Pershing VS King Tiger

Pershing was superior.

no way, the king tiger's 88mm gun was TOTALLY SUPERIOR to the Pershing's 90mm, also the king tiger's armour was not only thick, but was also sloped and therefore almost inpenetrateble. The Pershing also had many flaws of its own

PS: What's with these trigger words? I always sent them off and i have to retype my entries's. Does anybody know what the trigger words are?

"No" on the trigger words, and definitely "no" on the King Tiger. It was a total piece of junk that couldn't even complete road marches or operations. The only reason the Germans lost 25 King Tigers during the Bulge was that the vast majority of them broke down before reaching the battlefields. Even Peiper was smart enough to put them at the rear of his columns instead of the front. Of the 45 tanks available to him only 6 actually caught up to the frontlines and all 6 were lost.

There is on record a single engagement between a Pershing and a King Tiger. The Pershing won. The late war version of the 90mm could cut through a Tiger end-to-end and still bury its penetrator so deep into the ground that the ordnance guys couldn't find it. That gun would have had no problem defeating the front of the King Tiger, assuming the King Tiger didn't break down first. Although not fielded in WWII by choice, the 3.5" Bazooka could also have done the job. Even the 17 pounder's APDS round stood a chance of beating the mighty King Tiger. The King Tiger's heavy armor was pointless when compared to the antitank technologies coming out in 1945. It was a piece junk from the beginning.

The tigers had their problems espically the king tiger most of the time it self destructed, caught fire.

Pather was a better match. 90% hits at 1600 meters.

They are said to have installed or copied the U.S Gyro Stablizer that improved them as much as 50%.

I have to fine the book.

Frank

I keep reading and hearing about Panthers and Tigers hitting with 90% accuracy but the math doesn't always work out. For example, Staudegger at Kursk claimed to have destroyed 22 T-34's. When he ran out of AP he switched to HE before falling back to German lines. Assuming he was carrying the oft quoted ratio of 50-50 AP and HE, he expended over 2 rounds for every T-34. A tank firing from ambush could make a very accurate shot, so, 90% in those cases is reasonable. You are not being fired at and your targets are not scattering for cover. You can take the extra time you need to be sure of your aim. As for the Panther, it was inferior to the Pershing.

pershing

Its the pershing,its 90mm gun was SUPERIOR to the tiger I's 88. armor about the same

the guns were about equal, the pershing's wasn't SUPERIOR, it's a difference of 2 mm. I think the battle would be decided on the skill of the 2 tank commanders.