Perfomance of Bazooka and 75mm Sherman gun against Tiger side armor

[TheCrow]

*SPOILERS BELOW*

At CMBO the tiger armour side was underrated and the early bazooka ammonition and sherman gun, has unreal probabilty to defeat it.

I have not get the demo yet, but seems than there is a tiger at the demo scenarios. ¿Could someone tell something about it?

EDIT : Just adding a spoiler alert to the title - Dan

[ November 23, 2003, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Thin Red Line]

Be careful put a spoiler warning in your title.

Not every body is supposed to know waht you mention about german tanks.

[TheCrow]

¡¡¡¡ SPOILER ALERT !!!!!

[Snarker]

Spoiler below

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I got the Tiger (Early) in the sights of a Sherman - flank shot at about 250. A partial upper hull penetration (right side), then a lower hull penetration and he bailed. Doesn't seem too unrealistic for the distance / angle involved.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by TheCrow:

¡¡¡¡ SPOILER ALERT !!!!!

Too late you just ruined my PBEM if my opponent checked the forum .

[Andreas]

Originally posted by TheCrow:

At CMBO the tiger armour side was underrated and the early bazooka ammonition and sherman gun, has unreal probabilty to defeat it.

First of all you should really edit the title and content of the question.

Secondly, in CMBO there was no early Bazooka ammo, the Bazooka had been in service for over a year by the time that game started. Also, the performance against Tiger I side armour was not the issue, but against Tiger II, AFAICT.

The same thing probably goes for the Sherman gun performance. This is the first time I hear that it should not be able to get through Tiger I side armour at a decent distance. Tiger one side armour is a 0 degrees, and it is not that strong. It was designed to defeat the T34 gun, but AFAIK it is accepted that the Sherman gun has better penetration capabilities against vertical armour at least.

[TheCrow]

There was a long and old topic, but i remember, than the final conclusions were than Tiger and specially King Tiger, side armour was very easly penetrated by 75mm gun and Bazooka. I remenber too than exist one very late (45) Bazooka improved ammo than would had not problems to penetrate that armour.

Of course one side shot at 250meters would be a more reasonable range to defeat this armor against the tiger, i don´t think so against TigerII.

But i specialy interested about bazooka perfomance against Tiger I.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Tiger one side armour is a 0 degrees

It is, but it is also curved along one axis. I don't know if this is modeled in CMAK, but I don't think it was in CMBO.

[ November 23, 2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

Tiger one side armour is a 0 degrees

It is, but it is also curved along one axis. I don't know if this is modeled in CMAK, but I don't think it was in CMBO. </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, I was refering to the turret. I should have been more specific.

[TheCrow]

Obviously vulnerability of lower hull was out of question, I was refering, to side turret and upper hull (82mm at cmbb).

I think than with some angle, bazooka warheads would be hard to defeat this armor. Have someone experience about it at CMAK?

Looking the terrible battles than we´ll fight soon, i have the necessity to know something about bazooka perfomance.

[Thin Red Line]

**COUGH COUGH*** please edit your title , thanks.

[Stavka_lite]

Please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the bazooka use a shaped charge, thus negating most of the armor's slope and angle?

[flamingknives]

The shaped charge effect ignores the additional effect of slope, but you still have the extra distance to penetrate due to geometry.

A bazooka hitting at a 28 degrees side angle will be entirely defeated by an 82mm plate.

I always forget the slope effect. If someone would be so kind as to post it we could compare the effects.

[JasonC]

"Lower hull is only 62mm, so there should be no question that it is quite vulnerable"

In reality, practically the entire lower side hull is protected by the running gear. You hit the track, and if you are lucky stop the Tiger, but you'd be very unlikely to actually penetrate the main body of the tank.

Bazookas historically had serious trouble against the side armor of ordinary Tiger Is. So did 75mm AP, as the Brits at Villars Bocage will tell you. Improved 75mm ammo became available later on, by the time of the Bulge, that could penetrate from the side at close enough range. US 76mm sometimes had trouble from the front (only) at medium range, due to shatter gap. Close enough it overpenetrated and worked. So did 76mm APCR, Brit 17 pdr AP, US 90mm AP, and 105mm HEAT. US 57mm, zooks and PIATs, and early 75mm, had a hard time of it. Much harder than CMBO showed.

As for King Tigers, in CMBO they could be defeated by zooks from the flanks, since the low armor quality rating (really meant for the front plates) counteracted the slope of the side armor.

There is little historical evidence any KT was ever killed by a zook. The nearest anyone found last time this came up here was one dead KT with a HEAT hole in a Brit sector, probably a PIAT but actual origin unknown. In the whole US Bulge official history (the largest battle in which they were faced) there is no recorded case of a King Tiger KOed by a bazooka - there isn't a single instance of it among all the Medal of Honor awards, either.

WW II type 60mm zooks routinely failed against T-34/85s in Korea. Even with side hits, multiple times. A King Tiger is much better protected than a T-34/85 is. 3.5 inch zooks aka panzershreck copies were rushed to the theater to deal with them, and worked. But none of those existed (for the US I mean) until 1950.

There are numerous cases of US infantry forces counterattacked by Tiger led armor that fought off the attack. If you read them, the most common successful tactic was artillery stripping the infantry off of them, deterring the tanks from continuing. AT mines restricted their movements in cases with limited road nets (frequent in the Bulge). 105mm HEAT fired direct often featured. Tank destroyers, 90mm or 76mm, (towed 76mm also worked, particularly if firing from unobserved locations) - would show up. The infantry restricted their movements with zooks and often immobilized them, but instances of outright kills with mere zooks are few and far between. It certainly was not easy. A number of posthumous Medals of Honor attest to that.

[TheCrow]

Jason excellent post, as habitual. At CMBO Bazooka, was a really "über" weapon, than give to many headaches(i prefer axis side ), even against the most heavy german tanks...

I hope than the perfomance of 75mm Sherman gun, an bazooka, against TigerI & II side armor and against frontal stug armor, wil be more acurate.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"Lower hull is only 62mm, so there should be no question that it is quite vulnerable"

In reality, practically the entire lower side hull is protected by the running gear. You hit the track, and if you are lucky stop the Tiger, but you'd be very unlikely to actually penetrate the main body of the tank.

It's called aiming, and they teach it in AT gunnery school. Much like they taught German AT gunners to aim for the turret ring, also a small target.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Bazookas historically had serious trouble against the side armor of ordinary Tiger Is. So did 75mm AP, as the Brits at Villars Bocage will tell you. Improved 75mm ammo became available later on, by the time of the Bulge, that could penetrate from the side at close enough range. US 76mm sometimes had trouble from the front (only) at medium range, due to shatter gap. Close enough it overpenetrated and worked. So did 76mm APCR, Brit 17 pdr AP, US 90mm AP, and 105mm HEAT. US 57mm, zooks and PIATs, and early 75mm, had a hard time of it. Much harder than CMBO showed.

Instead of the AARs from Villers-Bocage, I'd be more interested in some better evidence, such as firing tests. I don't think that Villers-Vocage is sufficient proof for the non-performance of the 75mm gun against side armour. Even if you find quotes, they are unlikely to tell you angles. Seeing that the main damage was done to a surprised Cromwell formation, with crews outside the tanks, not one in combat formation.

[Dan Robertson]

Originally posted by JasonC:

There is little historical evidence any KT was ever killed by a zook. The nearest anyone found last time this came up here was one dead KT with a HEAT hole in a Brit sector, probably a PIAT but actual origin unknown.

Hmm I wonder if this King Tiger was the one that took part in anbush on an allied collum. It was hit be a WP round and the crew abandonded it.

Later a US soldier tried out a Panzerfaust on it from a range of about 30m and was surprised when it blew a small hole directly through the Glacis plate.

The vehicle could have been evaluated as a PIAT or other HEAT strike later on as they wouldn't have known that it was a capture German weapon that did it.

[Kwazydog]

Okay guys, out of interest I ran a test in the full version.

The test was pretty simple...I had 3 Tigers being fired at from the side by 3 Bazookas from a range of about 50m. One Tiger was on a direct 90 degree angle, the next was at a slight angle (maybe 80 degrees to the firer) and the last was at a 45 degree angle.

Each time through I watched the first minute of battle and played the test through 5 times. The only Tiger that was killed out of those tests (15 Tigers in total and around 40 hits) was the one that which present a 90 degree angle to the firer, and even it was only killed by a partial penetration though the side hull. There were several other partial penertations against this 90 degree vehicle during the test, both hull and turret, but no others have enough punch left to kill the beast.

There were also a couple of other partial penetrations against the turret on other vehicles (as it is rounded) but again, no kills. The only other hit of interest against the Tigers was a side hit against the 10 degree vehicle which cause internal spalling, causing the crew to be shaken for a while. During the period of being 'shaken' the crew paused, allowing two rear hull hits to no effect.

So, all up, it sounds pretty good to me. The armour calculations between CMAK and CMBO have been worked on considerably so I guess this shouldnt be suprising

Dan

[JasonC]

"It's called aiming"

In your dreams. Go to the US center for military history, find the Medal of Honor citation section, WW II. There are four pages of them broken down alphabetically. Search for "bazooka". You will find exactly one instance of an individual fighting a tank confirmed as a Mark VI with one, successfully. His name was Lt Barfoot. He was clearly a tough hombre, as the rest of his citation makes clear. He managed to break the track of 1 Tiger. You will find confirmed cases of Panthers KOed by zooks, of Mark IVs KOed by zooks, and of unidentified tanks and SP guns KOed by zooks.

You will find a PFC Cowan award the MoH for continuing to man his MG under direct fire from a King Tiger. But not KOing one with a bazooka. You will find a Sgt. Gammon charging one (and its infantry escort) with nothing but grenades. It is a posthumous award. You will find a Lt Fowler winning it for pulling fellow tankers out of burning wrecks Tigers made, while they were still firing at him - but not for KOing one with a bazooka. You will find PFC Schauer, a BAR man, winning it for exposing himself to fire from a Tiger to KO an enemy machinegun - but not KOing the Tiger with a bazooka.

There were 464 MoHs awarded in WW II. Not one KOed a known Tiger with a bazooka. One, count 'em one, broke a Tiger's track with a bazooka, and by doing so "persuaded" two others to leave his unit alone and bother somebody else instead. If all you have to do is aim, where are all the crack shot heros?

Meanwhile, there are known incidents of AFVs resisting multiple zook hits from the sides without ever doing more than immobilizing them - eventually finished off (tens of minutes later) by being doused in gasoline and set alight, because zook rounds had failed to finish it off. What sort of beast was this? A Jagdpanzer-70 with skirts. Try getting that outcome in CMBO. Heck, in CMBO you can KO those from the front with a lower hull hit; if the zook lives long enough to fire its ammo, the Jagd won't survive a full minute.

Infantry AT in CM is Sgt Rock comic book stuff, and people's expectations are even more unrealistic than game performance. It has improved considerable since CMBO days, but in the real deal the 40 ton metal beast had a much better time of it, and the man in wool or cotton a much worse time of it.

[JonS]

re: SPOILERS

heh - thanks for putting itin the title Dan, but the problem is that the title gives (gave?) away significant information before you even start reading the thread. To be honest, darn near every thread currently active on this forum has spoilers, and only a few less thread titles give away specific information.

I've realised that there are two choices at the moment - EITHER avoid the forum altogether , hope your opponent is too, and enjoy a FOW scenario, OR flag FOW scenarios until the full game comes out with its greater range of choice.

Now, the first option isn't terribly realistic, so I'll just have to wait

Regards

JonS

[Kwazydog]

Good point Jon....Ive moved the spoiler to the top of the thread for those browsing the thread titles

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"It's called aiming"

In your dreams.

I was talking about penetration by the 75mm or other guns, hence my reference to 'AT gunnery school'. I am sorry if that escaped you.

Now, care to provide some info on penetration for these guns other than handwaving Villers-Bocage old warrior stories?

Or is this the same tactic as in the 75L43 thread on the CMBB where you seem to feel excempt from providing proof for your assertions?

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

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

¡¡¡¡ SPOILER ALERT !!!!!

Too late you just ruined my PBEM if my opponent checked the forum . </font>

[demoss]

WW II type 60mm zooks routinely failed against T-34/85s in Korea. Even with side hits, multiple times.

I've heard this attributed to deterioration of the ammo over time.