Tiger Tanks Destroyed In Combat - NWE

[Richard Stone]

The attached report ‘After Action Report For October 1944’ was prepared by the 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion.

Several pages of the report describe the unit’s action against a number of Mk VI Tiger Tanks in October 1944. During that period the 814th was attached to the 7th Armored Division and was fighting in Holland using M-10 Tank Destroyers equipped the 3” gun.

Two interesting items in this report are the number of Tigers that were destroyed and in some cases blew up. The Tiger combat is described on Pages 6 to 12.

The second item is an incident where an M-8 Armored Car of the 87th Reconnaissance Battalion disabled a Tiger by using its 37 mm gun. This is listed on Page 8 in the second paragraph.

The original report is on the website ‘tankdestroyer.net’ in the section 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion.

814th_AAR_Oct_1-31_1944-12_pages.pdf

(723.65 KiB) Downloaded 173 times

[Cult Icon]

Which tiger unit? Pz IVs were often misidentified as Tigers by US forces.

[Sheldrake]

The action was that of the Peel Marshes The Germans were from then 9th Panzer and 15th Panzer Grenadier Divisions.
https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/Sie ... 34map3.jpg
During the battle, a British battery did well enough to be awarded a US Vice presidential citation and the honour title "Asten".

[Richard Anderson]

Which tiger unit? Pz IVs were often misidentified as Tigers by US forces.

American Infantry? Probably. As Mac McDonald said to me, "it makes little difference to an infantryman, if it's armored, has tracks and a gun, then its a tank".

American Tank Destroyers? Probably not. Enemy vehicle recognition was a major element of training and they tended to be pretty good at it. That does not preclude misidentifying Panzer IV as Tiger I and Panther as Tiger II at distance.

In this case, the Tigers were there, from s.Pz.-Abtl. 506. and possibly from Pz.-Abtl. (Fkl.) 301., I don't remember when they were attached to 9. Panzer-Division.

[critical mass]

There were six TIGER present. Though no loss recorded for the time period (late reporting anyone?).

[FalkeEins]

Thanks Richard..was looking at the 813th TD just as I noticed this - first US armor across the Seine in late August 44. They were deployed with the 79th US Inf. just north of Mantes and effectively broke up German counter-attacks by Tigers of s.Pz.Abt 503 and King Tigers of s. SSPz.Abt 101 claiming a number destroyed on August 26.

http://tankdestroyer.net/images/stories ... 1_1944.pdf

[Richard Stone]

The attached After Action Report discusses the combat between the 825th Tank Destroyer Battalion and a number of Tiger II Tiger Royal) tanks at Stavelot, Belgium in December 1944 during the Ardennes Offensive. The 825th was a towed battalion armed with the 3” anti-tank gun.

The second report is a description of the combat that was printed in the Army publication 'Stars & Stripes’.

825th_AAR_Co_A_Dec_17_44-Jan_17_1945-3_pages.pdf

(176.65 KiB) Downloaded 80 times

825th_Stars__Stripes_Art_Dec_19_1944-1_page.pdf

(55.93 KiB) Downloaded 68 times

[Richard Stone]

The first attached report describes the destruction of a Tiger 1 by an M-18 Tank Destroyer of the 603rd Tank Destroyer Battalion. This report was taken from the March 1945 issue of the US Army 'Tank Destroyer Information Letter’. One interesting item about this encounter is the tank was hit in the flank just above the tracks by a 76 mm HE shell equipped with a T105 Fuse.

This encounter appears to have occurred during January 1945 based on the 603rd's January After Action Report, which is attached below. The 603rd was attached to the 3rd Army and operating with the 6th Armored Division during this period.

The third report is a brief description of the T105 Fuse. This fuse proved to be a useful addition to the US Army HE shells and was used successfully in many combat situations against tanks and fortifications by Sherman tanks and the M-10, M-18 and M-36 tank destroyers. This report was taken from the November 1944 issue of the US Army 'Tank Destroyer Information Letter’.

603rd-AAR_Jan_45.pdf

(397.79 KiB) Downloaded 41 times

[critical mass]

I seem not to be able to find said quote in the AAR.

Is 76mm HE APD fused (advanced point detonating) against 60mm RHA likely to obtain perforation in the first place? At 150 yards, the terminal velocity is very high, well within the realm where 0.79 cal/RHA will shatter a forged steel nose fuses easily.

[Richard Stone]

The three attached reports discuss the destruction of several Mk VI Tiger Tanks by the 628th Tank Destroyer Battalion in September 1944. At that time period the 628th was attached to the 5th Armored Division and was fighting in Germany in the vicinity of the Siegfried Line using M-10 Tank Destroyers equipped the 3” gun. The 628th claimed 9 Tiger Tanks as knocked out during this period and these include at least two Tigers knocked out by APC shells fired into the front plate with others knocked by long range fire shot into the flank.

The first report is short description of the action that was printed in the October 1944 issue of the US Army 'Tank Destroyer Information Letter’.

The second report is a copy of the pages of the 628th’s September 1944 After Action Report that discuss this action.

The third report is a copy of the September 1944 Battle Experiences Report by the 628th's tank destroyer platoon commanders.

The original reports are on the website ‘tankdestroyer.net’ in the section 628th Tank Destroyer Battalion.

628th AAR Sept 30 1944 .pdf

(328.98 KiB) Downloaded 47 times

628th Battle Exp Reports Sept 30 1944--2pages.pdf

(152.29 KiB) Downloaded 50 times

[Yoozername]

I seem not to be able to find said quote in the AAR.

Is 76mm HE APD fused (advanced point detonating) against 60mm RHA likely to obtain perforation in the first place? At 150 yards, the terminal velocity is very high, well within the realm where 0.79 cal/RHA will shatter a forged steel nose fuses easily.

Tiger I and Panther seemed to have anecdotal evidence and instruction in 'Bible' that HE vs the lower side armor (set on delay I believe) was effective.

[critical mass]

I sincerely doubt this was the case. 90mm HE was marked ineffective vs PANTHERs 40mm vertical lower hull, and even a forged or hardened nose fuse cannot be made to negotiate 60mm thick armor. The forged nose fuse is made for soil and soft penetration into sand, clay or even concrete, it does not work vs armor plate, whiches resistance is 20 to 30 times higher than cement.Because the distance is denser, the impulse shock is shorter, and thus more severe for the fuse material. Plus. The HE shell body, too, is a huge cavity, with discontinuities towards the nose, and also unable to perforate steel armor.

A very large HE can break the thinner plates but this is at best a 0.3-0.4 cal/D realm. 0.8 cal/D is AP realm.

[critical mass]

Post ww2 report on non steel perforation (Aberdeen report No.641; dated oct. 1947)

Granite tested had 22,500 PSI UTS, compared to 115,000 for softest RHA (ca. 225 BHN).

Tests with 76mm HE with concrete piercing fuse result, I quote:

The 76mm H.E. Shell M 42, inert loaded, concrete piercing M78 fuze, were invariably ruptured on impact with granite wall even at striking velocities as low as 1,170 ft/sec. When the M 42 shell was H.E. loaded, C.P. M 78 fuzes, over 50% low orders resulted, indicating that the shell were collapsing before fuze functioning took place.Apparently the H. E. type shell with C.P. Fuzes is too weak to resist.

[Richard Stone]

The attached report ‘Effect Of 90 mm Gun On Enemy Tanks’ discusses the initial results of 90mm anti-tank gun fire on Mk V Panther and Mk VI Tiger Tanks. The report was written by the 628th Tank Destroyer Battalion in December 1944 after the unit had been reequipped with the M-36 Tank Destroyer. At that time period the 628th was attached to the 5th Armored Division and was fighting in Germany.

The 90 mm ammunition used during these combat events appears to be the initial design APC type and not the later design HVAP or APC types.

628thTnkDestryBttln-90mm Gun Effect.pdf

(141.7 KiB) Downloaded 70 times

[Michael Kenny]

Thanks Richard..was looking at the 813th TD just as I noticed this - first US armor across the Seine in late August 44. They were deployed with the 79th US Inf. just north of Mantes and effectively broke up German counter-attacks by Tigers of s.Pz.Abt 503 and King Tigers of s. SSPz.Abt 101 claiming a number destroyed on August 26.

http://tankdestroyer.net/images/stories ... 1_1944.pdf

The first TII in the link is the one claimed claimed at 0945 on Aug 28th viewtopic.php?p=2244629#p2244629