Bad history weekend No.1 : The case of (not so) one-shot Tiger II

   It always turns out the same when one starts discussing the German tanks. It inevitably turns to Tigers and Panthers, which inevitably turns to either their reliability, or actual quality of their armor. Which will naturally lead to what people consider the holy grail on this subject, the test of Tiger II published on the English speaking side of the internet by the tank archives blog. It can be found here - http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html .

   What is it about? Well, it is a rather "scathing review" based on a test of various guns performed on a Tiger II hull and turret, along with a different test of a Panther, which is not relevant now. What is relevant, is a rather large number of visual and contextual peculiarities for a comparatively short text.

One hit Knock-out? 

   Author of the blog goes out of his way in setting-up a particular picture about this particular Tiger and this particular test. One can argue whether or not the placement of the picture showing the tank after 40 odd hits and penetrations over the description of the first shot was intentional,  but I have seen multiple examples of people that fell into the trap of thinking that that picture was the result of a single 122 mm HE shell.

Description of the first shot also helps misconception. 300x300 mm spalling - a very impressive result from a plain high-explosive shell on this thickness of steel. Tank is set on fire, it looks like a complete loss. Or was it?

Photo of the shot No. 1.

   Already, the "fisrt" impression is a bit different. However, were statements about a rather extreme spalling and fire true? Only partly - as people compiling the results have also included sketches with a number of shots that were taken, detailing the damage, what does that look like in this particular case?

   And here comes the first big problem, because it was not spalling, but a surface damage of 300x300 mm. I have checked other sketches, which, if included, also contain any internal damage caused and described in the report. So this, if the 300x300 mm written on the sketch were not evidence enough, means that the supposed "spalling" really was just a surface damage. And the fire? It seems to be a bit of a mystery, seeing as our spalling was no spalling at all, there was nothing really to cause it. We can look at the description of the shot:

 

   There it is at the end : "At the same time, flame (from the explosion) entered the tank though the opening in the ball mount and started a fire inside the tank." Seeing as "tank caught fire internally" from what seems like just the products of explosions partially entering it through a rather small opening, one can only speculate how serious, and whether this fire would happen at all under normal condition, as this particular Tiger II was in a quite disassembled state before the test, with sprockets (and possibly transmission), mantlet, gun and tracks missing. So one can only speculate what caught on fire after the hit and how it actually happened, as the after-action photo does not really reveal whether the ball mount is still in place after the detonation.

   However, this still is very different from a situation that was described by the author which would be more consistent with the effect of more modern HESH round. While damage was done, it certainly was not a complete vehicle kill.

  Before continuing, we should also take note of the fact that majority of 122 mm projectiles initially used are referred to as "flat" are actually the blunt-nosed BR-471B shells, These were, according to some sources, only put into service in early 1945.  Which would make this test a nice exercise, but it had little to do with any kind of real combat situation, as IS-2s, even if they were equipped with this shell, only had an ammunition capacity of 28 projectiles, and most of them would be High-Explosive.

    

Another issue is the fact that his test was performed with a an A-19 artillery piece, with a listed muzzle velocity for both AP and HE shells to be 800 m/s (those 2 apparently different projectiles also had other aspects of their behaviour calculated identically?) , and while this in itself would be a bit suspicious, it is yet again apparent that this article - "IS-2 vs. the German big Cats" is not exactly what it presents itself to be, as IS-2 uses the D-25T gun, which has a slightly lower muzzle velocity than A-19.

   Service manual for the self-propelled gun D25S, a gun with the same length of rifling and operating pressure, as D25T, lists the muzzle velocity as 781 m/s, compared to the field gun with 800 m/s.

   FOREIGN FIRING TABLE FT-F-122-2 also mentions a "somewhat lower velocity" of the tank gun.

This would certainly mean a difference in ranges where penetrations were achieved, however how big of a difference this would be, I have no idea.

Inconsistencies and inaccuracies in presentation and context continue from then on:

   Author states: Shot #4. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm AP pointed type. Distance: 600 m. 

Result: penetration, hole is 180 mm by 250 mm. A piece of armour is torn off the rear side, 580 mm by 500 mm, 80 mm in thickness. The shell struck close to the non-penetrating hit from shell #3. The shell remained in the tank."

   Remember, not only is would this not be 600 meters if the D25T was used, but author also uses a rather "creative" translation of: "The shell hit on the area weakened by hit No. 3. "

   The blog author seem to yet again try and portray this test in a certain way, different even from authors of the report, who acknowledge that the area was weakened.

And we can continue:

""Shot #5. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm AP pointed type. Distance: 700 m.

Result: dent 200 mm by 250 mm, 90 mm deep. A crack all the way through the armour, 150 mm long. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the lower front plate burst from the inside." 

   The crack not only appears near multiple armor edges, which are universally regarded as areas with lower resistance to damage and penetration, it is also still overlapping with the lower frontal armor.

Author, rather conveniently, ends the description of that test here. Why? Well, the shots that do not support the established narrative start here. Shot 7, a blunt-nosed, 122 mm BR-471B, from a distance of 600 meters, leaves a dent 180x120 mm in size, and only 35 mm deep. Shot 8, a 152 mm AP round, fired from a distance of 100 meters at the upper frontal armor, left a dent 190x270mm in size, with a bulge on the other side.

Author also seems to think that finding a Tiger II "with good quality armor" would be a challenge. Well, here is one example. A field trial of a Tiger II which was performed on 9th November 1944. It can be seen here : https://imgur.com/a/FcrkWfj .

100 mm BS-3 gun :

Distance: 600m.

Two hits on the upper frontal plate.

1. Dent 195x250mm, 75mm deep.

2. Dent 175x220mm, 80mm deep.

Bulges were observed on the back of the plate.

Distance: 800m.

One hit to the upper frontal plate.

1. Dent 195x220mm, 100mm deep.

No complete penetration,  bulging observed on the back of the plate.

Distance: 1000m.

1. A hit to the interlocking join between the upper and lower front plates. Dent 140x270mm, 100mm deep. The plates moved away from each other creating a 60mm gap.

2. Another hit to the UFP. Dent 120x240mm, 60mm deep. No bulges on the back.