quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin




I`d suggest that the reason why the Germans only brought out a sizeable number of any type of tank in bad weather or constricted terrain had more to do with Allied air supremacy than purposely choosing to engage at shorter distances. By 1944 air power (and limited resources) was having a serious affect on their abilty to conduct mobile operations of any type. That is one of the reasons Rommel wanted the armoured reserves close to the beach heads - so that they wouldn`t be interedicted by air power while being committed from deep operational reserve positions. I suspect the Germans began to have the same reservations about employing armour at the tactical level and felt it was better to operate from as much cover as possible - hence the close fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

But wasn't the Sherman poorer off road compared to the wider tracks of something like a MkIV?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

But wasn't the Sherman poorer off road compared to the wider tracks of something like a MkIV?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Tiger can destroy any tank in 1000 m distance,especially sherman.[:D]
Sherman must approach Tiger within 400 m to even try to put hole in Tiger.


This "any tank" exclude IS tanks[8D]

Here is nice thought:

Wow. Just becuase they made more of them, doesnt mean it was a better tank. It just means they made more of them. They make a helluva lot more toyotas than they do ferraris, but could you call the toyota the better car just based on that?


A sherman has a small chance if it attacks a tiger from behind without the tiger knowing about the sherman's possition. The rear is pretty soft like with all tanks, but still.. the M10 comes way closer tot the tiger and even that is no match against it. The tiger is a class on it's own and can not, and will not ever be matched. Specially since nothing good has seen the tiger in battle and really had the change to fight it 1 on 1. Dumb to make a show about this without knowing the facts. sorry to say so.

[:D][:D]

Outright false.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Prove that is wrong my young padawan[;)]

quote:

Doesn't matter if you lose the battle - and the ability to recover the wreck...

quote:

Depends upon the possession of the battlefield afterwards. If you can´t recover your derelicts, what good is it?

quote:

Prove that is wrong my young padawan

quote:

The tiger is a class on it's own and can not, and will not ever be matched.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber


Great minds think alike [:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber



I'll take an Abrams (or hell, even a T-72) and be glad to meet you in a Tiger...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber



I'll take an Abrams (or hell, even a T-72) and be glad to meet you in a Tiger...

I´ll up the ante and do it in a T55 [:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

I think i explain everything in last few posts.

TIGER IS BETTER TANK THAN SHERMAN.
....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This morning I had a little accident I bumped into the side of a new Volvo S40 with my Suzuki Wagoner (aka Opel Agila made in Hungary). My damage is a bent right front module (not even the paint has come off), hers a shattered left front lamp, an unopenable left front door (driver's), and the broken window (same door).

Does it make the Suzuki a better and safer car than the Volvo? Pun intended. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

Shure is! 1- It CAN kill it. 2- Its faster. Most Sherman Jumbos carried a 75mm gun, but your photo shows a field modified version mounting a 76mm gun. The extra armor made the vehicle a bit sluggish on the move. I will admit that the battle between these two tanks would largely depend on the experience of the crews manning them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

I told myself I would not get dragged into this kind of topic like the other F4F vs Zero topic etc.

But I felt I had no choice but to dig out some books to see for myself on this.

Firstly looking at track width's and hence off road performance. Cooper points out that initial Sherman's in Normandy used 14" tracks compared to Mk IV's 15.7". Later Sherman models had 16.5" tracks. All in all not a lot between them here.

One of the key things Cooper is saying is not the track width but the "suspension design and superior ground pressure of the German tanks (Mark IV for example, much lighter at 22 tons vs 37 for Sherman) gave them superior mobility in soft terrain."

Some interesting Horsepower comparison's:

Sherman M4A4:
Horsepower (max.) 425hp@2600rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 13.4 hp/tonne

Panther G:
Horsepower (max.) 700hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 15.4 hp/t

Tiger I:
Horsepower (max.) 690hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 12.1 hp/tonne

Tiger II:
Horsepower (max.) 700hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 10.0 hp/tonne

The Tiger isn't too bad here.

Even more interesting though here's the ground pressure comparison:

Sherman M4A4: GP 13.7 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 13.4 hp/tonne

Panther G: GP 12.8 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 15.4 hp/tonne

Tiger I: GP 13.9 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 12.1 hp/tonne

Tiger II: GP 13.7 psi @ Power/Weight Ratio 10.0 hp/tonne

Looking at some penetration figures:

76.2mm APCBC pen figures at time of debut (around Normandy time)

500m 94mm
1000m 89mm
1500m 81mm

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally[;)]

This was later improved in the war to:

500m 116mm
1000m 106mm
1500m 101mm

The above of course is test data (50% pen if = to armor thickness) and assumes 0 degree slope. If the "garden variety" Tiger is oblique even the later ammo 76 Sherman could have probs and of course the front turret mantlet will be resistant no matter what the facing. The Panther's sloped glasis will also continue to be a tough nut unless the tank is lucky to have a late late war HVAP round.

I don't want to get into slanging matches so this post will be my last in this topic hopefully.............digest at your leisure all[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This morning I had a little accident I bumped into the side of a new Volvo S40 with my Suzuki Wagoner (aka Opel Agila made in Hungary). My damage is a bent right front module (not even the paint has come off), hers a shattered left front lamp, an unopenable left front door (driver's), and the broken window (same door).

Does it make the Suzuki a better and safer car than the Volvo? Pun intended. [:D]

quote:

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

Tiger can put a hole in turret of Sherman A2 at 1800 m distance[:D]
Sherman A2 cannot penetrate Tiger turret at 0 distance[;)]
Tiger penetrate Sherman A4 turret at 1800 m distance[:D]
Sherman A4 penetrate Tiger turret at 700 m distance[;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally

And regularly did same.

quote:

As late as June 44, it was consiered that the 76mm gun tank would make up only one third of the armored strength with the balance retaining the 75. Within a month the hedgrow fighting had shown the 75 to be completely ineffective against the front armor of the german Panther and Tigers. The combat units now wanted every 76mm gun tank available. Earlier objections to excessive muzle blast and the long wkward rounds of ammunition were forgotten overnight, only hole punching ability was important. Even the 76 proved inadequate in this regard and the ush was on to obtain a weapon which could penetrate the front armor of the tough skinned enemy tanks.

In August a few rounds of the new 76mm HVAP (APCR) ammuntion were rushed to France and tests conducted near Isigny against six captured Panthers. The tests showed the new ammunition was extremely accurate and a great improvement over the old APC M62, but it could not penetrate the Panther's front plte at ranges over 300 yard. Production of the new ammunition was also limited to only 10,000 rounds per month, which meant that it could only be used on an emergency basis.
On 9 August 44, gen Omar Bradley directed his XII Army Group, Armor Section to request an allotment of tanks armed with the british 17lber. This attempt proved fuitless since the limied tnak reserves were insufficient o permit the release of vehicles for the installation of the British gun. The effort to obtain 17 lber tanks was revived laterin the middle of Feb 45 when reserve tank situation had impoved. At that time, the XII AG requested an initial conversion of 160 Shermans wih further conversiondependant on battel experience. Later this was cut to 80 becasue of limitations in British ammo supplies. Unfortunatley, the crowded condition of the shops delayed delivery and only the first few began to arrive in mid-March. These were allotted to the Ninth Army, but there is no recod of their use prior to the end of the war. In fact, the Ninth Army After Action Report indicates that the delievery of 40 17lber tanks was expected, but it does not record their arrival.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

quote:

Paul,
Whenever "is A better than B" gives a "complex" answer, the reality is that it was a bit narrower than everyone thought IMHO.

Complex enough to have a nearly 600 page book written about the "rest of the story" :) Usualy when "A is better than " is assumed cut and dried, its by someone examining the case in hindsight IMHO.

edit

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Yep....any 76 could kill any garden variety Tiger frontally

And regularly did same.

But nowhere near as "regularly" as might have been liked.

quote:

As late as June 44, it was consiered that the 76mm gun tank would make up only one third of the armored strength with the balance retaining the 75. Within a month the hedgrow fighting had shown the 75 to be completely ineffective against the front armor of the german Panther and Tigers. The combat units now wanted every 76mm gun tank available. Earlier objections to excessive muzle blast and the long wkward rounds of ammunition were forgotten overnight, only hole punching ability was important. Even the 76 proved inadequate in this regard and the ush was on to obtain a weapon which could penetrate the front armor of the tough skinned enemy tanks.

In August a few rounds of the new 76mm HVAP (APCR) ammuntion were rushed to France and tests conducted near Isigny against six captured Panthers. The tests showed the new ammunition was extremely accurate and a great improvement over the old APC M62, but it could not penetrate the Panther's front plte at ranges over 300 yard. Production of the new ammunition was also limited to only 10,000 rounds per month, which meant that it could only be used on an emergency basis.
On 9 August 44, gen Omar Bradley directed his XII Army Group, Armor Section to request an allotment of tanks armed with the british 17lber. This attempt proved fuitless since the limied tnak reserves were insufficient o permit the release of vehicles for the installation of the British gun. The effort to obtain 17 lber tanks was revived laterin the middle of Feb 45 when reserve tank situation had impoved. At that time, the XII AG requested an initial conversion of 160 Shermans wih further conversiondependant on battel experience. Later this was cut to 80 becasue of limitations in British ammo supplies. Unfortunatley, the crowded condition of the shops delayed delivery and only the first few began to arrive in mid-March. These were allotted to the Ninth Army, but there is no recod of their use prior to the end of the war. In fact, the Ninth Army After Action Report indicates that the delievery of 40 17lber tanks was expected, but it does not record their arrival.

The 76mm would still be in service today if folks round here ran the ordnance board. If it had been up to folks on the ground in WWII France, it would have stopped being in service in June 44. [;)]

quote:

Conclusion: The Successes and Failures of the PzKpfw VI Tiger I


PzKpfw VI Tiger I, of the s.SS.PzAbt.101 - Late Model - Normandy, 1944, destroyed.
By February 1944, sPzAbt.502 had 71 Tiger I tanks. At the same time, sPzAbt.503, 507, and 509 had respectively 69, 56 and 58 Tigers. This was due to transfers from other units training with the Tiger II, or due to the delivery of the last production Tiger I models. Tiger I production reached its peak between January and May 1944. Anyway, the maximum degree of success attained by the Tiger units was limited and/or localized tactical superiority. The truth was that the German industry simply couldn't produce Tigers in sufficient numbers to make any difference in the big picture - it was a task well beyond wartime German industry capabilities. Just as a comparison on productive capabilities, the Russians produced 23,937 T-34/76 from 1942 to 1945. The American Pershing tank was built at a rate of 1,350 tanks over a six month period. When production ceased in June 1945, 49,234 Sherman tanks had been built - more than all the German tank production during the entire war. In the end, it was this difference in production philosophy and faster Allied production that made the difference between defeat and victory. The real failure of the German very heavy tanks was that they exceeded the capabilities of the German industry to produce them in sufficient numbers.