Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Post Reply
critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#241

Post by critical mass » 03 Jan 2019, 19:10

Don J,

I personally have a different opinion on the importance of projectile design. The 76mm may have had a lower i.V. but the projectiles were not sufficiently rigid under the nose (a soft spot due to the sheath hardening pattern) to actually sustain higher velocity impact. If the US APG trials are to be believed, any extra energy would be largely wasted on these projectiles as these would more frequently shatter. Notice that the UK used a different hardening pattern (decremental hardening). I refer for further reference to a post ww2 report:

PROGRESS REPORT No.1 ON DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH VELOCITY ARMOUR PIERCING PROJECTILES (dated Nov. 1, 1947) reports:
3" M62 Caped A. P. Projectiles.
Against 3" homogeneous armor at 30' and 45' obliquity the M62 projectiles from both lots fired showed a tendency to split and break up at striking velocities up to the maximum velocity tested to date, namely, up to approximately 2700 feet per second.
-emphasized by myselfe
individual test cards:
3" homogenious plate* at 30°obliquity, eight rounds fired:
#1 2423fps, incomplete penetration (dent, back bulge with star crack), projectile split, not effective -ABL
#2 2523fps, complete penetration, projectile broke up, not effective
#3 2549fps, complete penetration, projectile broke up, not effective
#4 2740fps, complete penetration, projectile broke up, not effective
#5 2518fps, complete penetration, body cracked, but effective
#6 2495fps, dented (no hole), projectile broke up, not effective
#7 2627fps, dented (dent, no hole), projectile broke up, not effective
#8 2755fps, complete penetration (clean hole), projectile nose split, effective

result: projectiles split or broke upon most impacts (except #5 and #8).

3" plate at 45° (2 rounds fired)
#1 2487fps, dented (no hole), projectile shattered, not effective
#2 2549fps, dented (no hole), projectile shattered, not effective

result: "projectiles shattered on plate, projectiles could not penetrate the armor at any striking velocity obtainable to date."

It needs to be pointed out that the Ballistic limit for 3" plate attacked at 30° was expected at 2420fps (737.6m/s), so all firing took place at velocities above the VL50. Yet, two dents were recorded 2495fps (760.5m/s) and 2627fps (800.7m/s) and an AB(L) at 2423fps (738.5m/s),.

for comparison, the 75mm Pzgr.39 NBL as established by the same testers on the same prooving ground against Carnegie-Illinouis 5 3/16 inch (132mm) RHA plate at 30° was 2743fps (836.1m/s) with the AB(L) beeing 2543fps against the same target -the projectile always remained intact, whether or not it penetrated or ricochetted off. This projectile was also largely intact in impacts at 45° against 5 1/8 inch (5 3/16 inch in some places) plate at somehow higher velocity.
I´d argue that this constitutes not just a marginal or trivial aspect but a very considerable difference in projectile capability to overcome armor. I fail to see how the 76.2mm M62 could hope to penetrate a 5" RHA plate at 30° at equal (or higher) velocities.

* 3" class B RHA made by Carnegie-Illinois, standart homogenious armor plate (alloywise it resembles a Krupp Q420 type where You have twice as much Ni than Cr) treated to 256BHN

edit: Richard Anderson got it first, sry for stepping in

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#242

Post by Christianmunich » 03 Jan 2019, 23:16

Don Juan wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 16:14
Christianmunich wrote:
02 Jan 2019, 00:52
Lawyer jargon for failure. What they got was a tank without protection with a shitty gun with low mobility due to horrendous ground pressure as a result of very high "medium" tank weight and silly suspension layout. The trinity of failure.
There is much more to mobility than ground pressure.
Yeah and the Shermans was pretty bad at most given its legacy as tank that was not focused on "tank fighting" but being readily available wherever it was needed. One of the latest "main tanks" designs to enter the war and they didn't even understand ground pressure. People just choose what to argue about, having spring loaded hatches, which apparently didn't even made a big difference, is now important but being able to drive through mud is not.
Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 03:17
Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 00:32
Inexperience is a flaw in itself.
Please explain how not having experience in a thing can be a "flaw" rather than a state of being. :roll:

Uhm what?!?!? I would like to post some memes now but that would just get my posts removed again. Engllish is not my first language but I am pretty good at it I believe and what you say makes no sense but illustrates what I mean by Lawyering better than I could ever do. The US inexperience is just another way of saying they were bad at stuff others knew since years. It is just an attempt to "explain it away". Explaining why something is that way doesn't change the fact it is that way. Calling inefficient and "weak" "inexperienced" is pointless.

I will just repeat my question, which doesn't get answered for some weird reason:

Which combat aspect was of more importance in a tank main gun than the ability to defeat opposing tanks? Is there any? If not why are people still arguing against my statement that the importance of tank on tank capabilities was of utmost importance?


Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#243

Post by Richard Anderson » 03 Jan 2019, 23:30

Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:16
Uhm what?!?!? I would like to post some memes now but that would just get my posts removed again.
I thought it was easy to understand? How is lack of experience a "fault"? Was the American Army supposed to invade France in 1941 in order to "gain experience"? To put into perspective, the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, after nearly two years of war and found their "lack of experience" left them with few options to handle the well-armored Soviet tanks. That "experience" led them to accelerate development of a dead-end, the Tiger, and began development of a new medium tank intended to replace the Panzer III/IV duo, the Panther. By December 1942, a year and a half later, and that "experience" resulted in 30 Tigers at the front, out of 4,000 medium tanks (38t, PzIII, and PzIV), and ZERO Panthers. A year later still, two and a half years after first gaining that "experience", and there were all of 373 Tigers and 912 Panthers...and still 2,900 medium tanks (38t, PzIII, and PzIV).

Gee, looks like the Germans wasted all that experience.
So I will just repeat my question, which doesn't get answered for some weird reason:
Hey doodle, you'll get a reply when you answer the questions already put to you.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#244

Post by Christianmunich » 03 Jan 2019, 23:52

Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:30
Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:16
Uhm what?!?!? I would like to post some memes now but that would just get my posts removed again.
I thought it was easy to understand? How is lack of experience a "fault"? Was the American Army supposed to invade France in 1941 in order to "gain experience"? To put into perspective, the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, after nearly two years of war and found their "lack of experience" left them with few options to handle the well-armored Soviet tanks. That "experience" led them to accelerate development of a dead-end, the Tiger, and began development of a new medium tank intended to replace the Panzer III/IV duo, the Panther. By December 1942, a year and a half later, and that "experience" resulted in 30 Tigers at the front, out of 4,000 medium tanks (38t, PzIII, and PzIV), and ZERO Panthers. A year later still, two and a half years after first gaining that "experience", and there were all of 373 Tigers and 912 Panthers...and still 2,900 medium tanks (38t, PzIII, and PzIV).

Gee, looks like the Germans wasted all that experience.
So I will just repeat my question, which doesn't get answered for some weird reason:
Hey doodle, you'll get a reply when you answer the questions already put to you.
There are hundreds of unanswered questions in the threads where people attempted to refute me. Sometimes I asked the same simple questions over and over. People just don't like answering questions that don't support their argument. It is just Lawyerism. The difference between evidence-based discussion and a courtroom.

I ask multiple times now and will do it again Mr Anderson. Which combat aspect of the main gun in a tank was of more importance than the ability to defeat the tanks of the enemy. Just name one.

Since many of my posts were removed already I think I have to be more "polite". "Calling people out" when they get stuff wrong the 7th time doesn't seem to be allowed here. So I am going to ingore your attempts at derailing and will point out that my question which is the crux of the entire issue was asked long before you started trying derailing the discussion. Answer the initial question and I will refute all the other arguments you might have. I refuted countless already some more do no harm, but one topic at a time.

I also want to kindly point out that your opinion on the Tiger has little value you apparently didn't know tanks were all geared towards fighting enemy tanks due to what was learned in WW2. Why would your opinion matter?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#245

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Jan 2019, 00:29

Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:52
There are hundreds of unanswered questions in the threads where people attempted to refute me.
Sorry doodle, I told you a while ago I don't deal with batshit crazies and fantasists, especially ones who believe their opinions are facts. You're back on ignore for a while, since your posts continue to lack any actual content.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#246

Post by Christianmunich » 04 Jan 2019, 01:02

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 00:29
Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:52
There are hundreds of unanswered questions in the threads where people attempted to refute me.
Sorry doodle, I told you a while ago I don't deal with batshit crazies and fantasists, especially ones who believe their opinions are facts. You're back on ignore for a while, since your posts continue to lack any actual content.
You are just avoiding to answer the question.

Here it is again:

Which combat aspect of the tank main gun was of more importance than the ability to defeat the tanks of the enemy?

j keenan
Financial supporter
Posts: 1575
Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 12:22
Location: North

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#247

Post by j keenan » 04 Jan 2019, 01:12

Christianmunich wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 01:02
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 00:29
Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:52
There are hundreds of unanswered questions in the threads where people attempted to refute me.
Sorry doodle, I told you a while ago I don't deal with batshit crazies and fantasists, especially ones who believe their opinions are facts. You're back on ignore for a while, since your posts continue to lack any actual content.
You are just avoiding to answer the question.

Here it is again:

Which combat aspect of the tank main gun was of more importance than the ability to defeat the tanks of the enemy?
Stupa

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#248

Post by Stiltzkin » 04 Jan 2019, 01:16

Sometimes I asked the same simple questions over and over.
Because the answers aren't always a simple dichotomy that is presented here.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#249

Post by Christianmunich » 04 Jan 2019, 01:47

Stiltzkin wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 01:16
Sometimes I asked the same simple questions over and over.
Because the answers aren't always a simple dichotomy that is presented here.
Actually, they are. Was the ability to defeat tanks the priority of the main gun yes or no?

Answering the question has only two options. The truthful answer which shows the age-old myth of "it had good HE that was the reason" is refuted. Or claiming there was another priority which will result in a strong rebuttal because there was none.

Thus people don't answer the question.

I answer the question, there is no other priority. Defeating the enemy tanks was the baseline requirement everything had to be subordinated to this. This obviously goes with the second line of my argument, tank on tank combat was far more important than revisionists claim. Revisionists have created this "myth" as an explanation for design flaws in Allied tanks.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#250

Post by Gorque » 04 Jan 2019, 02:23

j keenan wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 01:12
Christianmunich wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 01:02
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 00:29
Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:52
There are hundreds of unanswered questions in the threads where people attempted to refute me.
Sorry doodle, I told you a while ago I don't deal with batshit crazies and fantasists, especially ones who believe their opinions are facts. You're back on ignore for a while, since your posts continue to lack any actual content.
You are just avoiding to answer the question.

Here it is again:

Which combat aspect of the tank main gun was of more importance than the ability to defeat the tanks of the enemy?
Stupa
A monumental pile of earth or other material, in the memory of Buddha or a Buddhist saint, and commemorating some event or marking a sacred spot?!? 8O

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#251

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Jan 2019, 02:37

Stiltzkin wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 01:16
Sometimes I asked the same simple questions over and over.
Because the answers aren't always a simple dichotomy that is presented here.
1.Muni-Ausstattung (# rounds AP/HE) for:

7.5cm Pak40 - 75/75
7.5cm StuK40, 7.5cm Pak39 (Sfl.), 7.5cm KwK40 - 110/130 (+ 10 SMK)
7.5cm KwK42 - 125/125

For the ETOUSA the typical Basic Load for all tanks was typically 50% HE, 40% AP, and 10% SMK or WP. For the 3" Gun M5, GMC M10, M18, and M36, the proportion of AP was initially higher, 90%, with HE 10%, but the HE load typically increased during the campaign as armored targets became scarcer.

Sometimes simple questions have simple answers.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

j keenan
Financial supporter
Posts: 1575
Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 12:22
Location: North

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#252

Post by j keenan » 04 Jan 2019, 05:52

Gorque wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 02:23
j keenan wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 01:12
Christianmunich wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 01:02
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Jan 2019, 00:29
Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:52
There are hundreds of unanswered questions in the threads where people attempted to refute me.
Sorry doodle, I told you a while ago I don't deal with batshit crazies and fantasists, especially ones who believe their opinions are facts. You're back on ignore for a while, since your posts continue to lack any actual content.
You are just avoiding to answer the question.

Here it is again:

Which combat aspect of the tank main gun was of more importance than the ability to defeat the tanks of the enemy?
Stupa
A monumental pile of earth or other material, in the memory of Buddha or a Buddhist saint, and commemorating some event or marking a sacred spot?!? 8O
Brummbär Stupa
Wirbelwind Keksdose
Whose main armaments were not designed to knock out tanks

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#253

Post by Don Juan » 04 Jan 2019, 13:53

Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 18:55
I'm sorry, but this is not correct. The "original M1 variant of the gun" was the 76mm T1, which was the 50 caliber 3" Tank Gun M7, but slimmed down and elongated. By adjusting the propellant charge, it had exactly the same performance as that gun, 2600 FPS Mv, but was 57 calibers. However, its length proved too great for the modified M34 Gun Mount, so 15" (5 calibers) were cut off the muzzle, reducing it to 52 calibers. The performance was maintained by again adjusting the propellant to again maintain 2600 FPS Mv. After those modifications it was standardized as the 76mm M1 Tank Gun. The M1 was replaced in manufacture by the M1A1, which changed the contour of the tube and slide surfaces to again improve balance in different mountings, and then by the M1A2, which changed the twist in the rifling from 1:40 to 1:32 and added threading for mounting of a muzzle brake. All still were 2600 FPS Mv.

Ordnance preferred 2600 FPS Mv as the best balance of performance and maintenance of the gun, operating under the prewar standard for tube life.
Fair enough, I stand corrected. I believe the tube life of the 76mm was 2000 rounds EFC. From what I've read of British assessments of the 76mm, they were amazed by the low level of barrel wear - there was only a 50 fps drop over 2000 rounds EFC.
Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 18:55
That is the problem...the projectile was at the limit of its ability to penetrate. Increasing Mv would do nothing to improve the basic limit of the projectile...it would simply shatter more often.
But this depends on the range you are firing from, surely? i.e. with a 2900 fps initial muzzle velocity, you will be down to 2600 fps after the projectile has travelled 300-400 yards, so you do get additional range with the penalty that you can't fire at something within 300 to 400 yards. In theory, I suppose they could have made a "long range" 2900 fps variant shell which was stipulated to only be fired at more distant targets. This could have been used alongside the standard 2600 fps shell, although no doubt there would be many arguments against such an approach.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#254

Post by Don Juan » 04 Jan 2019, 14:08

Christianmunich wrote:
03 Jan 2019, 23:16
Yeah and the Shermans was pretty bad at most given its legacy as tank that was not focused on "tank fighting" but being readily available wherever it was needed. One of the latest "main tanks" designs to enter the war and they didn't even understand ground pressure. People just choose what to argue about, having spring loaded hatches, which apparently didn't even made a big difference, is now important but being able to drive through mud is not.
British testing, which was exhaustive, showed that the Sherman's cross country performance was average rather than bad. It was certainly better than the Tiger I, about equal to the Cromwell, but clearly worse than the Churchill and Panther.

In the immediate post-war period, the Ministry of Supply's "Mud Committee" visited Germany to find out how the Germans approached the problem of soft ground conditions, and were not very impressed with what they found:

Mud Committee.jpg
(From AFV Division Letter No.11, Nov 1945)
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#255

Post by critical mass » 04 Jan 2019, 15:29

In the immediate post-war period, the Ministry of Supply's "Mud Committee" visited Germany to find out how the Germans approached the problem of soft ground conditions, and were not very impressed with what they found:
Notice that the excerpt is valid only on the perception of the british obtained on their respective interpretation of the rational of the germans. It should not be judged as a primary source for the matter in question, and, as far as I can see, no primary test data are consulted or explicitely quoted. It´s at best a secondary source for the question. The relevant primary documents are to be found in WaPrüf6 test series.
That beeing said, I am aware that the tests in dec. 1944 do support Your conclusions, under the caveate that the TIGER-1 performance was juedged on one runner, and it wasn´t clear whether or not this vehicles performance was representative for the type.

In this context, the netto ground pressure of the M4 was as You stated but the mean maximum pressure of TIGER and PANTHER are considerably lower than the MMP of M4 owing to the more equal distribution of weight over many large diameter, overlapping road wheels of the Kniekamp runnign gear.
I´d agree that the TIGER-1 is not quite to M4 levels but within the same ballpark (it has, however, better obstacle clearing abilities). The PANTHER and CHURCHILL, are considerably superior in their ability to negotiate mud or difficult terrain to any version of the M4.

What I am curious is how the Cromwell, which happened to have quite a poor MMP, managed to be up to M4 levels in terrain traverse.

Post Reply

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