VK3001P article errata

Hello everyone,

well, looks like I made a “slight” mistake in my VK3001P article. Basically what happened was: I took two sources, that are usually reliable (because they themselves use Jentz, Doyle and Spielberger) as reference: I.Pejčoch’s “Obrněná technika” series and www.valka.cz (which usually uses Pejčoch/Doyle/Spielberger for reference).

First source claimed 50/40/30mm armor on VK3001P, second source claimed the same numbers. I usually triplecheck data only if the piece of info seems “fishy”, but somehow it didn’t. Especially when the www.valka.cz article claims to use probably the best source on VK3001P there is, the “Thomas L. Jentz, Hilary L. Doyle – Panzerkampfwagen VI P (Sd.Kfz.181) The History of the Porsche Typ 100 and 101 also knows as the Leopard and Tiger (P)

The problem is, both sources were wrong and the valka.cz article took incorrect info from Doyle. Now, I am not trying to shift blame for feeding you back info – I screwed it up, I am just explaining how I got there.

Above, you can see Doyle’s schematics for VK3001P. The armor number is not readable properly, but comparing it to the (known) frontal turret armor thickness (80mm), it looks like 80mm.

Doyle’s Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WW2 (which I generally use only as auxilliary source) states 80/60/60 hull armor. Good enough. As a third “proof” of sorts, the abovementioned Jentz/Doyle “History of Porsche Typ 100″ specifically confirms that the side armor is 60mm. The funny part is, the frontal armor is mentioned nowhere as specifically being 80mm, the only mention is that in Typ 101 (leading to VK4501P), it is mentioned that the armor was increased from “something” to 100mm.

So, in the end, the hull armor really historically (as far as we can tell) was 80/60/60mm thick and I was wrong. That makes the vehicle a definite tier 6 candidate and it moving anywhere is very, very unlikely.

And where the 50/40/30 came from? Honestly, I don’t know. It’s possible that someone switched VK3001H and VK3001P data. It’s theoretically even possible that the first take on VK3001P (from as early as 1939) really had the 50/40/30mm armor, but Doyle never mentions it anywhere. So that’s it I guess.

I made one more (albeit smaller) mistake: I stated that the Achtungpanzer piece of info, that 105mm L/52 was considered, was probably wrong. It wasn’t – it really actually was considered.

So, once again, sorry for misleading you, I’ll be more careful in the future.

23 thoughts on “VK3001P article errata

  1. It’s enough to drive a chap to drink – I’ll send you the bill for a replacement liver.

  2. 80/60/60….seems to me like a KV-1 But KV-1′s turret is stronger.
    Stuck it up with the 75mm L/48 and you have a tier 5 heavy.

  3. Yeah, it’s totally tier 5 level armor for a heavy, I’d even say slightly below average. The KV-1 has much more because a 15mm difference is huge for side armor, plus it also has super-absorbent tracks.

    • Just because it compares to the kv-1, doesn’t mean it should be tier v. In tier vi we have the kv-1s with worse armor, the kv-2 with the same hull, the arl with only a good front plate, the 3601h, the m6… There’s a whole tech tree to fill.

  4. Any idea about hatches for the driver and radioman? That drives me nuts on the 30.01P and the 45.02A – I can’t imagine that the designs called for no hatches other than the ones on the turret, and yet none are modeled in game. Do you know of any information in the drawings or research about them? I know the Tiger P seems to model them on the side of the hull, much like the 30.02 DB…that would seem to be the most likely place.