Tiger tank analysis

[alecsandros]

That means that as a minimum it would have taken the Tiger over 1.5 minutes to destroy all 10 KVs and that's if every round hit. Since they were in a "formation" that implies plenty of time for the KVs to return fire. Certainly possible but I suspect that they achieved a significantly higher rate of fire than the above. Unfortunatly I've no idea where to find any good references on it, but I would have no problem believing it could get up in the 6-10 rpm range especially cosidering Tigers tended to go to elite crews.

I am a bit puzzled by the way you interpret a simple text. The source is Schneider, at he wrote "the column broke and fled in a few minutes". How do you translate "a few minutes" to "1.5" and why is that a bad thing, I don't know ? For instance, why can't "a few minutes" be "4-5" ?

[Byron Angel]

Fine presentation, Alex. Kudos.

B

[lwd]

Do you have a source for that?

YOU are demanding sources ?

Actually I was asking for them because the number seemed a bit large. I also provided a number of videos that brought your numbers into serious question. So yes I was asking if you had a source or just pulled the numbers out of the air.

The problem here is we don't know just what the numbers you have represent. Certainly US tank crews currently get off multiple rounds at intervals under 6 seconds per round with heavier ammo and as I said 3 is considered achievable with practice. What would be useful is some videos of Tigers conducting rapid fire target practice or some reenactors who have one.

Oh by the way this site list the rate of fire as 8.45/ minute http://www.dday-overlord.com/eng/tiger_tank.htm which is about 7 seconds between shots. It's also worth noteing that the US 105mm round weights in about twice what the Tiger's 88mm round weights in at.

These are meaningless for the discussion at hand. As I have stated above, the figures taken from Jentz are probably averages of actual battle rate of fires, and not firing drills!
[/quote]
So they are from Jentz but you don't know what they are or how they were obtained.

There were 20-30 minutes long battles in which Tiger I's did not expand there ammunition, allthough they had plenty of targets, the Tiger was alone and under fire from enemy tanks. Battle conditions are different from test conditions. It's realy not usefull if they could fire 8rpm in the firing range, with the turret locked in a single position, no dust to stirr by the main gun, and a single pre-aquired target to be fired upon.

The fireing rate over a 20-30 minute battle is a function of the tactical situation much more than the capabilities of the tank. And yes 8 rpm is useful even if they can do it in those circumstances that's because during a battle there are often short periods where it's important to put as many rounds down range as possible.

And for Tiger II I say again: Tiger II rate of fire was noted by their crews to be about the same as JS-2 (2-3 rpm after summer 1944 according to a report of a soviet tank officer).

But is 3-4 about the same as 2-3? how about 2-4 or 3-5? I did note in the brief research I performed yesterday several comments about the slow rate of fire of the JS-2.

[lwd]

I am a bit puzzled by the way you interpret a simple text. The source is Schneider, at he wrote "the column broke and fled in a few minutes". How do you translate "a few minutes" to "1.5" and why is that a bad thing, I don't know ? For instance, why can't "a few minutes" be "4-5" ?

I thought it clear that the 1.5 minutes was a minimum calculated by the length of time required to fire 10 shots. A few minutes could be 2-3 or 20-30 rather nebulous isn't it?

[alecsandros]

Lee, you are again leaving in a fantasy world of your own, and I do not understand where you are going. Perhaps if you re-read my previous posts you would see that I am not refuting what you say on an absolute basis, but only want to extract what is meaningfull for a realistic combat situation.

Cheers,
Alex

[lwd]

Lee, you are again leaving in a fantasy world of your own, and I do not understand where you are going. Perhaps if you re-read my previous posts you would see that I am not refuting what you say on an absolute basis, but only want to extract what is meaningfull for a realistic combat situation.
...

My world is as real or more so than yours. The point was that the rate of fire as you listed it made it appear like it was a vehicle limited rate of fire. I thought at the time it was rather on the low side and pointed out that higher rates of fire were achieved with heavier rounds and gave at least one source which mentioned a higher rate of fire. While you have given a source for your numbers you can't tell me what they really represent so they are of limited utility.

[Karl Heidenreich]

This is so boring and meaningless. One guy saying his 1970 Nissan can be faster than other guy's 2011 Lamborghini... Despite that the rest of the forum members agree with the Lambo owner...

[lwd]

I didn't think you were into self criticism.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I'm not the one pretending to prove that a medium tank designed to support infantry is a powerful foe for a heavy tank designed to destroy other tanks... plus the historical evidence, that even one third is true (which is a huge more than that) then will have a kill ratio higher than 2:1.
I like to stand behind the Lambo... not an american car neither.

[alecsandros]

I thought at the time it was rather on the low side and pointed out that higher rates of fire were achieved with heavier rounds and gave at least one source which mentioned a higher rate of fire. While you have given a source for your numbers you can't tell me what they really represent so they are of limited utility.

It is meaningless to provide examples of OTHER vehicles obtaining higher rates of fire. There are to many aspects to consider here.

As for the "source" you provided, it does not explain HOW the rate of fire was obtained, and is thus of limited value.

[lwd]

I'm not the one pretending to prove that a medium tank designed to support infantry is a powerful foe for a heavy tank designed to destroy other tanks... plus the historical evidence, that even one third is true (which is a huge more than that) then will have a kill ratio higher than 2:1.
I like to stand behind the Lambo... not an american car neither.

Actually that's not at all what is being discussed here. The question currently under discussion is the rate of fire of the Tiger's and I've been making a case for the first presented numbers being suspiciously low.

I thought at the time it was rather on the low side and pointed out that higher rates of fire were achieved with heavier rounds and gave at least one source which mentioned a higher rate of fire. While you have given a source for your numbers you can't tell me what they really represent so they are of limited utility.

It is meaningless to provide examples of OTHER vehicles obtaining higher rates of fire. There are to many aspects to consider here.

It is most definitely not meaningless. In particular since one of the rationals for the low rate of fire was the weight of the round. I'll agree that there are many other aspects that need to be considered.

As for the "source" you provided, it does not explain HOW the rate of fire was obtained, and is thus of limited value.

Your source didn't mention how it was obtained either. Neither of them stated what they were or what conditions were applied so at this point they are both just marks on the wall.
For instance even if the rates were attained at a firing range the question would be how many rounds were fired. If it was a Tiger with turret racks was it enough to empty the loader side racks or not? IF more did the additional rounds come from the hull or the off side racks. Was fire conducted at a single target or an array of targets? If the latter what was their distribution? Then there are questions about who is conducting the exercise and whether it's a timed one or not and what constraints are being inforced.

[alecsandros]

Your source didn't mention how it was obtained either. Neither of them stated what they were or what conditions were applied so at this point they are both just marks on the wall.
For instance even if the rates were attained at a firing range the question would be how many rounds were fired. If it was a Tiger with turret racks was it enough to empty the loader side racks or not? IF more did the additional rounds come from the hull or the off side racks. Was fire conducted at a single target or an array of targets? If the latter what was their distribution? Then there are questions about who is conducting the exercise and whether it's a timed one or not and what constraints are being inforced.

Agreed