User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:29:44 PM EDT
  1943 – Tiger tanks are used for the first time at Bau Arada, Tunisia. Neither the British nor the US have anything which can face them on equal terms. Development of a heavy tank design had been initiated in 1937; the initial design contract was awarded to Henschel. Another design contract followed in 1939, and was given to Porsche.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#cite_note-Jentz_.26_Doyle_1993.2C_p._3-15][13][/url] Both prototype series used the same turret design from Krupp; the main differences were in the hull, transmission, suspension and automotive features.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#cite_note-Jentz_.26_Doyle_1993.2C_p._3-15][13][/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:31:14 PM EDT
[#1]
I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:36:00 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:36:50 PM EDT
[#3]
First use of the Tiger tank was August/September 1942 on the Leningrad front.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:44:49 PM EDT
[#4]
I love these threads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:45:16 PM EDT
[#5]
Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:48:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:48:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Paging Manic_Moran!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:48:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? Flank shot yes. Frontal armor, at 200 yards. No bueno for the TD crew. Better to go with the M-36 Jackson with its 90 mm gun. Ditto with the same 90mm gun of the Pershing. The 122 mm gun of the JS II could take on the Tiger and the King Tiger. Heck, a 6 pdr could take out the Tiger with a flank shot at close range. Tiger one is one awesome WW II tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:49:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:49:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:51:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote History9 Quoted: Quote History9 Quoted: Quoted: I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Well, the Germans had a 3 year head start on us. Their tanks they started with in 39 were a joke. But tank Darwinism allowed them to perfect their designs while were at peace most of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:52:02 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Not without fuel he didn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:55:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First use of the Tiger tank was August/September 1942 on the Leningrad front. Yup. A platoon of four Tigers was put into action on 23 September 1942 near Leningrad.[40] A battalion of Tigers was deployed to the Don Front in the autumn of 1942, but arrived too late to participate in the attack to relieve Stalingrad, (Operation Winter Storm). In the North African theatre, the Tiger first saw action during the Tunisia Campaign on 1 December 1942 east of Tebourba.[42] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:56:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not without fuel he didn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Not without fuel he didn't. It apparently was a logistical disaster as well. More often than not, they were always having to be repaired and a large chunk of the time, not running at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:00:11 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:01:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. Quote HistoryQuoted: 9 Quoted: Quoted: I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Well, the Germans had a 3 year head start on us. Their tanks they started with in 39 were a joke. But tank Darwinism allowed them to perfect their designs while were at peace most of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:02:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. They did once, meet practically on top of each other. The M26 was nicknamed "Fireball". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:05:28 PM EDT
[#18]
I just found this website looking for a factoid about the tiger I remember reading (hit something like 70+ times and crew survived - probably lots of 37 and 57 mm rounds - it was on eastern front) . It looks like a pretty good summary
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:06:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not without fuel he didn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Not without fuel he didn't. He still had fuel in 43. After the Ploesti raids, a more difficult proposition. As a complete aside, when I worked at the VA, I had a case of a veteran who was captured after being shot down on a raid, I think it was Ploesti. Anyway, it was a 300' at 300mph bombing run. Dude bailed out and pull his chute immediately. Was lucky enough to survive the fall, but broke both his legs (we helped get him his purple heart for that). Also, he was lucky enough to be captured by the Luftwaffe and spent the rest of the War as a prisoner in camps run by them. I had his file which held his wartime records. The German (luftwaffe) doctors included his medical records. Each page contained one in German made by the doctor and an english translation made (by the Germans) for every page that was in German. Their "english" was proper but was written in old fashioned "german" style script, which while in English, was a challenge to read. It was almost like calligraphy. All very thorough and correct. It was incredibly interesting for someone like me with an interest in history.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:07:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Tiger and Tiger II were entirely different tanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:11:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tiger and Tiger II were entirely different tanks. When I worked at APG, I used to drive by an example of each twice a day. Very boner inducing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:13:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First use of the Tiger tank was August/September 1942 on the Leningrad front. That's what I thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:13:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Tiger and Tiger II were entirely different tanks. When I worked at APG, I used to drive by an example of each twice a day. Very boner inducing.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:16:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love these threads. they get interesting |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:16:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When I worked at APG, I used to drive by an example of each twice a day. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Tiger and Tiger II were entirely different tanks. When I worked at APG, I used to drive by an example of each twice a day. Very boner inducing. I used to go down to the Ordnance museum sometimes on my lunch break (when I was an Army civilian). It was fucking awesome and never got old. Pretty much every tank from WWI to the present, they had it there. Small arms and crew serveds too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:18:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love these threads. What are you wearing?  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:20:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic81987.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:23:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A tank destroyer isn't just a field gun. Its mobile, on tracks, has armor, and was the US answer to med and heavy German tanks. The question I posed is whether or not a 76mm cannon with HPAV could take out a Tiger? I believe they could. Certainly the later 90mm M36 could, but I'm not sure about the M10 though. Side, definitely, frontal, not so sure. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic81987.jpg Unfortunately, it has no overhead armor and relied on speed for security. It had as good a gun as was fielded by the US at the time, but the platform was dicey for the crew, to say the least. Interestingly, the hellcat tank destroyer saw combat again in the Yugo break up wars of the 1990's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:18:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A tank destroyer isn't just a field gun. Its mobile, on tracks, has armor, and was the US answer to med and heavy German tanks. The question I posed is whether or not a 76mm cannon with HPAV could take out a Tiger? I believe they could. Certainly the later 90mm M36 could, but I'm not sure about the M10 though. Side, definitely, frontal, not so sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic81987.jpg Yes, it could. High-Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. The increased penetration of HVAP allowed the 76 mm gun M1 to significantly outperform the Panther's 7.5 cm KwK 42. [66] The round was theoretically capable of penetrating the Panther's upper glacis armor from normal combat ranges, although it had a tendency to bounce off thick, highly sloped plate that it otherwise would have penetrated. The Panther's mantlet however was highly vulnerable to HVAP and could be penetrated from over 2,500 yards (2,300 m).[67] Because of tungsten shortages, HVAP rounds were constantly in short supply. Priority was given to U.S. tank destroyer units; most Shermans carried only a few rounds and some units never received any.[68] But even then, the M1A2 could still pen a Tiger frontally: Conditions later in the war necessitated up-gunning to the 76 mm L/55 M1A2, which could penetrate 143 millimetres (5.6 in) of unsloped rolled homogeneous armor at 100 meters (110 yd) and 97 millimetres (3.8 in) at 1,000 meters (1,100 yd) using the usual M79 round.[48] The M1A2 helped to equalize the Sherman and the Panzer IV in terms of firepower, although the M4 still needed improved ammunition in the form of tungsten rounds to equal the Panther, with its much more powerful 7.5 cm KwK 42 gun. The KwK 42 could penetrate 185 millimetres (7.3 in) at 100 meters (110 yd)[49] and 149 millimetres (5.9 in)  at 1,000 meters (1,100 yd) using the usual PzGr.39/42 round. The British-developed Sherman Firefly was an M4 re-gunned with their own, 3-inch (76.2 mm) caliber QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun. The 17 pdr was a 76 mm gun and had a 55 caliber barrel but used a much bigger charge which allowed it to penetrate 140 millimetres (5.5 in) (of RHA sloped at 30 degrees) at 100 meters (110 yd) and 120 millimetres (4.7 in) at 1,000 meters (1,100 yd) using APC Mk.IV shot.[51] This gun allowed the Firefly a firepower equal to that of the Panther, especially with APDS, although the muzzle flash due to unburnt powder from the increased charge left crews momentarily blinded after firing.[9] A US comparison concluded that the 17 pdr gun and turret was generally inferior "to like components" of the M4A3 (76 mm).[52] The sabot 17 pdr rounds also suffered from far greater dispersion than either the American 90 mm or 76 mm guns.[53][54] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:23:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic81987.jpg Unfortunately, it has no overhead armor and relied on speed for security. It had as good a gun as was fielded by the US at the time, but the platform was dicey for the crew, to say the least. Interestingly, the hellcat tank destroyer saw combat again in the Yugo break up wars of the 1990's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:23:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are you wearing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love these threads. What are you wearing? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:40:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What are you wearing? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I love these threads. What are you wearing?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:43:10 PM EDT
[#33]
It's amazing that a Tiger and an M1 Abrams were nearly identical in weight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:46:02 PM EDT
[#34]
"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to LET THEM SHOOT HOLES IN ME!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 11:10:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's amazing that a Tiger and an M1 Abrams were nearly identical in weight. yeah but if you think about it, EVERYTHING on Tiger 1 was steel.....Abrams has rubber in places, composite armor, etc. Plus, it's only the original M1 Abrams that weighed the same. Anything above the M1 weighs 60+ tons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 11:42:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It apparently was a logistical disaster as well. More often than not, they were always having to be repaired and a large chunk of the time, not running at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Concur. But unfortunately they weren't ready in 43. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Not without fuel he didn't. It apparently was a logistical disaster as well. More often than not, they were always having to be repaired and a large chunk of the time, not running at all. I read somewhere that during the entire war there was never more than 100 Tigers or so operational at any one time due to breakdown, lack of fuel or battle damage. I don't recall the site but it was linked in one of MM threads several months ago. They made less than 1500 Tiger I's before moving production to Tiger II's, and less than 500 Tiger II's were ever produced. Massive waste of resources IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:04:59 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. Yes....but what about the 3 years in between? Actually, the British 17lbr made Swiss cheese is it of tigers. However, the British were still using 2 and 6lb cannons when the tiger appeared. So apprehensive was the tiger for the first year, you were not allowed to say tiger on the radio during the North Africa campaign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:07:09 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? The 76mm had to get within 400-500 yards while the tiger could rip you a new one from any visual distance. A man armed with a .308 rifle vs a man armed with a 9mm pistol. They're 200 yard apart. Who wins? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:09:27 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 76mm had to get within 400-500 yards while the tiger could rip you a new one from any visual distance. A man armed with a .308 rifle vs a man armed with a 9mm pistol. They're 200 yard apart. Who wins? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? The 76mm had to get within 400-500 yards while the tiger could rip you a new one from any visual distance. A man armed with a .308 rifle vs a man armed with a 9mm pistol. They're 200 yard apart. Who wins? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:10:26 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
9 Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd think a Pershing could have taken one, head to head. In 43, this guy owned the battlefield. Well, the Germans had a 3 year head start on us. Their tanks they started with in 39 were a joke. But tank Darwinism allowed them to perfect their designs while were at peace most of the time. No. It was their 37mm guns bouncing off of t-34's. The Russia campaign expedited advances in armor. Since we were not in Russia we were a couple years behind and there was poor doctrine by some leadership on tank vs tank combat. Interestingly, the medium velocity barreled 75mm on the Sherman had better anti personnel properties than the 88. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:10:31 AM EDT
[#41]
Tiger IIIB was the best Tiger.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:12:52 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote History17lbr. 80mm side armor. 104mm frontal. Now wanna guess how far away that tiger can kill allied armor? Also interesting, the lower front plate on the Panther was impossible to penetrate with allied armor, even late war 90mm guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:14:22 AM EDT
[#43]
The tigers were a complete waste of resources. You had to cart them around everywhere via truck. Their powerplant was underpowered. They couldnt cross most bridges due to weight. They could barely go 50 miles without breaking down. So heavy that only a tiger recovery vehicle could move them. Logstics wise germany could have made 4 panzer IVs for each tiger. The americans made 6 shermans for each tiger. Add in the fact that their poor reliability meant that half of them broke down before ever making it into combat further increasing the allied ratio of against those who did make it to the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:15:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately, it has no overhead armor and relied on speed for security. It had as good a gun as was fielded by the US at the time, but the platform was dicey for the crew, to say the least. Interestingly, the hellcat tank destroyer saw combat again in the Yugo break up wars of the 1990's. Do you know how many of the Tigers were deployed total in Tunisia in '43? I've heard horror stories about their maintenance, especially in the beginning. I wonder if they did anything at all to really influence the battle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic81987.jpg It had as good a gun as was fielded by the US at the time, but the platform was dicey for the crew, to say the least. Interestingly, the hellcat tank destroyer saw combat again in the Yugo break up wars of the 1990's. Do you know how many of the Tigers were deployed total in Tunisia in '43? I've heard horror stories about their maintenance, especially in the beginning. I wonder if they did anything at all to really influence the battle. Mentioning tiger in the radio could easily lower moral. Low moral affects ability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:19:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have sources for that range claim? Besides, my understanding was that the average tank engagement with in the hundreds of kilometers. US Army didn't fight in the steppes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Couldn't the tank destroyers take out a Tiger with HVAP rounds? The 76mm had to get within 400-500 yards while the tiger could rip you a new one from any visual distance. A man armed with a .308 rifle vs a man armed with a 9mm pistol. They're 200 yard apart. Who wins? I'll have to go back 10 years. Was in a game WWIIOL and the software company and many members in forums provided background info on real life test trials to implement in the game. I was up, many a night reading them. You had to hit the lower glacius. The mantle had another 40mm plate frontally and was impossible to penetrate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:19:48 AM EDT
[#46]
If you haven't read it, Tigers in the Mud is excellent.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:23:40 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The tigers were a complete waste of resources. You had to cart them around everywhere via truck. Their powerplant was underpowered. They couldnt cross most bridges due to weight. They could barely go 50 miles without breaking down. So heavy that only a tiger recovery vehicle could move them. Logstics wise germany could have made 4 panzer IVs for each tiger. The americans made 6 shermans for each tiger. Add in the fact that their poor reliability meant that half of them broke down before ever making it into combat further increasing the allied ratio of against those who did make it to the battlefield. They were logistical nightmares until you were in a tank battle. Germany could have done a lot of things differently but it only would have prolonged the war another 2 years. Germany was against everybody and since there was no way they could hit our production, it was simply a war of attrition they could not keep up, be it 6x panzer 4's for every tiger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:24:20 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately, it has no overhead armor and relied on speed for security. It had as good a gun as was fielded by the US at the time, but the platform was dicey for the crew, to say the least. Interestingly, the hellcat tank destroyer saw combat again in the Yugo break up wars of the 1990's. The first US tank destroyers were towed guns. The US army then field guns mounted atop of the M-3 halftracks. Later on they had the tracked open top tank destroyers. The lack of the overhead armor was actually good for the crew. They could bail out faster and suffered fewer casualties than the Sherman crews. Kill ratio for the TD force was much higher; but then again they did a lot of ambush (hit 'n run). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:25:13 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's amazing that a Tiger and an M1 Abrams were nearly identical in weight. King Tiger (68 tons) and M-1 Abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:25:48 AM EDT
[#50]
I think I read once that the power steering unit on that tank was such that it could be steered with one finger.
Amazing, for its time anyway. Oh, and there's this... (I know all the words to this in German) 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
