Tiger Tactics

[rexford]

After losing too many Tigers, a common Tiger tactic was remembered that takes advantage of the relatively think side armor.

Tigers would approach suspected or known enemy positions at 45°, resulting in 45° hits on the front or side armor. The effective armor resistance with a 45° hull angle to firer yields a minimum of 180mm effective frontal armor and 140mm on the hull side, versus 76mm APCBC hits. This is more than enough to defeat all M10 or 76mm Sherman hits.

Against 76 HVAP at 45°, Tiger front and side armor have an effectiveness of 205mm (front) and 160mm (side). 45° approaches don't offer as total protection against HVAP, but can save a tank or two beyond 500m that would otherwise get plastered on a purely frontal hit by 76 HVAP.

If the Tiger mantlet has a minimum of 140mm cast against 76mm hits, a Tiger at 45° would present a near impossible target for U.S. 76mm hits with APCBC, and the mantlet could defeat HVAP hits with a 45° angle.

Although the lower sides are only 60mm thick(60mm at 45° is about 105mm effective vs. 76 hits), road wheels provide some added resistance and may detonate the HE burster. There is also the effect of ground folds.

As noted in previous posts, hits on the bottom 1m of tanks were relatively rare due to small ground rises, so hits on road wheels and 60mm armor below Tiger 80mm side plates should be somewhat infrequent.

At Isigny, shots at the Panther front lower hull were often difficult due to little rises that blocked the line of sight/fire, even at 200 to 300 yards range. The comment about hits above 1m is true in alot of cases.

In the games using a 45° approach angle, Tiger survival increased dramatically (although "shatter gap" would neutralize 76mm APCBC hits beyond 300 yards, taking the teeth out of 76 APCBC).

[Warmaker]

Interesting... gonna have to try this out.

------------------

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:

After losing too many Tigers, a common Tiger tactic was remembered that takes advantage of the relatively think side armor.

Tigers would approach suspected or known enemy positions at 45°, resulting in 45° hits on the front or side armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rexford, thank you for your interesting, informative, and educational post. Since I have encountered what may be doctrinal information both for and against this "common Tiger tactic", if you can locate your sources I would appreciate learning them.

For instance, the "Tigerfibel" manual, which I understand was issued to Tiger tank crews in 1943, does discourage letting the enemy shoot at them "straight on". An interesting system of cloverleafs and "mealtimes" is utilized to help illustrate the safer angles and aid in communication between the tank commander and the driver, with the goal being an orientation of 45° (on a clockface it's shown as 10½, 1½, 4½, and 7½ o'clock).

However, in Jentz's "Germany's Tiger Tanks, Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics" on p. 32 he quotes the "Merkblatt 47a/29 for Training and Employment of the schwere Panzer-Kompanie Tiger, dated 20 May 1943", where section "C. The individual Panzerkampfwagen VI" states in subsection 9 that it "is to be brought into firing position with its front approximately facing toward the enemy fire (striking angle and thicker armor protection!)". It's possible that the "approximately" & "striking angle" lost something in the translation and are intended to convey the 45° angle, but "front approximately facing toward the enemy fire" doesn't come across that way, to me.

Anyway, I do agree with your assertion and the "Tigerfibel" and would enjoy learning other references on this issue if you have them available.

Thanx,

--Keith

[Chief]

I also recall reading that both Tiger and Panther crews were trained to engage enemy armor over their right or left fronts rather than straight on. I'll have to go find the source.

[Wilhammer]

If memory serves me, the first ever tactical armor game I played, Tobruk (1978 by AH), the historical notes describe this oblique approach as a general German armor tactic.

The Germans would litteraly zig-zag into battle.

[Mr. Clark]

Thanks a TON for that very interesting and useful post!

(Although I'm an Allies player... @#%@#$#@@!!!)

I need some Rexford advice on keeping my freaking Shermans alive!!!

[tailz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

I need some Rexford advice on keeping my freaking Shermans alive!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remain calm... skinny pedal on the right... keep it pushed to the floor at all times when moving... if your driver touches the brake, kick him in the back of the head...

[Mr. Clark]

ROFL! That sounds right TAILZ!

On a positive note, I finished the Whitman scenario tonite. I had one Tiger left, and a bunch of sorry-ass infantrymen trying to hold a house. Using Rexfords new advice, I took out nearly ALL remaining Allied armor with that one tank and won the battle!

Wheee!

Maybe I'm starting to see the fun in playing German armor.

[M. Bates]

Rexford, doesn't CM compute armour thickness in terms of a box?

For example, there won't be any variance in plate thickness across the whole of one side.

I found your post to be most relevant and interesting, but I would be cautious about applying those tactics in CM.

Is this a correct statement or does CM allow for the 45 degrees tactic?

[rexford]

Tiger could use a 45° approach because the side armor was close to the front protection.

On the PzKpfw III's that originally fought in the desert, front and side armor was 30mm thick and face-hardened, so presenting a 45° facing to the 2 pounder boosted the armor resistance to 54mm and limited 2 pounder penetration to 500 yards.

If the PzKpfw III's approached the British head-on, 2 pounder could penetrate the 30mm frontal armor at 1500 yards or more.

The PzKpfw IIIH had 30+30 face-hardened on the front hull, which resisted penetration in tests on the driver plate like 71mm. The turret front (30mm) and mantlet (35mm) were much weaker, and might benefit from an oblique approach, although 2 pounder hits on PzKpfw IIIH seem to have concentrated on the front hull.

The PzKpfw IIIj had 50mm face-hardened on hull front and mantlet, with a 30mm turret front and 30mm side armor. Attacking 2 pounder positions at an angle in a IIIj wouldn't hurt.

Introduction of the 6 pounder in North Africa would also support the need for angled approaches, due to the penetrating power of that gun, and would help the PzKpfw IIIj and IIIg defeat hits that would otherwise tear the tanks apart.

Australian war reports regarding 2 pounder portee units indicate that panzers often attacked straight on (as an aside, it generally took two 2 pounder hits on a PzKpfw IIIg to stop it, while one hit on a PzKpfw II was sufficient). In the heat of battle commanders sometimes forget what they were trained to do.

German face-hardened armor on PzKpfw III and IV worked out well in North Africa for a long time, 2 pounder AP could penetrate 82mm of homogeneous armor at 100m, but only 65mm of face-hardened. 2 pounder AP was also susceptible to "shatter gap", where overpenetrating hits could fail by shatter and leave gaps in the penetration range (penetrate to 800 yards, fail from 800 to 1300, then penetrate out to 1700).

Would angled approaches help Shermans and Panthers?

Sherman 56° front hull armor is about 104mm vertical equivalent effective, after angle and quality modifiers. The turret is about

76mm effective. The combination of a lateral and vertical angle has less of an increase on highly sloped armor resistance than vertical armor.

Approaching a suspected 75mmL46 Pak at 45° increases the Sherman 51 @ 56° compound angle to 67°, resulting in 168mm vertical equivalent. The bad point is that the center of mass aim point shifts onto the hull side, which resists like 51mm at 0°.

Approach at 45° in a Sherman and you may defeat some Panther and Tiger I hits that occasionally land on the front hull, but you leave yourself open to penetration by 50mm Pak and most hits strike the side armor.

Panthers would not like the results when 76mm APCBC hit that 40mm at 40° side armor, which would resist like 100mm at 0° on a 45° hit.

And that's the key, 45° approaches shift the aim point to the side armor, and only tanks with side armor close to frontal will really benefit. Matilda might benefit, and early Churchills. PzKpfw III's and Tiger I.

The CM penetration graphs presented for Panthers and Shermans appear to incorporate angled hit results from positions all around the tank hull, so a 45° approach would seem to benefit in the ways that are described above.

Speed wise, if a tank can do 12 mph cross-country and approaches the enemy at 45°, the approach speed declines to 8.5 mph. So one trades closing speed for increased survivability. You waddle in on the enemy positions but have a greater chance of getting in close for the kill.

[rexford]

Two other benefits from angled approach are decreased hit probability due to movement across line of sight (heading straight towards someone is about the same as shooting at a stationary target), and turret shape.

Many, if not most, turrets have a cutback at the rear. Panther does, Tiger II and Tiger I, T34 and T34/85, Sherman. If one holds a T34 Model 1943 figure up and views from front corner to opposite rear corner, you can't see the entire turret side due to the cutback. Very little of the Sherman turret side is visible on corner-to-corner views due to rounding. This minimizes turret hits when the firer is 30° from turret facing, and seems to have designed for that purpose.

So when a shot is taken at 45° to tank facing with turret aligned with hull, the turret side is a smaller target than would be presented by a straight plate parallel to turret facing.

Approaching at an angle does expose more of the gun barrel, but the center of mass aim point will be well onto the side armor and barrel hits should be relatively infrequent.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chief:

I also recall reading that both Tiger and Panther crews were trained to engage enemy armor over their right or left fronts rather than straight on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If someone had a copy of the "Pantherfibel" it would be interesting to see if it advocates this engagement tactic like the "Tigerfibel" does (as posted above).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:

Two other benefits from angled approach are ... and turret shape.

... This minimizes turret hits when the firer is 30° from turret facing, and seems to have designed for that purpose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, I'm beginning to have difficulty discerning when you're sharing opinion & calculator results, and when you are relaying info from historical sources. As for the turret shape being one of the "benefits from angled approach" I don't agree that this is part of the "common Tiger tactic" we're discussing since the turret should not be aligned with the hull when using this tactic. In the "Tigerfibel" manual the gunner is instructed to have the turret oriented toward the target at the best "clock" positions. Only when being engaged simultaneously by two enemy does the "Tigerfibel" instruct the crew to orient one at 45° while the turret is facing differently, engaging the other enemy.

[:USERNAME:]

This tactic really had a time and place.

The Tiger I was one of the few tanks that could be a slugger. It could take hits and keep on fighting. It also had side armor that was about 80 percent of its front armor.

It is my opinion that MOST tanks will avoid getting hits if at all possible.

In russia the Tiger I ruled with few enemys for 1942-mid 1943. It still had to watch for 76mm ATG and lost its first engagement to them BTW. These "angle tactics" only work out when you have great ranges and fairly open terrain. Adjusting your angle (to an obvious target like a platoon of T34s) may in certain situations just open your flank to an unseen ATG on your side.

In my opinion, the tiger ruled in russia in the attack from 1942-1943. It ruled in defense in places like Italy and Normandy up to mid 1944. And it was a large target the rest of the war.

I doubt other tanks used these tactics and the effect was one of serendipity. The fighting was too close in range in Europe and threats were at every angle. I would use speed and smoke and discretion above anything else.

If there was any advantage to be had like a long range gun, then believe me, that crew would use that advantage to its full effect. If there was any advantage like being in hull down terrain, then that is what a crew would head for. Even a Tiger could lose its tracks no matter what the angle.

I would imagine that the angle factor might come into play in reversing. Lets say you have just been hit on the front. You (the commander) see the tank that shot you and decide to back away to cover. A 1/4 right turn and reverse march might help.

But to be advancing on an enemy and decide platoon half right and then a half left makes me see visions of flat open plains and maybe even some air recon helping you.

Lewis

[Chief]

Regarding 45 degrees and the Panther -- I don't recall a precise 45 degree angle being mentioned in connection with the Panther. My supposition is that Panthers might be taught to engage at a shallower angle, in an attempt to slightly increase the angle of attack for rounds striking the front glacis, while exposing the sides at a large angle of attack.

My impression is that CM models target angle effects on penetration -- that a shot at a target with no-slope armor sitting at a 45 degree angle to the firer is analyzed as striking at a 45 degree angle to the armor. Can others confirm or deny this?

[Guest machineman]

Ok, so this would explain the 'oblique to the enemy' phrase, as in (from Tiger vs Stalin)

"The second Tiger...was hit by a round from the enemies 12.2 tank gun on the hull below the wireless operators seat but no penetration was effected, probably because the Tiger was oblique to the enemy."

"2. Stalin tanks generally only open fire at ranges over 2200 yards and then only if standing oblique to the target"

[Guest machineman]

Also explains the design of the Kingtiger turret, designed to have maximum obliqueness while (the turret, at least) is faceing the threat:

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 01-13-2001).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Another interesting benefit to an angled approach is the increased difficulty in tracking a target that is both decreasing in range as well as moving across your field of vision. Although this is not a benefit one would see in CM (as discussed on another thread…realistic modeling of bracketing is not incorporated into the CM model) in reality it is much more difficult for a gunner to track a target through his sights when it is both moving laterally across his field of vision (lead estimation) as well as decreasing or increasing range (range estimation). Double whamie going on here…increased “perceived armor thickness” as well as increased difficulty for gunners in hitting targets that are moving along an oblique path relative to the aiming Tank\ATG’s position.

I dunno how often actual Tiger unit commanders could have actually implemented this sort of tactic. Fog of war would often result in an attacking force having no idea where the enemy was until the bad guys opened fire. Even than it was often difficult for TC to spot ATG positions.

[Jeff Duquette]

Machineman…something which may interest you…seek and ye shall find. Check out the following thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013902.html

[Guest machineman]

Hey Jeff, I see the optics thread is like the Peng thread, it just migrates to a new location now and then. Excellent posts as always. If I come upon something I'll post it there.

[rexford]

Cutback to rear section of turret side is a benefit that may not have been appreciated by tankers but seems to have interested designers who used the concept again and again. Idea is to minimize target size on popular shot angles, and 30° shots to hull or turret facing were a major concern to tank designers.

The post was discussing general benefits whether known to tankers or not. OUr miniatures games use shot placement with measurements on tank models, and many shots have missed Tiger running for cover due to angle of move and rounded back of turret that reduces visible area on alot of shots.