What is the best tank in WW2

No, I mean that US tankers often lacked confidence and overrated Tigers.

Whole lot of variables there, Selesque. On the subject of Tigers killed by aircrafts, this forum has an entire post on it, although I can't find it at the moment. Sure one of the mods will? :lol:

Panther tanks impervious to 75 mm guns? What kind of 75 mm gun exactly? The 6 pdr (57 mm) could take out a Panther, and famously halted a whole column of Panthers from advancing. Sounds very unfeasible to me.

How can a Tiger be destroyed by 12,7 mm guns while a Panther is impervious to 75 mm guns?

 

Maybe this is because we are haivng a debate on something that we have no "real" numbers no real information about how many shermans would need to be destroyed for a tiger. (u had better luck with m1 or m9 bazooka) Often panzer 4s were misidentified by soldiers and tank crews because they looked smiliarily to a tiger (box shapoe and all one member on thois forum posted a picture in a topic with a Panzer 4 and a Tiger side by side). Also the Germans were fighting a difensive war mostly since Stalingrad. You must invovle the Shermans destroyed by Tigers in Africa, Western Front, Italy, and Eastern Front. A feat impossible to accomplish because it was hard to tell what destroyed a tank (what other tank) because the germans in their defensive war were setting up ambushes everwhere.

 

In tests the rounds used would be randomly picked from the production line to be an accurate representation of the ammunition available in the field, surely? These tests were carried out against plates slanted at 30 degrees from vertical, which is more than the Tiger had. They represent the simple truth of how much armour would be penetrated by a given round at a given distance; every variable that a normal combat situation adds to this can be incorporated in the calculation and does not render it completely worthless. Therefore we can adapt it but we cannot discard it, it is still a fact.

The round Panzerman takes as an example was the standard American APCBC round, not the special but rare HVAP round which could penetrate the same amount of steel at three times the distance he mentions. If you're still willing to deny that this weapon was capable of penetrating the Tiger's frontal armour then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

The shatter gap only occured at certain distances and degrees of impact, which means that it didn't render the 76mm completely useless.

Tigers may have been knocked out by .50cal fire from above but not from the rear because no type of 12.7mm machine gun ammunition could penetrate the 80mm thick armour the Tiger had at its rear. This was, however, once more perfectly penetrable for the 76mm gun mounted on late-war Shermans.

That is simply not true. A Panther was not impervious to anti-tank fire. It is true that a 75mm gun such as was mounted on the early Sherman would not be able to penetrate this tank from the front (it would from the side), but there were plenty of weapons that would pull this off. There is, as I have repeatedly brought up here, a famous instance where a single 57mm gun repelled an attack by a regiment of Panthers, destroying four in the process. I can't believe you are so willing and eager to put your faith in myths of German invincibility instead of facts.

I have yet to see an example of a fight between five Shermans and a Tiger that would support your claim that it took five Shermans to kill a Tiger. And I don't mean your assumptions as to what would be required, but actual documentation of what happened when a Tiger was encountered by five Shermans and to what extent this sort of event was commonplace in the West in 1944.

 

Fighting a mostly defensive war is not the same as being on the defensive everywhere, always. Tigers were breakthrough tanks, used to spearhead (counter)attacks; the Germans did this constantly since many of the German generals believed strongly in active defence rather than fortress thinking, especially in the East.

The essential problem of this debate is that it was indeed all but impossible for an early Sherman to destroy a Tiger I, and therefore it would take a unit of these a lot of trouble and casualties to destroy one Tiger. The scenario disregards, however, all the weapons the Allies had that could cope with Tigers, including the 6pdr guns the British had in use even before they met their first Tigers in Africa. It is completely short-sighted, then, to assume that all Tigers were met by Shermans and Shermans only and that the M4's weight of numbers always carried the day.

 

When? Where? How? Not by penetrating the armour, that's for sure.

The 3-in. gun M7 had no problem penetrating the frontal armour of the Tiger I at normal combat ranges - in the real world, that is. The main problem was the availability during 1944.

The 75-mm gun M3 was perfectly capable of penetrating the Panthers side armour.

 

have a read of this topic:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... 32&start=0

It might change your mind on that one

Um, this website that you posted - scroll down and it has tables of the distances at which the more common Allied tanks could penetrate the front/rear/side/turret armour of the Tiger I.

 

Note that those tables apparently do not consider the use of APDS rounds by the British, which would significantly enhance their penetrating abilities against Tigers. Also note that even though the text tries to hide this, it manages to tell us that Tigers on the Western front were outnumbered by Sherman Fireflies alone.

 

In all fairness, APDS wasn't available in nearly as great numbers as AP.

 

I recall an interview with a P-51 pilot that I saw on TV- probably the History Channel ( I know- not the best source of info- but it was an interview with an actual pilot from 1944-1945). He was talking about what they would do after after escorting bombers- essentially looking for targets of opportunity to expend their ammo on. Anyways this pilot claimed that they could take out Tiger tanks with their .50 cal's by firing a bit in front of the tank. The rounds would richocet and penetrate the tank from the bottom! I would have to assume the Tiger would have to be on a hard surfaced road for that to happen.
I myself am quite skeptical, but I wasn't there. The guy who was, said it happened.

 

Yeah, that is also covered in http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... 32&start=0

Basically, if the rounds ricocheted off the tarmac, then they would also ricochet off the tank's armour (which is significantly harder than tarmac).

And lots of other points.

 

The topic linked above deals with this story. Physics say it's not possible, and frankly I'm very skeptical as to how a fighter pilot flying at 500+ km/h would be able to accurately see whether or not his target was knocked out if this happened without the use of explosives. After all, pilots were notoriously eager to claim kills they simply did not make.

 

A pilot requires another pilot to confirm his kill.

Guys, you are so eager to shut me up (appologies for this), you never asked me what 75mm gun was? Did I ever said it was american? Did I ever said it was AT? No! They were just some poor romanian 75mm artilery pieces in 1944. Manned by workers in a nearby factory. Man, you are jumpy!

Any way, I said from above AND behind, not from above OR behind. Is an aircraft, not a car!

 

If you were talking about any other 75mm gun than that which was fitted on the early Sherman (the American M3 75mm) then it is irrelevant to our discussion of early Shermans vs heavier German tanks in the West in 1944. This is how we defined our subject, isn't it?

 

Their "kills" were still vastly inflated.

Still, though. a 75 mm artillery piece will pierce more armor than a 12.7 aircraft MG. How can a Panther (which has equal or less armor than a Tiger) be impervious to 75 mm fire, while the more heavily armored Tiger could be destroyed by 12.7 mm? It is contradictory.

Can you find proof that 12.7 bullets will penetrate 25 mm of armor?

Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.E
[...]
Armour 25-100 mm.
http://panzerworld.net/tigeri.html

 

Hey Selesque,

don't worry, we are not eager to shut you up...
we just like to debate and tend to jump onto statements that we can disagree with!

Is this true for ground attack - especially 'informal' ground attack? Because at 300mph an enemy vehicle is there & gone pretty fast...

That is also covered in the discussion held in the link - have a read, it is quite a good topic.

Any more info on this - it sounds like an interesting combat.

 

What types of cannons where they? AFAIK, these are the only relevant 75 mm guns... other type are purpose built AA or AT guns, all capable of taking out a Panther... somehow.

Bofors 75mm L/20 Sweden Inter War
Canon de 75 M mle 1919 Schneider France World War II
Canon de 75 M mle 1928 France World War II
Canon de 75 modele 1934 Belgium World War II
Canone de 75 mle 1897 France World War I
Ehrhardt Model 1911 Germany World War I
Krupp Model 1903 Germany World War I
M1 Pack Howitzer United States
M8 Pack Howitzer United States World War II
Obice de 75/18 Mod 35 Italy World War II
Skoda M1915 Austria-Hungary World War I
Type 35 Japan World War II
leIG 18 Germany World War II
leIG 18 F Germany World War II
IG 37 Germany World War II
leGebIG 18 Germany World War II
GebG 36 Germany World War II

All of these are 75 mm guns.

 

It seems to be some Schneider, cal. 75 mm, md. 1897 guns, or Skoda, cal. 75 mm, md. 1928, since these were in use on large scale in Romania.

It seems that the germans were just orienting or comunicating with HQ, because after a few rounds have been fired at them, they just backed away and left. I guess otherwise there would be some heroic deeds from the guners, resulting in medals, not comendations... Not much of a battle, because Panthers never shot back...

 

Then you would agree that Panthers are not impervious to fire from aforementioned guns?

 

no it is only a coincidence there is only 1 panther left operational.

 

The US 57 mm AT gun had British Sabots available during the Ardennes battle..

If you have read much about this battle you would know many German tanks were destroyed by it..


oh yeah, more US 90 MM M36 Jacksons were produced than Tigers..

Tigers served, and were killed everywere, while the Jacksons only served in NW Europe..

think about it