WWII Tiger II vs Modern Tanks

[Eric]

At what point in the evolution of post-war tanks did the new tanks start outclassing the a Tiger II to the point that the Tiger would have almost no chance of survival? How would an M-48, or T-62 compare, for instance?

What would an engagement between a Tiger II and a modern MBT look like?
 

Just something a video I saw earlier got me thinking about. What do you think?

 

[Cheygriz]

I don't think a Tiger would last 10 seconds if up against any tank with a modern electronic fire control suite.

[Historian]

I agree with the above post

While the tiger is my favorite tank...it has no hope against anything remotely newer.

The Russian Stalin series of during the war itself...were more likely to survive and fight on.  It was a better tank.

[TXUSMC]

The Tiger II had a nice gun and some decent sloped armor, but it was slow, had a travel range limited by fuel consumption, and was too heavy for many bridges in western Europe. By 1945, the late model Shermans  were being fielded in such great numbers that the supposed German advantage in armor was negated. Plus, we killed a lot of German tanks with P-47 Thunderbolts and massed artillery.

[Eric]

So, how would it fare against an M-48 or M-60, or maybe a T-62?

Thermal imaging, stabilization, fire control and many other aspects of modern tanks obviously completely outclass the Tiger. If by some fluke though, a Tiger got close enough to fire on say an M-1 Abrams, would it be able to penetrate the M-1 from front, or the side? I’m sure it could penetrate sufficiently from a rear shot for at least a mobility kill.

My asking how it would be dealt with in an encounter with a modern tank Was just morbid curiosity. Obviously, it would be slaughtered. I just wondered what advantage of the modern tank would be the most telling.

It would be outclassed against a ‘50s or ‘60s tank, but it would be a closer contest. Would it penetrate their armor? Could it turn a round from their guns? Mobility would obviously be a major handicap for the Tiger. 

[tadbart]

Every once in a while, the comparatively weak nerd kid gets off a lucky punch and bloodies the bully jock's nose. I imagine much the same in this instance. If the Tiger remained undetected until a modern tank was in range, I'm sure it could at least drop a track before it was destroyed.

Kinda use the Tiger as a guerilla Wolverine- outgunned, and outclassed, but still able to inflict damage before it was destroyed by tech and firepower.

[railfancwb]

Der Tiger Designing, building and running the 1/5 scale Wimmera Tiger tank

[RenoF250]

I don't really understand why we mess with tanks anymore since a man carried missile can take any of them out.  None of them can hold up to a TOW or Javellin.

[blueiron]

HEAT, HESH, D.U. sabot rounds, etc. can take out anything without reactive / composite armor. 

We still use armor because a Javelin missile round costs ~$180,000 each without the CLU. It requires two people for employment, due to bulk and defensive requirements. Effective, but not widely issued to lesser echelon units. The TOW is a crew served weapon that isn't particularly mobile or light and is best used in deserts or open areas.  It can be easily suppressed by infantry assaults, bounding mortar / artillery fires, and CAS aviation assets. 

Armor is the maneuver weapon of choice on a CBRN battlefield, due it its' protective capacities. Its' maneuver speed in exploitation makes up for high maintenance costs and times. Were I to get rid of one component of modern land warfare, it would be Airborne divisions. Parachute insertions into a battlefield or behind the FEBA are best done by SF forces, in a covert role. The idea of the a mass airborne deployment like "Operation Market Garden" died in WW2. 
 

[blueiron]

The TOW was unable to penetrate reactive / composite armor until very recently, with the BGM-71E / TOW-2A variant. 

[Cheygriz]

I believe tanks are, and  have long been, more a weapon of terror than anything else.

Massed armor formations are highly effective if you totally control the airspace above the battlefield, such as we did in Iraq. But air power will quickly negate armor.

Early in WW2, the Brits converted many of their Hawker Hurricanes to tank busters and inflicted massive casualties on the Africa Korps.

[Eric]

The last battle fought with German WWII tanks, against Israel. Israel had Super Shermans and Centurions.  Syria should have stayed home. Very interesting video.

 

[Eric]

Good lord. This Tiger survived 67 hits by T-34s, knocking out 22 of them in turn.

 

[Hauptmann6]

On 10/4/2020 at 9:01 PM, Eric said:

So, how would it fare against an M-48 or M-60, or maybe a T-62?

Thermal imaging, stabilization, fire control and many other aspects of modern tanks obviously completely outclass the Tiger. If by some fluke though, a Tiger got close enough to fire on say an M-1 Abrams, would it be able to penetrate the M-1 from front, or the side? I’m sure it could penetrate sufficiently from a rear shot for at least a mobility kill.

My asking how it would be dealt with in an encounter with a modern tank Was just morbid curiosity. Obviously, it would be slaughtered. I just wondered what advantage of the modern tank would be the most telling.

It would be outclassed against a ‘50s or ‘60s tank, but it would be a closer contest. Would it penetrate their armor? Could it turn a round from their guns? Mobility would obviously be a major handicap for the Tiger. 

M48. From the front can bounce the 88L70 rounds at anything but point blank. The 90mm in the 48 would Penetrate the Tiger II at 1000 yards or more. Can't find data for the 90mm M41 gun. The earlier versions can do it as well.

Against an M1? It might be able to take an M1 out with a very close range rear shot.

It would be like putting a ME110 against an F22.

The Tiger II was good against it's contemporaries, but had already been matched during the war. The next generation of tanks outclassed it completely.

[Fog]

Even today people are falling for German propaganda Tiger tanks were not very good.

[jfost11]

I wouldn't worry too much about  an old German tank as long as there's a 1911 around.

 

[Green Dragoon]

I've read a handful of books on tanks and armored warfare from WWII.  Several German tank commanders said they thought the Panther (MK V) was a "better" tank than the Tiger.  

They all lamented that lack of maneuverability of the Tiger.  Several also said the T34 was "better".  So the argument becomes what "better" means.  My point is though, is that even in that era, there were tanks that commanders preferred over the Tiger.   

Just a side note because I love this quote:  German tank commander Hans Von Luck said "One German tank was better than ten American tanks.  The problem was that the Americans always had eleven".  He also thought German tanks were way too over-engineered compared to American and Russian tanks.  He thought the American "tank recovery teams" were exemplary.  He'd see a Sherman knocked out on the side of the road on a Monday and on Tuesday, the tank was gone.  On Wednesday, he'd see it active in battle.  

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Green Dragoon

[Green Dragoon]

12 hours ago, jfost11 said:

I wouldn't worry too much about  an old German tank as long as there's a 1911 around.

 

that was clearly an early prototype of a 10mm.  

[SC Tiger]

On 10/4/2020 at 8:28 PM, Eric said:

At what point in the evolution of post-war tanks did the new tanks start outclassing the a Tiger II to the point that the Tiger would have almost no chance of survival? How would an M-48, or T-62 compare, for instance?

What would an engagement between a Tiger II and a modern MBT look like?
 

Just something a video I saw earlier got me thinking about. What do you think?

 

Against a modern tank (M1, Challenger II, Latest Leopard) it would look like a Tiger II being turned into scrap metal.  Better ammo, better armor, better fire control.

Now "The Chieftan" on youtube would say it comes down to which one had the better track tensioning system.  ?

A video from The Chieftain - he's Irish but rose to the rank of Major (I think) in the US Army.  He was a tank commander in Iraq.  Goes into INSANE detail on some of these tanks.  He's big on ergonomics of the tank.

On 10/7/2020 at 8:02 AM, Green Dragoon said:

I've read a handful of books on tanks and armored warfare from WWII.  Several German tank commanders said they thought the Panther (MK V) was a "better" tank than the Tiger.  

They all lamented that lack of maneuverability of the Tiger.  Several also said the T34 was "better".  So the argument becomes what "better" means.  My point is though, is that even in that era, there were tanks that commanders preferred over the Tiger.   

Just a side note because I love this quote:  German tank commander Hans Von Luck said "One German tank was better than ten American tanks.  The problem was that the Americans always had eleven".  He also thought German tanks were way too over-engineered compared to American and Russian tanks.  He thought the American "tank recovery teams" were exemplary.  He'd see a Sherman knocked out on the side of the road on a Monday and on Tuesday, the tank was gone.  On Wednesday, he'd see it active in battle.  

 

Sherman 1-on-1 sucked.  But it was cheap, easy to maintain, easy to make, and as noted the US had a shvtload of them.  You hold off three, and the other three are able to line up a perfect shot right up your keister.

THAT BEING SAID - the 76mm on the enhanced Shermans was pretty potent.  It could take out a Tiger (I think) from the front if it could survive long enough - not sure about Tiger II.  This video goes into it a little bit:

On 10/5/2020 at 10:32 PM, Hauptmann6 said:

M48. From the front can bounce the 88L70 rounds at anything but point blank. The 90mm in the 48 would Penetrate the Tiger II at 1000 yards or more. Can't find data for the 90mm M41 gun. The earlier versions can do it as well.

Against an M1? It might be able to take an M1 out with a very close range rear shot.

It would be like putting a ME110 against an F22.

The Tiger II was good against it's contemporaries, but had already been matched during the war. The next generation of tanks outclassed it completely.

What do you think the chances of that Tiger II getting that close to an M1 are?

That said - what you describe is obviously a theoretical exercise.

Edited October 8, 2020 by SC Tiger

[jfost11]

4 hours ago, Green Dragoon said:

that was clearly an early prototype of a 10mm.  

No way, there was still a tank left visible. I think this was the 10mm prototype tests.

 

[SC Tiger]

51 minutes ago, jfost11 said:

No way, there was still a tank left visible. I think this was the 10mm prototype tests.

 

Unpossible.  Maybe a severly downloaded 10mm load.

Full house 10mm hits have to be filmed from orbit.

[jfost11]

2 hours ago, SC Tiger said:

Unpossible.  Maybe a severly downloaded 10mm load.

Full house 10mm hits have to be filmed from orbit.

You're probably right. It's the only way to be sure. 

[Green Dragoon]

3 hours ago, jfost11 said:

No way, there was still a tank left visible. I think this was the 10mm prototype tests.

 

fair point...very fair.  

[Hauptmann6]

On 10/7/2020 at 9:56 AM, SC Tiger said:

A video from The Chieftain - he's Irish but rose to the rank of Major (I think) in the US Army.  He was a tank commander in Iraq.  Goes into INSANE detail on some of these tanks.  He's big on ergonomics of the tank

Sherman 1-on-1 sucked.  But it was cheap, easy to maintain, easy to make, and as noted the US had a shvtload of them.  You hold off three, and the other three are able to line up a perfect shot right up your keister.

THAT BEING SAID - the 76mm on the enhanced Shermans was pretty potent.  It could take out a Tiger (I think) from the front if it could survive long enough - not sure about Tiger II.  This video goes into it a little bit:

 

When the M4 was first deployed in the desert it was one of the best two tanks in service in the war at that point. The Panzer IV of that era had lower readiness rates, a slightly worse gun and worse armor. The Tiger wasn't around quite yet. Going back in the memory banks, when the M4 met the Tiger in Africa the Tigers were driven off without losses to the M4s. It was as long range engagement and the M4s fired lots of HE forcing the Tigers to withdraw. No HE won't penetrate the armor, but it will cause a mission kill ie, break the gun, sights, tracks, give the crew a giant headache.

 

The 76 should have been added sooner after D-day, but for logistics reasons and what the ground commanders had seen, didn't think it would be needed.

 

The M4 losses came from that the US Army was on the offensive the ENTIRE war. The US Army fought three notable defensive actions in Europe. Kasserine Pass, The Bulge and Operation Nordwind. The rest of the time, it was attack attack attack. Much of it through horrible tank country(Normandy and the Black Forrest).

 

An interesting fact, as much as the general wisdom said it was a horrible tank and burned and killed it's crew, the US Army only had 1581 tankers killed during the war.

 

Most annoyingly much of what people know about the M4 is from Belton Coopers book Death Traps. It was his memoir that was definitely written to make himself look smarter/better than the higher ups. 

[SC Tiger]

9 hours ago, Hauptmann6 said:

When the M4 was first deployed in the desert it was one of the best two tanks in service in the war at that point. The Panzer IV of that era had lower readiness rates, a slightly worse gun and worse armor. The Tiger wasn't around quite yet. Going back in the memory banks, when the M4 met the Tiger in Africa the Tigers were driven off without losses to the M4s. It was as long range engagement and the M4s fired lots of HE forcing the Tigers to withdraw. No HE won't penetrate the armor, but it will cause a mission kill ie, break the gun, sights, tracks, give the crew a giant headache.

 

The 76 should have been added sooner after D-day, but for logistics reasons and what the ground commanders had seen, didn't think it would be needed.

 

The M4 losses came from that the US Army was on the offensive the ENTIRE war. The US Army fought three notable defensive actions in Europe. Kasserine Pass, The Bulge and Operation Nordwind. The rest of the time, it was attack attack attack. Much of it through horrible tank country(Normandy and the Black Forrest).

 

An interesting fact, as much as the general wisdom said it was a horrible tank and burned and killed it's crew, the US Army only had 1581 tankers killed during the war.

 

Most annoyingly much of what people know about the M4 is from Belton Coopers book Death Traps. It was his memoir that was definitely written to make himself look smarter/better than the higher ups. 

I think I remember in the movie Patton, Omar Bradley said that the German tanks were Diesels and US tanks were gas engined.  The result was that a hit to the fuel system of a US tank was much worse than a hit to the fuel tanks of a German tank.  This was the case maybe at the start but the newer Shermans were changed to Diesel engines and I think a lot of German tanks were actually gas engined.  Actually it appears the Sherman went back and forth.

I know there was a version of the Sherman called the Firefly that had the British 17 lb gun, but it barely fit in the tank.

People also forget that the Pershing was a direct result of WWII so it wasn't like the War Department was just throwing Shermans at the Germans without any regard for the disparity of force.  And the 76mm would most certainly kill a German tank.

Apparently they often used the WP rounds on German tanks - it obscured the optics and would get sucked into the air system.