Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[Capt_Cliff]

I was playing a neat operation scenario this weekend about Stoumont. I was as the US and the Germans (computer) got two King Tigers. Well I dispatched them both!!! The first one got nailed by a 76mm AT Gun, a front turret penetration at about 600 meters!?! The other got nailed by a M-4 (75), a side turret penetration at about 300 meters!?! It seemed too easy to kill those beasts!

Anybody else experienced this?

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Capt_Cliff:

I was playing a neat operation scenario this weekend about Stoumont. I was as the US and the Germans (computer) got two King Tigers. Well I dispatched them both!!! The first one got nailed by a 76mm AT Gun, a front turret penetration at about 600 meters!?! The other got nailed by a M-4 (75), a side turret penetration at about 300 meters!?! It seemed too easy to kill those beasts!

Anybody else experienced this?<hr></blockquote>

Read the armor penetration statistics on both of those vehicles.

[Diceman]

What kind of info did the computer give you on the front turret penetration? I'd think you'd just about have to hit the turret right in the coax MG to have a hope of penetrating the front turret armor. I've had King Tigers take numerous hits in the turret without penetration. You must have got very lucky. The side shot was not a fluke. The Sherman short can easily penetrate the King Tiger's side armor at that range if he has a near flush hit.

One thing I wonder though, does CM take into account the possibility of hitting the side plateof many turret designs from the front, and does it recognize the sharp angle sush a shot would have? If not will CMBB model front hits to this detail?

[Redwolf]

Does "tungsteen" means anything to you? If not, study the 76mm. Also weak spot penetration, look up threads in this forum.

As for side hits, CMBO models the Tiger (1 and 2) as weaker than other wargames and the US 75mm stronger. I can provide no original research on my own, but our local expert Rexford posted that the reality was probably worse for the 75mm against a Tiger than CMBO assume. He published his result after CMBO came out and it is the first works of this detail, so BTS shouldn't be blamed. BTS' Charles said that he really likes rexford book, so CMBB will probably make use of his data.

Also, it is a fact of life that a strong tank still has its strongest side in front. In the Arennes, King Tiger had been shot by Stuarts (or Greyhounds?) because those were on high ground and shot through the top armour.

[russellmz]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Capt_Cliff:

I was playing a neat operation scenario this weekend about Stoumont. I was as the US and the Germans (computer) got two King Tigers. Well I dispatched them both!!! The first one got nailed by a 76mm AT Gun, a front turret penetration at about 600 meters!?! The other got nailed by a M-4 (75), a side turret penetration at about 300 meters!?! It seemed too easy to kill those beasts!

Anybody else experienced this?<hr></blockquote>

the 76mm at probably had tungsten:can penetrate over over 200mm armor at 500m at 0 degrees.

the sherman got in a close shot at the flank, that outta kill almost anybody: the side armor of the turrent is about 80, which is not enough to stop a 76 at 300m.

[JasonC]

"In the Ardennes, King Tiger had been shot by Stuarts (or Greyhounds?) because those were on high ground and shot through the top armour".

Interesting claim, redwolf. Where did this event supposedly occur? I was not aware of it.

The confirmed cases of King Tiger KOs in the Bulge that I've been able to track down include 76mm towed TDs KOing them from ambush, from a somewhat elevated position but nothing like enough to hit the top armor. Not specified whether it was T ammo through turret fronts or ordinary AP through sides and rear, but the latter is more likely. This accounted for a full platoon of them on one occasion.

Then I've seen reports of 90mm TDs and AA guns getting KOs, and preventing advance. Anti tank mines prevented advances (very important on the limited road net). Most reports say that the crew compartment proved impervious to bazooka rounds, including from the side.

I've seen reports of US 75mm Shermans KOing anything they hit at point-blank from side and rear, street fighting in villages, lying in wait in alleys, etc. Without the targets being specifically identified as King Tigers, however.

Any definite info, AARs with specific places, units and dates would help.

[M Hofbauer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Diceman:

One thing I wonder though, does CM take into account the possibility of hitting the side plateof many turret designs from the front, and does it recognize the sharp angle sush a shot would have? If not will CMBB model front hits to this detail?<hr></blockquote>

Q #1: no, CM does not account for this. the 3-D models used for the mathematic hit calculation resemble the generic grey sound contact marker tank symbol more than anything else.

Q #2: I do not know.

[Dan Robertson]

There is one problem with the Tiger II which stems from the modeling system in general.

The problem is that the system assumes that a turret is a essentially a rectange with front sides and rear. The Tiger II's turret is however a flattened hexagon. So about 1/3 of the turret front is actually the side armour at a massive angle, of about 70degrees. This makes this portion of the frontal protection impervious to any weapon until APFSDS rounds started to appear.

Even 120mm APDS can't penetrate it.

However this means that at an off angle of only 15-20 degrees this portion of the turret becomes vulnerable since it is already angled towards the frontal aspect.

The vulnerablity diagrams produced by BTS however have the protection increasing at slight off angles since as they currently model it this would result in benefical angles being generated on both front and side armour.

[offtaskagain]

Jason, I can't remember the source but there are several websites with the same story about a Stuart I think it was KOing a KT in the Ardennes. It wasn't a shot from above it as stated, but a quick run behind and shooting it from the rear.

[Redwolf]

The 37mm top-hit reference was on this forum in one of the zillion uebertank threads. I am searching for it.

I will have no other proove than the post hopefully contains or the author can give us.

[Fangorn]

Top hits, IRRC, are only modeled in CM for artillary barrages, not for direct fire weapons. I believe BTS thought it not be worth the effort to code such rare event.

[PJungnitsch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

The problem is that the system assumes that a turret is a essentially a rectange with front sides and rear. The Tiger II's turret is however a flattened hexagon. So about 1/3 of the turret front is actually the side armour at a massive angle, of about 70degrees. This makes this portion of the frontal protection impervious to any weapon until APFSDS rounds started to appear.

<hr></blockquote>

An illustration:

[JasonC]

I have heard reports from -CM players- about getting weak point side penetrations on KTs (with 37mm guns, that is). But not a bonafide AAR from historical participants. Doesn't mean there isn't such a report, just that I have never seen it, if it exists.

It is noteworthy that bazookas in CM can routinely kill KTs from the side, provided the side angle isn't steep. They need a decent "roll" for how flat the shot hits (HEAT penetration being variable).

Whereas, in the real deal, KT kills with zooks were exceedingly rare, at best (although M-kills definitely occurred). So much so that men who crawled within 20 meters went after accompanying infantry with grenades, after finding the zook inadequate against the KT itself.

Which, incidentally, also fits reports from Korea of T-34/85s proving nearly impervious to 60mm bazookas - hence the rush to upgrade to 3.5" ones (aka Panzerschreck copies). The T-34/85 gets more of its protection from slope, rather than armor thickness. But its overall protection is certainly not superior to that of a KT.

Tiger Is, on the other hand, were evidently M-kill as a matter of course and could be fully KOed, from the side, by both 105mm HEAT and bazooka rounds - though many bazooka rounds would fail to penetrate (owing to random impact angle, side angle, etc). So it would appear 80mm flat was penetrable, but 80mm at 25-30 degrees was not, by the bazooka. The T-34/85 had 45mm at 60 degrees. Tiger I fronts were also impervious, at 100mm with modest angle. 105mm HEAT also KOed T-34/85s in Korea.

Notice that the most vunerable plate on the KT, the lower side hull at 80mm vertical, is not really accessible, especially to HEAT rounds. The interleaved road wheels block most of that area. There is a thin gap between the top of the track and the upper side hull, where the slope becomes 25 degrees. But between, there was typically a small bit of skirt, 5mm thick and at standoff distance from the lower side hull itself.

The turret sides and side hull are 80mm, potentially penetrable by a flat hit, but sloped 21-25 degrees. So the shot would have to come from significantly higher than the tank to achieve a flat hit - up to 50m higher at typical bazooka ranges. Only shooting from an upper story at a tank passing by in the street right outside should allow a penetration.

In CM, the zooks penetrate regularly, because KT armor is rated only 90% quality. The sloped upper hull and turret sides thus act like 72mm at less than 30 degrees, and CM rates the bazooka as penetrating up to 77 degrees at 30 degrees from vertical. There is little evidence from the Bulge that such things really happened. Peak penetration is rarely achieved in practice by HEAT rounds, especially from low velocity unrifled weapons (which have the largest scatter of impact angles).

I can produce specific AARs about crew compartments of German heavies in the Bulge proving impenetrable by bazookas, with KTs the most likely candidates. The Americans disabled them with bazooka track hits and then either killed bailing crews with small arms, or doused the tanks in gasoline and set them on fire if the crew stayed put.

From all of the above, I think it might be more realistic if the KT had 95% armor quality, in CM terms. That would allow side and rear kills by short 75mm only at true point-blank range, like can occur in street fighting - or in the case of rare hits on the lower side hull. Bazookas would still be able to KO them with side and rear hits, but they would need excellent "rolls" for impact angle. Since the zook is rated 77mm at 30 degrees, and at 95% quality the effective thickness would be 76mm, with 21-30 degree angle before side angles or random HEAT impact angle effects came into play, the combined angle effects would have to be very small for the zook to get a penetration.

As it is with 90% armor quality, I think the KT is undermodeled in CM today, based on combat AARs from the Bulge fighting.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC:

From all of the above, I think it might be more realistic if the KT had 95% armor quality, in CM terms. That would allow side and rear kills by short 75mm only at true point-blank range, like can occur in street fighting - or in the case of rare hits on the lower side hull. Bazookas would still be able to KO them with side and rear hits, but they would need excellent "rolls" for impact angle. Since the zook is rated 77mm at 30 degrees, and at 95% quality the effective thickness would be 76mm, with 21-30 degree angle before side angles or random HEAT impact angle effects came into play, the combined angle effects would have to be very small for the zook to get a penetration.

As it is with 90% armor quality, I think the KT is undermodeled in CM today, based on combat AARs from the Bulge fighting.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]<hr></blockquote>

The same could be said of the Panther. To date I've only found one picture of a glacis plate that would rate the low quality rating given to it in CM. Here it is from the Russian Battlefield Axis Destroyed AFVs gallery.

The cracking was evidently caused by the ammunition/fuel explosion but I've seen many completely destroyed Panthers and none of them ever had an armor failure like this. This picture was taken in the Spring of '45 in Hungary which is the time when low armor quality Panthers started to show up, due to the lack of resources to harden the steel. For those who have never looked at the RB galleries, there are some very interesting pictures including many of the Panthers and Ferdinands destroyed at Kursk as well as lots of other big wrecks.

[Andrew H.]

In "A Time for Trumpets," Macdonald talks about a Panther that is killed by a Stuart from the side. I wonder whether this got inflated into the Stuart taking out a KT story.

WRT armor quality: in one of Rexford's posts on armor quality and the Panter, he made the point that the poor armor quality of the Panther was due to uneven/improper quenching of the glacis during fabrication, and suggested that, consequently, only the glacis should have the reduced armor quality. Apparently the fabrication of the Panther's side panels was relatively straightforward, in part due to the fact that the armor was not that thick.

It may also turn out to be the case that the reduced armor quality in the KT only relates to the glacis and the side armor should be 95 or 100%.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

In "A Time for Trumpets," Macdonald talks about a Panther that is killed by a Stuart from the side. I wonder whether this got inflated into the Stuart taking out a KT story.

<hr></blockquote>

There was a case of a Greyhound killing a Tiger (not King Tiger) from the rear also. A confirmed report that could have grown in the retelling.

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

There was a case of a Greyhound killing a Tiger (not King Tiger) from the rear also. A confirmed report that could have grown in the retelling.<hr></blockquote>

That may have been it. But both Tigers have the same thickness armor on back, with the King Tigers at a bit of an angle which could be eliminated if the Greyhound was lower than the target. I do think though you are speaking of the case I had in mind.

[JasonC]

Um, a Panther from the side is obviously believable, even easy. It is only 40mm of armor. But shifting the claim to a Tiger I does not appreciably improve things I'm afraid. I still want the unit, date, and location before I will believe such a claim is anything but urban legend.

Also, a Greyhound would not "neutralize" the slope of a KT's armor by "being below it". A KT's deck is all of 2 meters off the ground; to get a flat hit on the 30 degree rear plate from dead astern, a gun at ground level would have to be within 4 meters.

CM rates the 37mm at 65mm point blank vs. no slope, 52mm vs. 30 degrees. A slight reduction of angle, say to 20 degrees, would only make the rear hull as hard to get through as the turret side without any height effects. Not to mention the round would then be stopped in the engine.

The 37mm penetrations occur in CM because the 80mm lower side hull armor, rated 90% quality, is thus treated as only 72mm, and is vertical. Then the 65mm penetration rating of the US 37mm at point blank can be boosted 10% by a weak point hit. There is no realism in any point of this picture.

One, because combat evidence does not reveal low 90% quality for the side plates (see the bazooka - Bulge real deal stories). Two, because the lower side hull is protected by the roadwheels anyway, or by 5mm of skirt, either of which puts the total metal in the way higher than the 37mm can get through by any stretch of the numbers. Three, because the 65mm number is already quite generous to the 37mm. The Germans used 30+30 or 50mm plates on mid-war Pz IIIs and such, to defeat US 37mm, Brit 2-lber, and Russian 45mm at ranges over about 500m - successfully. Which tends to suggest the 37mm is overmodeled by about 5-10% vs. flat plate to begin with.

80mm armor with 20-25 degrees of slope is not going to be penetrated by a 37mm that was successfully countered at midwar, for ranges longer than 500m, using armor with less slope and only 5/8ths as thick (or 3/4th as thick but 2 seperate plates).

I suspect that a 37mm gun US AFV KOed a "heavy tank" from the side, that was actually a Panther, but became a "Tiger" by the same mechanism many Pz IVs "became" "Tigers" - the Americans involved not knowing one German tank from another, and calling anything big a Tiger.

In fact, KOed a Panther with 37mm from the side is a fine enough feat in itself - but a perfectly believable one, even out to medium range if the side angle was low enough. The Russians KOed plenty of Panthers with 45mm from the side, a gun with roughly the same penetration capabilities as the US 37mm. They do not report kills on Tiger Is with 45mm, side or not, close range or not.

[offtaskagain]

Perhaps the shot went through the place where the exhaust pipes exit the hull. The cover over that hole isn't terribly thick and that would provide a straight shot into the engine and fuel tanks.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]</p>

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC:

Also, a Greyhound would not "neutralize" the slope of a KT's armor by "being below it". A KT's deck is all of 2 meters off the ground; to get a flat hit on the 30 degree rear plate from dead astern, a gun at ground level would have to be within 4 meters.

<hr></blockquote>

I meant the KT being on a hill higher than the greyhound.

[Slapdragon]

The incident in question took place in December 1944 near Uhrbach. A Greyhound unit (part of the 92nd Calvary Squadron) was supporting the 44th Infantry Division in an advance near that town in heavily wooded terrain. They had been taking artillery fire and small arms fire from several villages on and off, so where concealed in a woods along a trail when a Tiger moved past on the track unescorted (probably because of the fluid lines at that moment and the sudden pull back of other US forces). A loan greyhound swung out and fired several round into the rear of the Tiger at less than 250 meters, destroying it. It was confirmed a Tiger kill later in the day.

However, before anyone proclaims the power of the 37mm, it should be realized that this is, as far as I can tell, an isolated incident related to the movement of a tank without infantry support rather than due to any great killing power of the Greyhound. Nearly any tank with a rear shot can kill any other if given the target and the time.

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

However, before anyone proclaims the power of the 37mm, it should be realized that this is, as far as I

can tell, an isolated incident related to the movement of a tank without infantry support rather than due

to any great killing power of the Greyhound. Nearly any tank with a rear shot can kill any other if given

the target and the time.<hr></blockquote>

And this is VERY true in CMBO as well

Rear shots and flank shots at close range by almost ANY Allied weapon will kill almost any German unber tank

And so it should be.

But I would not care to disagree with Jason C when he suggests ,,,,,

"It is noteworthy that bazookas in CM can routinely kill KTs from the side, provided the side angle isn't

steep. They need a decent "roll" for how flat the shot hits (HEAT penetration being variable).

Whereas, in the real deal, KT kills with zooks were exceedingly rare, at best (although M-kills definitely

occurred). So much so that men who crawled within 20 meters went after accompanying infantry with

grenades, after finding the zook inadequate against the KT itself."

I have found 'zooks to be surpriseingly effective against the KT

its actually easy, (against the AI its easy anyway, humans are trickier) pour the smoke on like LOTS, 3-4 minutes worth, use a jeep, HT or greyhound on a suicide run and deposit a vet or better zook team immediately to the rear of ANY German tank (within say 30-40 meters) and if the zook team is not supressed (thats the key) you can kiss your uber tank good-bye

-tom w

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

The same could be said of the Panther. To date I've only found one picture of a glacis plate that would rate the low quality rating given to it in CM. Here it is from the Russian Battlefield Axis Destroyed AFVs gallery.

<hr></blockquote>

That's interesting. Is this the modified troop carrying Panther without a turret to provide more space for men?

Regards

Jim R.

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

That's interesting. Is this the modified troop carrying Panther without a turret to provide more space for men?

Regards

Jim R.<hr></blockquote>

Nah, it's a bergepanther .

[JasonC]

Problem, Slapdragon - the alleged incident is AWOL from the unit's combat diary. Here is the entire thing for the month of December - 92nd Cav's combat diary -

"Having been relieved from attachment to Hq Normandy Base Sector, and the assigned mission of patrolling the coast line of the Normandy Peninsula, the 92nd Cav Rcn Sq (Mecz), rejoined the 12th AD at Luneville, France (QO80000) after a four day march of 490 miles from Carteret, France. (Fr Lambert Z Orid (Red) T000940) Attached organizations C battery, 493rd FA Bn and third platoon, C Co, 119 Eng returned to their parent units.

"On 2 Dec 44 Tr B, less first and Second platoons, was attached to CCR first platoon was attached to CCA and second platoon attached to CCB.

"On 3 Dec 44 orders were received from Hq. XV Corps alerting the Sq for movement under Corps control and at 1420A, 4 Dec the Sq, less TR B, closed in assembly area in the vicinity of Eschwiller, France (Q545292) as Corps reserve. Sq remained in assembly position and on 6 Dec 44 reverted to 12AD control. The same day TR A and two platoons of Tr E were detached to CCA control. The night of 8 Dec 44 Tr D moved from assembly area to report to CCA, in vicinity of Rahling, France (Q625442) for orders. On 9 Dec Tr E received orders to report to Div Arty to be attached to 93rd FA Bn and to go into position vic (Q625442) and fire normal direct support missions. Sq moved at 1430 to an assembly position 3 miles NW of Rahling at (Q629475).

"Tr C given mission of establishing outpost SW of Bining (Q648488) for the night. On morning of 10 Dec Tr D reverted to Sq control. Tr C jumped off dismounted at 0930 with the mission of clearing the town of Bining of enemy snipers and installations and reported the town clear at 1215A. Tr C patrolled Bining and established CP's on high ground W of town. At 1230 Sq received orders to check area SW of line Singline-Bining (Q6262499-Q648488) for enemy snipers and FO's. At 1300 F Co moved outon above mission and rendered negative report at 1630A. At 1700 Tr A reverted to Sq control. At 1900A Sq recieved orders to maintain Liaison between div left flank and 26th Inf Div and mop up enemy resistance and installations in Div zone. On the morning of 11 Dec Tr C moved to establish liaison with the 26th Div Tr D moved to clear town of Rohrbach (Q658496) of enemy snipers and resistance and maintain liaison with 44th Inf Div.

(aside - this is the first mention of the 44th ID. The 92 cav wasn't attached to it, but did operate in the same area and tie in with it. They were really working with the 12 armored division, covering their right flank. This is before the Bulge).

"Co F, with one plat of Tr A attached, moved out to mop up and occupy enemy pill boxes in Div Z. Rorhbach reported clear at 1509A and liaison with 26th Inf Div and 44th Inf Div maintained throughout period. On 13 Dec Sq received orders to establish a screen in the N end of the Div sector and to continue liaison mission. Tr C moved to the mission.

"Sq CP and reserve moved to one mile N of Rorhbach (Q859509) with 494th FA Bn in direct support of 92nd Cav. This screen was occupied throughout 15 Dec with Tr A relieving Trs C and D the afternoon of 15 Dec and the 25th Cav Rcn Sq (Mecz) moved through our position and relieved us of liaison mission. On 16 Dec Tr A maintained screen throughout the day and Sq received alert movement orders.

(the Bulge commences)

"On 17 Dec Sq moved, minus Tr A, to an assembly area vicinity Butten, France (Q623415). Tr A continued to maintain screen and was attached to Task Force Phelan with mission of remaining in present position until relieved by Div order. On 18 Dec Tr A rejoined Sq in the vicinity of Butten, France and the daytime was spent on maintenance of vehicles.

"At 0430A 19 Dec Sq alert for movement and attached to CCB. Sq received orders to move at 0930A to relieve advance elements of 80th Inf Div, gain contact with the enemy and maintain liaison with 87th Inf Div and 44th Inf Div.

"Tr C moved to relieve advance elements of 25th Cav Rcn Sq (Mecz) and maintain liaison with 87th Inf Div on left and Tr A moved to relieve advance elements of 80th Inf Div and establish liaison with Inf Div on the right. Tr A and C relieved units above by 1600A. Sq CP and reserve moved to vicinity Hoelling, France (Q680528). Tr E moved into position to vicinity Bettviller, France (Q672533) to support Trs A anc C`s sector. On 20 Dec Trs A and C were active in Patrolling and adjusting of artillery fires on observed enemy positions.

"On 21 Dec Tr C given mission of guiding Co A, 56th AIB's to LD for the attack and to furnish flank security for the attack on the high ground S of Utweiler (Q632587) by 56 AIB task force. The attack was successful and Tr C established a line from 56 AIB's left outposted and garrisoned Epping-Urbach (Q895571) and established liaison with left flank of the 44th Inf Div.

(So here is a simultaneous mention of the 44th ID and the town of Urbach - 5th day of the Bulge).

"At 1630A Tr A relieved of above mission and assigned to a sector running from Epping-Urbach generally NW to Utweiller, exclusive, to Q682582, relieving tanks of 714 Tank Bn and tieing in with the 56 AIB on their left. Above was established by 2200A.

(Notice - relieved a tank formation, 714 Tank Battalion, in the Urbach area).

"Tr D was given mission of occupying Urbach, relieving Tr A and establishing liaison with 44th Inf Div on our right and was in position at 1800A at Q702587, Q709506, Q712555 protecting right flank of CCB."

(note - troop E is the M8HMC assault guns, and troop D is the Stuarts. The Stuarts here relieved and M-8 Greyhound unit, Tr A, in defence of Urbach).

"All troops received heavy artillery fire throughout the day. On 22 Dec the troops occupied the same positions. Tr C sent out patrols to the North vicinity Peppendum (Q7025605) and they reported valuable information. Tr A have several artillery fire missions and continued to receive heavy enemy fire. At 2100A C Co, 66 AIB relieved Tr A taking over their sector. Tr A assembled and remained in Epping-Urbach overnight. Tr D continued liaison with 44 Inf and had several artillery missions throughout the day and actively patrolled area to their front. On 23 Dec Tr A moved to an assembly area in Bettviller, France. Trs C and D remained in same positions an continued liaison with 100 Inf, who relieved 87th Inf Div on our left and 44 Inf Div respectively and continued artillery fire missions throughout the day. On 24th Dec Trs C and D continued on same missions. At noon, Tr E received heavy counter battery artillery and mortar fire suffering four causalties and had to move to a new firing position E of Hoelling."

(Notice - lots of artillery dueling but not mention of run-ins with King Tigers. And 4 causalties to counterbattery fire are noteworthy enough to be mentioned).

"Sq recieved orders to move from present positions sometim on the night of 25 Dec to a bivouac area in the vicinity of Torchville, France (Q352348). Tr C's position was attacked by approximately an enemy Inf Co at 1300A and C Tr was forced to withdraw some 500 yards when elements of 100 Inf Div on left pulled back. At 1700A Tr A was ordered to support Tr C's sector and was in position at 1830A."

(This is the only direct attack mentioned, and it is by a company of infantry, and results in withdraw of the troop, then its reinforcement by a second troop. That is, 2 company-sized cavalry units to hold the line against 1 infantry company).

"Tr D was to be attached to CCB when Sq was releived of mission. At 0100A 26 Dec Tr C covered the withdrawal of 56 Inf Bn from position and was relieved of their mission at 0400A and were coveredby Tr A on withdrawing from position. Tr A withdrew from position following Tr C. Tr B rendered heavy fire supporting both Trs withdrawing.

(And then they are pulled out of the line. Standing in front of direct attack is not their mission).

"Sq (-) moved at 0645 to vicinity Butten, France and continued march at 0830A to assembly position at Torchville, France. During the above operation Sgt. Harold w. Rickell, 32048697, Tr A was killed by enemy MG fire while on outpost and Pfc Edward J. Lannon, 32527964, Tr C, was reported missing in action when he was hit by enemy fire and did not return from a combat patrol. Thirty prisoners of war were captured and turned over to proper authorities.

(It is barely possible the 6 causalties mentioned for the whole unit and the whole month do not mean they didn't inflict lots of losses on the enemy not thought worthy of mention. Maybe the crew of the KT was 1/6th of the PW bag of a battalion for weeks. Maybe).

"The period 27 Dec to 31 dec was spent in rehabilitiation, vehicular and weapon maintenance, care of clothing and equipment, mines and booby trap demonstration and range firing of the 60mm mortar, Rifle and carbine grenade launchers and the bazooka. On the 29 Dec Tr D was released from CCB and rejoined the Sq. On 31 Dec Sq received movement orders to be prepared to move on the 1 Jan 45 to an area S of Deiuze (Q255243), France."

Is it likely that diary, recording events much smaller in importance, just forgot to mention KOing a King Tiger in Urbach? Or is it more likely there was a dead KT left near Urbach by the 714th Tank battalion, and then 44th infantry guys noticed a wreck in an area outposted just by cavalry (since the 714th left along with the 56th AIB, before the ID infantry took over the area), and thought the dead tank was the cavalrymen's kill? Were fish stories told around the campfire about how the obviously dead KT, right there, was killed? Not to mention the remaining question about whether the "Tiger" was really a Panther...

My verdict so far would be a Scottish "not proven".