In battle, one on one, how would a match up between an Early version of the T-54 go against a King Tiger.

Usual answer: Depends on crew skills

From technical POV I'd believe both tanks being almost identical in their armor, gun performance etc., T-54 gets an edge in automotive department.

The T-54 would be much more likely to make it to the fight in the first place. It would also have great advantages in mobility, especially if the KT broke down as most of them did.

Tiger I vs. T-54 is a better match.

I would probably favor Tiger I since it was supposedly able to routinely hit enemy tanks at 2000 M but that may just be German BS.

Why? Tiger I would lose the things that would equalize a bit KT with T-54, that is thick armour and long 88, and wouldn't gain much as in the mobility etc. T-54 will still rule the field.



That's what I meant by edge in automotive department Faster, more agile, much more reliable...

If you want to compare a KT that existed to a T-54 then T-54 as KT won´t move far. If I imagine a KT built under different conditions then late war Germany with time and mateirals available to get the transmission working, then it is more interesting.

I'm quite suprised that everybody thinks that KT was unmovable. I read some stories from german tankers, and they were speaking that engine in KT was as good as any other engine in German tank, the only problem was, that there were no spares at the end of war. Any broken German tank was left behind, not only KT... Same thing happen to T-34 very often in the begining (1941), Russians were retreating, so they were not able to repair their tank quickly. T-34 had many technical issues, but all broken tanks were moved to the rear as front advances...

In ideal conditions King Tiger and T-54 (early) had same reliability level.

The T-54 should be superior, it is more reliable, has a better gun and protection is similar or superior.

Early T-54 had a glacis protection of 120mm@60deg, this was reduced to 100mm@60deg in later versions. Turret protection was 203mm. The tests performed by Yugoslavia showed that the 88L71 could penetrate the turret from 600-800 meters, and could not penetrate the glacis. The 100mm gun should be able to penetrate Tiger-II glacis from 600 meters and turret from 100-1500 meters.



The engine was the same that in Panther, which was 50% lighter, power to wight ratio was quite low. The Tiger-II was also difficult to tow due to massive weight, it could not go through many bridges and so on.

That was part of what I read, the 88 on the original Tiger simply did not have penetration equal to 100 mm cannon on the T-54 and the King Tiger's long 88 was suppose to have greater penetration than the Soviet 100 mm

Tiger II glacis is over 230mm, LOS. That seems like asking a lot of the T-54. What was the first round that could reliably defeat 150mm@50°? 20pdr APDS?

Tiger turret front seems doable but it's an awfully small target.

For the T-54 to have seen action, the war would have dragged out into 1946~7?, that means it would have faced more Tiger IIs, big TDs and assault guns, and Panthers.

How the Panther would have evolved in reaction to the introduction of the T-54 (and Pershing too) would have been more interesting. Up gunned to 88mm? Increased armor? All of which would have a detrimental effect on its weak transmission. Would they start over with a new design (the Leopard)?

Panther II project was supposed to have 88mm/71 AFAIK.

Yes, but the quality of steel at this stage of the war was much lower, 122mm HE rounds could leave huge cracks in the glacis or break the welding.



Panther-II was cancelled, and by 1946-47 the germans would be deploying the E-class tanks, which was an attempt to standardize componentes. The replacement for the Tiger-I and Panther would be the "E-50 Standardpanzer".

Good question.

Most likely they would have fielded Panther II . with the 7,5 cm KWK L/100 with more armor and a "Schmalturm" solution. Wit the option to go 88/71 in the future. One porotype made afaik. Drawings etc. more or less complete. Shoudl ahve shared part with Tiger II aka KT.

After that there was E-50, E-75 and the much vaunted but unpractical E-100.

"Could" isn't the same as "would". And the T-54 isn't the IS-2/3.

Well, the armour analysis in Kubinka showed that the Tiger-II armour was of much lower quality than in other panzers. The problem was big enough so that the soviets wouldn't have to change the IS-2 main gun. It was considered to put a 100mm gun, with better AT capability.

Are there any recorded instances of Tiger II (or Panther, for that matter) glacis penetrations (in combat, not in after-action tests)? Seems like there ought to be at least some encounters with M36 TDs, and I suspect 90mm couldn't do it. Soviet 100mm and US 90mm are pretty much equivalent, are they not?

HEAT would make this a different story...when did 100mm HEAT issue?

There should be quite a few for the Panther, I have seen a few but I would have to look for them. There are not known photogrpahs showing Tiger-II glacis penetration, I have seen one for the front turret, which was caused by a TD.

Erm, Russians are smaller, aren`t they?

Thanks dejawolf.





For this thread, this one should be remembered:
--> http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18562 (Yu guns vs armor tests of 1960s... gathered and published by bojan)

Oh, and to nit-pick on this little what if scenario, if the war had drawn out long enough for the "T-54" to get to the front lines, it probably would have been the T-44 instead. T-54 grew out of it after the war and was more refined (relatively speaking).

Wow. I am amazed at the size difference. That alone gives the T-55 a major tactical advantage.

I don't think the difference is quite as pronounced as that. According to quick searches, the T-54 is 94.5 inches high, and the KT is 121.7. - a difference of a little over two feet.

If you take that picture and scale it accordingly using 27 inches as the height differential, the T-54 comes shorter than 94 inches. It's close, though.

Depends on what you are using as the T-55's height. If its the top of the seachlight, then its accurate.
If you've ever seen a Tiger in the flesh then you will appreciate what a huge monster it is.

While it would have had to face them, its not really "fair" to compare the T-54 to the big Tiger. Its more in the class of the JS.

Actually, I was struck at how "not really huge" the KT at Knox appeared. Probably because my exposure to 'in the flesh' tanks prior to that were mostly M48/M60 series.

The Aryan super race needed more headroom for their ego’s and snazzy outfits

You just need to look south of your border to find the equally absurd designs of the T-28 and T-29E3.

dejawolf,

ww2 mod coming to SB?
KT modeled already?

Somehow I just knew it would happen.

And the answer is: No. It's just his personal hobby.

4 items for your consideration.

1. Main gun Depression. T-54's was 3 degrees? KT's was 7-8 degrees? KT better able to use reverse slopes or hull down.

2. Main gun rate of fire. T-54's is sometimes give as 4 rounds a minute. How much faster was the KT's?

3. Height of main gun. In some terrain/climate conditions T-54's low gun caused problems with dust/dirt kicked up by muzzle blast obscuring target for second shot. Many AFV suffered from this to greater or lesser extent.

4. Just how reliable were T-54's? One book claims that in 4-5 days a Soviet invasion of the West would have 30-40% of tanks sidelined with blown clutches, either main or steering. Didn't T-54s still use clutch and brake steering? While simple and cheap to manufacture, was it approaching the limit of vehicle size it could handle?

When this thread came up, my first thought was that due the relative equality of gun power, the first hit would win. I held off to read about other factors that would come into play.
Looking at the relative sizes of the two tanks, another thought comes up: would the larger size of the Tiger II enable it to tolerate more hits? My thinking is, that the vitals might not be as "concentrated" as in the smaller T54, so a hit might be more likely to miss something important, including (especially) crew.

The T-54/55 rate of fire was 4 shots per minute in movement, and 7 when the tank was static.

The Tiger-II ROF also varied depending on the rack. If using the ready ammo in the back of the turret the ROF was 6-7.5 depending on the height of loader and depression of the gun. If rack G was used the ROF decreased to 3.4 shots per minute.



Is this larger depression worth the extra size? not in my opinion.



It should be quite reliable. Chassis was not overloaded, and it was the first soviet tank which was capable of doing 2000 kms without any major overhaul/repair. The engine was used in modernized T-34/85 and IS-2.

2. Main gun rate of fire. T-54's is sometimes give as 4 rounds a minute. How much faster was the KT's?


It pays to save some postings now and then (note: not my posting, but something I have found on this forum a while ago, I did not save who wrote it, sorry)


This is from "Tiger Tanks" by Michael Greene.

Statistics from British ergonomic tests of a captured Tiger II:
Using the starage racks at the back of the turret, which contain a
total of 16 rounds for an early (Porsche, I suspect) turret and 22
rounds for a later (Henschel, I suspect) turret:
AVERAGE loading time in seconds:
rack/gun level/max elevation/max depression
A /9.6 /8.2 /10.1
B /8.0 /8.0 /9.3
4 different loaders were used. Their hieghts were 5'4", 5'10", 6'4"
and 6'1".

The longest time listed was to load was from rack G, which is to the
starboard side of the radio operator/hull machine gunner. The
average time to load from rack G was 17.8 seconds. Obviously,
rounds would only be used from rack G if the type of desired ammo
from racks A-F had been exhausted.


Claudio

Doesn't work that way. Almost any penetrating hit (or one that otherwise causes behind armor effects) is going to disrupt the operation of the tank, even if its not a catastrophic "brew up". Its how a lot of tanks get captured with relatively minor damage.

Question ?

Does anybody have any calculations or information as to at what range the 50 % chance of a hit is /was for these two dueling AFVs ?
Or what was the 2nd round chance of a hit at 1500 m. ? That type of data is crucial in determining the TK vs. T-** results potential.

If you look at Bojan's post on Yugo testing, it looks like neither one can penetrate the other's glacis at any range (unless the T-54 has HEAT that'll fuse properly at that angle of impact), and either can penetrate the other's turret face at ~600m.

The KT has an *awfully* small frontal turret area. And I suspect it's likely that its optics are superior to first-issue T-54 kit.

That's my main point , that the German optics were so good that a significant standoff range was a part of the engagement.

Also James 123's comments about rattling an enemy tank crew with non-penetrating hits is a bigger factor than most people realize , much bigger factor.

Without evidence that should be taken with a great deal of salt.

Russians have a lot of expertise in physics and optics .

Quality of optics is red herring. However didn't KT have a rangefinder? That would make a big difference.

What do you mean by "red herring"?

According the peruvian T-55 crews, quality of optics is ok. In any case the quality of soviet optics improved during 1944. Yugoslavians considered the ones in the T-34-85 superior and more robust to the Sherman, IS-2 optics were based on those used by Tiger-I.

KT did not have a range finder, only german vehicle with one was Nashron.

What is usually meant by this, a misleading, distracting, irrelevant clue. The optics quality is a popular argument when Soviet equipment is discussed, despite the fact that by the end of the war Soviet war optics technology was completely adequate.



In that case this aspect is even more of a red herring and can be safely disregarded

OK that was what I thought. Another disadvantage in the KT is the forward transmission, a hit, even if doesn't penetrate, could damage the transmission and inmobilize the tanks.

In any case, I find it pretty amusing that a 36t tank is being seriously compared to a 70t one, and is generally speaking fairing not that bad in the comparison even in direct one-on-one engagement, never mind mobility difference or a more realistic force ratio. This shows pretty well just how hopelessly obsolete King Tiger is

Yes and no. Although the Tiger II did not have true rangefinder, it's monocular telescopic site did have a limited range finding capability - not unlike an SLR Camera.

However, the Tiger II was due some pretty serious upgrades had German Industry been in a position to produce them. Maybach prepared a 1000 bhp supercharged version of the HL230 engine which was intended for both the Panther and the KT, but did not see production, and modified Turret design incorporating a stereoscopic rangefinder similar to that of the Panther F Schmallturm was designed. A Gyrostabiliser based on captured American exampes was tested in a Panther in 1945 and undoubtedly been retrofitted to the Tiger II too. I also understand that Krupp proposed (although I do not know if they went so far as to design) and 105mm tank gun based on the KwK43 L71.

If we assume only mechanical upgrades to the Tiger II, the fight beomes much more even handed. The Tiger IIs mobility was excellent - it was it's reliability that was the problem and with a more powerful engine and beefed up transmission this problem would have been at least partially rectified. Both vehicles carry weapons capable of defeating the other at any realistic combat ranges, so it really comes down to who spots the other and starts hitting first. The T54 definately has the advatage in terms of silhouette, but I understand that T54 crews always had a problem with combat awareness because their vision was pretty limited.

Also, the better Russian optics were copied from the (defeated) Germans post war. In scenario where the Germans are still fighting the Russian optical equipment will be of only average quality. The German Optics were genuinely second to none and will give the crew a distinct edge in a long ranged gunnery duel.

So far we're coming out about equal in my reckoning. The Germans have the edge in termsof actually hitting th target, but the Russians are harder to spot at range. In terms of Gun vs Armour, the Germans again probably have the edge, but in practical terms both vehicles are equally capable of destroying the other - so, as per usual it comes down to crew quality...

Incidentally, the T54's much lower profile was not without price. T54/55s were cramped and uncomfortable places to fight, and carried less than half the ammunition load of a Tiger II.

To be honest, however, this isn't a very meaningful comparison. Far better to compare the T54 to the Panther F with schmallturm and 88mm gun, and to compare the Tiger II to the US T29 Heavy Tank...

In a similar vein....



So did the Americans, the M60 is a meter taller than the T-54 and twenty tons heavier.

Things like over double the ammo (80 vs 34) and a dedicated radioman were good. Also room for the crew to work. T-54's turret was so cramped the gun had to be taken off target to max elevation after every shot to reload, and the turret had no basket/rotating floor, so the loader had to stagger around following the gun. Gun depression was very limited (again by the low turret) so if your enemy is over a ridge the tank has to crawl out over it.

To remove the gun for service the back of the turret had to be popped up so the gun could come out the back, and to service the engine or transmission the turret had to be removed completely, not good as the early T-54's were troublesome and removing the turret was difficult.

Steering was by pure muscle power, and mallets were issued to get the manual trans in gear. No fume extractors in the early versions either, in case the driver wasn't miserable enough.

T-54 is more the 1948 version of a Stug, cheap and cheerful, great on paper (and if presenting to Hitler or Stalin) deadly if used correctly but with severe limitations. Still pretty impressive for what it was and apparently easy to make in great numbers.

Of course by the time the T-54 made it to the battlefield the Tiger II (or it's equivalent E-series) would have had a rangefinder, the HL 234's extra 400 hp, and most probably the 105 mm proposed by Krupp.

Apples to oranges, as mentioned. The King Tiger is really the predecessor of the M1/Leopard II/Challenger 2 series of tanks, and the T-54 is an early T-72.

I thought the mallets were a feature of the KV series gearbox...

However, good point about the fume extractor - it's a little known fact that the Tiger II actually had a fume extraction system where a pneumatic cylinder (charged by the guns recoil, IIRC) would discharge up the barrel after firing, thus drawing the cordite fumes with it...

Probably the same engineer.

'Good engineers have pretty strong feelings about what is right and what is wrong. What is right is their way, what is wrong is everyone else’s way.'

Would the T54 really have been facing A fully upgraded Tiger II or an E50 or 100? Off the top of my head, I can't see any situation that would have allowed the Germans to have the resources to do those upgrades, but still have the Soviets in the game.

PERHAPS if the germans had managed to knock britain out of the war, but I have serious doubts about that.

Can anyone present a situation where the Germans would have had the resources to field the upgraded Tiger II or an equivalent(roughly) E series tank, but the Soviets ALSO had the resources to field the T54?


I would think the Germans would have had to be winning to field such upgrades, and the Soviets might have only had to NOT BE LOSING to field the T44 or T54.

Double the ammo is useful, but a dedicated radioman was a thing of the past.

What has one got to do with the other? On Leopard the gun is also taken off target to reload. I assume it's because it's so cramped?



Again, what has one got to do with the other. T-55 got the floor in the same armored volume.

Where do you get this shit, seriously.



This analogy doesn't hold water.

No it's not. It's a predecessor of nothing, a totally dead end tank. An ultra-heavy with armament of a medium and protection of a medium/heavy.



Again no it's not.

Its been known since day dot that the Russian's do not and never did consider the tank as the primary AT system on the battlefield. When your operational norms call for 100 guns/launchers, 50 tanks, 1000 men and a kazillion AT/AP mines per km of front*, the measurable performance of individual armoured vehicles at the tactical level is relative to the overall operational requirement.
5 KT's killing 75 T-54's is meaningless when 500 guns/launchers are displacing to shell the shit out of the known KT positions. And 300 T-54's are running amok in the rear.


*Numbers exaggerated for effect