WI: Tiger tank with 105mm gun

What if Tiger tank with 105mm gun?

"In November of 1944, Krupp proposed to rearm all Tiger II tanks with a 105mm KwK L/68 gun, but it was rejected since the gun was not in use by the German army and its ammunition was two piece requiring a second loader."
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer...stiger-kingroyaltiger-tiger-ii-sd-kfz-182.htm

What if the Tiger I and II had been designed, from the start, to include a 105mm gun instead of the OTL 88mm? Would this more powerful gun have preformed better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_FlaK_38
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The 88mm was capable of killing all enemy tanks it engaged. A 105mm would have been equally capable, with even more power in reserve, but it would have been utterly unnecessary.

This being the case it is actually sort of startling that the Reich didn't do it.
 

Caspian

Banned
Why would they have been designed with a 105mm gun in the first place? That would be massive overkill, much more expensive, and much larger and heavier.
 
I would wager that the added complexity of the loader and additional round in the logistical supply change would in fact cause the Tiger tank to perform worse
 
The 88mm was capable of killing all enemy tanks it engaged. A 105mm would have been equally capable, with even more power in reserve, but it would have been utterly unnecessary.

Longer range? Assurance against those heavily armoured Soviet assault guns?
 

Caspian

Banned
Longer range? Assurance against those heavily armoured Soviet assault guns?

Longer range is meaningless without the fire control systems needed to actually hit their targets. 8,8-armed Tigers had plenty of useful range.

As for heavily armored Soviet assault guns, those didn't really come about until the Tiger I had already been introduced and were still vulnerable to the 8,8.
 
Longer range? Assurance against those heavily armoured Soviet assault guns?

The 88mm could already make kills out to 2000m, which is about the limit for any tank gun with WWII fire control systems. Soviet assault guns were actually very lightly armored compared to German tank destroyers--the ISU-152 had 90mm on the front, which is penetrable at most ranges by medium length 75mm guns, much less 88mm. Going to 105mm has another disadvantage: smaller ammo loadouts. WWII tanks routinely carried ~80 rounds whereas modern tanks carry around 40 rounds since they are so much larger.
 
Bunker busting role?

Random person on WOT forum:
"Unless you are a Hetzer or Stug nut, you wouldn't know of the 105mm types. The Stug 105mm was not very common, but were invaluable to kill bunkers with. More so then their 75mm brothers. I'm always happy to share info with people."
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/124948-german-105-cm-guns/

IMO there are better weapon systems for bunker busting than a Heavy tank with a long 88 or 105

Any SP Artillery from that era or specialist vehicle ie ARVE or Croc

The other problem with having a larger round is storage of the ammo - in any tank once you have used the 'ready use' stock the crew have to squirrel about and move shells around which seriously slows ROF after the first 5 - 20 shots depending on Calibre and layout.

Also the number of rounds would be drastically reduced - to probably half (40 odd) a standard load out

The long 88 was good enough to kill any tank in WW2 - hell the 'Long' 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 on the Panther was probably good enough.

Putting the 105 on the Tiger 2 Answers a question that didn't need to be addressed.
 
What you gain in lethality at longer ranges you lose in rate of fire and ammunition load . Their was no need for a 105 mm or even the 128 mm KWK cannons the Germans developed in WW2 . However their experience with the KV-1 in 1941/42 made it essential to have the next gun ready in any event . The other reason why the Germans developed larger guns is the use of strategic materials like Tungsten in APCR ammunition of smaller calibres.
 
The 88mm was capable of killing all enemy tanks it engaged. A 105mm would have been equally capable, with even more power in reserve, but it would have been utterly unnecessary.

This being the case it is actually sort of startling that the Reich didn't do it.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: the Reich and the Empire from Star Wars had the same weapons designer. Both had gigantic, cool looking machines with really obvious flaws.
 

marathag

Banned
What you gain in lethality at longer ranges you lose in rate of fire and ammunition load . Their was no need for a 105 mm or even the 128 mm KWK cannons the Germans developed in WW2 . However their experience with the KV-1 in 1941/42 made it essential to have the next gun ready in any event . The other reason why the Germans developed larger guns is the use of strategic materials like Tungsten in APCR ammunition of smaller calibres.

And the weight of the weapon itself.

The US high velocity 105mm, the T5E1 L/57 and used in the T28, weighed 6484 pounds. the US 120mm was similar.

The 90mm M3 was 2450 pounds, that was pretty close to the 88 L/56 in weight.
A higher power 90mm, the T15E1 was 3420 pounds, similar to the 88mm L/71 in power

The post war 90mm used in the US Pattons, was actually closer to the old M3 in weight( and cartridge size), but new powders and improved material, gave it the power
of the T15, and better penetrators gave the performance of the old 120mm
 
The 88mm was capable of killing all enemy tanks it engaged. A 105mm would have been equally capable, with even more power in reserve, but it would have been utterly unnecessary.

This being the case it is actually sort of startling that the Reich didn't do it.

I believe the late-model JS-2s were basically invincible to the KwK36/standard Flak88 and were a tough target for even the long 8,8.
 
I believe the late-model JS-2s were basically invincible to the KwK36/standard Flak88 and were a tough target for even the long 8,8.

Only the JS-3, which did not see combat in Europe was invulnerable to the normal 88. Rearming such a heavily armoured tank would be a massive waste of time, slow the rate of fire and be a pointless exercise. That being the case, it's a wonder the Germans, with their fascination for huge things, did not do it.
 
So the Tiger II, with a 105mm gun, in the later part of the war could be useful?

If the have to load first the heavy shell and then the powder bag, they probably won't be able to carry any more than fifty ? Shells plus powder bags and needing a crew of six?
 

marathag

Banned
Only the JS-3, which did not see combat in Europe was invulnerable to the normal 88.

The few Egyptian and Syrian IS-3 and T-10, an IS-3 with even more armor, didn't rampage against Israeli M4 rebuilds and 90mm Pattons in 1967.

The ones that were captured and not immediately scrapped, were buried and used as pillboxs
 
Only the JS-3, which did not see combat in Europe was invulnerable to the normal 88. Rearming such a heavily armoured tank would be a massive waste of time, slow the rate of fire and be a pointless exercise. That being the case, it's a wonder the Germans, with their fascination for huge things, did not do it.

I'm not talking about the JS-3, but the late 1944 production model JS-2 (the one incorrectly called JS-2M) with the straight glacis at 60 deg. IIUC it was supposed to be 120mm thick, but in production was often more along the lines of 100-110mm. Either way, this glacis was immune to anything under 8,8 L/71, and not terribly vulnerable even to it. Of course cast-hull vehicles were less resistant than rolled-hull, but unlike the Nazis, they had all the alloys they needed at least.
 
The few Egyptian and Syrian IS-3 and T-10, an IS-3 with even more armor, didn't rampage against Israeli M4 rebuilds and 90mm Pattons in 1967.

The ones that were captured and not immediately scrapped, were buried and used as pillboxs
I think crew quality played a huge role here. I don't think the battles would have been as one-sided had Israel gone up against front-line Guards armies from the USSR.
 
The few Egyptian and Syrian IS-3 and T-10, an IS-3 with even more armor, didn't rampage against Israeli M4 rebuilds and 90mm Pattons in 1967.

Actually, they kind of did: their frontal and much of their side armor were invulnerable to the Israelis tanks while they managed to score a number of kills on their part. But the typical incompetence of Egyptian and Syrian armies meant this counted for little in the end as the Israelis exploited their superior tactical and operational ability to outmanuever their tanks and get in position for a favorable kill.
 
Top