Someone said: No, artillery was the most dangerous enemy for infantry, but tanks were protected against anything but a direct hit by heavy artillery. It's too hard to hit a moving vehicle with indirect fire, which is why tanks were often ordered to drive through artillery barrages. WRONG on several counts. First, artillery fire was a grave danger to tanks (even heavily armored ones like the Panthers and Tigers) as witnessed by the German accounts of the Kursk battles. Second, on the western front the Allies carpet bombed everything, which included tanks- camouflaged or not. Third, a tank out in the open was fair game to loitering Allied fighter bombers that hit them with 500-1000 lb bombs and/or rockets... even if they were moving. If you say a fighter-bomber couldnt hit a moving tank I suggest you talk to the men who flew Stukas, Il-2 Sturmoviks, Hs 123s, Typhoons, Tempests, and P-47 Thunderbolts. Cimbri

Second, on the western front the Allies carpet bombed everything, which included tanks- camouflaged or not. Third, a tank out in the open was fair game to loitering Allied fighter bombers that hit them with 500-1000 lb bombs and/or rockets... even if they were moving. If you say a fighter-bomber couldnt hit a moving tank I suggest you talk to the men who flew Stukas, Il-2 Sturmoviks, Hs 123s, Typhoons, Tempests, and P-47 Thunderbolts. A near miss or a direct with a bomb is required in order to be effective against tanks. If the tanks were concentrated on a relatively small area, it was possible to get near misses and even direct hits with bombs. However, it always required quite a bit of luck with anything else than a classical dive bomber. Rockets were a little bit better, but later studies showed that the hit probability a of Western fighter-bomber with full load of rockets against a tank was something like 2%. The only way to hit tanks reliably was cannons, and so the most successful tank killer aircraft were the Ju-87G and the Il-2 Sturmovik. Tero P. Mustalahti

In WWII, airpower proved to be a very inefficient way of destroying a tank, at least in the West.  Studies of German tanks lost after certain battles showed very few destroyed by aircraft. While Soviets operated huge quantity of capable tank buster, I think up to 10,000 at the end of the war, it still seams that may be only around 8% of the German tanks where destroyed by aircraft on Eastern Front. That the only number I saw for Eastern Front in one of the Dunn's book. Of course, judging from accounts of Il-2 pilots, tank busting was not main mission of the Shturmovik. From accounts it seams that strikes against airfields, bridges, road traffic, and suppression of the enemy fortifications and artillery was done far more often. Tank busting is not that often mentioned, and with few exceptions, tanks where probably more targets of opportunity. May be there where not that many targets to begin with. Tanks often where hiden in forests, and unless cut on the field or road, where hard to find. Anyway, 8% may be not totally small, but still simply insignificant comparing to about 70% of tanks destroyed by AT guns. I think the main reason why aircraft was not effective weapon against tanks because it lacked powerful AND accurate weapons to kill tanks. Stukas and Il-2s could strife tanks all day long, but at the end only few will brew up or burn out. Majority would be simply disabled or abainded by the crew, and probably eventually repaired.  That why all those stories about hundreds tanks destroyed by Stuka and Il-2 pilots should be taken with grain of salt. The correct thing would be to say disabled not destroyed, and great majority of those tanks were repaired to fight another day. Reliable tank busting from aircraft only appeared in the last 25 years or so with advance of laser, video, and radar guided weapons on large scale. Some modern aircraft can take out 10 tanks in one sortie, but taking out 1 tank per sortie during W.W.II was almost impossible and rarely achieved. I read about some Shturmoviks killing about 0.8 tanks a mission, and that by virtualy saturating the area with PTAB bomblets. In first use of PTAB HEAT bomblets, about a dozen Il-2's dropped some 1,200 of those bomblets and burn out 10-12 German tanks. Still, it seams that it took about 100 bomblets to kill one tank. Yevgeniy Chizhikov.

I don't think a King Tiger could penetrate the front of another King Tiger, except possibly at point blank range. King Tiger could punch through another King Tiger with easy. When Soviets used one King Tiger to fire at another, 88mm shell entered thr front turret, and comeout on the back of the turret. Yevgeniy Chizhikov.

WRONG on several counts. <snip Sorry, but I believe that the facts appear to contradict your position. In a study I did of Artillery Effectiveness Against Tanks in World War II, I discovered the following: In seven cases (Kursk, Normandy I, Normandy II, Falaise Pocket, Ardenees, Krinkelt-Rocherath, and Dom Buetgenbach) where reliable data on the cause of loss could be determined, of a total of 960 tanks lost (excluding abandoned and broken down) 12.8% were lost to artillery, 7.4% to aircraft, 4.8% to other causes (mines and handheld AT weapons), and 6.3% to unknown causes. The remaining 68.7% were lost to AP penetrations by AT guns or tank guns. In the Ardennes study by ORS No. 2 a number of PW interogations were included, one Obergefreiter of the 10th SS Panzer Regimental Workshop noted that he had worked on 100+ AFVs since 6 June and that of them 6 had been damaged by air attack, one by a bomb and 5 by 20mm fire. Non had been hit by rockets. Another of Panzer Lehr remarked that his tank had a bomb fall as close as 10 meters from it, without damage. At Kursk (at least on the Southern Front), it appears that a few Panthers were hit by artillery rounds (probably 152mm gun) all of the others were lost to mines, AP penetrations, or breakdown (mostly the last), but that no Tigers were lost to artillery fire. And in this case, it is even possible that the 152mm gun used in a direct fire role, since that was the orders for employment to the 152mm gun regiments. Which resulted in most of the few regiments that were available either being overrun or continually displacing as they attempted to evade being overrun...most of the regiments were lucky if they fired over ten rounds per gun, per day over the course of the battle.

Wittman and two other Tigers gained the road behind the British forward tank screen. Wittman's tank first hit a Cromwell than a Sherman, both unmanned, at the head of the infantry column then went up the road at speed machine-gunning the halftracks and infantry. Wow.  I'd think you want to push the Tiger as world beater in view of what you are saying. Clearly this British unit failed to put out adequate local security in the presence of the enemy. Walt