tiger

[MiloMorai]

In a report on a Tiger I captured by the British in North Africa, they noted that the 80 mm of armour plate actually only gave the equivalent of 64 mm of RHA protection, due to flaws in the armour quality.

What happened if the shell had to go through some the exterior attachments (muffler, muffler shield, air cleaner,,,,)?

[Jabberwock]

What happened if the shell had to go through some the exterior attachments (muffler, muffler shield, air cleaner,,,,)?

The same thing that would happen to any other shell? A somewhat disingenuous question...

I'm not saying that the story of an M8 killing a Tiger I from behind at short range is likely.

I'm just stating that there is enough evidence to conclude that it is indeed theoretically possible for a shot from an M8 to penetrate the rear of a Tiger I.

This is from a wartime report from the 7th Armored Division while in Belgium in December of 1944 - quoted in the US Army Armor School publication 'The Battle of St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December, 1944 - An Historical Example of Armor in Defence', page 31:

"While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern sector (Troop A, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batallion; Troop B, 87th Cavalry Recconnaisance Squadron) had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from B Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the main line of resistance. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s thin rear armor, and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their 88 to bear. Rapidly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in three rounds; the lumbering Tiger stopped and shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position."

There is a footnote reference stating the action was reported to Major Donald P. Boyer, Jr., S3, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion, by Captain W. H. Anstey (commanding Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion) who witnessed the engagement.

The same account is also found, word for word, including the footnote, in the 7th Armoured Divisions WW2 history 'From the Beaches to the Baltic' on page 86.

Amazing what you can find on the internet...

[MiloMorai]

I'm just stating that there is enough evidence to conclude that it is indeed theoretically possible for a shot from an M8 to penetrate the rear of a Tiger I.

Yes those are key words.

[ScatterFire]

The same account is also found, word for word, including the footnote, in the 7th Armoured Divisions WW2 history 'From the Beaches to the Baltic' on page 86.

Yep.  And identical wording means one thing; they got the info from the same source.  Which is never good for "proving" an argument....

Now in AH you don't have to be within 25 yrds to kill a Tiger with an M8.  And the M8 can take an impressive amount of punishment sometimes.  I even one-shotted a Tiger last night in a Panzer, about 30 degrees off the left front, 2500 yrd shot.  The damage model just seems a bit inconsistent to me (foe all GVs).

[stephen]

37mm guys?....
Soviets had a 76mm, and they where ramming Tigers in desperation....please stop the madness, and let the 37mm hoax die allready.....its just emberassing.

I've shot a tiger in the arse 7 times from an m8, and that finaly killed it... but it isnt the prescribed method for dealing with tigers, uber M4's are...

[Die Hard]

In a report on a Tiger I captured by the British in North Africa, they noted that the 80 mm of armour plate actually only gave the equivalent of 64 mm of RHA protection, due to flaws in the armour quality. 

Do you have a source for this? I'd love to see it.

[Die Hard]

The same thing that would happen to any other shell? A somewhat disingenuous question...

I'm not saying that the story of an M8 killing a Tiger I from behind at short range is likely.

I'm just stating that there is enough evidence to conclude that it is indeed theoretically possible for a shot from an M8 to penetrate the rear of a Tiger I.

This is from a wartime report from the 7th Armored Division while in Belgium in December of 1944 - quoted in the US Army Armor School publication 'The Battle of St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December, 1944 - An Historical Example of Armor in Defence', page 31:

"While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern sector (Troop A, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batallion; Troop B, 87th Cavalry Recconnaisance Squadron) had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from B Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the main line of resistance. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s thin rear armor, and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their 88 to bear. Rapidly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in three rounds; the lumbering Tiger stopped and shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position."

There is a footnote reference stating the action was reported to Major Donald P. Boyer, Jr., S3, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion, by Captain W. H. Anstey (commanding Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion) who witnessed the engagement.

The same account is also found, word for word, including the footnote, in the 7th Armoured Divisions WW2 history 'From the Beaches to the Baltic' on page 86.

Amazing what you can find on the internet...

Like I said in the other tank thread, and probably the one before that as well: I've read that book as well, but I have several reservations against the description of that particular engagement. First of all the Tiger's rear armor is described as "thin", when in fact it was as thick as the side armor at 80 mm. I've asked around for some form of confirmation of this engagement, but have found little or nothing to support it. While I don't really doubt the engagement happened I think it is far more likely the M8 ambushed a PzKpfW IV rather than a Tiger. A fact lost on many is that in France the Americans and British often referred to all German tanks as "Tigers".

If you have more substantial information on the engagement I would love to read/see it. At least if I were that M8 commander (and if the battle conditions allowed for it) I'd take a picture of that kill!

[Angus]

I do have an account of 20mm's from an aircraft torching a Tiger. As far as known, the 20mm's bounced into it's underside/back and managed to start a fire so the crew had to abandon. The tank was found with a message from the crew, with "Bravo RAF" on the hull.

[Die Hard]

"an account" ?

[thrila]

I do have an account of 20mm's from an aircraft torching a Tiger. As far as known, the 20mm's bounced into it's underside/back and managed to start a fire so the crew had to abandon. The tank was found with a message from the crew, with "Bravo RAF" on the hull.

I've read this account in an RAF biography, i can't remember which one i would have to go through them.  If i recall correctly it was in Italy.

[Angus]

I typed this up some years back. It was the renowned RAF pilot Duncan Smith. Not the Ian, but maybe his father?
I found my text block.
"Ok, here goes:
Group Captain Duncan Smith, S France 1944. Spitfire IX I belive.
"Continuing past Vienne, and on open road, I spotted a Tiger Tank going as hard as it coulod towards Lyons. More in hope than in anger I gave it all my remaining ammunition. To my utter amazement it belched smoke and caught fire. When I gave my report to Tim Lucas, the senior Army Liasion Officer, he did not belive me, shaking his head and muttering that a Tiger was too tough for the shells of a Spitfire. I got my own back when I took him to the spot in my jeep, after we got to Lyons on 7 September, and showed him the tank. It was there I am pleased to say, burnt out, with "Bravo RAF" painted on its blackened hull. To me the sight was worth a couple of Me 109s. Apparently some armour-piercing incendiary shells had riocheted off the tarmac road into the oil tank and engine - pure luck, but very satisfying."

I think Milo also posted something about a vulnerability about fire, from leaking fluids. I also did comment about that it would not necessarily have to have been a tiger. Probably not a Panther, since the roadwheels were a dead give-away though.

[ScatterFire]

I wonder what mechanic took the belly plates off to repair it and forgot to put them back on 

[thrila]

That'll be it angus, yes it's the former leader of the conservative party Ian duncan smith's father.

[Die Hard]

Again, allied personnel nicknamed all German tanks "Tigers". I would also think such a "satisfying" occasion would warrant a photo of the tank. With 25 mm thick belly armor there is no way a 20 mm ricochet would do anything more than bounce off. If the tank was leaking fuel it might have caught fire, but that adds nothing to the argument that a Tiger's armor could be penetrated by a 37 mm M3 gun.

[iTunes]

British 17lber was the most effective Allied gun of WW2 without question.