i was given the dragon henshel zemmerit king tiger. that is a pretty amazing
kit and i'm impressed with state of the art.....but, it has schemes and decals
for 1945 tanks with that zimmerit. was this accurate? were those survivors
from pre-mid 44?
i see why you politely pooed on the old tamy kit.
On Apr 27, 10:04 pm, some...@some.domain wrote:
> i was given the dragon henshel zemmerit king tiger. that is a pretty amazing
> kit and i'm impressed with state of the art.....but, it has schemes and decals
> for 1945 tanks with that zimmerit. was this accurate? were those survivors
> from pre-mid 44?
> i see why you politely pooed on the old tamy kit.
Yes, the attrition rate of King Tigers was relatively low. The 506th
and the 503rd had Zimmerit coated tanks through the end of the war
alongside newer models. The 503rd battalion was equipped during the
changeover in September, 1944, and received a mixed bunch of tanks
with and without the coating. They were immediately entrained for
Hungary and spent the rest of the war trying to stop the Soviets in
Central Europe. The 506th received 45 tanks with the coating in
August, 1944, and got 14 replacements without the coating in December
for the Ardennes Offensive. They remained on the western front until
they were surrounded in the Ruhr Pocket in April, 1945.
someone@some.domain - 28 Apr 2008 04:22 GMT
>On Apr 27, 10:04=A0pm, some...@some.domain wrote:
>> i was given the dragon henshel zemmerit king tiger. that is a pretty amazi=
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>for the Ardennes Offensive. They remained on the western front until
>they were surrounded in the Ruhr Pocket in April, 1945.
tanks
Pat Flannery - 28 Apr 2008 06:03 GMT
> Yes, the attrition rate of King Tigers was relatively low.
>
Would you go anywhere near one of those things if you knew it was there
and had a choice in the matter? :-D
The only thing the Soviets felt really confident in taking one on with
was the SU-152 assault gun, assuming they could get close enough to it
without being destroyed as they approached it.
Even a Stalin II or Pershing tank was a pretty iffy opponent to it.
God help you if you were in a T-34 or Sherman.
Best to stay a couple of miles away and take it out via either heavy
artillery or airstrikes.
Although American and British troops used captured Panzerfausts and
Panzershrecks to good advantage against German tanks, the Soviets seemed
particularly backwards in developing man-portable antitank weapons
(Bazookas, PIATs, hollow-charge mines and grenades, or single-shot
recoilless weapons like the Panzerfaust) until after the war...in
comparison to the other combatants...despite the fact that they lost
huge numbers of tanks to them, and technologically they would be pretty
easy to copy and mass-produce in volume in a very short period of time.
The fact that the Germans were sticking Zimmerit all over the exterior
of their tanks to defeat Allied hollow-charge magnetic antitank
grenades...that didn't exist...indicates a failing on the whole Allied
side, and the Soviet forces in particular.
The vast numbers of troops the Soviets could field in comparison to the
Germans would have made any sort of a cheap and simple man-portable
antitank weapon highly effective.
American and British forces might have been very hesitant to close to
within a few dozen feet of German tanks to engage them with such weapons
except in cases of desperation; but history shows that wasn't the case
with Soviet troops...and a massed attack of T-34s, each with around ten
troops riding behind the turret.... and each of those troops carrying a
Panzerfaust clone strapped to their back as well as their standard
weapons, could have wreaked havoc on the panzer forces during the
invasion of Germany.
Back during the Vietnam War, my older brother was stationed at a fire
base near Hue; at night VC and NVA snipers would approach the perimeter
of the base and fire into it.
They did this at great risk, as the standard response of a sniper's
rifle bullet coming into the base was a LAW rocket round heading outward
toward the sniper's suspected position.
An extrapolation of that concept during the street fighting in Berlin at
the end of the war would be fascinating to consider - with a concealed
German position that opened fire suddenly getting hit with a massed
barrage of around 30-40 Soviet Panzerfaust clones, like a subscale
Katyusha attack. :-)
Pat
kim - 28 Apr 2008 15:05 GMT
>> Yes, the attrition rate of King Tigers was relatively low.
>
> Would you go anywhere near one of those things if you knew it was
> there and had a choice in the matter? :-D
I've seen a photograph of a King Tiger in the Ardennes which was taken out
by a single round fired from a 2" Bazooka. It had a tiny hole in the rear
turret side where the ammunition was normally stored. The first Bazookas
were loaned to the Soviets so the Germans weren't expecting them on the
western front. If they had they would have made suitable arrangements with
spaced armour.
A King Tiger could only fire in one direction at a time so surround it with
enough tanks and even a 75mm Sherman can take it out. The favourite target
of allied gunners was the turrent ring. Once the trunnions were jammed the
tank was a sitting duck. The Panther was more feared than a King Tiger. A
commander told me he would reckon on losing twenty vehicles before taking
out just one Panther.
(kim)
Enzo Matrix - 28 Apr 2008 21:20 GMT
>>> Yes, the attrition rate of King Tigers was relatively low.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> more feared than a King Tiger. A commander told me he would reckon on
> losing twenty vehicles before taking out just one Panther.
Sounds like a job for a Typhoon or a P-47.

Signature
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
AMPSOne@aol.com - 29 Apr 2008 00:58 GMT
Actually the King Tiger was its own worst enemy. One of the great
stories in the "Then and Now" series book on the Bulge was a King
Tiger which had just gotten to the crest of a hill via a very icy road
and spotted an M10, which it promptly blasted. But tank's gun recoil
gave it a shove back down the hill and it wound up with flailing
tracks crashing into a barn where it was stuck and later found
abandoned.
One thing Tom Jentz doesn't want to contemplate either is the fact of
how many German troops and other tanks were lost in the recovery of
Tiger I and Tiger II tanks from combat in Russia. One was noted as
costing the Germans 200 infantry and five Pzkw. III tanks to get back
so they could list "no losses" on rolls.
Personally I think 2nd Armored Division came up with the best way.
Find one, pin it down, and then bring up an 8" howitzer to lob rounds
until one lands on the top and blows it to bits.
Cookie Sewell
someone@some.domain - 29 Apr 2008 02:42 GMT
>Actually the King Tiger was its own worst enemy. One of the great
>stories in the "Then and Now" series book on the Bulge was a King
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Cookie Sewell
yeah, but it does make one cool looking model. i like the fact it was as
lethal to crews as the allies were. and it sure kept the number of good tanks
being produced down. imagine the equivalent improved iv's and panthers that
would have been built.
Pat Flannery - 29 Apr 2008 23:56 GMT
> Actually the King Tiger was its own worst enemy. One of the great
> stories in the "Then and Now" series book on the Bulge was a King
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>
Want to see something funny, check out the M1 Abrams braking tests on
ice - it slid for around a city block with its tracks locked up. They
modified the tracks after that. :-)
Pat
willshak - 30 Apr 2008 13:26 GMT
on 4/29/2008 6:56 PM Pat Flannery said the following:
>> Actually the King Tiger was its own worst enemy. One of the great
>> stories in the "Then and Now" series book on the Bulge was a King
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Pat
There is a film clip from WWII showing a Sherman sliding sideways
(towards the curb and side street) in some European town.

Signature
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Bruce Burden - 29 Apr 2008 03:45 GMT
: The favourite target
: of allied gunners was the turrent ring. Once the trunnions were jammed the
: tank was a sitting duck.
I am confused to the relationship between the turret ring
and the trunions. How does aiming for the former jam tha later?
A member of the 636th Tank Destroyers said the units tactic
was to aim short, and have the round skip off of the ground and
into the thin hull bottom. Of course, this only worked when the
ground was relatively hard. So, Afrika, okay. Italy, generally
okay, so long as it had not rained.
Bruce

Signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
kim - 29 Apr 2008 14:24 GMT
>> The favourite
>> target of allied gunners was the turrent ring. Once the trunnions
>> were jammed the tank was a sitting duck.
>>
> I am confused to the relationship between the turret ring
> and the trunions. How does aiming for the former jam tha later?
The "trunions" in question are the bearings on which the turret rotate.
Early British tanks weren't powerful enough to penetrate anything so they
just blasted away at the turret ring from all directions and hoped a lucky
shot would distort the metal and jam the ring. The tactic worked against a
Tiger because it's traverse was so slow to begin with. It didn't work
against a Panther as the latter would simply pick off the weaker tanks
one-by-one till there were none left.
(kim)
AMPSOne@aol.com - 29 Apr 2008 20:09 GMT
> >> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �The favourite
> >> target of allied gunners was the turrent ring. Once the trunnions
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> (kim)
Not quite. The turret race is what the turret sits on and is the ball
bearing ring on which it rotates. The turret trunnions are the pins
which hold the gun in the turret and on which it rotates. There is
little chance of hitting the trunnions on a Tiger II as they are very
well protected, but the turret race (and the gap between the turret
and the hull) are more vulnerable.
Cookie Sewell
Pat Flannery - 30 Apr 2008 01:28 GMT
> The "trunions" in question are the bearings on which the turret rotate.
>
Trunnions generally refers to the mountings the gun pivots up and down on.
Pat
kim - 30 Apr 2008 13:33 GMT
>> The "trunions" in question are the bearings on which the turret
>> rotate.
>
> Trunnions generally refers to the mountings the gun pivots up and
> down on.
I was just repeating what a British commander told me, I didn't look it up
or anything :o)
(kim)