German jagdtiger Sd.Kfz. 186 porsche suspension. 128mm Pak 44 tank destroyer

[HeirofGojira91]

It was saidthe Porsche Jagdtiger was cheaper, easier to build and lighter than the Henschel version. On the other hand Porsche wheels were easily worn out and there were more Henschel versions in the end. Its funny because half the time in WWII Porsche Tiger I and Tiger B prototypes were not accepted but with the Jadgtiger they had adegree of parity with Henschel where they had a cheaper version of the Jagdtiger and slightly lighter/easier to make when Henschel usually had the cards in play :)

[infernalzen]

@HeirofGojira91 thanks for the info

[HeirofGojira91]

@infernalzen But I just realized this - during WWII you had famous car companies pitted against other companies for contracts for projects - for example the Panther tank was propsed ion design by MAN and Daimler Benz - who won? MAN and of course you had Henschel against Porsche - Henschel won - it was ironic because Porsche actually had more experience and started the heavy Tiger I project before Henschel did - so Henschel's research was simpler yet eventually better!

[infernalzen]

@HeirofGojira91 yeah, i think they were all given chances to develop prototypes...

but they would loose the contract if the tanks have flaws +the other manufacturer has a good history of producing tanks with less problems

[Oso1G]

Hardest hitting gun in WW2......the much dreaded 128mm.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Oso1G suffered the same problems as the A19 M1931/M1937 gun - heavy shells, limited storage and it was 2 piece loading hence the Jagdtiger would have had 6 crew members instead of 4-5. Barrel wear would have been a problem too. Regardless Otto Carius a Tiger I ace noted the HE power was undeniable :)

[infernalzen]

@Oso1G i believe it could destroy even the IS-2 at 3500mr :o

[Oso1G]

@infernalzen Agreed, I'm not aware of any production World War 2 armored fighting vehicle that could have survived a frontal shot by this weapon.

[Dreachon]

@Oso1G

There isn't really, at Aberdeen they actually even tested to see how powerfull the gun was against a Pershing, let's just say the pershing was penetrate frontally at a distance of 2100m with the very first shot.

[infernalzen]

@Dreachon i think otto carius liked to use HE shells in his jagdtiger

[Dreachon]

@infernalzen

I sadly don't that but you might find something on it in Tigers in the mud, I do know that the jagdtiger engaged in some bunkerbusting.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Woah! At an angle of 30 degrees? Because I read at the Battle of Targu Frumos a Tiger I was struck by a 122mm AP shell but due to the angle of incidence (notice I'm not talking the angle of sloped armor) the shell failed to penetrate. Nonetheless that Jagdtiger must have had no trouble punching the Pershing - was it clean frontally or just via the glacis plate? And did they fire back the Pershing's 90mm to test the Jagdtiger's durability? Just curious

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

It went right through the glacis plate, I believe some shell were also fired through the gunmantlet.

I don't believe they fired back at it as it seems they just wanted to see how their "mighty" pershing would hold up aginst such a weapon.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Interesting. Never actually knew they conducted such tests during the post WWII period :) - did they do other stuff like that to your knowledge on other German or Allied vehicles by the war's late course or conclusion period? And when I was taking about the 128mm L61 gun - I wasn't reffering to its performance - I was referring to the chassis itself - as it wasn't as well armored as the Tiger I, Panzer IV Ausf G, Panther or Jagdtiger/Jagdpanther - but looking back Emil was '41

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

My apology for that, it wasn'as well armoured as later design but still for 41 and 42 it was just as well armoured as the panzer IV and StuG III with 50mm of armour on the hull and superstructure front.

Oh and before I forget it and I should have said it earlier to you, a happy new year my friend.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon :D Yes yes! How rude of me as well - a belated Happy New Years as well! Btw do you mind answering this question I'm wondering about: As much as Soviet armor was not up to the German standards in WWII - how did they manage to 'improve' the armor envelope of the KV-1 series tanks into the JS-2 series - all my readings tell me are that the 'Russians realized the need for a new tank when the KV-1 series was expensive and had armor that was starting to struggle against the Tiger/Panther'

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Or the fact during Kursk when the Tiger I and Panther appeared they pushed the heavy tank development further than planned originally - and that kumulated to the KV-85 later IS-1 and later JS-2 tank - but how did they manage to 'revise' the amror - did they use some new casting technology, calculation of ballistics or simply better grade metals in the JS-turrets/hulls as I noted the KV-1 tanks could have armor at 70-110mm depending on models (e.g. KV-1s, KV-41, KV1-42) but JS

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon But the JS-2 had as we know it if I'm not mistaken (again feel free to correct or cirticise me) 100/120mm of armor on the turret (not the claimed 160mm) and 100/120mm on the glacis plate depending on models, sloped at either 72 (1943 model) or 60 deg (1944m) to the vertical so we're talking theoretically 200mm or so worth of protection? And while the KV-1 had heavy armor (up to 90/100mm) rear the JS-2 had 90mm rear at approx 20-25deg yet it was lighter and better in protection???

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Or was it simply improved sloping methods? Given the Soviet tanks were known to have sloped armor, not just the T-34 that is in WWII - and later the JS-3 would actually encorporate the famoust pike and soup-bowl ballistic shape - which was said to be essentially a better redesign of the T34 armor phillosphy - and it used Rolled plate for the hull/turret front unlike the JS-1 or JS-2 which whas cast armor - not as good as Rolled plate during WWII :(

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

Well sofar you are correct on your point, it was the influence of the Panther and Tiger that made Stalin reconsider his thought on heavy tanks.

Yet the russians didn't make any new difference when it came to technology

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Ok - sweet - thanks again! Oh and btw - we've discussed the flaws and wild tales the Russians made in WWII - like the Ferdinand being 'destroyed by Russian flamethrowers and molotva teams' the 'TIger Ausf B Konigstiger suffering poor shoddy workmanship in its armor tests' and the 'T-34/JS tank myth' but I am again reading the Russians in the 1940 Winter War - so far I've read abit on 'Molotov's Bread Basket' or the fact that when the KV-1 tanks were sent to test thier effectiveness...

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

a molotov bread basket, what is that?

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Oh and one more question - subject on SHOT TRAPS - I had a look at heavy/heavier tanks of WWII and it seems that tanks that had a curved cast mantlet such as the Panther (Ausf D and A), Porsche Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger, T-34/85, early T54 prototypes, IS-2 1943/1944m for example had a risk of shot traps - if the shot managed to riccochet off but glance along the vulnerable top armor which would have had less armor and cause serious damage - is that true or is it something else?

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

The risk with a shot trap is that it direct the shell towards a more vulnerable part such as the turret ring, upper hull roof or other parts were one doesn't want a shell to hit.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Given say the Germans tried to improve this by having a 'mantlet lip' to the Panther Ausf G or the Porsche Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger which the Henschel version had the flat plate at 81 deg so 180/sin81 = 182mm theoretical protection? (Given 81 deg is not too far from the horizontal) And lastly have you any books or knowledge on the battle history of the Tiger Ausf B Porsche vs Tiger Ausf B Henschel? Becuase the fist 50 were Porsche types before the rest were Henschel

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

Sadly I don't have comparrision between the 2 tanks on the battlefield and generally the difference will be very small.

As for the turret protection, the front is very narrow and has a massieve saukopf gunmantlet in front of it which adds even more armour.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon But apparently the Porsche models saw distinct service in France, Russia and also Operation Watch on the Rhine - did the Porsche and Henschel models ever fight side by side on occasion? Just another curiuos question

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

They did, in Normandy the 503 schwere had 2 Tiger II tanks with the serien turm and later when they returned to the eastern front they took with them 2 Tiger II tanks with the porsche turm with them.

The 506 which fought at Market Garden also had a mix of porsche and serienturms.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon And the KV-1 was trialed along with its rivals being the SMK, T-28 and the T-100; whilst these tanks were the multi-turreted models - the Soviets claimed that the KV-1 was far superior to the multi-turreted models; in assaults on the Mannerheim Line it was said not a single KV-1 was destroyed yet the multi-turreted models got knocked out - that sound like another wild Soviet propaganda to you? Because logically if the Finnish Soldiers had limited tanks or AT and they improvised...

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

Well multi-turretd tanks have few armour than a tank with one turret, their also larger, more cumbersome and often having more trouble with coordinating their weaponry so it doesn't surprise me that the KV did best.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Surely they would have managed to 'toast' a KV-1 tank in the ambush or a good shot from the Mannerheim Line's artillery should have atleast took out KV-tanks as well - sounds strange to me - that ironically multi-turreted models were shown to be inferior overall to the KV-1 tank in the Mannerheim Line's assault - given the KV-2 was quite poor at the role of a siege gun tank (though again we have to consider its not the same league as a KV-1 tank.)

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

I have no idea, my knowledge on the winter war is rather limited.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Oh well in that case (and if you care to read or have the time to) I recommend a book called 'The Winter War - 1940' - forgot the author was (apologies :( ) but to my memory the front cover had a black/white photo of Finnish soldiers in winter camoflage in one of the trenches along the Mannerheim Line during 1940 awaiting a Soviet assault. That book is quite interesting - to gave me the source of my WInter War knowledge - it even gives personal accounts/thoughts of Stalin on the war

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Molotov Bread Basket was a nickname the Finnish gave to Molotov's claims on the Soviet bombers (RRAB-3 bomb in Russian known as the Molotovin leipäkori; Russian: ротативно-рассеивающая авиационная бомба - "rotationally dispersing aviation bomb" with provision for incendiary effects) - not bombing Finland but 'delivering food to starving Finnish people' - the effect was nicknamed 'Moltov's Breadbasket' and later the infamous cocktail was 'a drink to go with the food' - to what I know :S

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon The JS-2 was noted to have a crew of 4 - but the KV-1 or even T34 had a crew of 5; isn't that a tactical disadvantage? Given one more member could assist with shooting/loading the guns whilst the commander could direct the tank properly? Sounds strange to me...

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

A 5 man crew is handy but in the case of the IS-2, 3 men were kept in the turret so the IS-2 did have the same 3 man turret crew as the KV and T-34/85.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Could you kindly explain again - you once mentioned once the crew of the JS-2 tank was not the fact they were 'T-34' veterans (more likely tankers who got fortunate - though the JS-2 tank were 'specialized' into breakthrough divisions with ISU-122/152 vehicles as secondary support with T-34/85s for fill in of 'mop ups' of infantry) but the crew comprised of officers (weapons sergeants or something?) compared to regular T-34/85 tank crews or something?

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

The IS-2 crews would come from having units fought previously on KV tanks, the crew for the IS-2 consists of 2 sergeants ( loader and gunner ) and 2 officiers ( commander and driver ).

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Well actually the Panzer IV Ausf Gf was later noted to have 80mm armor initially bolted on 30mm plates toi the 50mm but later it was simply a homogenous unit which was able to withstand hits from a basic Sherman though the turret was still vulnerable...

[infernalzen]

@HeirofGojira91 think they tended to test the hardeness, make up of the armour, note its thickness +angle. then produce some metal of the same specifications +shoot at it on a test range without damaging the captured tank.

[HeirofGojira91]

@infernalzen Hmm - on a random search I came across a late/post WWII test on the M3 90mm gun fitted to the Pershing; it was test fired at various ranges on a Panther tank - even at a range of 4-5000 yards the 90mm managed to penetrate 2.4-2.5 inches of RHA at an angle of 45-50 degs to the vertical - that was using one of the HVAP (can't remember what was the designation though)

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon So during the time it saw service the Emil would indeed have had reasonable armor at up to 50mm for its type - as an open topped/self propelled AT gun...now returning to the Pershing - they also had the test vehicles such as the Super Pershing and the T29 and T30 test heavy tanks - which both suffered armament/weight problems. Its funny why by the Cold War the Russians and NATO still had heavy tanks when clear problems were set during WWII :(

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

Sadly I don't know that much about the postwar tests, but I'm certain we can find the dat on them somewere.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon If you know what I mean (feel free to ignore or correct me) but take the JS-3, JS-4, JS-7 and later T10 Lenin Tank. Those were the Russian tanks and whilst in military propaganda parades - in combat their armor and gun performance was at best, mediocre - given no actual Cold War in Europe directly took place but in the deserts of the Middle East where the JS-3 and T10 suffered mobility, ROF, armor and engine problems. Then NATO had the Conqueror and M103 which weren't better :(

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

Plenty of countries still kept heavy tank devellopment going on but by the 50's it was becoming clear that the MBT concept proved far better suited to the way warfare was going as the germans had showed with the panther design, a tank that had the speed, agility and mobility of a medium tank but also the firepower of a heavy tank while beeing still well protected.

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Well - if I'm not mistaken - the T10 Lenin - saw service in the mid 1950's - being essentially a resized JS-3 with better engine, gun and armor but by 1962 or so the T-62, improved T54/T55 series and later the improved T-64, T-72 (itself innovative but not as impressive in actual combat) and the what nots. The JS-3 was said - whilst during the 60's its armor was capable of withstanding basic rockets, AP, HEAT of Bazooka - newere generation AP and AT weapons meant it was obselete:(

[HeirofGojira91]

@Dreachon Ah and speaking of MBT - is this correct to assume? -> the M26 Pershing was later revised as the M46 Patton -> M47 Patton -> M48 Patton/M60 Patton series tanks -> M60A2 -> MBT-70 -> M1 Abrams or is the MBT-70 a differing concept from the Patton series tanks?

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

As far as I can tell that is correct.

[HeirofGojira91]

@infernalzen PaK 44 had 2-piece ammunition loads. Hence the gun had a low ROF but it could fire a light, medium and heavy charge. Light and medium were used as an arty piece. The heavy charge was used in AT, firing a 28.3 kg APCBC-HE (PzGr.43) at 935 m/s. Range was 22410 meters maximum. AP at 1000m was roughly 167mm whilst 2000m was approximately 148mm. Sometimes the huge KE of the shell was enough to destroy a tank.

[HeirofGojira91]

@infernalzen Well if you think about it - take the PaK 43 - the PaK 43 in the Nashorn had the distinction of being able to knock a Pershing and an IS-2 tank at combat ranges. IF the PaK 43 had excellent AP at ranges up to 3000 yards - then the PaK 44 should have practically no problem neither due to its huge shell and the explosive properties it could load up. Otto Carius noted the KE of the shell was enough to sometimes break up a tank before even  penetrating!

[HeirofGojira91]

@infernalzen And not to mention the IS-2 - whilst being stated capable of having armor withstanding the 88mm guns - it was never truly the quality of German steel - the IS-2 for instance had cast armor as the Soviet People's Group for Black Metallurgy couldn't produce sufficient RHA for the IS-2 so they had to make do with cast armor. The IS-2 at Targu Frumos were the 1943 models which were noted to have shot traps and poor quality control over the armor :(

[HeirofGojira91]

@Oso1G Actually the Sturer Emil carried an EVEN BIGGER gun - well longer barrel - the Experimental V L/61 128mm cannon - but unlike the Jagdtiger only 2 were made and the armor protection was nowhere near impressive. Now as for the 128mm gun? Actually its performance was comparable to the PaK 43 using HVAP shells - but it was due to the fact it had a bigger caliber and its muzzle velocity was slightly lower - whilst the PaK 43 was more or less comparable at 1000-2000 yards...

[Dreachon]

@HeirofGojira91

I wouldn't say that, the 12.8cm K L61 was very impressieve, it outperformed the Jagdtiger main gun despite using earlier shell designs of AP shells which weren't as good as later desgins.

[natalo78]

thou art in bovington... land of world war one and two boffins alike.

therefore, i salute you, good sir

BTW. go back there for tankfest, it fucking rules

[NishHammer]

no sound

[infernalzen]

@NishHammer yeah, just a quiet museum. you dont need to hear my description of the tank do you?

[HeirofGojira91]

@infernalzen Then I guess the Jagdtiger exhibit is a 'no touch' as well? Dumb question but I haven't been in a tank museum so I ain't sure if its like a normal museum where exhibits are off bounds - unless you felt the armour? Must have been solid if you did eh? A fellow youtuber claimed that he tapped a Panther glacis - and it was like a 'solid as hell steel wall' - sounds impressive :D

[petrwarry72]

super , i;m just editing dome jt footage

[infernalzen]

@petrwarry72

dont know if this +their other tanks are genuine camouflage schemes :( they look so odd

the panther is a realy weird colour

[petrwarry72]

@infernalzen jagdtiger's camo looks strange indeed. i;ve heard that bovington panther was repainted , i've got just photos of its older camo

[infernalzen]

@petrwarry72 i think i posted the vid, the week i took it, November 2010?

[petrwarry72]

@infernalzen i'm subbed to you ,but YT keep changing its layout so often than i'm very often confused and lost .....i have missed most of them, damn . i'm just watching them one be one

[infernalzen]

@petrwarry72

next time i go, i want to take a ruler to place against the armour +measure the thicknesses on the different angles :)