at 1km)****

* If the Pershing uses HVAP rounds, he would be ahead of the JS-2, on no2.
** If the Panther uses APCR rounds and the Pershing normal APC, the Panther takes 3rd place
***If the Tiger uses APCR rounds, and the PantherG and Pershing normal APC rounds, the Tiger would be 3rd, surpassing PantherG and Pershing.
****If the Firefly uses APCBC rounds and the Tiger normal rounds, they would be very, very close.

Notes:
- I can't find the max frontal armor of the JS-2. I found it at 100mm, 120mm and finaly at 160mm (similar to the JS-3...) in some places.
- for this little theoretical test, I assumed all guns had the same accuracy, and that each shot would be a killing one.
- all engagements are to be executed frontaly
- all penetration figures are given against a steel plate at 30* from the vertical
- armor quality considered the same for all the tanks
- the obvious missing tank is the JS-3. I left it out because it did not see real action in WW2. If it woudl have, it woudl have been on no2, surpassing JS-2...

What about the 6 pdr Churchill equipped with APDS ammo? 150mm armour and penetration roughly equal to the 17 pdr APCBC?

If the 17 pdr is firing APDS, it takes 1st place, but your penetration figures seem a bit low for the 17 pdr.

The frontal turret armor on the IS-2 is 160mm and hull is 120mm according to my source

Also the 122mm M-30 firing an HEAP round can penetrated 145mm of armor at any range

dunmunro wrote:
What about the 6 pdr Churchill equipped with APDS ammo? 150mm armour and penetration roughly equal to the 17 pdr APCBC?

If the 17 pdr is firing APDS, it takes 1st place, but your penetration figures seem a bit low for the 17 pdr.

Hello, dunmuro!
Well, I didn't knew about that Churchill. What type is it?
As for the 76.2mm (17pd), I thought the APDS was to rarely used to mention it. The second value in my post relates to APCBC rounds. Also, I don't know how well the ballistics of the APDS shell was.. (accuracy).

But, for this theoretical comparison here goes:
76,2mm with APDS ammo ~ 190mm penetration at 1km.

The 150mm Churchill with APDS would be vulnerable to King Tiger's APCBC-HE at about 1.5km, and at over 2km if using APCR. The KT would be vulnerable to the APDS starting from about 1.1km. So, the KT would still be in the lead.

alecsandros wrote:

dunmunro wrote:
What about the 6 pdr Churchill equipped with APDS ammo? 150mm armour and penetration roughly equal to the 17 pdr APCBC?

If the 17 pdr is firing APDS, it takes 1st place, but your penetration figures seem a bit low for the 17 pdr.

Hello, dunmuro!
Well, I didn't knew about that Churchill. What type is it?
As for the 76.2mm (17pd), I thought the APDS was to rarely used to mention it. The second value in my post relates to APCBC rounds. Also, I don't know how well the ballistics of the APDS shell was.. (accuracy).

But, for this theoretical comparison here goes:
76,2mm with APDS ammo ~ 190mm penetration at 1km.

The 150mm Churchill with APDS would be vulnerable to King Tiger's APCBC-HE at about 1.5km, and at over 2km if using APCR. The KT would be vulnerable to the APDS starting from about 1.1km. So, the KT would still be in the lead.

The UK (and Canada, IIRC) produced 177,000 17 pdr APDS rounds from mid 1944 to the end of the war. APDS was quite common. APCR, OTOH, was rare.

The 75mm ROQF gun was designed to be a replacement for the 6 pdr, but it worked in the reverse as well, and it was relatively simple to replace a 75mm gun with a 6 Pdr. When it became apparent that the 75mm was not very efficient as an AT gun, the UK began replacing some Churchill 75mm guns with 6 pdrs and outfitting them with APDS ammo, specifically to deal with heavy German armour. This was similar to their policy of replacing Sherman 75mm guns with the 17 pdr, but unlike the Sherman, the Churchill turret could not take the 17 pdr. I believe that something like 1/3 of all Churchills in western Europe were equipped with the 6 pdr at wars end.

The 17 pdr APDS suffered from poor accuracy at long range, if fired from a worn or fouled gun. The 6 Pdr APDS round was more accurate than the APCBC round.

Thanks for the info; I didn't knew about those big Churchill's mk7...
I don't know the AP values for the 75mm gun of this tank. Do you have some info about them?

alecsandros wrote:Thanks for the info; I didn't knew about those big Churchill's mk7...
I don't know the AP values for the 75mm gun of this tank. Do you have some info about them?

The 75mm OQF gun was very similar to the US M3 75mm, but here's some data on UK tank guns:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingd ... tables.asp

In the open field, like North Africa or the Russian plains, the King Tiger has no rival. Too much armor and an excellent and accurate gun.

Minoro: totally agreed with that.

The Königstiger was therefore quite in its element in the East Hungarian plains (503rd Heavy Bn was engaged there in october 1944 with great success!)or afterwards in the open landscape east of Lake Balaton or in the roling open fields west of the Oder. But upon reading the battle accounts of the 503rd SS Bn As seen it was also quite succesful in the broad streets of Berlin or in the city landscape and dockyards of Gotenhafen.
The Königstiger was THE absolute master on the battlefield. Only really threatened by air, heavy mortar and artillery fire or soft terrain (marsh).

Genda:

In the open field, like North Africa or the Russian plains, the King Tiger has no rival. Too much armor and an excellent and accurate gun.

Agreed. You must count also in the superior tactical skills of the German units in open field warfare.

The most effective Russian tank gun that I can find information on is 100mm D-10S Naval gun firing an HEAP round at 1km is could penetrate 185mm of steal.
This gun was only used on T-44 tank & Su-100 tank destroyer during the war. The T-44 with max armor at 120mm would put it right under the King Tiger in armor and firepower
They only saw limited use during 1944-45

Kyler wrote:The most effective Russian tank gun that I can find information on is 100mm D-10S Naval gun firing an HEAP round at 1km is could penetrate 185mm of steal.
This gun was only used on T-44 tank & Su-100 tank destroyer during the war. The T-44 with max armor at 120mm would put it right under the King Tiger in armor and firepower
They only saw limited use during 1944-45

Hello!

I also heard about the D-10S and the Su-100. But the T-44-100 in WW2 is a surprise to me In Wiki, they say it didn't reach the battlefield, instead the russians focused on the improved T-54, which also failed to see the war.