Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Feb 2019 00:52

Here is the first time I saw a photo of 'Kursk'. Its an article in Military Illustrated Magazine 69, February 1994
NOTTS YEOMANRY0005 .jpg
I got the screen grabs from a DVD around 2005.
And in case you missed it the frontal deflection is not on the tank 'Kursk'. It is the same unit but different tanks.
I have been collecting this stuff since the 1960s.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 19 Feb 2019 01:35, 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 » 19 Feb 2019 01:01

Interesting side note. The picture mentions the tank was knocked out by an 88mm round. The likely only 88mm guns around there were the Tigers. Remember? Those are the events where people disputed my allocation of kills towards the Tigers at St Aigan. Also pretty big exit hole for a 75mm.

CM strikes again uncovering evidence.

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

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Feb 2019 01:33

Christianmunich wrote:
19 Feb 2019 00:46

Or you just got the location wrong back then.
'Back then' I was doing the same as I do today. Getting in contact with sources in order to work out the when and where of various photos.
From April 8th 2002:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... ml#p161810

I wanted an explanation for this photo he published
NOTTS YEOMANRY0002 .jpg
and when I did speak with the author I was able to establish that this was not a Normandy Tiger and instead is a late-war (Fehrmann)wreck in Germany.

Some people swear by Google, others go straight to the source.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

DC North West
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 11 Jan 2019 17:02
Location: U.K. north west

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by DC North West » 27 Aug 2019 15:53

I have just finished Richard Von Rosen book, Panzer Ace, page 307, he refers to the US 76mm squeeze bore gun, he calls it tapering barrel, destroying King Tiger close range. It is when the 503 are now in Hungary. Worth an investigation?

critical mass
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by critical mass » 27 Aug 2019 16:37

No.

At that time, the battallion was confronted with the red Army. There was no tapered bore 76mm gun on the front. The soviets did, however, for the first time put Su-100 in concentrated special Artillery Brigades (56 to 62 Su-100 each) to counter Tiger 2 in battles south of Lake Velence.

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

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Mobius » 28 Aug 2019 22:01

On Feb. 1st the destroyer of Sgt. W. B. Nesmith was the only one left in the 3d Plat of B Co. It did the work of all four, however, and stopped seven tanks attempting to break through our lines. One, a PzKw VI, was knocked out with three rounds of APC at 1,000 yards, on the 3d, Sgt. Nesmith was supporting an infantry attack in the vicinity of Cisterna. The other M10 with which he had been working had run over a mine that morning and was out of action for repairs. The enemy launched a counterattack of approximately a battalion of infantry with 20 or more tanks, threatening the flank of Sgt. Nesmith's position. He was behind a house, and as he started to run out to a firing position one of his motors went dead. Using the remaining motor he managed to get out beyond the corner of the house. The leading enemy tanks, now at a distance of about 900-1,000 yards, saw him and opened fire. A comer of the building fell down over the fighting compartment; a shell glanced off the front armor plate. Sgt. Nesmith opened fire and knocked out the first tank, a PzKw VI, with two rounds of AP. Then he fired at a second VI which was covering the first. He damaged it, but because of his dead engine could not maneuver to a position from which he could finish it off. The enemy tanks withdrew behind nearby houses, and retired about 45 minutes later when it grew dark.
http://www.lonesentry.com/brassingoff/index.html

From a separate PDF of 628 TD I found.
(3) The much vaunted German Tiger Tank (Mark VI) could be knocked out by the 3-inch gun by a direct frontal shot even at ranges up to 1500 yards.
But this conclusion is based on the AAR below. Which doesn't indicate where the Mark VI was hit.

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/sing ... 3524/rec/1
Victory, TD: History of the 628th Tank Destroyer Battalion 1941-1945.
Prior to the withdrawal however, both Companies "B" and "C" had an artilleryman's field day. 1st Platoon, Company "B" with Lt. Jones commanding, while in position north of Frelingen, Germany, protecting the left flank of CCR knocked out six Mark VI tanks attempting to approach their position from 'the vicinity of Huttingen, Germany, by direct fire at ranges from 1500 to 3600 yards, Cpl. Rice, Tank Destroyer gunner, knocked out three enemy tanks in quick succession at 1800 yards, Cpl. Milliman also destroyed one at 1800 yards while Cpl. Tomaszewski and Cpl. Kiwior knocked out tanks at 3600 and 3200 yards respectively. Two unidentified enemy tanks were also knocked out by the 2nd Platoon. In addition, this Platoon assisted the tanks attached to the 47th Armored Infantry Bn. in knocking out an additional five enemy tanks of undetermined designation, while Cpl. Giacomino knocked out two other' enemy tanks but was unable to identify the tanks due to enemy fire. The 3rd Platoon, Company "C", with Lt. Feldman commanding, established OP and firing positions on the reverse slope of a hill 1500 yards north of Hommerdingen, Germany. Considerable enemy movement was observed in the vicinity of Huttingen and brought under fire at ranges from 1000 to 2000 yards which resulted in one enemy Mark V tank definitely knocked out and observed hits scored on six Mark VI's and one other Mark V, which the enemy either recovered or else completed the destruction. Thus, in one twenty-four hour period, the Battalion received credit for six Mark VI's, one Mark V, and four unidentified tanks destroyed; six Mark VI's, and one Mark V probably destroyed, and assisted in the destruction of five unidentified tanks.

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

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Mobius » 01 Sep 2019 01:14

I had thought this was calculated values:
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/sing ... 2327/rec/2

But this explains more clearly they are test results.
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/sing ... 4556/rec/6
So this would be tested penetrations.
76mm vs Tiger I.jpg
Not that anyone would care when the thread drifts away from the topic so ppl. can state their favorite prejudices.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Stiltzkin » 01 Sep 2019 03:44

Nice fragmentation illustrations though.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Peasant » 01 Sep 2019 22:02

Mobius wrote:
01 Sep 2019 01:14
-- snip --
Thank you Mobius for sharing this! :thumbsup: It was a most illuminating read. I've seen the B&W version of this doc but the photos of actual tests really change the way you look at it. Makes one re-consider how protected these vehicles really where.

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

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Mobius » 02 Sep 2019 01:58

Peasant wrote:
01 Sep 2019 22:02
Mobius wrote:
01 Sep 2019 01:14
-- snip --
Thank you Mobius for sharing this! :thumbsup: It was a most illuminating read. I've seen the B&W version of this doc but the photos of actual tests really change the way you look at it. Makes one re-consider how protected these vehicles really where.
At the Military History Visualized comments section someone posted references of US Tank Destroyer AARs.
Which just so happens has a number of comments on 76mm vs Tiger. Not so many are enlightening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZKxmlpbwqk&t=105s

I had dismissed many AARs as I didn't think they contained any useful information. A lot like the first 23 pages of this thread.

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

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Sep 2019 03:26

If the firing trials on the Tiger did take place in the USA then we have the first evidence as to the fate of at least one of the three Tigers seen here being unloaded at New York.
TigerBarge7120002-vert n.jpg
lower front nose plate-vgert.jpg
Turret ,-vertyh.jpg
side armour rh-vert j.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Stiltzkin » 04 Sep 2019 02:11

This might be also of interest and relevance to the thread, if not already posted viewtopic.php?p=2220860#p2220860

Byrden
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 16 Jan 2005 12:00
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Byrden » 08 Sep 2019 16:12

Michael Kenny wrote:
02 Sep 2019 03:26
then we have the first evidence as to the fate of at least one of the three Tigers seen here being unloaded at New York.
We've always had evidence of the fate of the Tiger hull marked "3" in the photo - it went to museums and is currently in Fort Benning.

These new photos, on the other hand, don't tell us anything about those three Tigers, because they show a fourth Tiger.

The proof? Take a look at Tigers "1" and "2". They both have the S-mine system, and exhausts with "caps". They are both therefore "early" Tigers, taken from s.Pz.Abt 504, either in Tunisia or Sicily.
The wrecked Tiger in the new photos, on the other hand, comes from s.Pz.Abt.501. Witness its front hull edges, which have the notch and reverse slant characteristic of the first few dozen Tigers, eliminated long before s.Pz.Abt.504 got theirs.

So I wouldn't readily assume that this hull was shot up in the USA - the photos don't support it.

David

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

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Sep 2019 19:50

Byrden wrote:
08 Sep 2019 16:12


So I wouldn't readily assume that this hull was shot up in the USA - the photos don't support it.
The photos have no clues as to location but the text clearly says it was in the USA.. I was wondering if it was a Tunisia test before I posted and the low quality of the images even made it look like it had steel-wheels. It is still a previously unseen 'shoot'. In the end I went with the wording. Either way I knew it was of interest.

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

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Mobius » 08 Sep 2019 20:00

Byrden wrote:
08 Sep 2019 16:12
So I wouldn't readily assume that this hull was shot up in the USA - the photos don't support it.
/quote]Then you think they are lying when the introduction to the report says:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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