German tank vulnerability

[JonS]

The german tank crews were trained to know perfectly the weak areas of their enemy tanks.

Those Germans, eh? Is there nothing they didn't do perfectly? Well, apart from win wars of course. But other than that?

Yuks aside, let's grant that heroic assumption, and for the sake of the argument allow ze Germans to have perfect knowledge of all marks and models of all tanks in the Allied inventory.

Super. Now what?

Well, now there is something else ze perfect Germans have to do perfectly in order to use their perfect knowledge of every mark and model of every tank in the Allied inventory. Anybody care to guess what that other thing they have to do perfectly is?

Yes, that's right. They have to perfectly identify every target they come across. And not just "oh, that's a Sherman", but "oh, that's a Sherman M4" or "oh, that's a Sherman M4A3". The reason, of course, is that different models have different aiming points. For one the centre of seen mass is fine, but for the other the aim point needs to be the turret or the lower hull ... or maybe not, depending on the angle of the target's hull.

So, peering through the scope at the silhouette (which is all you're going to see, in most circumstances) you have to correctly identify the exact model. But that silhouette is partly obscured by tall vegetation, and distorted because you aren't seeing it square on, and the blessed thing is covered in rolled up tarpaulins, tool boxes, crates, lengths of track, and all sorts of other impedimentia that mobile homes tend to accumulate over time.

So, what do you do, Mr Perfect Knowledge? Do you take the higher probability of a hit and for centre of seen mass, and risk the chance of a ricochet if the target is tougher than you thought? Or do you take the low probability of a hit on the smaller weak parts, and risk what might be overkill if the target is weaker than you thought?

Think fast! You've 2 seconds before the gunner must have a fire order!

[JonS]

Yet I'll still contend that aiming at a tank or aiming at part of the tank is basically the same thing.

Well, sure. But aiming at something and hitting that something are basically NOT the same thing.

Aiming at centre of centre of seen mass maximises the liklihood that your shot will hit the target. Aiming at what you think are weak points reduces that liklihood. That reduction in liklihood is only justified if your assessment of the vulnerability of the weakpoint (and conversely, the invulnerability of the 'strongpoint') is spot on.

[SleeStak]

Well, sure. But aiming at something and hitting that something are basically NOT the same thing.

Aiming at centre of centre of seen mass maximises the liklihood that your shot will hit the target. Aiming at what you think are weak points reduces that liklihood. That reduction in liklihood is only justified if your assessment of the vulnerability of the weakpoint (and conversely, the invulnerability of the 'strongpoint') is spot on.

Well, you're right of course. Targeting specific points on a tank would tend to reduce the fudge factor you'd have in a specific direction and I suspect the tankers would only do it if they felt they had something to gain from the attempt. When talking about the Sherman, there are significant differences in the armor configs but I think the turret is generally you're best bet with the 75L48.

[JonS]

Just so it clear where I stand I am positive this tanker stated that in training they were able to aim and hit specific spots.

And just so it's clear where I stand; I'm positive that you're right about that. I just don't happen to remember that bit, and I'm several hundred kms from my bookshelves right now so can't remind myself

My memory may fail me but I think his DD tank started sinking so for him it was By Lifeboat into Normandy, By Tank into Germany.

Nope, your memory doesn't fail you. I definately remember that bit

[jjhouston]

U.S. tankers were trained to aim center mass. See FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery (1943) page 38 "When firing armor-piercing or combination armor-piercing high explosive, lay on the center of the target."

One reason for aiming for the center of visible mass is round dispersion. An example of dispersion from the pamphlet, ARMOR-PIERCING AMMUNITION FOR GUN, 90-mm, M3:

"ACCURACY. Accuracy firings have been conducted with the T33 round loaded for a M.V. of 2800 f/s and fired from a standard 90-mm Gun over a range of 700 yards at a vertical target. An extreme horizontal dispersion of 16 inches and an extreme vertical dispersion of 19 inches was obtained."

I can't find anything for the dispersion of the 75mm APC M61, AP M72 or the 76mm APC M62, AP M79, but it seems likely that those rounds would be less accurate than the round fired by the late war Pershing.

Other factors, as pointed out earlier, will effect accuracy such as lost boresight, barrel wear, barrel droop due to heat expansion, et cetera.

[zukkov]

hey! my barrel only droops when it's not in use!

[Vark]

I think the trouble with any account of precision shooting is that there are so few of them, given the frequency of armoured encounters, which might infer they happened rarely. If this is the case and Battlefront model this rare activity it immediately imbalances the game and better crews become the legends of the comic book.

Hey sarge, we were toast there until you turned up with ol Marry Lou", your gunner 'Dead Eye' Peterson sure knows how to dish it out to them Kraut Tigers". Seven of the beasts lie wrecked, AP holes in the vision slits, cupolas, turret rings and several with gun barrels knocked off. "Yup, Dead Eye does it again , now you said summit about a company of Panthers!"

Ellis' book recounts an exchange between crewman that Churchills could technically knock out Panthers?Tigers by bouncing a shot of the periscope, if they were within 400m. Asked if this has been done the reply is yes, one man, and he is now in the UK with his nerves shattered! The Germans had a stake in constantly playing up their uberness as crackshots, it scared the crap out of allied tankers and as the Israelis know such tales save lives.

[Peregrine]

Zero idea where I read this but I can remember an anecdotal discussion about how crap the ally tanks were and that the only chance they had of KOing the German heavies were essentially trick shots (obviously the aforementioned not true). It then listed several ways of accomplishing the "impossible" but the only one I remember was essentially shooting low and trying to ricochet a shot from the ground into the underneath of the tank.

Was planning on testing this theory out just for laughs when the game is released. Has anyone seen ricochets off the ground or do low AP shots dig in and not go anywhere?

[stikkypixie]

Zero idea where I read this but I can remember an anecdotal discussion about how crap the ally tanks were and that the only chance they had of KOing the German heavies were essentially trick shots (obviously the aforementioned not true). It then listed several ways of accomplishing the "impossible" but the only one I remember was essentially shooting low and trying to ricochet a shot from the ground into the underneath of the tank.

Was planning on testing this theory out just for laughs when the game is released. Has anyone seen ricochets off the ground or do low AP shots dig in and not go anywhere?

Aren't you thinking of Allied planes strafing targets? That's how I remember it.

[Txema]

OK, I will rephrase my previous post eliminating the two "offending" words.

The german tank crews were trained to know the weak areas of their enemy tanks. I have not been able to find pictures of the training materials that they used on internet (and I have looked for them intensively !), but in the english translation that I own of the Tigerfibel manual a detailed "Armor penetration chart" for the Tiger's 8.8 cm "KwK" 36 gun is included, featuring the main enemy tanks that the Tiger could find in the battlefield and including drawings of each enemy tank indicating the different areas that could be penetrated by the Tiger, and the maximun shooting distance to achieve penetration at that area.

A photograph of these supplements found in the back of the Tigerfibel can be seen in the middle of this web page, although it is too small to see the drawings properly:

http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml

Similar information is included in the Pantherfibel manual. You can download it here:

http://megaupload.com/?d=DYMSU0C6

Please, check pages 105 to 120.

In my opinion it is reasonable to assume that if all this information was included in the manuals the tank crews knew it and used it, aiming, when the situation allowed it, for the most faborable areas of the enemy tanks. It is clear that this stuff was in the training of the german tank crews.

In my opinion, if the target is at short distance (300 meters, for example) it should be easy to aim for the turret and to hit it... Why do you assume that a tanker wouldn't do it if he was trained to do it, and if he knew that it was much more easy to achieve a penetration there?

[Lt Belenko]

There was a thread awhile back about the fighters bouncing 50 cals off the pavement in front of German tanks and bouncing them into the soft underbelly too.

Could happen.

[stikkypixie]

OK, I will rephrase my previous post eliminating the two "offending" words.

The german tank crews were trained to know the weak areas of their enemy tanks. I have not been able to find pictures of the training materials that they used on internet (and I have looked for them intensively !), but in the english translation that I own of the Tigerfibel manual a detailed "Armor penetration chart" for the Tiger's 8.8 cm "KwK" 36 gun is included, featuring the main enemy tanks that the Tiger could find in the battlefield and including drawings of each enemy tank indicating the different areas that could be penetrated by the Tiger, and the maximun shooting distance to achieve penetration at that area.

A photograph of these supplements found in the back of the Tigerfibel can be seen in the middle of this web page, although it is too small to see the drawings properly:

http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml

Similar information is included in the Pantherfibel manual. You can download it here:

http://megaupload.com/?d=DYMSU0C6

Please, check pages 105 to 120.

In my opinion it is reasonable to assume that if all this information was included in the manuals the tank crews knew it and used it, aiming, when the situation allowed it, for the most faborable areas of the enemy tanks. It is clear that this stuff was in the training of the german tank crews.

In my opinion, if the target is at short distance (300 meters, for example) it should be easy to aim for the turret and to hit it... Why do you assume that a tanker wouldn't do it if he was trained to do it, and if he knew that it was much more easy to achieve a penetration there?

The issue, is the phrase "if the situation allowed for it". If the tank is in a prepared ambush knowing that enemy armor is about to past and they have the time to aim, yes they could take careful aim. These situations are however rare.

Think about it, 300m is really short. And when an enemy tank suddenly pops out of nowhere at this kind of range, the potential threat is so great that there is usually no time time to take at specific areas. At 300m even a Tiger is vulnerable to Shermans, let alone PzIVs.

The other thing is, because of its powerful gun, a Tiger doesn't have to wait until enemy tanks close in that far. They would typically open at way earlier.

Not saying that deliberate aim did not happen, but when compared to the 98% time when people just aim for the center of the mass, it's hard to argue to change the aiming routine in the game.

[Peregrine]

In an ideal situation with a clear stationary target, at a range where precision is possible and zero other pressure a crew may specifically aim for a weak spot.

But how often did that happen?

More importantly how would you implement it in the CM context. What criteria would need to be met for a crew to switch to aiming at a weak spot and it actually translating into a decent benefit to the firing unit as there is simply no "to hit" bonus that can be simply upped.

Once this is released there will be dozens upon dozens of firing range tests. As it looks like the hit information boxes are back I am assuming the "Penetration - weak spot" will be back too.

If it is then we could probably have a proper argument re frequency of actual weak spot penetrations and the CM frequency.

[stikkypixie]

In an ideal situation with a clear stationary target, at a range where precision is possible and zero other pressure they possibly would.

But how often did that happen?

More importantly how would you implement it in the CM context. What criteria would need to be met for a crew to switch from aiming at a weak spot and it actually translating into a decent benefit to the firing unit as there is simply no "to hit" bonus that can be simply upped.

Once this is released there will be dozens upon dozens of firing range tests. As it looks like the hit information boxes are back I am assuming the "Penetration - weak spot" will be back too.

If it is then we could probably have a proper argument re frequency of actual weak spot penetrations and the CM frequency.

Vision slit, gun mounts and other weak spots are explicitly modeled in the new engine. So no more estimating weak spot penetration frequencies .

[SleeStak]

The issue, is the phrase "if the situation allowed for it". If the tank is in a prepared ambush knowing that enemy armor is about to past and they have the time to aim, yes they could take careful aim. These situations are however rare.

Think about it, 300m is really short. And when an enemy tank suddenly pops out of nowhere at this kind of range, the potential threat is so great that there is usually no time time to take at specific areas. At 300m even a Tiger is vulnerable to Shermans, let alone PzIVs.

The other thing is, because of its powerful gun, a Tiger doesn't have to wait until enemy tanks close in that far. They would typically open at way earlier.

Not saying that deliberate aim did not happen, but when compared to the 98% time when people just aim for the center of the mass, it's hard to argue to change the aiming routine in the game.

Stikkypixie, maybe you are right. I doubt anyone would claim it never ever happened and the debate seems to be over 'did it happen often or only very very rarely'. I think this is one of those issues that really can't be proven one way or another. I find the idea that the tankers didn't try to hit specific, vulnerable points of their opponents armor incomprehensible. Based on the responses I've read in this post, it appears my position is in the minority and that many well informed posters think that they almost always aimed center mass. Alas!

Either way, based on the posts I've seen in this thread, I don't think Battlefront is rethinking their aiming routine (They even went so far as to liken the idea to the BREN tripod arguement). If nothing else, I won't be as surprised by the PzIV vs Sherman matchup as I would have been had I not seen this thread. Still, not trying to hit the vulnerable parts of their enemies tanks, you guys are crazy.

[Peregrine]

Aren't you thinking of Allied planes strafing targets? That's how I remember it.

No. I am positive it was a discussion between a tanker and a non-tanker re knocking out a Panther.

It was not a first hand account and sounded like hearsay along the lines of:

Person 1: We can't get the Panthers frontally unless you bounce a shell off the ground into it's underbelly or other ridiculous options etc etc.

Person 2: Has anyone done it.

Person 1: Not in our troop but so so in B Sqd did it last week.

Again not a first hand account and sounds insane to consider it as an actual combat option.

[stikkypixie]

Stikkypixie, maybe you are right. I doubt anyone would claim it never ever happened and the debate seems to be over 'did it happen often or only very very rarely'. I think this is one of those issues that really can't be proven one way or another. I find the idea that the tankers didn't try to hit specific, vulnerable points of their opponents armor incomprehensible. Based on the responses I've read in this post, it appears my position is in the minority and that many well informed posters think that they almost always aimed center mass. Alas!

Either way, based on the posts I've seen in this thread, I don't think Battlefront is rethinking their aiming routine (They even went so far as to liken the idea to the BREN tripod arguement). If nothing else, I won't be as surprised by the PzIV vs Sherman matchup as I would have been had I not seen this thread. Still, not trying to hit the vulnerable parts of their enemies tanks, you guys are crazy.

I think the bottom line is, if the think they could safely do it, tankers would aim for the vulnerable parts. Though from what I understand, even waiting for a tank to show its side armor is nerve wrecking enough, let alone trying to aim at something that is about to shoot you.

In most cases though, aiming at the center of mass is a) good enough to get a kill has a higher chance of a hit. Remember that you don't need to penetrate the armor to cause damage to a tank.

I also pose you this question, how do the tankers know what specific parts to hit if it's already very hard to correctly identify tanks.

[Bastables]

There was a thread awhile back about the fighters bouncing 50 cals off the pavement in front of German tanks and bouncing them into the soft underbelly too.

Could happen.

German tanks had thicker armor on the belly than the roof armour. . . So unable to penetrate the roof armour at oblique angles they attempt to bounce rounds deforming them tumbling them into thicker belly armour. . .

[SleeStak]

I think the bottom line is, if the think they could safely do it, tankers would aim for the vulnerable parts. Though from what I understand, even waiting for a tank to show its side armor is nerve wrecking enough, let alone trying to aim at something that is about to shoot you.

In most cases though, aiming at the center of mass is a) good enough to get a kill has a higher chance of a hit. Remember that you don't need to penetrate the armor to cause damage to a tank.

I also pose you this question, how do the tankers know what specific parts to hit if it's already very hard to correctly identify tanks.

Again, of course you're right. The desire to do something while picking your shot would be huge. I just think that, if a tanker were riding in a Stuart, and ran into a PzIV, He'd try to shoot the turret as he doesn't have a chance at penetrating the hull and he'd almost certainly know that.

I would contend that, in general, tankers could correctly identify their opponents tanks (I've taught my three year old how to identify t-34's and Shermans and my wife can identify which German variants are built on the Pz38t chassis). I think we can all pretty much look at tanks and identify their make and, generally, their model. The Shermans might be hard to identify their specific model but, you wouldn't really have to. You'd give yourself the best chance of killing one by shooting it in the turret no matter what model you came across (with a 75L48 gun that is).

With all of that said, I'm sure its alot harder to identify tanks looking at one at 1500m through a gun sight. But that really isn't the kind of shooting I'm talking about. I'm talking about 500m maybe out to 1000m in the right circumstances in the close terrain of Normandy. Not shooting your way out of an ambush or fighting in circumstances that require quick, snap shots.

I think I differ from most of the rest of the posters in that, I think the opportunity to aim was more frequent. I can't defend my position with evidence and I haven't really seen any evidence that changes my position. The closest thing I've seen is the poster that posted the training manual but, that really isn't conclusive. I don't think either side can be proven.

The only position that really matters on this is Battlefront's and I don't think they are changing their mind. This isn't an issue that would keep me from buying the game. On the contrary, I'm really looking forward to buying the game. I just think I'm right and everyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong! (In case the smiley face doesn't make it plain, I'm mostly kidding)

[Peregrine]

I think it would be much harder than you think to clearly identify tanks on the battlefield.

Most tankers accounts in the West when they talk about an engagement often only identify tanks by type if their battle was successful and they get close enough to see what it was that actually got hit.

Conversely if things didn't work out the description tends to be very generic in that we heard the crack of an 88 and pop smoke and retreated. Stugs and all their varieties are often universally referred to as SPs etc.

Am I correct in saying that somewhere in one of these recent threads it was correctly stated that there was only 3 tigers in the American sectors of Normandy in it's initial stages. I suspect that the number of Tigers that were reported as spotted was substantially higher.

[YankeeDog]

Yes; best information is that U.S. forces in Normandy only ever faced Three Tiger Is, and never saw a Tiger II in the theatre. What's more, U.S. forces made contact these with Tiger Is late in the Normandy conflict, along the Southern side of the Falaise pocket, IIRC.

But if you read personal anecdotes of G.I.s in Normandy, you'd think the U.S. faced dozens, if not hundreds, of Tiger Is. Most of the "Tigers" GIs spotted in Normandy were probably Pz IVs or Panthers.

Same goes for 88mm AT Guns. Based on anecdotes, you'd think the Germans had one hiding around every corner. In actuality, based on actual German deployment records, and what is known about captured/destroyed German equipment, many of the "88s" must have been other guns, like 75mm PaKs.

So there is there is very good evidence that AFVs and guns are often misidentified in the heat of combat.

Regards,

YD

[SleeStak]

Yes; best information is that U.S. forces in Normandy only ever faced Three Tiger Is, and never saw a Tiger II in the theatre. What's more, U.S. forces made contact these with Tiger Is late in the Normandy conflict, along the Southern side of the Falaise pocket, IIRC.

But if you read personal anecdotes of G.I.s in Normandy, you'd think the U.S. faced dozens, if not hundreds, of Tiger Is. Most of the "Tigers" GIs spotted in Normandy were probably Pz IVs or Panthers.

Same goes for 88mm AT Guns. Based on anecdotes, you'd think the Germans had one hiding around every corner. In actuality, based on actual German deployment records, and what is known about captured/destroyed German equipment, many of the "88s" must have been other guns, like 75mm PaKs.

So there is there is very good evidence that AFVs and guns are often misidentified in the heat of combat.

Regards,

YD

I'm sure you're right. The Tiger disparity is the best known but I'm sure some of those 88's were fallen trees or pipes or whatever. I'm also sure that, for the most part, the tankers could correctly identify their opposites armor. I think this because people tend to get proficient at what they do and the tankers were doing this 24/7.

Tank versions might have been hard to pick, but I'm sure that axis could generally tell the difference between a Stuart and a Sherman and the allies could tell the difference between a PzIV and a Panther. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

[SlowMotion]

Most of those misidentifications probably came from soldiers other than tankers.

[Peregrine]

I'm sure you're right. The Tiger disparity is the best known but I'm sure some of those 88's were fallen trees or pipes or whatever. I'm also sure that, for the most part, the tankers could correctly identify their opposites armor. I think this because people tend to get proficient at what they do and the tankers were doing this 24/7.

Tank versions might have been hard to pick, but I'm sure that axis could generally tell the difference between a Stuart and a Sherman and the allies could tell the difference between a PzIV and a Panther. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

24/7 is not true from the allies perspective. I am sure they were on the lookout 24/7 but fortunately the Germans did not have enough armour for each allied tanker to be spotting a tank once a day.

It was uncommon. I might try and find a couple of diary like first hand accounts that I know of and count how many tanks each of them saw to put it in better perspective.

[MikeyD]

In my reference somewhere I have an Army report on how to kill Panthers based on their Normandy experience. They did say specifically to aim for the lower bow plate or try to bounce a round off the lower gun mantlet. They also said that this would take a lot of luck to accomplish. The impression was that they were telling the guys "If you've got to try something you might as well try this." They sounded much more confident in their advice to maneuver for a side shot. No luck involved in that.