M4 76's front armor too strong?

[THRASH99]

Like I also stated, the VC Firefly model or M4 75/76 that would have to get really close in on the Tiger were the only threats. Another threat that killed Tigers were none other than bombs of course. The Sherman VC Firefly was the only American/British tank that could kill the Tiger from a great distance, only competition on the battlefield, no other american tank had the ability like the Firefly.

[Ack-Ack]

Found a website to finally show you that Tiger can't be killed from short range, even from a 76mm Sherman.

http://www.2worldwar2.com/sherman.htm

This has to be some info somewhere from WWII records, doesn't match what Lusche's chart says, which is AH standards by the way again, and lets leave spit 16 out of this forum huh ak? Lets focus on M4 and Tiger

Okay, it seems you didn't even read what the article said.

an inferior 75mm or 76mm gun which simply could not penetrate the front armor of the German Tiger tanks even from short range

Yes, the Tiger I was a very tough tank and almost invulnerable to most tanks shooting normal armor piercing rounds or beyond 800 meters.  However, it was possible at close ranges for a Sherman to knock out a Tiger I by hitting it in the areas where the armor is thinner, the sides and especially the rear (engine) area.  In North Africa when the Shermans (75mm version) first encountered the Tigers is when the tactic of using 5 Sherman tanks to engage a Tiger was developed.  That tactic was born more out of the fact of the deadliness of the 88mm gun rather than how tough it was to knock out.  The surviving Shermans would then target the sides and area area hoping to knock it out.  It must have worked because the 75mm Shermans did triumph from time to time over the Tiger I, though at a tremendous price.  The 76mm Sherman tanks had a little bit easier time because by the time the 76mm Sherman encountered the Tiger I, it was in Normandy and combat encounters were usually at a much closer range than they were in North Africa.  In addition, the 76mm Shermans were able to use the HVAP round which made it easier for the 76mm Shermans to knock out a Tiger at close ranges to hits from the sides and rear area.

This is a picture of a Tiger I tank that was knocked out by a M4A3 75mm Sherman tank from the 18 Armoured Regiment, 4 Armoured Brigade, 2nd New Zealand Division in Italy.  As you can read in the captio, it was their first Tiger I kill.


While not a Sherman, this Tiger I tank was destroyed by a 75mm round fired from a Cromwell tank.  The Cromwell fired from behind the Tiger I and the 75mm shell penetrated through the hatch in the back of the turret.  If you look close at the image, you can actually see the hole in the hatch where the round penetrated.  Most likely, the Cromwell was firing a HVAP type round.

Like I also stated, the VC Firefly model or M4 75/76 that would have to get really close in on the Tiger were the only threats. Another threat that killed Tigers were none other than bombs of course. The Sherman VC Firefly was the only American/British tank that could kill the Tiger from a great distance, only competition on the battlefield, no other american tank had the ability like the Firefly.

There was the 90mm GMC M36 tank destroyer that was introduced in fall of 1944 that was able to knock out both Panther and Tiger I tanks at close and long ranges with its 90mm main gun. 

There was also the Pershing and Super Pershing tanks.  The Pershing was equal to, if not superior to the Tiger I tank and could easily match it in a one on one engagement at either close or long ranges.  In fact, the Pershing out be able to kill it at a longer range than the Tiger would be able to fire at the Pershing.  The Super Pershing was undeniably far superior to the Tiger I in every single shape or form and like the Pershing, the Super Pershing would have easily been able to destroy a Tiger I at any range with a single shot.  If the Super Pershing was able to defeat a King Tiger in an urban engagement and survive hits from not only the King Tiger but a Panther as well, just imagine the devastation it could hand out to a Tiger I.  I'm sure there are some very old Tiger I tank crews that are very happy they never ran into a Super Pershing, though sadly, I know of one King Tiger and Panther crew that wish they never ran into one.

So, as you can see, other than the Firefly there were at least 3 different tanks that were able to defeat the Tiger I at long ranges.

ack-ack

[321BAR]

IMO regardless if it took 227 hits or not and returned, it should take more than 1. But still that is not the point. The point is why the M4 shrugged off two hits from the Tiger.

angle of shot fired and amount of armor in the position hit. if you hit the front of the turret, you hit at least 89mm of armor without the mantlet and from an angle that could amount to over 100mm easily...

[Spikes]

Snail again I shot at the hull not the turret.

[Lusche]

Snail again I shot at the hull not the turret.

Did I claim otherwise?

[Spikes]

I dunno you keep referring to bouncing off the turret when I am saying the hull below it...

[THRASH99]

Okay, it seems you didn't even read what the article said.

Yes, the Tiger I was a very tough tank and almost invulnerable to most tanks shooting normal armor piercing rounds or beyond 800 meters.  However, it was possible at close ranges for a Sherman to knock out a Tiger I by hitting it in the areas where the armor is thinner, the sides and especially the rear (engine) area.  In North Africa when the Shermans (75mm version) first encountered the Tigers is when the tactic of using 5 Sherman tanks to engage a Tiger was developed.  That tactic was born more out of the fact of the deadliness of the 88mm gun rather than how tough it was to knock out.  The surviving Shermans would then target the sides and area area hoping to knock it out.  It must have worked because the 75mm Shermans did triumph from time to time over the Tiger I, though at a tremendous price.  The 76mm Sherman tanks had a little bit easier time because by the time the 76mm Sherman encountered the Tiger I, it was in Normandy and combat encounters were usually at a much closer range than they were in North Africa.  In addition, the 76mm Shermans were able to use the HVAP round which made it easier for the 76mm Shermans to knock out a Tiger at close ranges to hits from the sides and rear area.

This is a picture of a Tiger I tank that was knocked out by a M4A3 75mm Sherman tank from the 18 Armoured Regiment, 4 Armoured Brigade, 2nd New Zealand Division in Italy.  As you can read in the captio, it was their first Tiger I kill.
(Image removed from quote.)

While not a Sherman, this Tiger I tank was destroyed by a 75mm round fired from a Cromwell tank.  The Cromwell fired from behind the Tiger I and the 75mm shell penetrated through the hatch in the back of the turret.  If you look close at the image, you can actually see the hole in the hatch where the round penetrated.  Most likely, the Cromwell was firing a HVAP type round.
(Image removed from quote.)

There was the 90mm GMC M36 tank destroyer that was introduced in fall of 1944 that was able to knock out both Panther and Tiger I tanks at close and long ranges with its 90mm main gun.  

There was also the Pershing and Super Pershing tanks.  The Pershing was equal to, if not superior to the Tiger I tank and could easily match it in a one on one engagement at either close or long ranges.  In fact, the Pershing out be able to kill it at a longer range than the Tiger would be able to fire at the Pershing.  The Super Pershing was undeniably far superior to the Tiger I in every single shape or form and like the Pershing, the Super Pershing would have easily been able to destroy a Tiger I at any range with a single shot.  If the Super Pershing was able to defeat a King Tiger in an urban engagement and survive hits from not only the King Tiger but a Panther as well, just imagine the devastation it could hand out to a Tiger I.  I'm sure there are some very old Tiger I tank crews that are very happy they never ran into a Super Pershing, though sadly, I know of one King Tiger and Panther crew that wish they never ran into one.

So, as you can see, other than the Firefly there were at least 3 different tanks that were able to defeat the Tiger I at long ranges.

ack-ack

  I didn't read it? Ak, did you read the 3rd paragraph down where it talks about the M4 75/76 not being able to penetrate Tiger's frontal armor from short range? This is the fact I'm making, if spikes says he got killed in 1 shot from it while at a short range distance and it says that a 76mm Sherman can't do that from a 400-800 yrd distance, the hull has 100mm armor, something is obviously wrong with the penetration modeling from a hit by the 76mm Sherman. The 4th paragraph even tells that a Sherman 75 or 76 had to be really close the Tiger to kill it and if he didn't move fast enough that Tiger would kill him faster if he saw him, which is why in that picture of that Tiger destroyed is what I'm trying to say is the only way for a 75/76mm Sherman to kill it.  Yes the Perishing tank was by far dominate to the Tiger from far range, but HTC hasn't added that tank for I have no idea why, mostly alot of tanks like the Panther, King Tiger, Tiger II, and the M-18.  

[THRASH99]

I dunno you keep referring to bouncing off the turret when I am saying the hull below it...

Here spikes, for you and Lusche to look at, I found a site for the armor of the 76mm Sherman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

Near the way bottom it says what kind of armor that the 76mm Sherman had, frontal hull and turret armor, side turret, etc. It says that most it had on the front was from 64-76mm frontal armor. The side of the turret had 50mm. The hull had 51mm armor. It's all there for you guys to take a look at.
 

[BigKev03]

I think this question could be answered if HTC would let us know what round the Tiger and the M4 is firing.  Like the T34 both the Tiger and the M4 had different AP rounds.  If we knew this data then the penetration data could be zeroed in on and then tactics adjusted accordingly.

BigKev

[Kenne]

While not a Sherman, this Tiger I tank was destroyed by a 75mm round fired from a Cromwell tank.  The Cromwell fired from behind the Tiger I and the 75mm shell penetrated through the hatch in the back of the turret.  If you look close at the image, you can actually see the hole in the hatch where the round penetrated.  Most likely, the Cromwell was firing a HVAP type round.

And what does that have to do with Tigers failing to kill Sherman's, ANY TYPE, with point blank frontal hits??






also, this pic u have is interesting...you say the Crom hit it from behind, hit the tiger at the back of the turret, yet the turret is pointing to the rear.
I put it to you that the Tiger WAS NOT destroyed by the Crom otherwise, the crew would not have bothered to traverse the turret, as they too, as you put it, would be destroyed!

you guys should go rent Kelly's Heroes, it has all you need to know about the fear Sherman crews had with the Tiger!

[321BAR]

Kelly's Heroes included the destruction of two tigers by a lucky sherman 75mm... why would that show anything TRUE about WWII???

[Blooz]

Kelly's Heroes included the destruction of two tigers by a lucky sherman 76mm... why would that show anything TRUE about WWII???

Fixed.

[Ack-Ack]

And what does that have to do with Tigers failing to kill Sherman's, ANY TYPE, with point blank frontal hits??

Wow...another genius.  If you had read THRASH99's post that I was replying to, he was claiming that the Tiger was impervious to shots at close ranges from tanks fielding a 75mm or 76mm main gun.  It wasn't until I pointed out his comprehension error of the article that he posted, did he finally correct himself and change his claim from all close range shots to 'frontal'.

The picture of the Tiger I that was killed by a Cromwell just reinforces the point that THRASH99 was incorrect with his original assertion that the Tiger I was impervious to close ranged shots.

also, this pic u have is interesting...you say the Crom hit it from behind, hit the tiger at the back of the turret, yet the turret is pointing to the rear.
I put it to you that the Tiger WAS NOT destroyed by the Crom otherwise, the crew would not have bothered to traverse the turret, as they too, as you put it, would be destroyed!

You're incorrect.  The photo is of a Tiger I tank that was destroyed by Polish Cromwell tank from the 10th Mounted Rifles on 8/15/1944 near the village called Jort.  You can easily look up the date and the location to read the account of the battle that day.

Since the only way that Tiger could have been knocked out was by another tank and the only other tanks there besides the German ones were the Cromwells that belonged to Poles of the 10th Mounted Rifles.  

As for the direction the main gun is pointing, are you seriously using that as proof to support your claim?  Considering the turret was destroyed on that Tiger, it is almost certain a result of the hit by the Cromwell.

 
you guys should go rent Kelly's Heroes, it has all you need to know about the fear Sherman crews had with the Tiger!

Great movie and one of the best buddy heist films ever to come out of Hollywood and that it's also one of the better war movies is an added bonus that makes the movie a classic.  


ack-ack

[321BAR]

Fixed.

hmm...my bad. just took another look at the tank.

[Kenne]

Kelly's Heroes???...why would that show anything TRUE about WWII???

Because:
"It's a wasted trip baby, nobody said anything about locking horns with no Tigahs!
A Tigah's got one weak point, and that's it's ass, you gotta hit point blank and you gotta hit it from behind!"

@Ack Ack
your post states "A" Cromwell fired "A" 75mm and knocked out THIS tiger. the crom shot FROM BEHIND the tiger piercing THE REAR of the turret.
IF the gun on the tiger is pointing TO THE REAR  and the crom approached FROM THE REAR, how is the crom supposed to hit THE REAR OF THE TURRET of THIS tiger when it is now pointing towards the front?