User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:18:38 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FFW to 10:15. Looks capable of knocking off a track or two  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJ8EoGmLuECapable, sure. Probable not likely. Stupid incredibly so. If your plan is to shoot at a tank hoping at most to knock the treads off, you have a shitty plan and will die quickly before firing a shot. You are loading up in an obsolete vehicle with poor optics and home brewed rounds hoping to hit a small part of a tank. The modern MBT has over match in every category. And even if you get extremely lucky and get thst mobility kill, the mbt or its friends will return fire and destroy your sherman or centurion etc. There are better ways to crack that nut than using museum pieces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:30:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Fortunately the internet has answered this already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOL00YjWbHINow this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own Yeah, but only about 50 would be reliably functional.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:37:44 AM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:47:39 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wittmann and his crew in a Konigstiger vs. a Saudi crew in an M1A2S. Go! The first round fired by the M1A2S misses the Tiger because the gunner sucks and has never done an MRS update. This shot also takes out the M1A2S loader because nobody waited for him to call "up" before taking the shot. The gunner has to climb out of his seat to load because the TC is royalty and loading is beneath his status. The M1A2S has not moved because the TC is incapable of directing movement and gunning at the same time. By this time, the Tiger has completely closed the gap with the M1A2S because the M1 crew's situational awareness was so bad, they were within 100yd of the Tiger before taking the first panicked shot. The Tiger TC dismounts and climbs onto the M1. The M1 TC can't see the Tiger parked right beside the M1, so he unbuttons and sticks his head up to look around. The Tiger TC shoots the M1 TC and drops a grenade down the hatch. Tiger wins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 8:28:32 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Zero Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A better question is how many tanks and anti-tank guns are privately owned and operational in the United States that could get at least a mobility kill on a modern MBT. Zero Well, that isn't true. I know there are a number of perfectly operational Chieftains and Leopard IIs privately owned in the US, some of which I've personally climbed around in. Along with at least one US 90mm AT gun in private hands (the same model that knocked out a tank during Gulf War II). There are also a number of T-72s. I know that at least two of the owners of the above modern MBTs have factory ammunition for them, not home loaded stuff. While unrelated, I also know of (having personally witnessed in use) at least three people who own Bofors anti-aircraft cannons, two of which have optical guidance and at least one of which is still setup and capable of optical or radar guidance. Not to mention the handful of shoulder fired anti-tank weapons in the US (of which there are a number- I turned down purchasing a half dozen factory new RPG-7s, and once turned down a factory new RPG-29.) So...try again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 8:31:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A better question is how many tanks and anti-tank guns are privately owned and operational in the United States that could get at least a mobility kill on a modern MBT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 8:47:04 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryI like the way you think. This would've been my response. How long until the M1 call in the A10s for an airstrike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 8:50:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, that isn't true. I know there are a number of perfectly operational Chieftains and Leopard IIs privately owned in the US, some of which I've personally climbed around in. Along with at least one US 90mm AT gun in private hands (the same model that knocked out a tank during Gulf War II). There are also a number of T-72s. I know that at least two of the owners of the above modern MBTs have factory ammunition for them, not home loaded stuff. While unrelated, I also know of (having personally witnessed in use) at least three people who own Bofors anti-aircraft cannons, two of which have optical guidance and at least one of which is still setup and capable of optical or radar guidance. Not to mention the handful of shoulder fired anti-tank weapons in the US (of which there are a number- I turned down purchasing a half dozen factory new RPG-7s, and once turned down a factory new RPG-29.) So...try again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 8:54:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Speaking of armor. On 18 March 1944, the US Navy battleship USS IOWA (BB-61) joined in the bombardment of Mili Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Although struck by two Japanese 4.7-inch (120 mm) projectiles on the armored #2 Main Battery Turret, Iowa suffered negligible damage. https://live.staticflickr.com/5089/5226692036_7c1623eba7_b.jpg https://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5226093781_779b6a6909.jpg I'd love to hear someone with access to the actual armor values of the battleships to opine on an Abrams 120mm being able to penetrate the BB's turrets, or modern AT missiles like the Hellfire or Brimstone. I seem to recall reading somewhere that a modern Hellfire would pen a BB's turret from the front, though I can't remember where I read it. Modern ammo is pretty amazing in terms of RHA penetration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 8:57:51 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A better question is how many tanks and anti-tank guns are privately owned and operational in the United States that could get at least a mobility kill on a modern MBT. Any of the 14.5mm or 20mm AT rifles could probably break track links with lucky hits, though I doubt any could actually pen modern MBT armor from any angle or range. Might be able to damage sensors with lucky shots but the old AT guns were not especially accurate and even the rare few with scopes had pretty awful optics by modern standards. ETA: Forgot about the Leopard II and T-72s out there, those would obviously do the job with proper ammo. But in the US the real answer is to take out the logistics supply train or dismounted crew rather than the tanks themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:03:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are quite a few T-55s, M60s, and Centurions in private hands in the US. Any would do the job from the side or rear, if ammo could be found and the guns reactivated. Any of the 14.5mm or 20mm AT rifles could probably break track links with lucky hits, though I doubt any could actually pen modern MBT armor from any angle or range. Might be able to damage sensors with lucky shots but the old AT guns were not especially accurate and even the rare few with scopes had pretty awful optics by modern standards. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A better question is how many tanks and anti-tank guns are privately owned and operational in the United States that could get at least a mobility kill on a modern MBT. Any of the 14.5mm or 20mm AT rifles could probably break track links with lucky hits, though I doubt any could actually pen modern MBT armor from any angle or range. Might be able to damage sensors with lucky shots but the old AT guns were not especially accurate and even the rare few with scopes had pretty awful optics by modern standards. Yeah. The 90mm AT gun that took out a tank in Gulf War II was dug in and concealed, and hit the tank right in the ass. It required perfect conditions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:07:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My rational is sound and reality based. Did you just not care to read the 10 to 1scenaro? This whole speed thing is nonsense and not reality based. As someone said earlier it matters only on a pool table. 99.9% of the time the engagement will not happen at full speed or anything approaching it. Please show any video to the contrary. Thats correct, you will not be able to produce any. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Your rational sucks. Tiger II max speed is 41.5 km/h on roads, 20 km/h cross country. The Abrams can do 40 km/h, in reverse. The Abrams can engage the Tiger II at 4 km, on the move, and have a 75-90% hit rate. The Tiger would need to close to 2 km, and stop, to have a 50% chance of hitting the Abrams, sitting stationary. And at 2 km, the armor isn't getting penetrated by the 88mm. If the Abrams was stationary, it would take the Tiger II's 3 minutes to close the 2 km distance. In that space of time, an Abrams would have fired 9 times per minute (AT LEAST, on average, with qualified crews), so each Abrams would have scored, on average 20 hits, before the first Tigers got into range to fire their guns. 20x10 = 200 hits on 100 tanks. They all dead. That's assuming a parking lot for an engagement where the Tigers can move at max speed. Limited visibility and broken up terrain would actually hurt the Tigers rather than help, since even at close range, the Tiger isn't penetrating the armor, the Abrams can drive in reverse faster than the Tigers can close, so it can move, shoot while on the move, and keep on moving while the Tigers are moving, stopping, and shooting, and the Abrams can take hits, the Tigers can't. Abrams have ballistic computers, thermal, etc. Best case scenario, the Tigers get a few mobility kills and get wiped out. My rational is sound and reality based. Did you just not care to read the 10 to 1scenaro? This whole speed thing is nonsense and not reality based. As someone said earlier it matters only on a pool table. 99.9% of the time the engagement will not happen at full speed or anything approaching it. Please show any video to the contrary. Thats correct, you will not be able to produce any. @DT120 But it isn't. The problem is, there are literally two hypothetical scenarios where a Tiger II can "defeat" an Abrams. A shot to the rear turret from point blank range, and a shot into the engine compartment. A shot into the engine compartment would qualify as a "golden bb" because it would be hard for the Tiger II to have the elevation, gun depression, & angle to deliver that shot. The kill shot from the rear requires the Tiger II maneuvering behind the Abrams, which in a 10-1 scenario - isn't going to happen. A *lone* Tiger II might be able to get lucky and ambush a single Abrams in the perfect environment (urban). But 100 Tigers are not going to ambush 10 Abrams. For the Tigers to defeat the Abrams, they have to maneuver behind the Abrams, and the Abrams is much more maneuverable than the Tiger. Even from point blank range, the Tiger cannot defeat the front or side aspect armor of the Abrams. The Abrams can defeat all of the Tiger armor at any range. The battle would go much the same way if it was 10 Leopard 2's or Challengers 2s vs 100 King Tigers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:07:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah. The 90mm AT gun that took out a tank in Gulf War II was dug in and concealed, and hit the tank right in the ass. It required perfect conditions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A better question is how many tanks and anti-tank guns are privately owned and operational in the United States that could get at least a mobility kill on a modern MBT. Any of the 14.5mm or 20mm AT rifles could probably break track links with lucky hits, though I doubt any could actually pen modern MBT armor from any angle or range. Might be able to damage sensors with lucky shots but the old AT guns were not especially accurate and even the rare few with scopes had pretty awful optics by modern standards. Yeah. The 90mm AT gun that took out a tank in Gulf War II was dug in and concealed, and hit the tank right in the ass. It required perfect conditions. There was a time when a few maniacs in a M8 scout car (with 37mm gun) chased after a King Tiger. They won.  M8 Greyhound vs King Tiger 1944 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:17:59 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plain old EFPs do not work against Chobham armor. They have some effect in a vertical direction, because the armor is thin on top, but from any horizontal plane, no. Shaped charges that rely on EFPs are most effective against homogenous metallic armor. Like solid thick steel. Chobham armor is not relying on sheer mass and thickness where greater thickness is better. If you've ever run a torch all day cutting thick steel up for salvage or whatever, you'll understand. When you hit the melt point and start the O2, you got to be smooth and keep the momentum. If you lose it, you have to start over, reheating before you can keep on cutting. EFPs work the same way, and layered Chobham type armor interrupts that. I think you are mixing up EFPs and shaped charges. EFPs work via kinetics - accelerating a penetrator really, really fast. It just happens to be an explosively formed penetrator. Shaped charges "melt" their way through armor (sort of), which is why things like spaced armor are effective. Mass & hardness is still very important for defeating kinetic penetrators, which is one of the reasons why the US Abrams have depleted uranium as part of their armor package. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:19:33 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: GD just wants to fantasize about something taking a projectile in the rear Next topic, please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 9:49:13 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The first round fired by the M1A2S misses the Tiger because the gunner sucks and has never done an MRS update. This shot also takes out the M1A2S loader because nobody waited for him to call "up" before taking the shot. The gunner has to climb out of his seat to load because the TC is royalty and loading is beneath his status. The M1A2S has not moved because the TC is incapable of directing movement and gunning at the same time. By this time, the Tiger has completely closed the gap with the M1A2S because the M1 crew's situational awareness was so bad, they were within 100yd of the Tiger before taking the first panicked shot. The Tiger TC dismounts and climbs onto the M1. The M1 TC can't see the Tiger parked right beside the M1, so he unbuttons and sticks his head up to look around. The Tiger TC shoots the M1 TC and drops a grenade down the hatch. Tiger wins. I haven’t ever been around any tanks, but the incompetence of most Saudi’s cannot be over estimated. Your story above assumes they don’t just walk up to the M1 and shoot the crew, all asleep outside the tank in the nearest shade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 10:38:35 AM EDT
[#17]
  The Iowas had heavily protected main battery turrets, with 19.5-inch (495 mm) Class B and STS face, 9.5-inch (241 mm) Class A sides, 12-inch (305 mm) Class A rear, and 7.25-inch (184 mm) Class B roof. The turret barbettes' armor is Class A with 17.3 inches (439 mm) abeam and 11.6 inches (295 mm) facing the centerline, extending down to the main armor deck. The conning tower armor is Class B with 17.3 inches (439 mm) on all sides and 7.25 inches (184 mm) on the roof. The secondary battery turrets and handling spaces were protected by 2.5 inches (64 mm) of STS. The propulsion shafts and steering gear compartment behind the citadel had considerable protection, with 13.5-inch (343 mm) Class A side strake and 5.6–6.2-inch (142–157 mm) roof |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 10:51:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are quite a few T-55s, M60s, and Centurions in private hands in the US. Any would do the job from the side or rear, if ammo could be found and the guns reactivated. Any of the 14.5mm or 20mm AT rifles could probably break track links with lucky hits, though I doubt any could actually pen modern MBT armor from any angle or range. Might be able to damage sensors with lucky shots but the old AT guns were not especially accurate and even the rare few with scopes had pretty awful optics by modern standards. ETA: Forgot about the Leopard II and T-72s out there, those would obviously do the job with proper ammo. But in the US the real answer is to take out the logistics supply train or dismounted crew rather than the tanks themselves. Im not denying there are tanks and rocket launchers in private collections. A portion of them are reactivated, but how many have proper projectiles. You even acknowledge that is a big if. Even if they have a couple heat or ap rounds, how many have they actually fired to practice. We can continue to play technically this could do X, but the reality is getting a privately owned AFV (small probability) with the proper ammo (exceedingly small probability) into position without being detected (small) with a trained and proficient crew (small) see how to hit a very small section of the tank (small) these probabilites stack to approach zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 11:03:10 AM EDT
[#19]
German Panther hit with a 152 mm round fired from the Soviet ML-20 gun
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 11:13:55 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven’t ever been around any tanks, but the incompetence of most Saudi’s cannot be over estimated. Your story above assumes they don’t just walk up to the M1 and shoot the crew, all asleep outside the tank in the nearest shade. When I was at FT Knox, a Saudi student in Armor Officer Basic Course who was gunning actually did seriously injure another student who was loading by firing before the loader was clear of the breech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 11:22:02 AM EDT
[#21]
From what I’ve been able to find, the US tankers encountered an actual tiger three times.
First encounter - The Sherman won Second - the Pershing lost Third - tigers were found being loaded onto a train and destroyed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 11:55:04 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Im not denying there are tanks and rocket launchers in private collections. A portion of them are reactivated, but how many have proper projectiles. You even acknowledge that is a big if. Even if they have a couple heat or ap rounds, how many have they actually fired to practice. We can continue to play technically this could do X, but the reality is getting a privately owned AFV (small probability) with the proper ammo (exceedingly small probability) into position without being detected (small) with a trained and proficient crew (small) see how to hit a very small section of the tank (small) these probabilites stack to approach zero. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There are quite a few T-55s, M60s, and Centurions in private hands in the US. Any would do the job from the side or rear, if ammo could be found and the guns reactivated. Any of the 14.5mm or 20mm AT rifles could probably break track links with lucky hits, though I doubt any could actually pen modern MBT armor from any angle or range. Might be able to damage sensors with lucky shots but the old AT guns were not especially accurate and even the rare few with scopes had pretty awful optics by modern standards. ETA: Forgot about the Leopard II and T-72s out there, those would obviously do the job with proper ammo. But in the US the real answer is to take out the logistics supply train or dismounted crew rather than the tanks themselves. Im not denying there are tanks and rocket launchers in private collections. A portion of them are reactivated, but how many have proper projectiles. You even acknowledge that is a big if. Even if they have a couple heat or ap rounds, how many have they actually fired to practice. We can continue to play technically this could do X, but the reality is getting a privately owned AFV (small probability) with the proper ammo (exceedingly small probability) into position without being detected (small) with a trained and proficient crew (small) see how to hit a very small section of the tank (small) these probabilites stack to approach zero. The only way to take such armor is with guerilla-type operations, not attempting to raise a Militia Armored Company. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 11:58:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From what I've been able to find, the US tankers encountered an actual tiger three times. First encounter - The Sherman won Second - the Pershing lost Third - tigers were found being loaded onto a train and destroyed. Most of the Tigers encountered in Europe were in the British sector of operations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:01:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From what I’ve been able to find, the US tankers encountered an actual tiger three times. First encounter - The Sherman won Second - the Pershing lost Third - tigers were found being loaded onto a train and destroyed. Quote HistoryQuoted: From what I’ve been able to find, the US tankers encountered an actual tiger three times. First encounter - The Sherman won Second - the Pershing lost Third - tigers were found being loaded onto a train and destroyed. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/39hrif/apparently_us_tankers_encountered_tiger_tanks/ This is pretty much a direct quote from the video, so I'm really addressing Moran's video, who actually uses one of my sources (Zalooga) as a source. That sounded really fishy to me, so I did some research. Clearly, I didn't have much to do at work today. This is what I found: On December 21st, 1944 at 5 pm, 6 Tigers of 506th Heavy Panzer Battalion attacked the 7th Armored Division near St. Vith in the Ardennes. The Tigers started with Star Shells and followed up with armor piercing, destroying all of the defending American vehicles, including tanks. [1] Also during the Battle of St. Vith, an M8 Greyhound of Troop B, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron destroyed a Tiger I tank. [2] EDIT: This was actually a Tiger II, according to the AAR. Staff Sargent Lesniak encountered a Tiger in Nouville during the Battle of the Bulge. He quickly fired 3 75mm rounds that apparently did nothing, but the Tiger crew retreated, backing over a jeep and became disabled. The tankers destroyed the Tiger with thermite. [3] On December 19th 1944, Donald Nichols engaged a Tiger at 600 yards with his 105mm Sherman, resulting in a confirmed kill. He was later engaged by a second Tiger, and retreated. He knew it was a Tiger from the distinctive sound that the 88 mm shells made [4] Also on the 19th, two Tigers were engaged by a Sherman, a 57 mm gun, and infantry with bazookas. The Tigers were thoroughly destroyed. [4] A Tank Destroyer engaged a Tiger near Foy. The Tiger was not destroyed, but it was driven off. [4] On December 21st, 1944 an M16 engaged a Tiger with its .50s, and forced it to retreat. [4] On December 24th, Lt. Brunson and his crew engaged a Tiger II at 30 yards and destroyed it. I believe he was in Sherman, but possibly a lighter tank as well. [4] On Jan. 12th, three Shermans in support of an assault by the 101st Airborne engaged a Tiger. The Tiger destroyed one US tank. [4] A Tiger knocked out a Pershing in an ambush at Elsdorf, as he mentioned, and this Tiger was abandoned by it's crew shortly after when it was stranded on some debris. [5] Shortly after that engagement though, another Tiger was destroyed by another M26 90-mm HVAP T30E16 ammunition at 900 yds. [6] Another M26 destroyed a Tiger in Cologne, [7] and there was a report of a Tiger being killed by the lone Super Pershing, but it's questionable. [6] So there you go. That's a large number of encounters between Tigers and American tankers, and these were only really during the Battle of the Bulge and after. Moran does make the point that "everything was a Tiger" to American tankers. This makes sense, as it's very hard to find out what actually happened during a battle. But in many of the above incidents, the enemy tanks were very close to multiple witnesses, and often times the remains of the tank were still there for all to see. You could also say Moran is also referring to Tiger Is, and yes, my sources were not always clear as to whether or not the tank in question is a Tiger I or II. That's a fair point. But, if Zalooga is indeed correct in saying that only 3 Tiger Is were encountered, it's still like saying that only a few BF-109G-2s were encountered in 1944. They were being phased out, or they had already broken down or been bombed, and by the time the Bulge came around, the Tiger II had stepped up and taken it's place. RobinofFoxley, if you end up over here, you'll see that I've pretty much copy/pasted what I responded to you. Also, my response is really more to Moran. I just figured people over here would be interested too. Super old post EDIT: At request of /u/MaxRavenclaw, here's an update to my findings, and a bit further analysis after performing some further research. I definitely was off about some stuff, and it turns out that a lot of the Tiger sightings that I found ended up being King Tigers. Going back to the Zaloga interview he did say that the Americans ran into King Tigers way more often than Tiger Is on the Western Front. Zaloga also describes one of his "three times" as "And then there was a single Tiger company up in the Bulge that was involved in some fighting" which could lead to multiple encounters. He even said "It definitely could have happened, there are certainly lots of gaps in the historical record both on the German side and the US side. I think the idea that the US encountered a lot of Tigers during WW2 is simply due to the tendency of the US troops to call all German tanks Tigers." I have to defend Zaloga, because I think he has said nothing wrong. He's basically saying "Tiger I encounters with American troops were actually very rare, I've only been able to find 3 separate instances where they were definitely in the same area of operations and reports are 100% confirmable. There were probably a few more, but not many" That's an accurate, nuanced way of looking at it. Moran parroted this, but in a way to sound entertaining and interesting to people who aren't necessarily interested in the nitty gritty of doing history. He said, "In northwest Europe between D-Day and the Fall of Germany, American tankers saw Tiger Is only 3 times." Moran has taken Zalogas open-ended, trend-focused statement, and turned it into a more absolute statement. I don't like absolute statements in History, but at least he still qualified tankers, Tiger Is and northwest Europe. Unfortunately, Moran was talking to a bunch of WT and WoT players, who have no idea what nuance is, so that whole thing quickly becomes "US soldiers of all types only saw Tiger Is or Tiger IIs three times ever through the entire war" like Italy and North Africa don't exist. I still believe that the M8 Greyhound killed a Tiger II. It was on the outskirts of the fighting area at St. Vith, and so were the Tiger IIs. Recon troops know what they are talking about. Also, this. Sources: [1] Saddles and Sabers: Timeline of St. Vith [2] The Battle at St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December 1944. US Army Armor School. Pg. 31 [3] Bastogne: The Story of the First Eight Days. Col. S. L. A. Marshall. Pg. 88 [4] The Tigers of Bastogne. Michael Collins. (which incidentally was not about Tiger tanks during the battle, but the 10th Armored Division, nicknamed "The Tigers.") [5] Wikipedia page on M26 Pershing, which quotes United States Tanks of World War II by Georgy Forty, pg. 138-139 [6] Wikipedia page on M26 Pershing, which quotes Armored Thunderbolt by Steve Zalooga. p. 287 [7] Wikipedia page on M26 Pershing, which quotes Pershing, A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series by R.P. Hunnicutt. Pg. 25 I wonder if Chiefie ever saw this or put out a rebuttal? @Manic_Moran 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:15:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wittmann, Wittmann, Wittmann. Always with the f'n Wittmann. Kurt Knispel was the guy you didn't want to be in the same county with.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:21:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/39hrif/apparently_us_tankers_encountered_tiger_tanks/ I wonder if Chiefie ever saw this or put out a rebuttal? @Manic_Moran Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: From what I've been able to find, the US tankers encountered an actual tiger three times. First encounter - The Sherman won Second - the Pershing lost Third - tigers were found being loaded onto a train and destroyed. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/39hrif/apparently_us_tankers_encountered_tiger_tanks/ This is pretty much a direct quote from the video, so I'm really addressing Moran's video, who actually uses one of my sources (Zalooga) as a source. That sounded really fishy to me, so I did some research. Clearly, I didn't have much to do at work today. This is what I found: On December 21st, 1944 at 5 pm, 6 Tigers of 506th Heavy Panzer Battalion attacked the 7th Armored Division near St. Vith in the Ardennes. The Tigers started with Star Shells and followed up with armor piercing, destroying all of the defending American vehicles, including tanks. [1] Also during the Battle of St. Vith, an M8 Greyhound of Troop B, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron destroyed a Tiger I tank. [2] EDIT: This was actually a Tiger II, according to the AAR. Staff Sargent Lesniak encountered a Tiger in Nouville during the Battle of the Bulge. He quickly fired 3 75mm rounds that apparently did nothing, but the Tiger crew retreated, backing over a jeep and became disabled. The tankers destroyed the Tiger with thermite. [3] On December 19th 1944, Donald Nichols engaged a Tiger at 600 yards with his 105mm Sherman, resulting in a confirmed kill. He was later engaged by a second Tiger, and retreated. He knew it was a Tiger from the distinctive sound that the 88 mm shells made [4] Also on the 19th, two Tigers were engaged by a Sherman, a 57 mm gun, and infantry with bazookas. The Tigers were thoroughly destroyed. [4] A Tank Destroyer engaged a Tiger near Foy. The Tiger was not destroyed, but it was driven off. [4] On December 21st, 1944 an M16 engaged a Tiger with its .50s, and forced it to retreat. [4] On December 24th, Lt. Brunson and his crew engaged a Tiger II at 30 yards and destroyed it. I believe he was in Sherman, but possibly a lighter tank as well. [4] On Jan. 12th, three Shermans in support of an assault by the 101st Airborne engaged a Tiger. The Tiger destroyed one US tank. [4] A Tiger knocked out a Pershing in an ambush at Elsdorf, as he mentioned, and this Tiger was abandoned by it's crew shortly after when it was stranded on some debris. [5] Shortly after that engagement though, another Tiger was destroyed by another M26 90-mm HVAP T30E16 ammunition at 900 yds. [6] Another M26 destroyed a Tiger in Cologne, [7] and there was a report of a Tiger being killed by the lone Super Pershing, but it's questionable. [6] So there you go. That's a large number of encounters between Tigers and American tankers, and these were only really during the Battle of the Bulge and after. Moran does make the point that "everything was a Tiger" to American tankers. This makes sense, as it's very hard to find out what actually happened during a battle. But in many of the above incidents, the enemy tanks were very close to multiple witnesses, and often times the remains of the tank were still there for all to see. You could also say Moran is also referring to Tiger Is, and yes, my sources were not always clear as to whether or not the tank in question is a Tiger I or II. That's a fair point. But, if Zalooga is indeed correct in saying that only 3 Tiger Is were encountered, it's still like saying that only a few BF-109G-2s were encountered in 1944. They were being phased out, or they had already broken down or been bombed, and by the time the Bulge came around, the Tiger II had stepped up and taken it's place. RobinofFoxley, if you end up over here, you'll see that I've pretty much copy/pasted what I responded to you. Also, my response is really more to Moran. I just figured people over here would be interested too. Super old post EDIT: At request of /u/MaxRavenclaw, here's an update to my findings, and a bit further analysis after performing some further research. I definitely was off about some stuff, and it turns out that a lot of the Tiger sightings that I found ended up being King Tigers. Going back to the Zaloga interview he did say that the Americans ran into King Tigers way more often than Tiger Is on the Western Front. Zaloga also describes one of his "three times" as "And then there was a single Tiger company up in the Bulge that was involved in some fighting" which could lead to multiple encounters. He even said "It definitely could have happened, there are certainly lots of gaps in the historical record both on the German side and the US side. I think the idea that the US encountered a lot of Tigers during WW2 is simply due to the tendency of the US troops to call all German tanks Tigers." I have to defend Zaloga, because I think he has said nothing wrong. He's basically saying "Tiger I encounters with American troops were actually very rare, I've only been able to find 3 separate instances where they were definitely in the same area of operations and reports are 100% confirmable. There were probably a few more, but not many" That's an accurate, nuanced way of looking at it. Moran parroted this, but in a way to sound entertaining and interesting to people who aren't necessarily interested in the nitty gritty of doing history. He said, "In northwest Europe between D-Day and the Fall of Germany, American tankers saw Tiger Is only 3 times." Moran has taken Zalogas open-ended, trend-focused statement, and turned it into a more absolute statement. I don't like absolute statements in History, but at least he still qualified tankers, Tiger Is and northwest Europe. Unfortunately, Moran was talking to a bunch of WT and WoT players, who have no idea what nuance is, so that whole thing quickly becomes "US soldiers of all types only saw Tiger Is or Tiger IIs three times ever through the entire war" like Italy and North Africa don't exist. I still believe that the M8 Greyhound killed a Tiger II. It was on the outskirts of the fighting area at St. Vith, and so were the Tiger IIs. Recon troops know what they are talking about. Also, this. Sources: [1] Saddles and Sabers: Timeline of St. Vith [2] The Battle at St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December 1944. US Army Armor School. Pg. 31 [3] Bastogne: The Story of the First Eight Days. Col. S. L. A. Marshall. Pg. 88 [4] The Tigers of Bastogne. Michael Collins. (which incidentally was not about Tiger tanks during the battle, but the 10th Armored Division, nicknamed "The Tigers.") [5] Wikipedia page on M26 Pershing, which quotes United States Tanks of World War II by Georgy Forty, pg. 138-139 [6] Wikipedia page on M26 Pershing, which quotes Armored Thunderbolt by Steve Zalooga. p. 287 [7] Wikipedia page on M26 Pershing, which quotes Pershing, A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series by R.P. Hunnicutt. Pg. 25 I wonder if Chiefie ever saw this or put out a rebuttal? @Manic_Moran |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:29:41 PM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:33:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Knock you, quite likely, destroy, not so much.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 12:38:00 PM EDT
[#29]
In for the hypothetical my dad can beat up your dad thread.
And
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 7:01:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Tiger tanks in the West.
501st heavy panzer battalion (Schwere panzerabteilung) fought in Tunisia 503rd fought in Normandy 506th fought at Arnhem 508th fought at Anzio 101st Heavy SS panzer battalion fought in Normandy 102nd Heavy SS panzer battalion fought in Normandy The overwhelming number of engagements were against the British, not Americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 7:24:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: speaking of getting hit in the ass There was a time when a few maniacs in a M8 scout car (with 37mm gun) chased after a King Tiger. They won. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx8InfzkHYIThis is almost certainly a war story. There were no known Tigers or King Tigers with 37mm holes in their asses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2021 7:33:18 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:07:46 AM EDT
[#33]
The turret on this tank weighed as much as a Tiger tank.
 The Maus - Nazi Germany's Biggest Tank |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 11:07:12 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The turret on this tank weighed as much as a Tiger tank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaY8SLMoy-4Could you imagine them having actually built one and used it in combat. US troops are in foxholes like in Bastogne and all the sudden one or two of those are leading a German advance. Fuck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 11:12:33 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could you imagine them having actually built one and used it in combat. US troops are in foxholes like in Bastogne and all the sudden one or two of those are leading a German advance. Fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The turret on this tank weighed as much as a Tiger tank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaY8SLMoy-4Could you imagine them having actually built one and used it in combat. US troops are in foxholes like in Bastogne and all the sudden one or two of those are leading a German advance. Fuck. huge threat there  It was basically only good for semi-stationary defensive use, at least as built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 11:25:23 AM EDT
[#36]
That IS why they were built. Had there been some constructed and used in combat the history would probably have been something like “Maus 121 of heavy tank company blah blah destroyed 19 T-34s and 6 IS-2s before being disabled by artillery and destroyed by its crew”.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 11:36:16 AM EDT
[#37]
Russia's UNSTOPPABLE Heavy Tank, the IS-7
 Beast from the East, the IS-7 | Cursed by Design |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 11:55:30 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no visibility, awful gun choices, so heavy it'd constantly sink in the mud, automotive components about a decade too early to function, and uses more fuel than a platoon of actually useful tanks huge threat there It was basically only good for semi-stationary defensive use, at least as built. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The turret on this tank weighed as much as a Tiger tank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaY8SLMoy-4Could you imagine them having actually built one and used it in combat. US troops are in foxholes like in Bastogne and all the sudden one or two of those are leading a German advance. Fuck. huge threat there It was basically only good for semi-stationary defensive use, at least as built. No visibility and awful gun choices? Lol Sink in the mud? Sure, if there's mud. There isn't mud 24/7/365. And the psychological effect alone would have been absolutely devastating/demoralizing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 11:55:53 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That IS why they were built. Had there been some constructed and used in combat the history would probably have been something like “Maus 121 of heavy tank company blah blah destroyed 19 T-34s and 6 IS-2s before being disabled by artillery and destroyed by its crew”.  Right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:02:41 PM EDT
[#40]
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:03:31 PM EDT
[#41]
If your tanks are fighting the enemy’s tanks, you’ve fucked up already.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:04:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That IS why they were built. Had there been some constructed and used in combat the history would probably have been something like "Maus 121 of heavy tank company blah blah destroyed 19 T-34s and 6 IS-2s before being disabled by artillery and destroyed by its crew". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:11:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Tiger has more than enough power to do a mobility kill and probably a rear kill. Mobility is a hard to hit target, rear would be an ambush only. Fighting in the open, not a chance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:20:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Only 492 were ever produced. Early units had reliability issues that gradually improved. Its maximum reliability rose to 62%, better than the 48% reliability of the panther series. For comparison purposes, the Sherman tanks had reliability rates of 95%, meaning they were available for active service 95% of the time. Overall, while well armed and armored for the time and surprisingly agile, they were generally slow and underpowered, with a maximum speed of 25 mph. The sherman's had a max speed of 35 mph and could be field modified to go over 40 mph.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:31:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If your tanks are fighting the enemy’s tanks, you’ve fucked up already. Well, hopefully by then, you've established air superiority. If not, its tanks v. tanks baby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:36:48 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b4lwsg6s3Ug/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cN3uoUp0mM0/maxresdefault.jpg The Iowas had heavily protected main battery turrets, with 19.5-inch (495 mm) Class B and STS face, 9.5-inch (241 mm) Class A sides, 12-inch (305 mm) Class A rear, and 7.25-inch (184 mm) Class B roof. The turret barbettes' armor is Class A with 17.3 inches (439 mm) abeam and 11.6 inches (295 mm) facing the centerline, extending down to the main armor deck. The conning tower armor is Class B with 17.3 inches (439 mm) on all sides and 7.25 inches (184 mm) on the roof. The secondary battery turrets and handling spaces were protected by 2.5 inches (64 mm) of STS. The propulsion shafts and steering gear compartment behind the citadel had considerable protection, with 13.5-inch (343 mm) Class A side strake and 5.6–6.2-inch (142–157 mm) roof I think it was Madcap72 I got into it with about an Iowa being no match for modern warheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:39:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Depends if the Abrams has a loader that belongs in the tank or is struggling with the rounds trying to prove a political point. Thanks for this highly useful contribution to prove a political point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:41:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for this highly useful contribution to prove a political point. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Depends if the Abrams has a loader that belongs in the tank or is struggling with the rounds trying to prove a political point. Thanks for this highly useful contribution to prove a political point. Isn't war politics by other means? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 12:55:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Nah, bro.
"For the base model M1 Abrams, Steven J. Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 350 mm vs armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) and 700 mm vs high-explosive anti-tank warhead (HEAT) in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992 (1993).[87] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural (2009), he uses Soviet estimates of 470 mm vs APFSDS and 650 mm vs HEAT for the base model Abrams. He also gives the Soviet estimates for the M1A1, 600 mm vs APFSDS, and 700 mm vs HEAT.[88] … For the M1A1HA, Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992, nearly double the original protection of the Abrams.[92] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural, he uses different estimates of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 700 mm vs HEAT for the front hull and 800 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT for the front of the turret.[88] The protection of M1A2 SEP is a frontal turret armor estimate of 940–960 mm vs APFSDS and 1,320–1,620 vs HEAT, glacis estimate of 560–590 mm vs APFSDS and 510–1,050 vs HEAT, and lower front hull estimate of 580–650 mm vs APFSDS and 800–970 vs HEAT[95]…" -wiki Maybe a track kill for the TKO, but I doubt it could score a operational kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2021 1:17:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was Madcap72 I got into it with about an Iowa being no match for modern warheads. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b4lwsg6s3Ug/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cN3uoUp0mM0/maxresdefault.jpg The Iowas had heavily protected main battery turrets, with 19.5-inch (495 mm) Class B and STS face, 9.5-inch (241 mm) Class A sides, 12-inch (305 mm) Class A rear, and 7.25-inch (184 mm) Class B roof. The turret barbettes' armor is Class A with 17.3 inches (439 mm) abeam and 11.6 inches (295 mm) facing the centerline, extending down to the main armor deck. The conning tower armor is Class B with 17.3 inches (439 mm) on all sides and 7.25 inches (184 mm) on the roof. The secondary battery turrets and handling spaces were protected by 2.5 inches (64 mm) of STS. The propulsion shafts and steering gear compartment behind the citadel had considerable protection, with 13.5-inch (343 mm) Class A side strake and 5.6–6.2-inch (142–157 mm) roof I think it was Madcap72 I got into it with about an Iowa being no match for modern warheads. I miss Madcap. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
