Tiger vs M4, long range

[BigKev03]

The ranges of the weaponry mentioned by some here are things of fairy tales.  If you are interested I would suggest finding the eye witness accounts by the tank drivers themselves.  It was very rare that a tiger commander would take a shot at another tank at over 1000 meters.  Some admit to 1200 meters but only under perfect condtions.  A few tigers were killed by very close range 37mm high velocity rounds- such as a close rear attack (like a stuart within 100m) but others withstood over 200 rounds being bounced off.  In general the German tank commanders liked to get within about 800m before shooting and the allies within 400m of a tiger to have a chance at disabling it.  Killing a tank from 2 miles away is a thing of games only.  Oh yeah- you should also check on the maximum amount of sight magnification that was available at the time.  And yes, as soon as the projectile leaves the muzzle it starts dropping and loosing velocity.  Real life and the myriads of numbers on what guns were supposed to do, don't often match. 
[/quote

Dude, you are very misinformed on this issue.  During WWII the germans had some of the best optics on the planet and not to mention their range finding equipment.  In addition the type of terrain you are in will dictate the range at which you can engage the enemy.  On the steppes of Russia the Tiger and the Panther used the superior range of their guns to destroy T34 before the russians could close.  In Africa the 88 flak would kill british tanks at over 1000m in the ambush.  In the hedge rows of Normandy and the wooded areas of France and the low countries of course you will have shorter firing ranges.  There are accounts of tiger commanders in russia engaging t34's at out to ranges of 2500 meters and more.  Why?  Depending on where the round hit it could penetrate the armor.  At that range there was really no sure chance of getting a kill shot on a tiger or a panther.  No way would a tiger commander if he had range as an advantage would wait and close to within 800m of the enemy before he fired.  You need to read books like Panzer Leader, Panzer Aces, and such so you can see the ranges at which armor battles were fought.  And killing a tank at 2 miles is only a game?????  WTF????   You must not have researched anything before you posted.  Both the germans and allies had kills at that range and today the record tank to tank kill is held by the British Cahllenger with a kill at 5.1km.  And when a round leaves the barrel it does lose velocity but depending on the round and the powder charge, barrel length, and such other variables tanks inWWII and today can did achieve extreme accuracy and kills at range.  The original topic was to address the kill shot at extreme range.  1000m to 2000 meters is not extreme.  Maybe you need the metric system 101 course:  1200m= 1312yds which equals .745 miles, 2000m= 2187yds which equals just over 1.24 miles.  All ranges in which a tiger, panther, or firefly could achieve a kill shot.

[chris3]

moin

luck at this page.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf

it is called Tiger Fibel, (The German Handboock for the tank crews) at page 90 there is for example the sherman, not the firefly, there you can see at what ranges the tiger is in danger.
all red area is save for the tiger and he can kill the other tank, all green area is a danger for the tiger.

page 83 is interestening too.

cu chris3

[Novice3]

I hate to b a bit off topic but but when i started to play red orchestra ( the tank maps in particular) i was suppressed how diff it looks in a real Tank sim. Killing a tank even at 1000 meters is almost impossible in the beginning i strongly suggest you check out this game if you like tank battles.

[Chalenge]

moin

luck at this page.

cu chris3

Page 6 is interesting! 

[RTHolmes]

I knew there was something missing from allied manuals - random drawings of naked women!

[OOZ662]

I knew there was something missing from allied manuals - random drawings of naked women!

[Cthulhu]

I knew there was something missing from allied manuals - random drawings of naked women!

Hey! That could be Lusche's grandma. show a little respect. 

If the charts are to be believed, the Tiger I was in little to no danger from nearly all of it's contemporaries from the frontal aspect.

[USCH]

Anyone ever hear of a tank commander that took on a tiger head to head and won?  I haven't.

[stephen]

Think you guys have locked onto the essential fact, the M4 outclasses the Tiger, and the perk cost of the tiger is way to hi, or the shermans perk cost is way to low.

Why do I keep seeing pictires of shermans with holes in thier turrets on the internet, yet in game absolutly everything bounces off of one? I cant recall the last time i've turreted a sherman.

[Chalenge]

I think a sherman should have to get within 900 yards from the side or behind a tiger (a firefly anyway) to hurt it at all and nothing a sherman does from the front should worry a tiger. A tiger firing at a sherman should kill it from any angle. Thats what tigers DID.

[Cthulhu]

I think a sherman should have to get within 900 yards from the side or behind a tiger (a firefly anyway) to hurt it at all and nothing a sherman does from the front should worry a tiger. A tiger firing at a sherman should kill it from any angle. Thats what tigers DID.

Agree 100% Chalenge, but I'll go one further. Some years back I met an old guy who was a corpsman during the Italian campaign. He told me the sh*ttiest job, by far, was recovering bodies from the Sherman's. Although many were killed by Pzkw-IV's and PaK 40's, he said he and the other guys became pretty adept at identifying the ones killed by Tiger's and 88mm anti-tank guns. The carnage was that bad.

Put Shermans in front of Tigers, and unless they're close enough to trade insurance info, it's a one-sided slaughter. Period.

[Lusche]

I think a sherman should have to get within 900 yards from the side or behind a tiger (a firefly anyway) to hurt it at all and nothing a sherman does from the front should worry a tiger.

Even though you use the correct name one time ("Firefly") your post reads as if you you are talking about an ordinary "Sherman" - Which a Firefly is not, particularly when it comes to it's gun.

The QF 17 could very well penetrate a Tiger I's armor from the front:

"Fully developed 17-pdrs were placed into production in 1943 and were first used during the Italian Campaign. The 17 pounder was able to penetrate some 140 mm of armour at 500 metres and 131 mm at 1,000 m using standard APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) ammunition at a 30 degree angle. When firing the more rare APDS (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) ammunition, the 17 pounder could penetrate some 209 mm of armour at 500 m and 192 mm at 1,000 m at a 30 degree angle. The disadvantages of APDS as compared with the 17-pdr's regular APCBC ammunition was that it was much less accurate and did not do nearly as much damage to an enemy tank if it did penetrate"

Just for the record, the Tiger I had a frontal armor of 100mm.

[Cthulhu]

Even though you use the correct name one time ("Firefly") your post reads as if you you are talking about an ordinary "Sherman" - Which a Firefly is not, particularly when it comes to it's gun.

The QF 17 could very well penetrate a Tiger I's armor from the front:

"Fully developed 17-pdrs were placed into production in 1943 and were first used during the Italian Campaign. The 17 pounder was able to penetrate some 140 mm of armour at 500 metres and 131 mm at 1,000 m using standard APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) ammunition at a 30 degree angle. When firing the more rare APDS (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) ammunition, the 17 pounder could penetrate some 209 mm of armour at 500 m and 192 mm at 1,000 m at a 30 degree angle. The disadvantages of APDS as compared with the 17-pdr's regular APCBC ammunition was that it was much less accurate and did not do nearly as much damage to an enemy tank if it did penetrate"

Just for the record, the Tiger I had a frontal armor of 100mm.

Good info Lusche

Just to add to Lusche's point, the 17-pdr (with both full bore & sabot rounds) was still lethal even against the Tiger's mantlet (120mm) beyond 1000 yds. But don't let the Firefly's uber gun cloud the fact that both it and the standard M4 were still far more lightly armored than the Tiger. A Firefly hit on a Tiger could kill it. A Tiger hit on a Firefly would almost surely devastate it. The 17-pdr may be krytonite, but you could get squashed trying to use it.

Just came across this. Kind of interesting:
http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerflorence/index.html

[RTHolmes]

i dont get this at all, altho I dont gv much i generally take a M4 and none of this represents what ive seen. m4 has a great gun for sure but armour wise i dont think its that strong. the key to the m4 is that it can kill before it gets hit, the gun is good for 1 shots from range, reloads ok and traverse is great. it can shrug off a few panz rnds from 2kish but the tiger gun is just deadly. the k/ds reflect this too.

[Anaxogoras]

i dont get this at all, altho I dont gv much i generally take a M4 and none of this represents what ive seen. m4 has a great gun for sure but armour wise i dont think its that strong. the key to the m4 is that it can kill before it gets hit, the gun is good for 1 shots from range, reloads ok and traverse is great. it can shrug off a few panz rnds from 2kish but the tiger gun is just deadly. the k/ds reflect this too.

This tour the Firefly has killed the Tiger 575 times.  The Tiger has killed the Firefly 601 times.  That's with the Tiger being mostly used for defense, i.e. set up in a good position, waiting to ambush.