Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

[Yoozername]

Let us check that claim out.

Long winded try at deflection.

Care to possibly address the actual issue? You posted this. I called BS on the tuber and you for posting it.



But, you ignore things like AP rounds being used on targets other than tanks and anything you find inconvenient. So, why would anyone expect you to face your errors?

[Yoozername]

More from The Dreaded Threat:

dreaded threat page 38b.jpg

I don't see the range information. Not sure if you left that out intentionally (or the overly prolific author confused 24 hour time with range?).

But, it is an interesting that you then went on to post information regarding desert operations. Clearly Tom is delighted. As usual, one is put to the task of wondering what point(s) you might be making?

The range information would be very interesting though. Basically because the author might have made an incorrect premise. And the people that would actually buy the expensive book might want to know that. I am sure other 'anoraks' (as you call people), might actually point out that the 88 is using the early round, and the 'inherent accuracy' is not comparable to a Tiger I. Even when firing the later round.

[Tom from Cornwall]

you then went on to post information regarding desert operations. Clearly Tom is delighted.

He was! He would be even more delighted if someone posted similar statistics from the campaign in Italy.

Regards

Tom

[Michael Kenny]

I don't see the range information. Not sure if you left that out intentionally (or the overly prolific author confused 24 hour time with range?).

I am not your personal researcher and if Google Books fails you then you will have to find other ways to troll. The confusion is all yours and Jentz left nothing out. I gave the source and that is all I have to do. .

Clearly Tom is delighted.

Correction. Tom is delightful.

[Yoozername]

I don't see the range information. Not sure if you left that out intentionally (or the overly prolific author confused 24 hour time with range?).

I am not your personal researcher and if Google Books fails you then you will have to find other ways to troll. The confusion is all yours and Jentz left nothing out. I gave the source and that is all I have to do. .

You seem defensive? And Data-Dropping dropping isn't research. And I am happy for you and Tom. I hope you two can have a nice MacGuffin together.

Too bad your limited means of analyzing data isn't as great as the pile of books in your flat.

[Tom from Cornwall]

I am happy for you and Tom. I hope you two can have a nice MacGuffin together.

Sorry, I don't know what a MacGuffin is, is it a historical research term?

Incidentally, on the use of anti-tank ammunition against non-tank targets, I can also point to some British experiences; specifically by 56 British Infantry Division prior to their commitment to the invasion of Italy in Sept 43 (WO169/8810):

7 August 1943
1630 [TOR] RA 203 G – Experiments in the use of 6-pr and 17-pr A Tk guns against concrete pillboxes will be carried out by 67 A Tk on 9 Aug 32 km (from TRIPOLI) on HOMS rd 0700 hrs. Any units wishing to do so may send spectators.

Regards

Tom

[Yoozername]

Sorry, I don't know what a MacGuffin is, is it a historical research term?

LOL! To use MK's rage-speak...."I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL RESEARCHER!!!!"

In any case, US tank doctrine also called for mixed use of AP and HE on even armor targets. Troops took to throwing WP around as they found it a multi-use tool.

If you watch the video I posted earlier, AP is actually the most effective of the tested US weapons against bunkers.

[Yoozername]

Here is some data dropping. It would be silly, or youtubish, to add up all the possible number of rounds of all weapons that could fire any antitank round, and divide it into '2'.

7th AD September

STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Losses in personnel during the month of September of the 7th Armored Division (attached troops excluded) were:
Killed and died of wounds 153
Wounded 737
Missing 316
Not-battle casualties 618

In materiel, the losses were:

Tanks, Medium 47
Tanks, Light 8
M-10 2
M-8 1
Vehicles of all types 84

Enemy materiel reported destroyed consisted of:
Tanks, Mark IV 2
Guns, 88mm 4
Guns, 75mm (or larger guns) 4
Vehicles of all types 15

During the period 1 September to 30 September the Division used the following amounts of supplies:
377,000 gal fuel
9,000 gal oil
802 tons of rations
950,000 gal water

Ammunition:
Cal..30 all types 1,050,464
Cal..45 Ball 138,600
Cal..50 all types 110,126
37mm all types 1,516
57mm all types 60
75mm all types, G&H 7,624
105mm How, all types 31,657
60mm Mortar all types 1,470
81mm Mortar all types 2,639
76mm Gun all types 4,311
Rockets HE, AT 446
Grenades all types 3,206
Mines 1,000
2" Mortar Smoke Bombs ------------------------36

https://www.7tharmddiv.org/docrep/

[tigre]

Hello to all ; more......................

Ammunition resupply of the Pz Kw VI Tiger I.

There were four types of ammunition available, but not all of them were fully available; The PzGr 40 projectile used tungsten, which became scarce as the war progressed.

PzGr. 39 (armor-piercing, capped, ballistic cap)
PzGr. 40 (armor-piercing, hard-core projectile)
Hl. Gr. 39 (anti-tank shaped charge)
sch. Sprgr. Patr. L/4.5 (high explosive projectile)

Source: Bundesarchiv. Photo Dr Paul Wolff. Summer 1943
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

What percentage/amount of each projectile? Cheers. Raúl M .

[Yoozername]

That is incorrect (Wiki) data. Both the Tiger I, and the Panther, predominantly used Pzgr and Spgr for ammunition.