Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
The fact they do not test a Panther (by July 1944) is another indication it was in the USA.
-
- Member
- Posts: 373
- Joined: 23 Apr 2017, 07:01
- Location: Canada
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
What the hell happened to the nose plate of that Tiger? Was it cut out with a blowtorch, or did it just fracture from shellfire?
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Fracture and drop off.Avalancheon wrote: ↑09 Sep 2019, 01:43What the hell happened to the nose plate of that Tiger? Was it cut out with a blowtorch, or did it just fracture from shellfire?
- Attachments
-
- sectionsdropoff.jpg (17.25 KiB) Viewed 1969 times
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Remarkable find, thank you.Mobius wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 02:14I 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.
I think both reports are actually based on empirical evidence. First report is from July 1944 and the second from August probably compiling data from several tests (?). The difference is that the first report includes distinction between 0 and 25 degree angles of impact and the second only 25 degrees (probably showing the worst result up to 25 degrees). Hence, the second image is also in the first report.
1000 yards:
0 degrees
25 degrees
Despite this, it is hard to make any conclusions based on this data because most of engagements in France in 1944 were below 700m. A 500m test would be most enlightening, imo. Anyone has it?
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
The poster has no idea what the quoted numbers represent - how they were obtained and the statements that they contained obvious double, sometimes triple and even quadruple counting as multiple units were reporting the same tank that they had found and assessed the reason for its destruction.
...far from over-claiming they hadn't actually been bothered to keep a proper count!
...that they had found when they passed through an area and the reason they attributed to the destruction.
Well, bloody hell, is it just me? I always wondered where the numbers are coming from. Somehow I couldn't believe it was the average Joe that would blow them out of proportions. But now you are saying that US claims are pure bogus? That US claims are based on wrecks they "drove past"? That this has been mentioned couple of times already?...these figures represent campaign claims by VIII Corps is untrue.
Jesus Christ! If I'm not mistaken are there multiple books and academic papers written, quoting these numbers as more or less reliable indicator of battle performance and I have never seen a single correction or warning issued. Further you don't want to disclose more info for a fear that some ChristianMunich will abuse it? If what you mentioned is true, wouldn't that mean a massive damage for the historiography of ww2?
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Hi delete013
Read my posts. Find the relevant document and read it - not difficult to find in the usual place to look for downloadable versions of primary US Army sources.
When you do you will find that the consolidated figures at Army, Corps, and Division level do not represent claims by those formations during the course of the European Campaign.
Reliable historians will have found, looked at the numbers, and understood what they mean, so no massive damage done.
These days historians look at outcomes rather than outputs and tend not to refer to numbers "claimed". As an example, look at two versions by the USAAF of ground attack operations and the Normandy campaign. The earlier of the two quotes some "claim" numbers. The later one, based on the knowledge that the "claims" were unreliable, barely mentions "claims" at all.
Regards
John
Read my posts. Find the relevant document and read it - not difficult to find in the usual place to look for downloadable versions of primary US Army sources.
When you do you will find that the consolidated figures at Army, Corps, and Division level do not represent claims by those formations during the course of the European Campaign.
Reliable historians will have found, looked at the numbers, and understood what they mean, so no massive damage done.
These days historians look at outcomes rather than outputs and tend not to refer to numbers "claimed". As an example, look at two versions by the USAAF of ground attack operations and the Normandy campaign. The earlier of the two quotes some "claim" numbers. The later one, based on the knowledge that the "claims" were unreliable, barely mentions "claims" at all.
Regards
John
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Okay, I'm just a bit shocked that I never read about this issue in any book, academic article or official report I went through (that of course doesn't mean I went through many). So what sources are representative? Do they exist? The unit diaries of some US armoured divisions include quite 'optimistic' claim numbers that Germans couldn't have lost even if wanted.
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Who?histan wrote: ↑09 Jan 2019, 02:44
The poster knows this to incorrect and other numbers have not been given to him because he will deliberately misuse them, as he has done here.
The poster has no idea what the quoted numbers represent - how they were obtained and the statements that they contained obvious double, sometimes triple and even quadruple counting as multiple units were reporting the same tank that they had found and assessed the reason for its destruction.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
I believe this is convoluted way of asking for the online source without directly asking for it. Check back and see who was originally complaining that no one would give him the link.
Beware!
Beware!
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Hi Michael
My first reply to "who" was going to be ChistianMunich
Regards
John
PS I have no intention of giving anything to posters who have not shown themselves to be serious researchers who have provided some the results of their own research. Quite a small number number!
My first reply to "who" was going to be ChistianMunich
Regards
John
PS I have no intention of giving anything to posters who have not shown themselves to be serious researchers who have provided some the results of their own research. Quite a small number number!
-
- Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
- Location: Australia
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
I think there was a discussion here regarding the sherman's armor. I remember someone, maybe me, posted this page. Clearly, from the German's own account, the sherman armor could survive, if from nothing else, the obliquity of the projectile.
http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-w ... lgium.html
Hopefully, the thread can now get back on topic.
http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-w ... lgium.html
Hopefully, the thread can now get back on topic.
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
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.
Edit: If anything this discussion itself is off-topic here. I suggest that mods move the last two messages here viewtopic.php?f=47&t=239393
Edit: If anything this discussion itself is off-topic here. I suggest that mods move the last two messages here viewtopic.php?f=47&t=239393