The Superior King Tiger

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com


Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what a wonder
weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it really was?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs, destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and support.

Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what
a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it
really was?

Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some
time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You
might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite
often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45
time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time
and resources that they needed in other places.

A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had
with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites
(the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188
tons of weight in the damned thing.

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/7/2004 6:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman (except the
Firefly British conversion).

...as long as you didn't mind that it had to pretty much sit there and
not go very far, due to high ground pressure and very high fuel
consumption (a King Tiger in mud became a landmark). Add in the very
high maintenance problems, and you had a really tough, sorta-mobile
fortress. The Allies did the obvious and ran around the KTs,
destroying
their support structure, then captured and destroyed a lot of them
after
they ran out of gas.

Definitely follows on the German habit in WWII of coming up with a
really cool design that turned out to be a problem to build and
support.

Did you happen to notice the article teuton offered as proof of what
a wonder weapon King Tiger was actually describes what a flop it
really was?

Yeah, but I've known about the weaknesses of the King Tiger since some
time in the early 1970s, when I started getting interested in WWII. You
might note that the problems with the King Tiger were mirrored quite
often with most of the things the Germans tried to build in the 1940-45
time period. Too expensive, hard to maintain, and used up too much time
and resources that they needed in other places.

A lot of the Ballantine War Books covered the problems the Germans had
with overengineering their machines. The Maus was one of my favorites
(the coaxial 128mm and 75mm guns were a bit much, not to mention the 188
tons of weight in the damned thing.

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm

I wonder what the rough field performance was? Max speed for mobile warfare?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:06:39 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:


Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).


Quite, think of all the fist fights at allied airbases, typhoon and jug
pilots going at it hammer and tongs, to try and decide who'd have the
pleasure of plugging it.

8 x 60lb RPs or 8 x HVARS delivered at a suitable angle is really going to
mess up someones day.


greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:06:39 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Then there was the seldom-mentioned Krupp P1000 Rat. One THOUSAND tons.
Two 280mm main guns. Or the P1500 variant with an 800mm mortar(!) and a
couple of 150mm cannons... (I still have trouble believing that they
were really thinking of building something like this, even early in the
war).

Quite, think of all the fist fights at allied airbases, typhoon and jug
pilots going at it hammer and tongs, to try and decide who'd have the
pleasure of plugging it.

8 x 60lb RPs or 8 x HVARS delivered at a suitable angle is really
going to mess up someones day.

The problem was that the thing had enough armor on it to shrug off most
light/medium rockets, and would certainly have been tailed closely by a
flock of AAA in the "Whirlwind" category. Of course, it was big enough
to be a target for the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs. Wouldn't you like
to have some film of *that* little scenario?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:49:49 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:


The problem was that the thing had enough armor on it to shrug off most
light/medium rockets,

Dunno about the HVAR, but AIR the 60lb RP used by the UK came in two forms,
one with a HE warhead and the other was solid originally intended for tank
killing, but ended up doing sterling work for anti shipping.

and would certainly have been tailed closely by a
flock of AAA in the "Whirlwind" category.

True, however it couldnt be any worse than sending P47s against LW bases.

Of course, it was big enough
to be a target for the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs.

Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs intended
for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate.

Wouldn't you like
to have some film of *that* little scenario?

One assumes that that 12 inch 'tiny tim' RP as used on Okinawa would have
been available for dealing with such eventualities. Of course aiming it
accurately enough would be another matter.




greg



--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...



Of course, it was big enough
to be a target for the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs.

Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs
intended
for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate.

When you consider how few examples of the tank they could have made, it
would have been simple to just send over some B17s or Lancs and carpet bomb
the damn things.

On Sun, 9 May 2004 23:55:28 +1000, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


Slight overkill LOL. Both the US and UK had 2000LB class AP bombs
intended
for anti ship use which would have been more than adequate.

When you consider how few examples of the tank they could have made,

The only good thing is the amount of T&E the germans wasted on these Wunder
weapons.


it
would have been simple to just send over some B17s or Lancs and carpet bomb
the damn things.

Assuming they could get them to the front in the 1st place.


greg



--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"