Muzzle Brake says it all really
It was to enable a larger gun to be fitted into a given space, helped reduce the recoil mechanism required which generally took up a lot of room in the turret. It did not really reduce the blast effect at the barrel as often it made visibility worse (kicked up lots of dust in front if the gunner)
There were problems with APDS and APFSDS being fired through guns with muzzle brakes though, often cited as a reason for the dropping of the muzzle brake,
T-34 in service `39? How many, & where, not at Khalkin Gol, or in Finland?
Crusader was sister to Covenanter, built by a different firm, but still contemporary in design…
& in combat, prior to Barbarossa…
Big potent gun, able to defeat opposition IS a defining feature of both Tiger & MBTs, but not Matilda/KVs…
Hitler overruled the ordnance board, since they were determined that an 88mm gunned tank was impracticable…
Hilter had seen that the 88mm could waste ALL current tanks, at ranges beyond their effective counter fire,
& would not be denied in his will to have a tank that mounted one, & be fairly proof against its opposition fire…
Thanks for the muzzle brake update, Leccy… if you see how the blast slots are located on the horizontal plane, it was to
direct it away from the ground/dust/detritus…
& sure, no tank is invulnerable, but some are markedly less so than others…
Quite the reverse - if moderators aren’t permitted to have opinions (which you appear to believe is appropriate) then they’re being heavily censored. The requirement (just to restate it YET AGAIN) is that they separate their actions as moderators from their actions as forum members, and do so clearly. That has been happening on a regular basis to date on this forum.
Because we have had previous history with holocaust-denialists on this forum. They all follow a particular pattern - starting out by criticising Israel, and saying that the suffering of the Jews is overhyped. Then they go on to say it’s exaggerated by those with an agenda. Then they go on to claim some of it is invented, and so on. Having experienced this numerous times, we now give warnings early on and ban before they get to the final stages. One of the reasons we’re keeping a very close eye on you is because you fit this pattern. That’s also why I was so insistent that you provided the Yeager quote (and went on to buy the book to confirm it) - one of the classic behaviours of holocaust-denialists is to talk up Allied war crimes and insist that there is some sort of moral equivalence. So far you’re - just - on the right side of the ban/no ban line but the mods are rapidly running out of patience. It should be pointed out that I’m probably the mod LEAST in favour of a ban at this point.
Thing is, they had reasonable grounds to believe that the standard issue 6pdr anti-tank gun (which was used on quite a few tanks, and was rapidly being replaced by the 17pdr in the infantry was good enough).
http://northirishhorse.net/documents/25thTB/Print/6vTiger-2.html
It should be noting that they were firing standard AP shot - the APDS shot they took to Normandy had ~50% better penetration. So in some ways a large chunk of their problem was that the veteran crews the Tiger had faced had done so well - when met later, they weren’t facing crews who had been fighting Rommel in the Western Desert for 2 years, and did rather better.
Room to lie down inside a tank isn’t necessarily a recommendation - it means that the tank is bigger and heavier (hence an easier target and more expensive than it needs to be). Crews liking it doesn’t make it a good thing to have.
Turret ring diameter was a problem everybody had throughout the war - whenever they thought it was big enough they found that they needed a bigger gun and it was too cramped again. That’s why the Panzer IV ended up as the main German tank of the war - originally it was intended for infantry support only (much like the German StuGs, which were later/cheaper versions of this) and the Panzer III was for anti-tank use. Serendipitously, the Panzer IV had a large enough turret ring to take a much bigger gun and went on to be adapted for future use. Same reason most countries used 2-man turrets - there wasn’t room to fit a loader, so the commander had to do two jobs and was correspondingly less effective. Often the reasons for this were pretty prosaic - British tank dimensions were for a long time limited by the loading gauge of the railways (main way of getting them around the country). The Centurion was the first tank where they decided to abandon railway transport and move them only by road.
Pdf 27, kindly refer to Ndf’s post #625 this thread, is that an acceptable standard of moderation?
Running out of patience in wanting to ban me as a holocost denier! itching for evidence that I will damn myself with?
Well, no way, I prefer the facts, thanks, & deplore bullying authoritarianism of all ilks…
In fact it was the Allied tank crews that knew Tiger-angst from the desert who felt most let down, since the newbies knew no better & wanted to believe the ‘its only a 1/2in bigger’ [ 75-88mm] hype…
Incredible that the U.S. thought that 800 Tigers a month were being built in `43, but didn’t get M 26s in the line for another 2 years…
That isn’t moderation - he hasn’t mentioned the fact that he’s a moderator once. If he did that on a regular basis to everybody then I’d have a word with him about it by PM, but since it’s limited to one thread then no further action seems appropriate. In his discussions in the War Room he hasn’t actually mentioned this thread at all. If you notice when I dealt with you as a moderator it was clearly listed as a moderator warning - that’s the level of distinction between posting in a private capacity and posting as a moderator we typically expect. Indeed, my last few posts have been by way of advice and hence in my private capacity. We don’t consider “telling a moderator to get lost” in anything but their official capacity to be a problem on this site - indeed, one of our former moderators resigned some years ago because he couldn’t accept this policy.
Actually, that probably sums up Tankgeezer’s attitude more than Nick’s. If you’re really interested, the mod’s attitude can be summarised as Tankgeezer thinks you’ve already done enough for a permanent ban, I and Nick think you’re on the edge and are probably going to come out with something sufficiently outrageous to deserve an insta-ban very soon. Rising Sun generally agrees with the rest of us but is “willing to give him some mercy if ever he writes a coherent sentence with conventional punctuation.”
None of us like banning people - we’d far rather you calm down a bit and don’t kick off so much. So far as we’re concerned the more people on here the better. However, we have a responsibility delegated from Procyon (site owner) to keep order according to the agreed rules. That means if people persistently flout them we have to act appropriately.
Ok, fair call pdf27, I am by nature one to concur with the Marxist adage…
“I wouldn’t want to join any club that would have me” - Groucho Marx that is…
& what is this “War Room” to which you have referred a couple of times?
Funny, T-G did give me the chop, but re-animated me, since he is the ‘nicest’ mod…
& the Panzer IV [turreted] tank never got a bigger gun than a 75mm did it? just longer, but not L/71 long…
Private sub-forum for moderation discussions.
It was agreed in advance with the rest of the mods that you would be banned for a period of time then allowed back. TG just happened to be the one who acted after it had been discussed and agreed upon.
Down to turret ring size again - it was originally designed for a short-barrelled 75mm, so could (just about) accept a higher velocity one without needing a bigger turret ring. Fortunately for them, this gave them acceptable performance for the rest of the war - not enough for everything, but sufficient for most tasks (HE in infantry support, and against T-34s/Shermans. The Panzer IV was of course a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to produce than a Tiger/Panther, so they kept at it as long as they could.
They why did they already have the tank on the drawing board in 1938 to be the German version of the Char B? There was nothing really “new” about the Tiger at that point, only they de-emphasized it’s development after the Fall of France. I believe at the time they were in a rush to field something to counter the T-34’s and KV-1’s, which is obvious and had already been beaten to death in this thread…
“In a May 1941 meeting, Hitler having lost patience…took personal charge of the project.
He awarded Porsche & the German firm of Henschel & Sohn… contracts for…prototypes…
to be ready for his inspection on April 20 1942.”
LOL Hitler was the “project manager?” He had almost nothing to do with tank development and the project was running concurrently to reverse engineer the T-34 to create a German version it. The genesis of the project became of course the Panther. There’s no actual mention of the 88mm and maybe Hitler would have wanted the 128mm mounted on it?..
& Ndf, if as you reckon, Diesels are so much better than gas turbines, just when will the army be replacing their helicopter
mills?
Maybe that comparison might matter when they develop flying robot tanks?
Perhaps you can explain why nearly every piece of construction equipment from bulldozers, to off-road end-dumps, to mechanical diggers are all diesel powered with no gas turbines (actually, jet-fuel turbines in reality)?
Diesel mills are popular for cars in Europe where gas is taxed so much, but the top performing cars don’t run them…
One doesn’t expect performance from most small cars in Europe and those diesels are now becoming available in the U.S. market, despite it being expensive to have multiple engine options for each car in the U.S and the popularity of hybrids.
I should also add that BMW, Audi, and Mercedes are now all making turbo-diesel performance luxury sedans here and VW has had a diesel cult for decades here…
There are Diesel aircraft mills, but all the fastest Reno racers are spark ignition, not compression ignition powered…
That matters little in the world of AFV’s and heavy construction. There also hasn’t been the R&D with diesel engine technology applied to racing as there has been with gasoline. That doesn’t make gasoline any more viable…
[& Ndf, losing the plot & getting ‘shitty’ isn’t too ‘moderate’ really, is it?]
What’s getting shitty is you constantly repeating the same idiotic points that have already been discussed. Like hanging your hat on the M-1 Abrams turbine which doesn’t even use gas and the Army wants to replace with a more fuel efficient diesel that will be just as powerful and reliable…
Actually, according to Wiki’s poorly sourced entry on the Tiger, Henschel began development in 1937…
Oh please. You kept droning on how Hitler wanted the 88mm and nothing says that! And the Wiki site on the Tiger is crap, but just because you’re reading one of the books with the iron cross on them doesn’t make them gospel either…
You’re engaging in basic sophistry and selectively ignore peoples arguments to purvey your droning points. I’m certainly not the only one to call you out on it. You’ve come to the conclusion that the Tiger I was the original MBT and attempting to fix the (selective) “evidence” around that. It’s not that simple, nothing is. Tanks were evolutionary, not revolutionary in development…
From T.T.@W, P.63 a U.S. report on 90mm T.D. guns.
“The 75 & 88 [ Panther & Tiger]… are superior to the 90… partly because of the higher velocity & flatter trajectory making it more possible to hit what they point at & partly because of the muzzle brake… allowing them to observe their fire better than we… can.”
The 90mm fitted to the Perishing did get a muzzle brake.
I understood that fume extractors, smooth bores & calibre ratio changes had made M.B.s on modern tank guns redundant…
Again, a selective culled red herring…quote. It was all about the ammo, not the guns. The 90mm had a higher velocity and was generally recognized as one of the best AAA guns of the war when it was pared with radar. The Pershing certainly got a muzzle brake as it’s been pointed out that the gun would kick dust up and make a second shot impossible without it. Few 88’s were used long after the war, the 90mm was the main gun on U.S. tanks until the late 1950’s and was effective into the 1970’s. Irregardless, the Pershing was effectively on equal terms with the Tiger, and the couple “Super Pershings” that were produced would have knocked the turret off…
BTW, JAW, did you ever think since you’ve been banned before that the problem might be you and not the “totalitarian” mods you so love to disagree with on everything?
I would also add a pattern of berating Allied war leaders, like Winston Churchill or FDR, as buffoons or as double-dealing scoundrels in bed with that really evil dictator Stalin, but then sort of avoid any real criticism of Hitler. Even making bizarre and unwarranted praises of his foresight on armor development…
Um what? LOL, when did I say you were a Holocaust denier? When have I mentioned banning you, lately? I believe it was RS* that spanked you for being antisemitic and offensive…
Wow, Ndf ,now that’s quite a tirade of multiple extraneous posting… I recall that being described as a no no…
Anyhow, ‘flying robot tanks’, that’d be armoured Predator drones huh…
I am still waiting for a flying mini-sub like Admiral Nelson used to bat around in on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea…
Both Churchill & Hitler took a personal interest in war machines, to the point of actually over-riding their officials…
& of course, Churchill, as Admiralty boss in WW1 WAS a driving force behind the 1st British ‘land-ironclads’…
Stalin also took a personal interest, but more in issuing threats to designers/manufacturers who didn’t meet his
demands…
No ‘spankings’ though, just 25 years in a GULAG… if you were lucky…
As a contrarian, I can see that certain mods who over-personalise their perceived power-status with being the
arbiter of what is correct can tend to get carried away & stampy, but I do find that, a certain irritability aside, this forum has a reasonably fair moderation style, & that’s why I am still here [plus the generally high standard of research/erudition in comment]…
One thing I do find a bit under-developed is the ‘white-hat/black-hat’ morality divide, in as much as ‘our’ guys can
do no wrong & ‘those’ guys can gain no credit, regardless of the facts, & that to attempt to bring it up is
a cause for angst & automatic issue of dire warnings, which I’d reckon is immature/amateur & kind of ironic…
As for U.S. tank guns, yes… they belatedly jumped on the 88 band-wagon with their version of the fairly low performance 90mm flak, [while turning down the offered British 17 pdr] & later post-war admitted that the British[no German design in that, was there?] 105mm was so much better, that they fitted it too…
What some seem so resistive to accepting is the glaringly overt status of the Tiger as a concept model of the MBT…
To summarise then,
the Tiger, [which was the 1st to combine all these features] & modern MBTs offer a large [ but not Hitler-grandiose ‘Maus’ large] ~60 tonne vehicle, [which is so obviously] an optimum size for an effective fighting machine which provides an efficient ergonomic compartment for its crew, while carrying a gun/ammunition capable of neutralising battlefield opponents [infantry/A.T. weapons/field artillery/pill-boxes/other AFVs] while being reasonably well protected against counter fire, yet is still mobile enough to range about the battlefield & exploit the optimum ground for best action results…
From Tiger Tanks at War, P.15.
“By late 1940, both Porsche & Henschel had acquired the engineering talent to produce a heavy tank design that would meet Hitler’s requirements. Dr Ferdinand Porsche was so convinced that he would win the competition over Henschel, owing to his superior product & his close personal friendship with Hitler…
…While Hitler had favoured the mounting of a Rheinmetall-Borsig [long] 88mm gun, the Krupp turret was incapable of mounting the large, heavy gun [ fitted to later Tiger B]. The compromise was the somewhat less-capable Krupp 88mm gun, based on the 8.8cm flak…”
The earlier Henschel ‘heavy’ tank was less than 40 tons, & unable to accommodate “Hitler’s requirements”.
It’s a tricky one - there are clearly cases of allied war crimes and general dodgy conduct. However, they all pale into insignificance compared to the war crimes committed by the Germans and Japanese. Where people clearly understand this difference, we’re fine with discussion of Allied war crimes. When people haven’t demonstrated they understand this (for instance, the Wehrmacht invaded Russia fully intending to starve 30 million people to death - and only failed because they didn’t have enough troops to deal with the inevitable public order problems and let more food in as a substitute - even if the Allies had nuked Germany flat it wouldn’t reach this level of evil) our antennae start twitching. When they principally talk about what the Allies did wrong, or act as if there is some sort of moral equivalence, then we start matching a pattern of behaviour to a belief system and get the banhammer out.
If I’ve got things straight, the either the 17pdr or the 77mm (same shell, different casing) was rebored to a 20pdr shortly postwar. When the Hungarians parked a tank in our embassy during the uprising, we kinda decided our tank guns were too small and rebored it again to 105mm. So AIUI purely British design dating back to the 17pdr.
Says who?
Anyhow, ‘flying robot tanks’, that’d be armoured Predator drones huh…
I am still waiting for a flying mini-sub like Admiral Nelson used to bat around in on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea…
Drones aren’t armored, but they are part of what some might call the demise of the MBT. Of course, the IED’s in Iraq necessitated heavier armor for patrols even if many of those pratrols were useless anyways…
Both Churchill & Hitler took a personal interest in war machines, to the point of actually over-riding their officials…
& of course, Churchill, as Admiralty boss in WW1 WAS a driving force behind the 1st British ‘land-ironclads’…
Stalin also took a personal interest, but more in issuing threats to designers/manufacturers who didn’t meet his
demands…
No ‘spankings’ though, just 25 years in a GULAG… if you were lucky…
Of course they did. My point is that they were not details men. Hitler was probably made aware that the 88’s stopped the Matildas in the Arras counterattack, but I doubt he had any sepcific input on weapon’s systems other than wanting a tank to match the T-34…
As a contrarian, I can see that certain mods who over-personalise their perceived power-status with being the
arbiter of what is correct can tend to get carried away & stampy, but I do find that, a certain irritability aside, this forum has a reasonably fair moderation style, & that’s why I am still here [plus the generally high standard of research/erudition in comment]…
One thing I do find a bit under-developed is the ‘white-hat/black-hat’ morality divide, in as much as ‘our’ guys can
do no wrong & ‘those’ guys can gain no credit, regardless of the facts, & that to attempt to bring it up is
a cause for angst & automatic issue of dire warnings, which I’d reckon is immature/amateur & kind of ironic…
The white-hat vs. black hat doesn’t really exist here. I think you’ll find multiple criticisms of Allied policies and of Churchill. But they should be fair, factual, and in context…
As for U.S. tank guns, yes… they belatedly jumped on the 88 band-wagon with their version of the fairly low performance 90mm flak, [while turning down the offered British 17 pdr] & later post-war admitted that the British[no German design in that, was there?] 105mm was so much better, that they fitted it too…
How would a weapon generating greater muzzle velocity, having a longer range, and being fitted with radar be “fairly low performance?” It’s these silly statements you make that show you fail to contextualize things properly. The U.S. M3 90mm gun was around for as long as the 88mm and was never developed to counter it in anyway. The way these systems were deployed and used was what set them apart. The German Reichswehr had a history of creating duel-purpose weapons because of the restrictions put on them from Versailles. So they trained their crews to fire at ground targets and mounted the 88mm on a chassis that could take the low traverse firing. The Americans reacted relatively early and modified the gun to fire ably at tanks as well as aircraft and I’m not sure, but believe this is one of the big reasons the Germans were not able to take Bastogne…
What some seem so resistive to accepting is the glaringly overt status of the Tiger as a concept model of the MBT…
It was a “heavy breakthrough tank,” not an MBT…
To summarise then,
the Tiger, [which was the 1st to combine all these features] & modern MBTs offer a large [ but not Hitler-grandiose ‘Maus’ large] ~60 tonne vehicle, [which is so obviously] an optimum size for an effective fighting machine which provides an efficient ergonomic compartment for its crew, while carrying a gun/ammunition capable of neutralising battlefield opponents [infantry/A.T. weapons/field artillery/pill-boxes/other AFVs] while being reasonably well protected against counter fire, yet is still mobile enough to range about the battlefield & exploit the optimum ground for best action results…
From Tiger Tanks at War, P.15.
“By late 1940, both Porsche & Henschel had acquired the engineering talent to produce a heavy tank design that would meet Hitler’s requirements. Dr Ferdinand Porsche was so convinced that he would win the competition over Henschel, owing to his superior product & his close personal friendship with Hitler…
…While Hitler had favoured the mounting of a Rheinmetall-Borsig [long] 88mm gun, the Krupp turret was incapable of mounting the large, heavy gun [ fitted to later Tiger B]. The compromise was the somewhat less-capable Krupp 88mm gun, based on the 8.8cm flak…”
The earlier Henschel ‘heavy’ tank was less than 40 tons, & unable to accommodate “Hitler’s requirements”.
Hitler’s “requirements?” Hitler was probably given a list of possible gun mount candidates, but it was the engineers at Henschel working with the Heer that came up with the best possible candidates. The tank design began in 1937, not 1940. As with all designs, obviously the specifications will expand and change in the transition from prewar speculations to actual wartime experience there is a disconnect. Someone writing the panzer-picture books you read has a bit too much of a crush on the Fuhrer methinks…
Incidentally, your notion of “Hitler demanding the 88mm” is fundamentally wrong, because the men of the German Ordnance Dept. were already calling for heavier, 88mm gun derivatives to be mounted on tanks roughly the size of the Mark IV. Tiger Tanks at War (by Michael Greene) I have lists nothing of “Mr. Hitler” recommending or demanding specific armaments. Only that “German tacticians” had already decided that the next generation of tanks would mount bigger guns. I believe where Hitler stepped in is that he wanted a bigger tank to mount the bigger gun whereas the various departments in Germany wanted a smaller tank with a bigger gun - something akin to what became of the Panther until Hitler again demanded reams of thick armor on the front complicating production and causing drivetrain issues. General Buhle was “Hitler’s weapons expert” and he “consulted the troops” before handing out spec’s (pges. 5-6)…
Still waiting for your complete list of a modern MBT requirements and what the Tiger has that makes it the role model (don’t forget the AMX30 and Leo 1 were MBT and had thin armour (AMX30 max 80mm, Leo 1 max 70mm) and relied on speed as protection.
I don’t disagree the U.S. Army should have had the Pershing for Normandy, but I think the earliest possible timeframe for it to be ready was August of 1944 and the Pershing could not be offloaded at the beach like the Sherman could. The U.S. should have/could have/would have had Shermans mounting 76mm guns with HVAP and gotten rid of (most) tank destroyers earlier, and definitely around Normandy.
Very few Tigers in the West (nor Panthers), they arrived after the initial landings.
There were few Tigers, but almost half the tanks in the West were Panthers with about a 50/50 mix of Mark IV’s and Panthers, IIRC. They were held back due to Allied deception and because of Allied air supremacy which delayed their arrival to the beaches. U.S. paratroops found themselves fighting French made “beutepanzers” initially, but there were Panzer Mark IV’s at Pegasus Bridge the paras knocked off…
Ndf, Hitler was, indeed a ‘motorhead’ & he took a keen interest in machinery… motorsports, flying, weapons…
He did have a thing about big stuff, the ‘Maus’ being a prime example of misuse of his authority there…
Like-wise, Churchill took a personal interest in cross-channel artillery, gigantic trench cutting machines &
unfortunately he did have a buffoon as his chief scientific adviser…
Perhaps my copy of Tiger Tanks at War [ co-written with J.D. Brown] is an updated/revised edition,
& those quotes provided/posted are in it, I didn’t make them up…
From sit-reps Hitler knew that the 88mm provided the ‘short-stop’ for the Matilda, when regular AT failed…
As far as I know, the T-34 had not been used in combat prior to Barbarossa, so his insistence on the 88mm
in a tank [ earlier Henschel designs could not mount it] predates T-34 encounters…
The L/71 88mm fitted to Tiger B was a generation ahead of the Soviet 85mm/U.S. 90mm, performance-wise…
& you do realize that ‘gas turbine’ refers not to ‘gasolene’ but to fluid dynamics, since water, steam & exhaust turbines had been in use for decades prior.
Leccy,
‘Tank Men’ records that the Tiger [disabled by non-killing 6 pdr shot, & abandoned by its crew] & captured intact in Tunisia had been thoroughly evaluated in the U.K., demonstated to armoured troops & put on public display in London…
all well before D-day!
Stalin was tardy with sharing intel’ re German weapons development with the West, but they can hardly have expected
that a Tiger B utilizing Panther-tech would not be pending…
It is true that Churchill tank crews were grateful for the extra resistance to penetration/burning over the Sherman,
but they well knew that they were out-matched by the German heavies…
As for the AMX & Leopard 1 being ‘MBTs’, I 'll bet the Brit Chieftain crews in Germany during the `70s had a lot of fun in
pointing out that fiction… to their allies so equipped, when facing down the Warsaw Pact juggernaut…