Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
antwony
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 30 Jun 2016 09:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by antwony » 12 Jan 2019 13:14

Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2018 12:29
''The record shows that the Germans consistently outfought the far more numerous Allied armies that eventually defeated them... On a man for man basis the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and they did not, when they won and when they lost.'' -A Genius For War, by Trevor Dupuy.
Would be fair to say I'm not a fan of Dupuy's. Don't want to be too critical of him, as he certainly put a lot of effort into his research and imagine it would be relevant/ accurate of some purpose (which I'm not entirely clear of). But, for me, he's proto internet fanboi. League tables are for sport, not hsitory.
Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2018 12:29
Its a useful comparison to make between the opposing armys. In 1940, Germany conquered Holland, Belgium, and France in just 6 weeks. In 1944, a crushingly superior Allied force retook France (and most of Belgium) in 15 weeks. Of course, you'll probably argue that the extra time required by the British and Americans was simply a function of it being an amphibious invasion.
Apples and oranges for me.
Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2018 12:29
The Enigma cypher wasn't cracked by computers, though: It was cracked by bombes. You're thinking of the Lorenz cypher, which was a more formidable encryption machine. The Germans were totally complacent with the security of their radio traffic. They knew that a colossal effort would be needed to break into their cypher networks, and hence, they assumed that this alone would be enough to deter their adversarys from even trying.
I'm pretty much fine with calling the bombe's computers. This conversation seems to be mainly be about Normandy, by which time a working Colossus was operational. Complacent could be used to describe the German's signal security, I'd use the word incompetent though.

I'd describe the situation as being more of the German's not knowing, that they didn't know how much more technically advanced the first world was in comparison to their backward tech.

Somewhat ironically, I understand their were some German trained scientists involved in the early research of the transistor at Britsh, US and Canadian universities.

From what I understand Nazi era Germany struggled with valve(/vacuum tube) technology, I can see them having troubling even being able to theoretically contemplate something like a Colossus. They were using DOS to the Allies WIndows 10.

Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2018 12:29
It wasn't a problem of quality so much as it was of quantity. The Germans could never have hoped to muster enough fighters to even begin restoring the gross disparity in air power over Normandy. Especially not with the severe fuel shortages they were experiencing at this time, which also cut into the number of sorties they could mount, and the length of time they could train pilots.
No, it was both quality and quantity. The most common German fighter in the Summer of 1944, the 109G-6, was slower than the 109F-4 of mid 1941. The German's couldn't develop high performance piston engines, which is why they came up with their pathetic abortive attempts to produce a jet engine. Their aircraft designer's were using slide rulers and pencils to the Allies AutoCAD.
Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2018 12:29
Somewhat. Part of the problem was that the Germans had lots of forces tied up guarding the coastlines, and waiting in strategic reserve for the landing at the Pas de Calais. They got totally duped by operation Fortitude. If they had thrown more divisions into the fight, they would have been able to hold out even longer than they historically did.

Though to be fair, air interdiction of the bridges over the Seine and other rivers was limiting their ability to resupply their forces already in Normandy.

Sucks to be the German's with an opponent who can fill the sky with superior aircraft. If only they had 50,000 Tigers all with a Wittman.
Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2018 12:29
You can't possibly believe any of the things you have just said. Ignoring the question of how the British army suffered repeated, catastrophic setbacks against an army that was 'unfit for purpose' in 1940 and 1941 (Norway, Belgium, France, Greece, Crete, Libya, etc), your claim is verifiably untrue.

The German army had better leadership at all levels of its hierarchy, from NCOs, to junior officers, to senior officers, all the way up to flag officers. Officer and NCO training was far superior to both the Americans and British. In order to become a 2nd Lieutenent, the American candidate underwent 3 months of training, while the British candidate underwent 4-6 months of training. In contrast, German NCOs alone were trained for 6 months (!). This is the mark of a truly professional force that did not cut corners.

This gap in quality wasn't just a low level phenomenon, either. It was present among flag officers as well. How many famous British generals can you name off the top of your head? Maybe Wavell, Auchinleck, Slim, Montgomery, etc. How many famous German generals can you name off the top of your head? Guderian, Hoth, von Kleist, Rommel, von Manstein, Student, Model, Manteuffel, etc. No other army was able to churn out such a large, consistently high quality portfolio of generals. The Germans were able to do what few other nations could, and effectively found a way to 'institutionalise excellence', as Trevor Dupuy put it.
I certainly believe evrything I said about the Gwerman Army of WW2. Well, except perhaps (you have a point here) that the armed forces of Germany were very fit for the purpose of invading their neighbours in 1940.

Beating France was a great achievement.

But, if I understood Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" correctly, Hitler's "economic miracle" was based on loans he no intention/ capability of paying back, which while I'm not entirely sure of the legal term for that kind of criminality I'll call it theft. Also, Tooze describes a programme of forced nationalisation (also theft) or appropriation (more robbery/ theft with menances than theft) of industry. Think the French/ BEF would have been a far more serious opponent if their government had given up on Democracy/ rule of law. TYooze's book is also very critical of the German's, corruption and ineffiecent use of the resources they conquered (theft again) and their management of Germany proper.

Apologies for using this term (I'm fiercely apolitical and Social Justice Warriors can burn in hell with Trumpites, Brexiteers, et. al.) but you listing off some "dead white guys" is neither here nor their.

But yes there has been more fanboi idiocy written about the Nazi's than other participants in WW2.


Avalancheon wrote:
23 Dec 2018 12:29
To be fair, the balance between offense and defense had shifted in the 4 years since Germanys blitzkrieg in 1940. All of the major armys involved had a better idea of how to stop an enemy armored forces from breaking through into their strategic depths. But theres no denying that the kindof tank used to spearhead a breakthrough would also have an influence on how successful the attackers were. Neither the British or Americans used heavy tanks for this purpose. Thats why they cut their teeth so badly against German defenses. They were using medium tanks in a role they weren't really suited for.

But about the British in North Africa. One of the major problems there wasn't so much the choice of tanks used, so much as the manner in which the attacks were launched. The British tended to use their armored brigades and divisions in something that often resembled a headlong cavalry charge. They were never supported by infantry, and rarely supported by artillery. The Germans were smart enough to avoid tank on tank clashs, because thats just hammer on hammer. Instead, they withdrew their panzers behind a screen of anti-tank guns, where the pursuing Brits were shot to pieces.
The Churchill was a pretty heavy tank and the Sherman Jumbo had some armour. Probably would have been better if more Churchills and Jumbo were used, at least intially, in Normandy. But, the Shermans, Cromwells amd Stuarts did the job.

You've got some points there about the 8th. Army, but you've skipped over the fact that guns of the 8th Army made of mess of the Panzers when they got attacked. While you'd probably need a second hand, the number of times a German frontal attack was successful against the Western Allies is a very short list and easy to count

P.S. enormously off- topic, but while I haven't studied technical drawing at all, and have no idea about how good (or bad) slide rulers are, I would agree with anyone who'd describe AutoCAD (at least the free student verison) as being f****ng awful. I was trying to say Allied engineers were better with my comparison.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 538
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by EKB » 21 Jan 2019 06:37

Christianmunich wrote: US TD and Sherman books are filled with raw kill claims without people making a fuzz about it despite US claims being substantially more inaccurate than German claims.
Do you have proof for this statement?

There is nothing unusual about inflating battle honors for public reading. In September 1939 the German propaganda ministry claimed that one bomb from a Luftwaffe plane sank a British aircraft carrier - HMS Ark Royal. The bomb actually splashed down 100 feet from the ship, and caused no damage. In another instance Goebbels claimed that a German mine sank the cruiser HMS Belfast, which in fact was damaged, repaired and returned to service.

Some things have not changed since I last posted a message. I can leave for years and on return find a new thread with the same quarrel.

Christianmunich wrote: it appears M4 76mm kills on Tiger Is were really very rare or even non existant?
The Tiger was rare so that would make sense.

A Panzer IV with turret skirt had the shape of a Tiger I. When moving, camouflaged or partly hidden they looked the same through a target sight. It’s not like the Allied soldiers could ask for a parley while they did a walk-around of a tank, just to make sure that it was a Tiger and not a Mark IV.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Mobius » 22 Jan 2019 04:01

EKB wrote:
21 Jan 2019 06:37
Christianmunich wrote: US TD and Sherman books are filled with raw kill claims without people making a fuzz about it despite US claims being substantially more inaccurate than German claims.
Do you have proof for this statement?

There is nothing unusual about inflating battle honors for public reading. In September 1939 the German propaganda ministry claimed that one bomb from a Luftwaffe plane sank a British aircraft carrier - HMS Ark Royal. The bomb actually splashed down 100 feet from the ship, and caused no damage. In another instance Goebbels claimed that a German mine sank the cruiser HMS Belfast, which in fact was damaged, repaired and returned to service.
17 September 1939 the aircraft carrier HMS Courageous (50) was sank. There you go.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Jan 2019 04:51

Mobius wrote:
22 Jan 2019 04:01

17 September 1939 the aircraft carrier HMS Courageous (50) was sank......
......by a U-Boat 9 days before the Ark Royal was claimed by aircraft on the 26th.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Feb 2019 23:15

Interesting 'debate' here about M4A3 frontal armour.



https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks ... mans_with/

Above is the thread and below a bit where the OP lets rip at CM.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks ... h/eftq2vt/

The poster 'TheJamesRocket' is also posting in this thread here under another ID.

https://www.reddit.com/user/TheJamesRocket
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 05 Feb 2019 23:58, edited 1 time in total.

seppw
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017 00:49
Location: Central Europe

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by seppw » 05 Feb 2019 23:53

zZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Avalancheon » 08 Feb 2019 21:32

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 Feb 2019 23:15
Interesting 'debate' here about M4A3 frontal armour.


https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks ... mans_with/

Above is the thread and below a bit where the OP lets rip at CM.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks ... h/eftq2vt/

The poster 'TheJamesRocket' is also posting in this thread here under another ID.

https://www.reddit.com/user/TheJamesRocket
Yes, I was indeed involved in this debate. I personally didn't find anything objectionable with HV51s claims.

He produced this useful chart on the frontal armor of the M4A3 Sherman.

Image

HV51 states that against 75mm Pzgr 39, it had an effective thickness of 118mm. Thats straight out of the book on World War II Ballistics.

Specifically, it says on Page 28: ''In comparison, unflawed 2.5" thick at 47 degree glacis armor on Shermans produced after October 1943 would provide an equivalent 0 degree thickness of 63.5mm x 1.80 degree slope effect, or 118mm at 0 degrees.''

My calculation of this actually leads to 114mm thickness, not 118mm. But thats only a small error. Not worth having a huge argument over.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 18 Feb 2019 05:48

I claimed the actual performance of the front plate is below 118mm, which is correct. I also believe the assumption of near perfect steel is a false one. As so often I believe in empirical evidence. The fact that apparently not a single photo of a Sherman with a withstood 75mm or higher hit exists should be telling. Today's fanboyism aside back then they were less likely motivated by internet arguments when it came to documenting hit impacts on vehicles. There are hundreds ( thousands ? ) of photos of Tiger/Panthers withstanding hits in combat. I am unaware of a single Sherman front plate withstood hit that was unaffected by additional armour et cetera yet the M4A3 is supposed to withstand 750 meter hits, or even shorter rangers with the horizontal angles.

Sherman tanks with theoretical same "effective armour" were constantly penetrated on range. Armour quality. As said in the linked thread the British sample does not include a single long-range deflected impact. Not a single one. Closer scrutiny of the sample shows close to zero actual armour protection against German projectiles.

The premise is based on the assumption that the armour was near perfect, given the empiric evidence I doubt that was the case. The tales of me being wrong were again greatly exaggerated.

edit: Should be noted that the Reddit OP was unable to find a single clear picture of a M4A3 withstanding a frontal plate impact. A bit curios. There certainly were Shermans that withstood such hits if not just for long range and high impact angles, but not a single picture? Such event would likely spark the curiosity of the US Army personnel back then and result in pictures taken.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Feb 2019 06:48

Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 05:48
The fact that apparently not a single photo of a Sherman with a withstood 75mm or higher hit exists should be telling.......... unable to find a single clear picture of a M4A3 withstanding a frontal plate impact.....................but not a single picture?
Not a single picture?

Are you sure?
Sherman M4 Kursk penetrated (1b)b.jpg
M4 deflection bbb.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 18 Feb 2019 07:27

Circumstances of the photos, German projectiles? The gauge in the upper picture appears to be small. In the lower picture I am not sure what I am supposed to see. Just give the information that you believe to have. Where are the 75mm+ high velocity impacts?

Checking the lower picture. The upper "gauge" or whatever this is appears to be very flat, reminiscent of the gauges on the other Sherman with applique track links. Are those even impacts?

Two pictures. I see three possible impacts none of which appear to me to fullfill the criteria.

1st: Very small gauge, don't see to match the impact calibre of the clean penetrations. Note the huge gauge left by a glancing blow on the turret. Where was the picture made which are the supposed German weapons. Looks kinda Desert/Mediterrane, if this was North Africa impacts could be the result from obsolete 75mm.

2nd and 3rd look connected the upper one again very shallow comparable to hits on applique armour as posted by me on reddit.

None of those look to me like a clear withstood hit of a 75mm high velocity or higher.

Here an example:
b.54closeup.png
A Sherman covered in applique armour, impacts as result from the projectile hitting the track links appear significantly smaller.


edit: Taking a close look the above picture looks like a Sherman version employed in North Africa, if this is true than Mkenny found a tank who likely got hit by a 50mm or low velocity 75mm obviously not fulfilling the criteria.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Christianmunich on 18 Feb 2019 07:45, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Feb 2019 07:44

Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 07:27
Circumstances of the photos..............
Circumstances are very simple. You made a claim I posted evidence that records an event you claimed never ever happened.


Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 07:27
1st: Very small gauge, don't see to match the impact calibre of the clean penetrations. Note the huge gauge left by a glancing blow on the turret. Where was the picture made which are the supposed German weapons. Looks kinda Desert/Mediterrane, if this was North Africa impacts could be the result from obsolete 75mm.

You cling to that hope. The markings on the M4 will tell you where it is from.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 18 Feb 2019 07:51, edited 1 time in total.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 18 Feb 2019 07:50

If this would be true you would respond to the requests. As per my edit I believe the upper photograph is likely from North Africa. Shermans in this theatre were a tiny part of the Sherman force employed and this is the only theatre with significant "obsolete" German weapons. That you got a photo from this time frame with an obviously pretty small gauge appears to suggest you simply found a photo with a Sherman getting hit by something that doesn't fulfill the criteria of the claim. In my opinion, you should have disclosed that this photo is from a time frame were 50mms and low velocity 75mm were employed against Shermans.

So still no photo of a Sherman which withstood 75mm high velocity or +. Like 20k or more of them were employed and no photos exist? Or does somebody have an actual photo?

edit:
Michael Kenny wrote:
18 Feb 2019 07:44

You cling to that hope. The markings on the M4 will tell you where it is from.

Sorry I hade enough goose chases already. None of the photos provided by you seem to support your claim. You have not substantiated your claim, neither disclosed location nor the supposed projectile. It is up to you to support what you claim. Not sure why I am expected to research where your photos are from. The gauges appear small I don't see any evidence those were 75mm+ impacts.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Feb 2019 07:57

Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 07:50
If this would be true you would respond to the requests. As per my edit I believe the upper photograph is likely from North Africa.
You are quite wrong. It is a well known Sherman as well.



Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 07:50
Shermans in this theatre were a tiny part of the Sherman force employed and this is the only theatre with significant "obsolete" German weapons. That you got a photo from this time frame with an obviously pretty small gauge appears to suggest you simply found a photo with a Sherman getting hit by something that doesn't fulfill the criteria of the claim. In my opinion, you should have disclosed that this photo is from a time frame were 50mms and low velocity 75mm were employed against Shermans.
All complete fabrication.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 18 Feb 2019 08:05, edited 1 time in total.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 18 Feb 2019 08:04

Well, you have not provided any evidence that those pictures reflect what you say they did. Not sure if you still believe it or not but you are certainly not offering more than pictures of Shermans with small gauges that could be the result of anything. You are not telling anybody which the supposed projectiles were or where they happened so people can actually cross-check your claims.

From the looks of it the pictures you have used do actually not show what you thought they did. My guess would be applique armour or lower powered weapons from the looks of the small gauges.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Feb 2019 08:22

Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 08:04
Well, you have not provided any evidence that those pictures reflect what you say they did.
I responded to post that claimed :
Christianmunich wrote:
18 Feb 2019 08:04
The fact that apparently not a single photo of a Sherman with a withstood 75mm or higher hit exists should be telling.........unable to find a single clear picture of a M4A3 withstanding a frontal plate impact..............but not a single picture
I had idea you would get this upset. Clearly you are not thinking straight or you would not be be accusing me of passing off North African pics as being from NWE.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”