There was a similar idea for the invasion barges had Germany come across the channel involving an oil fuel mix poured onto the ocean from pipes and set alight by incendiary's dropped from an aircraft.
The 5 shermans to kill a tiger idea drives me mad. 5 shermans is a company, the smallest tactical unit on a battlefield. You send a company to deal with a threat.
---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Jim mate its tha movies what use would it have been if Tiger 131 took out all the M-4 tanks especially the hero to attack in an extended line like that is like ducks on a wire all nicely spaced & lined up the Tiger just had to stay put but the hero triumphed. I was disappointed in the movie thinking it would be a duel between these two somehow but we saw 131 for @1min besides I wonder how much they insured that tank moving it from Bovington & back it being the only working Tiger in the world and the first one captured intact by the allies after a stoush with some Churchills the crew bailing after a A P round jammed their main gun.
Yes Ovidio that book is a good read along with Von Rosen's book on the 503 Battalion, Sledgehammers now that is a great read for its size and being a soft cover jam packed with the flaws in the Tiger and their tactics but what a tank you cannot deny it where the only real way to deal with it effectively before purpose built tank killers evolved to take it on was to call in the Typhoons.
if the 76mm shermans had have plinked instead of moving theres a good chance they would penetrated at that range. That APCBC rounds in that gun are very similar in performance to the APCBC rounds on the QF 17Pdr
Well you will just have to stay mad then BFO .....compare the ballistics at the top thread and below compared to the attachment for the 75mm M-4 to the one below it was the ineptness and material superiority that defeated the Tigers plus 24 x 7 bombing did not help either. I may not respect what certain elements of the German heirachy did nor some units but the tankers were very well trained and good at the game you cannot deny that. How long did it take for the allies to build a ground based weapon that would go toe to toe and win the Russians had to build the IS series as the T34/85 could still have issues getting close enough.
Gun and armour performance[edit]
German soldiers inspect a non-penetrating hit to the Tiger's armour.
A report prepared by the Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 gave the calculated probability of perforation at range, on which various adversaries would be defeated reliably at an angle of 30 degrees.
The Wa Pruef report estimated that the Tiger's 88 mm gun would be capable of penetrating the differential case of an American M4 Sherman from 2,100 m (1.3 mi) and the turret front from 1,800 m (1.1 mi), but the Tiger's 88 mm gun would not penetrate the upper glacis plate at any range.[38] The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun would not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure.[38] The Sherman's upgraded 76 mm gun would have the possibility to penetrate the Tiger's driver's front plate from 600 m, the nose from 400 m and the turret front from 700 m.[38] The M3 90 mm cannon used as a towed anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun, and later mounted in the M36 tank destroyer and finally the late-war M26 Pershing, could penetrate the Tiger's front plate at a range of 1,000 m using standard ammunition, and from beyond 2,000 m when using HVAP.[39]
Soviet ground trial testing conducted in May 1943 determined that the 88mm KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34-76 frontal beam nose of 140 mm thickness from 1500 m, and the front hull from 1500 m. A hit to the drivers hatch would force it to collapse inward and break apart.[40][41][f] According to the WaPrüf, the Soviet T-34-85's upper glacis and turret front armour would be defeated between 100 and 1,400 m (0.062 and 0.870 mi), while the T-34's 85 mm gun would penetrate the front of a Tiger between 200 and 500 m (0.12 and 0.31 mi).[38] The 120 mm hull armour of the Soviet IS-2 model 1943 would be defeated between 100 and 300 m (0.062 and 0.186 mi) at the driver's front plate and nose.[38] The IS-2's 122 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's front armour from between 500 and 1,500 m (0.31 and 0.93 mi).[38] However, according to Steven Zaloga, the IS-2 and Tiger I could each knock the other out in normal combat distances below 1,000 m.[42] At longer ranges, the performance of each respective tank against each other was dependent on the crew and combat situation.[43]
The British Churchill IV would be vulnerable to the Tiger between 1,100 and 1,700 m (0.68 and 1.06 mi), its strongest point being the nose and its weakest the turret. According to an STT document dated April 1944, it was estimated that the British 17-pounder, as used on the Sherman Firefly, firing its normal APCBC ammunition, would penetrate the turret front and driver's visor plate of the Tiger out to 1,900 yards (1,700 m).[38]
When engaging targets. Tiger crews were encouraged to angle the hull position 45 degrees to the Mahlzeit Stellung of 10 ½ or 1 ½ o'clock. This would maximize the effective front hull armour to 180mm and side hull to 140mm, making the Tiger impervious to any Allied gun up to 152 mm.[44][45] Unlike the lighter Panzer IV and Panther tanks, the Tiger's thick side armour gave a degree of confidence of immunity from flank attacks. The tank was also immune to Soviet anti-tank rifle fire to the sides and rear. Its large caliber 8.8 cm provided superior fragmentation and high explosive content over the 7.5 cm KwK 42 gun. Therefore, comparing the Tiger with the Panther, for supporting the infantry and destroying fortifications, the Tiger offered superior firepower. It was also key to dealing with towed antitank guns.
Watch from 24 minutes through to 30 minutes for the interview with Pat & another tank commander who Wittman shot up at Villers Bocage.
edit: Apologies in advance. I typed this response elsewhere then cut/pasted it here. I guess that is where all the ***** s came from!
Greetings!* As a US Cavalry Scout (Retired) and most of my 20 years of service being in and around AFVs, I'd like to add some insights to this thread.
re Tiger concept, how armed, etc
ok, they 88 L/56 was in service, the 7.5 L/70 was still being developed....so you go with the sure thing in 1942. If you peel 20 tons or there about off a Tiger I and arm it with a 7.5 L/70...gee, you have most of the requirements of a Panther!
re 5 Shermans charging a Tiger
LOL!* Reality, the Tiger would announce its presence and you probably lose a Sherman right off.* The survivors would return (ineffective) fires while deploying out of the Tiger's line of sight/line of fire.* Quite often SMOKE shells would be used to blind the Tiger, perhaps start a fire. Or make the crew THINK that their vehicle was burning...pretty scary when you are in a box full of explosives with a huge tank of gasoline out back.* Smoke rounds are also used to mark for upcoming*artillery fires or air support, this concept was not lost to the Germans either.* Then add to the equation that why five Shermans when a Company has 14-17 tanks; the others deploying/moving for a flank shot that WILL ruin your day.* But the Germans and everyone else determined you do not use a single tank, you use a pair/section. You use a Platoon/4-5.* You cover and support your wingman/buddies.
NO, you do not dig your tank in, not a firebase in Vietnam. You scope out firing positions to cover engagement areas. You pick a PRIMARY and ALTERNATE firing position (preferably hull down) and to the rear of that you have a ambush/observation position just to the rear 10, 20, 30 meters where you can see the engagement area, the vehicle commander's head or a folding periscope only showing.* Imagine if you will, the primary and alternate positions forming the top prongs of a letter "Y" with the hide position being the bottom prong. You would also scope out a SUPPLEMANTARY firing position covering an alternate arc of fire.
You want to shoot from hull down to protect your tracks/suspension.* You also want to present your front armor at a 15* angle (edit: MINIMUM) to cause more deflections on rounds that may hit you, this also adds the effective thickness of your armor. You shoot an engagement then you back down, then move to your nearby*Alternate position to shoot the next target. If the going is too tough you have a bug-out plan with your platoon's SUPPLEMANTARY positions as well as coordination of Artillery or Mortar assets to fire a mix of HE and SMOKE while you get out of Dodge. You should already have identified EGRESS ROUTES and RALLY POINTS behind your initial positions and another line of resistance. You want to keep FREEDOM of MANEUVER, even in the DEFENSE. In the open, quite often Backing Up works great!
re* 7.5 L/70 and 8.8 L/56
Yes, the advantage in accuracy, range, and penetration goes to the 7.5 L/70.* It comes at a cost however. What you gain in the above departments you lose in the capability of your HE shell.* Rule of thumb here, "Bigger is better."* Larger diameter projectiles hold a lot more HE filler making them better to destroy pesky AT guns (mentioned many times by Carius), bunkers, dug-in Infantry. Tiger I was to be a breakthrough vehicle, HE capability highly desirable.*So you lose a little penetration but you gain a lot more utility keeping the 8.8 L/56.* I don't recall ANYBODY complaining about the capabilities/effects of the 8.8 L/56. Conclusion, the 7.5 L/70 was a dead-end program so far as I care.* Further, as the Soviets moved Westward, off the Steppes and into Central Europe, gone were the 2000m firing lines. When you reach Germany, hills, villages, trees, you're lucky to get a clear LOS at 1000m.
re Gunnery
German AP rounds have a nice near-flat trajectory.* At this, the 8.8 L/56, the 7.5 L/70 and the later 8.8 L/71 excelled! You do not have to change your sights.* You keep your battlesight setting with perhaps some Kentucky Windage and you're on target. Example, Battlesight is 1200m, target is at 800m, so you aim a bit low vs center mass. Short time of flight also helps greatly when engaging moving targets. Lower velocity rounds, Lower velocity cannon like the Shermans M-3 75mm gun or the 7.62 in the T-34 are more of a challenge at range. While at 500m the LOF is pretty flat, by 1000m a pronounced arc is taking shape meaning you have to deal with fall of the shot far more than the German weapons.
Overall German Designs
In early-mid 1942 as the first Tiger Is were coming together, cutting edge to field this beast. Heavy Armor, Great Gun, good mobility with fancy suspension and wide track, NOT as slow as some folks would lead on....but more on this another time. OLD slab-side armor concept but bear in mind, top quality steel was used.* A further thought, angled plates are larger than flat plates. So a 60mm angled plate with X extra size (compared to a flat plate) may weigh the same as a slab-side 80mm plate. I'll not do the math at this point.
Some thoughts on the Panther
OK, you take the 7.5 L/70 and put it in this big hull, complicated suspension. Its nice once you work the bugs out/gain experience. Bad decision on the final drives, another story. Yet you only make 6500 or there about because it is a fancy tank. Meanwhile, the Allies are cranking out Shermans and T-34s like hotcakes.* Both of these were GREAT in 1942 but were showing age in later 1943 and certainly in 1944 as the Germans now fielded the 7.5cm L/48 (and similar) guns in the Pz IV and all the AT vehicles.* While the Sherman and T-34 were good OPERATIONALLY, winning the ground war with numerical superiority, massive AIR, and ARTILLERY support; this is to say, an ADEQUATE COG of the MACHINE.* Meanwhile, TACTICALLY, the Germans were able to ventilate the Shermans and T-34s at will, very brave men here, much suffering.* But the Germans were not able to meet the Allied production and manpower, could not be everywhere in strength. All this leads me to comment that the Panther was too much tank.
Upon examination of the T-34s, the Germans came up with the Panther.* There was also another design, closely based on the T-34. This would have been a better route to pursue. What the Germans wanted with their new tank was battlefield superiority through TECHNICAL advantages. Sadly, for the Germans at least, they backed the wrong horse with the Panther. Lets roll back time to late 1941, early 1942 when designers were developing these two concepts.
o The Germans could have/should have developed the Soviet DIESEL tank engine as their own, improved. Pretty easy.
o The Germans f'd the dog by keeping the front drive concept when they had plenty of Soviet rear final drives to borrow from, improve.* With Front drive, you pay the penalty of extra hull height because the driveshaft must pass under the turret basket. With extra hull height you're paying the penalty of extra ARMOR height and weight all around the vehicle. I find this an engineering embarrassment to the Germans....they really were not thinking here.
o suspension. YIKES!* FANCY!!!!! Too much time and effort to make the parts, same for mounting this suspension*to the hull.* Then we have problems in the field and repair time with the interleaved roadwheels.* OK, they had a better idea with the Panther II.* Yet, with the GERMAN desire for TECHNICAL concept, everybody overlooked stretching the T-34 hull in length and width and the simple idea of adding a 6th roadwheel if needed! Maybe 6 big'uns like the T-34 would bee too much so 6 slightly smaller ones perhaps.* This would support the bigger turret ring required for my choice of weapons, the 8.8 L/56.
o this leads me to my conclusion as to what the Germans COULD HAVE DONE, glad that they didn't.* Bearing in mind the construction costs and time, manning requirements, logistics....let me offer this.**The Germans did NOT need "few" heavy tanks like the Tiger I or Tiger II.** The Germans did not need "several" Panthers.* What they really needed was a better STANDARD TANK and lots of them.* The StandardPanzer needed to have technical advantages, but not be a technical monster, a time and resource hog like the Panther. Needed here was a simple hull, simple suspension, good armor, reliability, and a good gun. OH, need to crank these out starting the Spring of 1943 in massive numbers.
What this more or less boils down to, with the advantage of Hindsight being 20/20, is a massive program that is something like the T-44 program the Soviets were fielding at the end of WW2.* I have sourced a few pics off the internet to illustrate my points. Easy hull to make, simple suspension, large turret ring....the Soviets used an 85mm gun then moved to 100mm gun for the T-54/55 program.* Pretty easy to design around the turret ring size required for a 8.8 L/56.* Imagine this with a few Teutonic features in the turret, like a later Tiger I or Panther cupula and the skirts in the second picture.* Manning goes from five crew down to four. GONE are most of the trouble of the Tigers, ie, size and weight.* I suppose it would not be a stretch for alternative turrets and guns to enhance production if enough 8.8 guns could not be made. How about a small turret version with the certainly adequate/successful 7.5 L/48 family of guns?**With a large turret ring, ASSAULT GUN versions possible.
I found it, but it's not available other than in French right now. Got one in German, "Als Panzeroffizier in Ost und West" again from Von Rosen, but I guess it's not the same book. This is more about his whole war experience, not about the 503rd Schwere Panzerabteilung.
It was on my list, so I guess I'll start getting that one.
Thanks again for the suggestion.
A report prepared by the Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 gave the calculated probability of perforation at range, on which various adversaries would be defeated reliably at an angle of 30 degrees.
[B]The Wa Pruef report estimated that the Tiger's 88 mm gun would be capable of penetrating the differential case of an American M4 Sherman from 2,100 m (1.3 mi) and the turret front from 1,800 m (1.1 mi), but the Tiger's 88 mm gun would not penetrate the upper glacis plate at any range.[38]
what the heck is THIS?
the 7.5 L/48 series had no difficulty here.....and this is a piece of cake for a 8.8 L/56!
The Sherman had 50mm front armor sloped at around 45* gives about 70mm effective armor
even the 75 L/48 will do around 90mm @ 30* pen at 1km or 109mm vertical armor
8.8 L/56 does at least 99mm @ 30* at 1km or 138 mm vertical armor
The US 75mm L/40 with the common M72 AP round would do 76mm vertical armor at 1000 yards, the M61 APCBC would do 86mm vertical armor
Kettbo have no idea that part it was in the burst yet it says it can penetrate the differential case and the Russian report goes to say the 8.8cm will penetrate 140mm of armour on their tanks anyway your burst was pretty good and agree that using ground & concealment was the best way to kill the Tiger. And it proves they used to have their tanks at @45 degrees to the enemy there fore increasing the arours thickness value to 180mm, I think the gun mantlet was 120mm thick.
I suggest you look at the link I posted and take the time to look at and listen to Pat's encounter with Wittmann Pat's gunner fired 3 times hitting the Tiger each time the last 2 times from a range of 100 yards every time the shot just bounced off the Tigers armour now I reckon the hole in the end of that muzzle brake on Wittmanns Tiger would have looked like a bl**dy great train tunnel and as stated he fired once with the desired effect on the M-4.
Originally they were looking at the KwK42/7.5cm gun for the Tiger which had pretty good all round ballistics the gun barrel being 70 calibers in length.
Its Pzgr39 7.5cm 15lb (6.8kg) round could penetrate 4.4" (110mm) armour at 30 degree slope at 1000m, the Pzgr.40 7.5cm 4.75kg (10.5lb) Tungsten cored could penetrate 5.9" (150mm) at a 1000m. The KwK36 8.8cm could penetrate 4" (100mm) and 5.45"(138mm) respectively at a 1000m. This is all sloped at 30 degrees
The difference being in the MV the 7.5cm were 3035fps for the Pzgr.39 and the Pzgr.40 4265fps the KwK 36 8.8cm was slower at 2536fps for the 8.8cm Pzgr.39 and 3015fps for the Pzgr.40 rounds.
Ovidio go to ABEBOOKS.com type in the title as you already have that & go from there there is plenty there it is a good read as well.
come across the channel involving an oil fuel mix poured onto the ocean from pipes and set alight by incendiary's dropped from an aircraft.
PM
Originally Posted by CINDERS
besides I wonder how much they insured that tank moving it from Bovington & back it being the only working Tiger in the world and the first one captured intact by the allies after a stoush with some Churchills the crew bailing after a A P round jammed their main gun.
.....compare the ballistics at the top thread and below compared to the attachment for the 75mm M-4 to the one below it was the ineptness and material superiority that defeated the Tigers plus 24 x 7 bombing did not help either. I may not respect what certain elements of the 
