Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Post Reply
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2619
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#376

Post by Yoozername » 11 Dec 2021, 19:37

51mm/59°. It was either Pak 40 at near point blanc range or something heavier that was shooting at this tank, a Panther or an 88mm Flak for example.
From link above
How was the Wilbrin M4(75) Sherman Destroyed?
On the 16th December 1944 in bad winter weather the Germans launched an offensive against the American troops resting in the Ardennes. it will become known as the Battle of the Bulge. The final objective was to capture the port of Antwerp and all the allied supplies. First the newly formed German 6th Army had to capture the bridges over the Meuse River.

German tank crew member Pfc Hans Herost of the 116th Panzer Division remembers contact with the enemy’s M4 Sherman tanks near the village of Wilbrin. "We did not take the streets, but drove across the fields and meadows because of all the mines. We were on the hill about 1,000 metres way from the village church. From up there we saw the Sherman tank that is now the war memorial in Wilbrin. It was in the same place on that day."

Surviving Belgium 1944 Battle of the Bulge M4A3 Sherman Tank in the small village of Wilbrin
Damaged gun in the Wibrin M4(75) Sherman Tank

"This tank with its small gun was barely a threat to us. Jokingly we just called it a knocking device. The Panther tank that was next to me shot. The shell hit the sloping front armour and bounced off. You can still see the deep gouge on the front. It bounced upwards and hit the Sheman's gun damaging it. When the American crew fired the tube burst. You can see the damage it caused today. The second shell hit the big bolts on the bottom of the front armour and again bounced off. The third hit went through the armour and it caught fire. We proceeded with our advance."

The local priest saved the tank from scrap metal merchants who had already cut away some of the rear and right side of the tank. It was decided to make it the villages war memorial. In 2011 its rust was treated and painted whilst a new raised plinth was built. If you visit the Wibrin Sherman make sure you call in and have a beer at the cafe called Le Vieux Wibrin a 200m further east along the main road. It is very pleasant to sit inside on a cold day or outside on a sunny day. They have a lot of veterans visit.
I believe the add-on armor actually helped the penetration to the left of the ricochet. That is, the lower weld blocked it from bouncing up. From the looks of the hole through the add-on armor, it may be from another 'dead-on' type angle.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 798
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 18:21
Location: Ukraine

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#377

Post by Peasant » 11 Dec 2021, 19:59

Yoozername wrote:
11 Dec 2021, 19:37
I believe the add-on armor actually helped the penetration to the left of the ricochet. That is, the lower weld blocked it from bouncing up. From the looks of the hole through the add-on armor, it may be from another 'dead-on' type angle.
Possibly the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) around the weld also played it's part in weakening the armour.


Peasant
Member
Posts: 798
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 18:21
Location: Ukraine

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#378

Post by Peasant » 21 Dec 2021, 18:11

I've been looking at these photos and something struck me as rather odd: while the distances reported for the 4in. driver's plate are roughly in line with ballistic limits for the same thickness of US RHA, the ballistic limit for what's listed as "3,22in hull rear" is much lower than expected. Actually it almost exactly matches the expected BL for 60mm of RHA.
So, the obvious question is: how likely it is that whoever was responsible for assembling this document have messed up and presented the results obtained against a lower side plate of Tiger I as ones obtained against the 82mm thick rear plate?

Image

Tiger712
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 03 Aug 2023, 13:49
Location: Taiwan

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#379

Post by Tiger712 » 03 Aug 2023, 14:01

from above chart and picture that meant 1. US 76 mm APC M62 will start penetrate upper front plate of tiger i at 0 obliquity from 810 yard right ??
2.and it really happen that US 76 mm fire and penetrate tiger front plate, maybe not from real combat right ?

Peasant
Member
Posts: 798
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 18:21
Location: Ukraine

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#380

Post by Peasant » 03 Aug 2023, 16:47

Tiger712 wrote:
03 Aug 2023, 14:01
from above chart and picture that meant 1. US 76 mm APC M62 will start penetrate upper front plate of tiger i at 0 obliquity from 810 yard right ??
2.and it really happen that US 76 mm fire and penetrate tiger front plate, maybe not from real combat right ?
I see you're new here. Hello and welcome.

1. No, because not every shot is labeled at what distance it was fired from, so we dont know exactly. We can only conclude from this that the critical distance is somewhere between 810 and 1640 yards.

2. No, this didnt happen in combat, this was a testing done against a captured Tiger I tank.

Tiger712
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 03 Aug 2023, 13:49
Location: Taiwan

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#381

Post by Tiger712 » 05 Aug 2023, 13:09

Thank you. from you all in this forum estimation and research which range that 76 mm M 62 would penetrate tiger front armor ?

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3749
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#382

Post by Sheldrake » 05 Aug 2023, 13:23

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Dec 2018, 05:50
Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018, 04:16
Its somewhat embarrassing to consider that the Sherman tank saw its combat debut at the same time as the Tiger tank,
It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?
The Americans did. They fitted a 90mm gun into an M10 TD, based on the M4 chassis and had a TD that could KO any German tank. The Germans did the same mounting 75mm and 88 mm guns on Pz III and IV chassis as StuG III/IV, PamzerJaeger IV, Nashorn and JagdPanther Chassis. Oh wait these arn't tanks and don't count. Part of the problem is the perceptions shaped by arm of service.

The Germans had a pressing reason to develop heavy tanks, which was they were facing lots of tanks in the Red army. By and large US Tankers did not meet Tiger tanks. The lack of a 90mm equipped tank did not stop the Alliesd winning the war within an acceptable cost.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8269
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#383

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Aug 2023, 19:14

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Dec 2018, 05:50

It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?
This reply was sarcasm. The answer was in the text before the question

Post Reply

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