Was the Tiger that easy to kill?

[lcm1947]

I'm not a history expect as most of you know and I don't claim to know a whole lot about military vehicles and such but the one thing I do know is that the Tiger was a lot harder to kill then what CMBO shows it. After hundreds of games well at least over 3 years worth playing almost every day I noticed that I have no problem or very little problems killing the Tiger tank. This can't be right. It's probably been talked to death about but I didn't want to do a search because quite honestly it's no fun I would rather see if I could get some discussion going about it here to see what you thought. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so. Anybody care to comment or tell how they feel?

[gredeker]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

I'm not a history expect as most of you know and I don't claim to know a whole lot about military vehicles and such but the one thing I do know is that the Tiger was a lot harder to kill then what CMBO shows it. After hundreds of games well at least over 3 years worth playing almost every day I noticed that I have no problem or very little problems killing the Tiger tank. This can't be right. It's probably been talked to death about but I didn't want to do a search because quite honestly it's no fun I would rather see if I could get some discussion going about it here to see what you thought. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so. Anybody care to comment or tell how they feel?

I'll take a stab at it (this is all western-front specific):

1. The Tiger was introduced in late '42 (I want to say November). At that point in the war, all American tanks were armed with 75mm guns, against which the Tiger is pretty much invulnerable (barring a hit on a vision port or somesuch). As the war drew on, it's dominance of the battlefield diminished, but until widespread use of 76mm and 17 pound guns it was fairly dominant on the battlefield.

2. CMBO usually has armored engagements at closer ranges than was historical. The closer the range, the less dominant the Tiger. This isn't helped by some proven problems with long-range accuracy. I seem to recall some folks running huge data tests on tanks at extreme range, and it was determined that German gun accuracy at long range wasn't accurately portrayed. This was mostly solved with the different optics in CMBB.

3. CMBO has no way to keep a vehicle's hull pointed a certain direction that's different from the turret. In real life, Tiger crews were taught to rotate their vehicle around 30 degrees "off" of the direction of enemy advance, thereby effectively giving the front hull armor a 30 degree slope (albeit a sideways slope) and the side armor (which is dang thick on a Tiger) a 60 degree slope.

4. CMBO doesn't model the psychological factor on enemy troops of Tigers carrying those "bloody 88's" which could kill nearly any American or British tank quite easily (except for say the Churchill and Sherman Jumbo, and later the Pershing).

5. Tigers carried a relatively large ammo load, increasing the amount of damage that each could deal out before having to withdraw and reload.

That's all I can think of for now. I hope this helps.

[klapton]

Keep in mind that the non-sloped armor of the tiger makes it vulnerable to tungsten rounds. If positioned in high ground, it will be harder to kill.

[Moritz]

Lee

(this is Dandelion)

I'm glad to hear you find it is easy to kill Tigers I'll hold that against you when we play pbem.

I'd have to agree with the above in pointing out combat ranges.

The Tiger was used historically at ranges of up to 2000 meters, if at all possible. At that range, she was practically untouchable, yet could knock out any comer. Superior optics and skilled (handpicked as they were) gunners made sure she'd normally hit even moving targets with her first or second round.

In the open country South of Caen, the Germans were able to use the Tiger as designed, with good effect. In the more claustrophobic bocage country North and Northwest of this line - including the area that the American troops had to fight their way through - the Germans had not remotely the same possibilities. (They used handheld and PaK instead, as the country was as ideal for these as it was unsuitable for Tigers).

As has been pointed out, the CM:BO was not really designed to simulate such battles, and optics will not allow high fidelity recreations of them.

Very interesting point there about vehicle hull direction btw. I had not noticed it. Vehicles are always aiming hulls the same direction as turrets?

The Tiger is noticably flat armoured. But then again she was ideally positioned hull down and her turret does have a slight slope on it. Dramatically illustrated here

At close range, the Tiger is very vulnerable. Not only is her armour no longer invincible, as has already been eloquently pointed out: her slow turret traverse makes her practically the equivalent of turretless, and her slow reload time makes her unfit for the rapid pace of close combat.

In fact her situation becomes much the same as that of all other mobile antitank systems - to which the PzKpfw VI series probably must be counted, rather than to MBT - that the Germans designed for long range battles (JgdPz, PzJg and in the case of AT use - StuG). At extreme ranges, their shortcomings in turret traverse, side and rear armour, reload time and mobility are all nullified and their advantages of a flat profile (well, the Tiger isn't exactly flat), heavy frontal armour and superior optics are all they need.

The CM:BO engine allows all these systems to be used, but IMHO the game is better at illustrating MBT types of vehicles, given typical ranges and the missing optics, such as all the rest of the PzKpfw series (i.e. except VI). Thus the German player is better off receiving such rather than the more illustrious Tiger.

As for the precise statistics of armour, angles and trajectories, we can but hope Mattias or Mr Rexford stops by.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[lcm1947]

Well ask and you shall receive as the saying goes. Thanks guys for some interesting and factual feedback. Very Interesting point about the crews angleing their tanks to the enemy advance, thanks redeker good reply. Yes klapton I do seem to notice it harder to kill Tigers when they are on higher terrain and at good distances. And Dandelion as usual you amaze me with your knowledge and I really appreciate your help and replys. Well so that explains why I can knock out Tigers all day long. I knew something was wrong but maybe not as bad as I thought BFC had it since they didn't seem to be the super tank I was under the impression of. And yes Dandelion we will have to play some day when I get some experience under my belt. You would probably not even notice that you had an opponent playing against me right now but the day will come my friend. Now don't you go and get rusty on me before that time. ( Like I should talk being 55 years old ) By the way Dandelion I noticed just minutes ago a post by you where your forum name was Moritz and your signiture was Dandelion and asked about that so now I see. I was a little confused there for a minute. So you decided to change your forum name. What does Moritz mean if anything besides a name if I may ask?

[Moritz]

Lee,

The name is actually Maurice. Its from French, meaning moorish, or dark. Or swarthy if you will. Actually I'm a blonde, but there's a tradition to have French first names in the family, as the family myth is that we're Hugenot refugees from the beginning, exiled in barbaric Prussia. Not sure I'd take poison on the validity of that claim. But so they say anyway. Moritz is the German translation, you know like Ivan-John-Johann.

It's my second name. My first name is Tommy. It has a Battlefront-relevant story. My mother gave me the name in remembrance of the British troops occupying her home village when she grew up. They smuggled chocolates to the kids, made toys in their workshops, bussed them to school (actually that wasn't so popular) and constructed a football (i.e soccer) field for the kids, among the ruins, still standing in fact. Even to this day she has a childish admiration of everything British.

Oops, look at the time, gotta run...

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Shades]

I usually lose my Tigers in CMBO due to the turret side shots when the turret is turning around to get some far off infantry/crews. Ambush orders can help some but not when your on the move and of course in CMBB you can have fire arcs which helps rectify this.

**Spoiler for those who somehow haven't played the

The Village-Bocage-Tiger scenario***

It shows the turning turret weakness with all that infantry running around which often leaves its weaker sides exposed. The Tiger does bounce most shells in frontal shots except the Firefly of course.

[Dandelion]

There,

Now I'm back in prequel identity profile

Your all

Dandelion

[Redwolf]

The issue with the 75mm Sherman (and Cromwell) gun is that in reality they got better AP ammunition sometime after Normandy. The old ammunition couldn't penetrate the Tiger's sides but the new could.

In CMBO they always have the same 75mm AP ammo which is in between, so for Normandy battles the Tiger is more vulnerable than it should. Witness to that is that in the CD-provided Vilelrs-Bocage scenario the Cromwells carry HE, not AP ammunition. This is a scenario design fix for the problem at hand.

Also, in CMBO the Tiger is hurt by a lack of turret control (no cover arc command) and in CMBB from a much slower hull turn rate than in reality.

[Jack Carr]

Hi Mom!

[Jack Carr]

Icm1947 - Just curious, what types of Allied tanks are knocking out the Tigers when you play?

Generally, when I run across a Tiger on the CMBO battlefield, my favorite tactic is to rush it frontally with two or three Stuarts. I might lose one but the other one or two are bound to take it out with a "Frontal Penetration at Weak Point". Then I just laugh and laugh until I stop.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Also, in CMBO the Tiger is hurt by a lack of turret control (no cover arc command) and in CMBB from a much slower hull turn rate than in reality.

Yeah I just noticed that myself. It seems to be true of all tanks? In CMBB I have a TD rotating to face a target (in scat.trees IIRC), and it's going soooooooooo sloooow.

[ May 08, 2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Dandelion]

Lee,

So what's your story then? An Irishman in Texas? I thought all of them migrated to the Boston-NY-Chicago triangle, and tended to stay around there? What was the motive for migrating to Texas? Seems awfully warm for Irishmen to me, and it's not reputed for it's rich soil either, so it can't have been that luring the Irish farmhands down there. Oil industry? Cattle?

Regards

Dandelion

[lcm1947]

To answer your question Jack Carr I really haven't paid much attention to which Sherman tank does it or even if all models can do it but it happens enough to where the last time which was just recently I decided to mention it here to get some feed back. My heart always stops when I first see one in a game but since it's normally not a problem taking it out I don't get too worried about it anymore. I'd far rather see a Tiger then a Panther any day. Much much harder to kill and they normally do a lot more destruction then the Tigers. Oh I do remember that a British Mark II took two of them out in one game not too long ago. And Dandelion to answer your question - beats me, my family moved here when I was a wee one of 1 years old from Cleveland,Ohio and been here since. I really like the weather and don't know any better I guess. No Texas is home. Oh yeah plus I wouldn't have the heart to leave all my oil wells and ranch land as far as the eye can see.

[rexford]

If one compares the penetration data for Sherman 75mm APCBC in CMBO and CMBB they will see a decrease in the latest game.

U.S. 75mm APCBC was softer than German 75mm APCBC and had a larger HE burster, which accounts for the decrease from one game to another. The CMBO is not as hair-splitting as CMBB.

U.S. 75mm APCBC fired by the Sherman penetrated 81mm vertical armor at 500m. And about 86mm vertical at 250m. I think CMBO gives Sherman 75mm APCBC 89mm penetration at 500m and 0 degrees.

With 82mm side armor, a Tiger could withstand Sherman 75mm APCBC hits at 250m and 20 degrees side angle and survive most of the time (82mm at 20 degrees is about 91mm vertical resistance, penetration is about 86mm).

CMBO boosts the Sherman 75mm penetration by about 10% over U.S. firing trial data, and when is talking about close range hits with side angles that 10% addition makes the Tiger somewhat more vulnerable than it probably should be.

The advantage of Tiger over Panther in close terrain is that Tiger armor presents a thicker hide against the Sherman, and Tiger often has the few more mm after a small angle is cranked in that mean the difference between life and death. When Wittmann's Tiger was knocked out, Tiger side armor defeated the 75mm hits at about 800 yards, a situation where Panther would have been a dead duck.

If CMBO was going to be revised once more, this is what I would suggest:

1. half the 17 pdr and 6 pdr APDS shots go wild and won't penetrate anything if they hit

2. Sherman 75mm APCBC penetration decreased to agree with U.S. TM9-1907

3. Panther glacis penalty for flaws applied to a given percentage of tanks, not all

4. Panther glacis penalty would be a function of incoming round diameter, the penalty multiplier should be 0.95 against 75mm and 76mm (17 pdr, too) hits, and 0.90 against 90mm hits. 0.85 applies to 122mm hits based on our math.

5. Tiger side armor increased to 82mm, which is the historical average, and those additional 2mm really are important when it comes to the hair-splitting analysis of penetration vs armor resistance.

[lcm1947]

What Rexford said. See I knew the Tiger shouldn't be that easy to knock out.

[rexford]

I took a closer look at the data for slope effect and 75mm APCBC penetration, and the Tiger does even better than the estimates presented this morning.

Sherman 75mm APCBC vs Tiger 82mm Side Armor

Range Where 50% of Hits Completely Penetrate

Impact angle.....Range for 82mm Penetration

..0 degrees.................440m

..5.........................375m

.10.........................310m

.15.........................150m

.20...........................0m

.25...........................no range

.30...........................no range

============================================

Range Where 20% of Hits Completely Penetrate

Impact angle.....Range for 82mm Penetration

..0 degrees.................750m

..5.........................625m

.10.........................560m

.15.........................440m

.20.........................200m

.25...........................0m

.30...........................no range

===========================================

By way of contrast, if the Panther A side hull (40mm at 40 degrees from vertical) is hit by Sherman 75mm with a 30 degree side angle, the resulting armor resistance is 72mm vertical.

Sherman 75mm APCBC can defeat Panther A side hull on 50% of the hits at 1060m with a 30 side angle from firer to hull side!

Same angle hit on Tiger side bounces off harmlessly

every time at 250m range.

Tiger side armor may not have a slope but it has the thickness. ===========================================

We recently analyzed U.S. APCBC against face-hardened armor and it appears that 75mm and 76mm APCBC had extra effectiveness against face-hardened armor, which may have cost some homogeneous armor effectiveness.

75mm APCBC penetrates 95mm of face-hardened armor at 500m, but only 81mm homogeneous (Tiger armor type).

The earlier 75mm M72 solid shot AP used by Shermans had penetration at 500m was 92mm homogeneous and 75mm face-hardened.

What this means is Sherman 75mm APCBC stinks against tanks with thick homogeneous armor (Tiger and Tiger II) unless it lines up close to the armor facing, and eats up tanks with face-hardened frontal armor of 80mm or so thickness and little slope (PzKpfw IVH, StuG III and IV).

If I wanted a German tank to fight the Allies in close country in France, and speed wasn't a big concern, Tiger would be my choice.

[ May 09, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[lcm1947]

That last post from Rexford confirms it. No way a Sherman should be able to take out a tiger as easy I have been doing. I will start watching more closely to which Sherman does it and at what range but I think the Tiger is too weak in CMBO. I've kind of figured out why I have more problems with Panthers and it may be that they can move their turret faster and therefore I don't get a second or third shot off like I do the Tiger. Anyway appreciate the info Rexford.

[rexford]

Another point is the Tiger turret side and turret rear is rounded and most hits won't strike flat on.

The way I understand it, Tiger and Panther turret traverse was similar in many respects, we use 9 degrees per second for both tanks in our micro scale wargames.

Sherman turret whizzed around at 24 degrees per second.

On level ground, if a Sherman suddenly appears out of the blue facing the Tiger side armor, and the Tiger turret is pointed straight ahead, it will take the Tiger turret 10 seconds to rotate onto the Sherman once the Tiger crews knows where the threat is, the commander gives the order to traverse to the flank and the turret can actually be put into motion.

If the Tiger is buttoned up by machine gun, HE or artillery fire the ability to see flank threats is greatly decreased.

So a Sherman on the Tiger side may have 20 to 30 seconds to fire before the Tiger can move the gun onto the target. That's quite a few shots before the Tiger reacts and fires back, and even with low probability successes one might eventually get through (especially if several hits land close together and crack the armor or hit in the same groove, which would be a "weak spot" hit).

That's if it's not possible to rotate the Tiger in place, but that takes time. The Biggest problem is seeing or becoming aware of a flank threat, making a decision to traverse the turret or rotate the Tiger, and having the order implemented.

When Wittmann's Tiger was knocked out, the turret on his tank was rotated in the wrong direction, away from the threat. Some of the German commentators on Wittmann's demise were surprised that he was surprised, since they said that Wittmann had this sixth sense for smelling ambushes and enemy units. So rotating the gun away from the Firefly position was not expected.

I don't know about you folks, but isn't it amazing that Wittmann's Tiger was 007, the same number immortalized by James Bond. Mickey Mantle, the greatest centerfielder ever, was also number 7, that no zero's in front.

Anyway,

Many folks think that tanks may react too fast in wargames as a general rule.

The penetration data in CMBO is halfway correct by using a single figure for all target armor types (face-hardened and homogeneous): should be 81mm homogeneous at 500m and is 89mm, should be 95mm face-hardened and is 89mm. So Shermans are too effective against Tiger and Tiger II and less effective against PzKpfw IVH and StuG IIIG.

But getting back to the turret traverse business, info posted on various web sites indicates that Tiger and Panther turret traverse really slows down if the vehicle is on any type of slope.

Tigers do much better in CMBB.

One other unrelated point. The report to Eisenhower noted that Tiger and other German gun sights were much better at light gathering than American sights, and the U.S. tanks had trouble sighting during reduced light conditions (overcast).

There is an Eastern Front story where a Tiger was able to see, aim at, hit and knock out a large number of T34 that were forming up in a fog, and the Russian forces could not identify where the fire from coming from.

Superior light gathering optics.

[lcm1947]

Thanks again Rexford for the info. That story about the Russian's getting shot up because of the fog and they couldn't see who or where it was coming from would have been a nightmare for them I bet. Can you imagine? I do have a question for you however if you are still here. I noticed the on the British Sherman IIa and the Sherman V that while the 75mm has a 619 M/Sec shell speed with a blast of 39 the 76 mm which is faster with a 793 M/Sec speed only has a blast of 33. Does that make sense to you. It doesn't me but then I'm not familiar with ammo that large anyway so wouldn't really know but it seems off to me. Any idea why or can you explain it?

[offtaskagain]

The HE shell for a 76mm gun has to have thicker walls due to the higher MV. This means less HE burster so the fragments won't go as far or hit as hard.

[lcm1947]

Hey Panzerwerfer I appreciate your reply and understand what you said but let me ask you this. Since the bullet ( for lack of a better term ) is larger because it's physically bigger wouldn't the casing also be bigger and therefore able to hold more powder then the 75 mm? anyway thereby allowing for higher MV? I know a little bit about rifle cartridges as I used to reload so that's why I'm confused. Now if they are using the same 75 mm casing and just necked it up to 76 mm I can see why. Do you happen to know which is the case? Just curious since they could have done it a couple different ways but for the life of me can't see why they would allow this to be. Or maybe I'm all wet.

[legend42]

The biggest factor creating the tigers reputation was the training and experience of the crew.A tiger crew of regulars was absolutely not the norm until late in the war, well after the tiger's .Veteran and highly motivated crews were the norm for tigers and to a lesser extent crack and elite.The far majority of crack and elite crews were promoted to tigers and panthers.The only true representation of the tiger's legend is a very large open map with veteran to crack tiger crews on the defensive, and i must emphasize defensive.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Since the bullet ( for lack of a better term ) is larger because it's physically bigger wouldn't the casing also be bigger and therefore able to hold more powder then the 75 mm? anyway thereby allowing for higher MV?

This is explained on page 64 of the manual. The 76mm shell has less TNT, so its blast radius is smaller. The shell is bigger in caliber, but only 1mm, or 1,3%.

Actually the same goes with German 75mm guns - the PzIV's 75L48 has a bigger blast value than Panther's 75L70.

[lcm1947]

Yeah Legend42 the more I read the more times I come across information about the Tiger being used more in a defensive role which really is interesting. I guess it kind of makes sense since they were slow and probably wouldn't have the advantage on attack not to mention gas mileage. Kind of like small forts. That is interesting Sergei thanks for the info. I've no doubt that it is correct since BFC seems to have their facts pretty much down but I would love to know who or why they would do that? I mean that doesn't make any sense unless somebody just wanted a slower 76mm over a faster more powerful one. It must had sometime to do with the barrel or breach on existing equipment. I suppose anyway.