Jump to content


Account of the Tiger penetrated frontally in combat?

Tiger I Tiger II Penetration

  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

Nikolai_Mikoyan #1 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6448 battles
  • 542
  • Member since:
    12-06-2011

Hey guys, I'm back,

 

After haven't posted here for like, 2 years, I'm back here again, with questions, of course.

 

The claim started with "The Tiger was never penetrated frontally" Now this one is very easily debunked, there are tons of photographic evidences to simply ditch that claim, so I provided the wehraboo-in-question the photos from the test (that one with the 85mm shell penned the lower glacis and the one with the 122mm shell dislocated the Tiger's turret). That wehraboo, with its tinfoil hat, raised its demand, saying it want a picture of the Tiger that got penned IN COMBAT.

 

Now things got a bit more stiff, all the account I had with the Tiger getting penned frontally, especially the epic and undeniable ones were all from the tests.

 

The only one frontal penetration in combat I had so far is this, from Lake Balaton

 

Sure that's a penetration on the highly sloped plate. This could have knocked out the transmission and perhaps blew the legs off the driver.

 

The problem is, some of the photos from Lake Balaton were accused of being post-edited. (I don't personally believe that this specific photo above was post-edited, though)

 

So, before having to commit to this photo, I think I should steer clear of any accusation and find some other photos that hasn't been accused first. Do we happen to have the photo of the Tiger gotten penned frontally in combat lying around here somewhere?

 

PS. Also, there is an account of the King Tiger got penned in the manlet, but it was still under discussion whether it is a penetration of an actual tank or an abandoned tank, so I think I'm not gonna commit to that for now.



Demonic_Angel_of_Death #2 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 2142 battles
  • 3,639
  • [DEMON] DEMON
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012
TL : DR - The Tiger, and all tanks like it were [edited] and the german high command lost the war because they had a little man complex... 

BattleField_JM #3 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:12

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15932 battles
  • 642
  • [TEMPL] TEMPL
  • Member since:
    12-31-2014
As a 3 mark tiger 1 driver, I can tell you that the mantle and the super slopes deck on the tiger 1 can both bounce up to 235 pen

BattleField_JM #4 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:13

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15932 battles
  • 642
  • [TEMPL] TEMPL
  • Member since:
    12-31-2014
as for the KT, the mantle is very strong but people aim for the roof or load heat and pen the turret face

Comander_Cam #5 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17668 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011
Well, it was very unusual for a shell to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger I. I do feel like that shell penetration could have been a perishing's 90mm (yes the perishing was used in the last parts of the war) Or a IS-122 as these vehicles were designed to destroy Panther/Tiger Is and Tiger IIs

BattleField_JM #6 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:14

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15932 battles
  • 642
  • [TEMPL] TEMPL
  • Member since:
    12-31-2014
historically, I can never remember watching a show where a tiger was frontally penned except for the Sherman Firefly mighty 17 pdr

vaxHack #7 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17700 battles
  • 639
  • [-M1-] -M1-
  • Member since:
    02-28-2014
Were I less lazy I would grab my Tiger and play a game and deliberately get penned in the front and take a screenshot and post it. 

Demonic_Angel_of_Death #8 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 2142 battles
  • 3,639
  • [DEMON] DEMON
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012

View PostvaxHack, on Oct 19 2016 - 23:19, said:

Were I less lazy I would grab my Tiger and play a game and deliberately get penned in the front and take a screenshot and post it. 

 

If I were less lazy, I would have sold my Tiger I by now...

Doomslinger #9 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 05:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 59832 battles
  • 5,671
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

If the Tigers were produced later in the war, there were deficiencies in the steel because of a lack of raw materials that were needed to produce high grade steel. The allies bombing campaigns were greatly affecting the supply of the minerals needed to produce high quality steel for the tanks. Some of the steel would crack when hit with an anti-tank round.

 

On another note, the Titanic had the same problem with its steel hull. There were mistakes made when they produced the steel plates and it was not of proper hardness. This caused a lot more damage or cracking of the steel when it hit the iceberg. If the steel had not been flawed, it would have been much more damage resistant, same for the German tanks of ww2.  



Tolos #10 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 06:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 16,979
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostDoomslinger, on Oct 20 2016 - 04:49, said:

If the Tigers were produced later in the war, there were deficiencies in the steel because of a lack of raw materials that were needed to produce high grade steel. The allies bombing campaigns were greatly affecting the supply of the minerals needed to produce high quality steel for the tanks. Some of the steel would crack when hit with an anti-tank round.

 

On another note, the Titanic had the same problem with its steel hull. There were mistakes made when they produced the steel plates and it was not of proper hardness. This caused a lot more damage or cracking of the steel when it hit the iceberg. If the steel had not been flawed, it would have been much more damage resistant, same for the German tanks of ww2.  

 

On the Titanic bit. I thought it was the rivets that caused the issue, the hull itself was strong enough. However the rivets was made of low grade steel that sheered and popped when it hit the berg.

Doomslinger #11 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 06:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 59832 battles
  • 5,671
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

View PostTolos, on Oct 20 2016 - 01:12, said:

 

On the Titanic bit. I thought it was the rivets that caused the issue, the hull itself was strong enough. However the rivets was made of low grade steel that sheered and popped when it hit the berg.

 

Could be, would have to research it a bit. In that picture of the Tiger above with the hole in the hull, it does look like the steel cracked or fractured a lot more than it should. It looks like the hardening process was flawed, possibly because of not having the right mix of minerals to forge the steel plates?

Edited by Doomslinger, Oct 20 2016 - 06:29.


Zinegata #12 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 06:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostComander_Cam, on Oct 20 2016 - 12:13, said:

Well, it was very unusual for a shell to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger I. I do feel like that shell penetration could have been a perishing's 90mm (yes the perishing was used in the last parts of the war) Or a IS-122 as these vehicles were designed to destroy Panther/Tiger Is and Tiger IIs

 

The first Tiger destroyed by Western forces was penetrated frontally by a 57mm gun. Chieftain recently put up a video on Tank Destroyers, which has a section on a battle in North Africa where M10s knocked out Tigers. 

 

The Tiger's armor in fact sucked pretty badly. All the complaints about the Tiger's armor being bad in the early days of WoT just demonstrated how little Tiger fanboys understood how vulnerable Tigers actually were.

 

There is only one account of a Tiger I absorbing more than a dozen hits and surviving - and that happened in 1943 against anti-tank rifles, not real anti-tank guns of 37mm or higher. Only the French and Russians had tanks that legitimately absorbed more than a hundred hits from real anti-tank cannons - at Stonne and Raisenai respectively. By comparison Wittman's run at Villers-Bocage ended after his Tiger was hit for a second time (the first one may have been an HE shell) - again from a puny 6 pounder that knocked out the tank.


Edited by Zinegata, Oct 20 2016 - 06:40.


Tolos #13 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 06:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 16,979
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostDoomslinger, on Oct 20 2016 - 05:26, said:

 

Could be, would have to research it a bit.

 

Im a bit of a titanic buff, so i tend to read up on it lol. Have you seen the real time " sinking " video on youtube ?. Kinda sad to think that at the time white star was at the leading edge on safety, she had more lifeboats than she legally needed to have.



Zinegata #14 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 06:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostBattleField_JM, on Oct 20 2016 - 12:14, said:

historically, I can never remember watching a show where a tiger was frontally penned except for the Sherman Firefly mighty 17 pdr

 

That's because there were so few Tigers that they were basically a non-factor for the entire war. Also, the only confirmed incident of 17 pounders killing Tiger Is - the action where Wittman was killed - had the Tigers looking the wrong way in an ambush. Wittman was already dead even if they had been facing just regular Shermans or 6 pounders; the fact that the Brits had 17 pounders where there just doubly confirmed just how foolish and reckless Wittman really was despite all of the SS propaganda around his name.

Zinegata #15 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 06:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostNikolai_Mikoyan, on Oct 20 2016 - 12:00, said:

Hey guys, I'm back,

 

After haven't posted here for like, 2 years, I'm back here again, with questions, of course.

 

The claim started with "The Tiger was never penetrated frontally" Now this one is very easily debunked, there are tons of photographic evidences to simply ditch that claim, so I provided the wehraboo-in-question the photos from the test (that one with the 85mm shell penned the lower glacis and the one with the 122mm shell dislocated the Tiger's turret). That wehraboo, with its tinfoil hat, raised its demand, saying it want a picture of the Tiger that got penned IN COMBAT.

 

Now things got a bit more stiff, all the account I had with the Tiger getting penned frontally, especially the epic and undeniable ones were all from the tests.

 

The only one frontal penetration in combat I had so far is this, from Lake Balaton

 

Sure that's a penetration on the highly sloped plate. This could have knocked out the transmission and perhaps blew the legs off the driver.

 

The problem is, some of the photos from Lake Balaton were accused of being post-edited. (I don't personally believe that this specific photo above was post-edited, though)

 

So, before having to commit to this photo, I think I should steer clear of any accusation and find some other photos that hasn't been accused first. Do we happen to have the photo of the Tiger gotten penned frontally in combat lying around here somewhere?

 

PS. Also, there is an account of the King Tiger got penned in the manlet, but it was still under discussion whether it is a penetration of an actual tank or an abandoned tank, so I think I'm not gonna commit to that for now.

 

Why does penetration even matter to begin with? Non-penetrations also mission-kill tanks if they cause injuries to the crew or damage key equipment. The idea that high-velocity projectiles bearing the kinetic energy of a small Sedan crashing into a wall at 30 kilometers per hour deal no damage because they didn't penetrate is a longstanding myth. If you punch a steel wall with sufficient force, it's going to leave a dent and possibly cause spalling/damage on the other side even if it doesn't punch through. Only video games and wargames stuck in the 70s still worship the cult of gun penetration vs armor thickness school.

GrossDeutchland1943 #16 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 06:51

    Private

  • Players
  • 52103 battles
  • 9
  • [PZII] PZII
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011
In Tiger Aces Hans Bolter was in an engagement where the front plate was penned and cracked after a battle and they limped the Tiger I hame to be repaired

Anlushac11 #17 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 13:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 32901 battles
  • 2,092
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

I dont think anyone has claimed the Tiger I wasn't able to be penned frontally.

 

The claim usually is that there has been no reliable evidence that the Tiger II's upper front plate was ever penetrated frontally during WW2. Using post war ammo yes.


Edited by Anlushac11, Oct 20 2016 - 13:55.


Walter_Sobchak #18 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 17:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010


Shanzival #19 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 19:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9301 battles
  • 557
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View PostNikolai_Mikoyan, on Oct 19 2016 - 23:00, said:

Hey guys, I'm back,

 

After haven't posted here for like, 2 years, I'm back here again, with questions, of course.

 

The claim started with "The Tiger was never penetrated frontally" Now this one is very easily debunked, there are tons of photographic evidences to simply ditch that claim, so I provided the wehraboo-in-question the photos from the test (that one with the 85mm shell penned the lower glacis and the one with the 122mm shell dislocated the Tiger's turret). That wehraboo, with its tinfoil hat, raised its demand, saying it want a picture of the Tiger that got penned IN COMBAT.

 

Now things got a bit more stiff, all the account I had with the Tiger getting penned frontally, especially the epic and undeniable ones were all from the tests.

 

The only one frontal penetration in combat I had so far is this, from Lake Balaton

 

Sure that's a penetration on the highly sloped plate. This could have knocked out the transmission and perhaps blew the legs off the driver.

 

The problem is, some of the photos from Lake Balaton were accused of being post-edited. (I don't personally believe that this specific photo above was post-edited, though)

 

So, before having to commit to this photo, I think I should steer clear of any accusation and find some other photos that hasn't been accused first. Do we happen to have the photo of the Tiger gotten penned frontally in combat lying around here somewhere?

 

PS. Also, there is an account of the King Tiger got penned in the manlet, but it was still under discussion whether it is a penetration of an actual tank or an abandoned tank, so I think I'm not gonna commit to that for now.

 

In your picture it's likely that the shell struck the far more vertical lower glacis plate near the weld and tore off part of the horizontal plate as it contined into the tank.



melzi_73 #20 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 20:45

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 8207 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    11-23-2014

View PostNikolai_Mikoyan, on Oct 20 2016 - 01:00, said:

The claim started with "The Tiger was never penetrated frontally" Now this one is very easily debunked, there are tons of photographic evidences to simply ditch that claim, so I provided the wehraboo-in-question the photos from the test (that one with the 85mm shell penned the lower glacis and the one with the 122mm shell dislocated the Tiger's turret). That wehraboo, with its tinfoil hat, raised its demand, saying it want a picture of the Tiger that got penned IN COMBAT.

 

 

Hi, Nikolai, this claim is related to Tiger II, not to Tiger I, and more specifically, to it´s frontal upper hull plate.







Also tagged with Tiger I, Tiger II, Penetration

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users