PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 1 of 28

Main | Wargames Section:

| Tiger Tanks Section: | Main Battle Tanks Section: | Main Battle Tank Prototypes: | Links

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E (Tiger I)

Weighing 56 tons of the best quality German rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate armor, and carrying the dreaded 88 mm KwK 36L/56 high-velocity gun, theTiger I was designed to dominate the battlefield.

Introduction
German Doctrine - defining the basis for the heavy tank concept. German doctrine before World War II didn't clearly specify the parameters used to define a light, medium or heavy tank. This lack of an exact definition of the role of each tank type was a result of the inherent qualities of the tank as a weapons system operating in a combined arms force, and as such, it's potential were not fully understood at the time. The same conceptual lack of a clear definition of the three generic tank types also existed in the US, the UK and the Soviet Union. What existed was a somewhat loose classification based on the weight of the tank and the doctrinal missions of each type. In face of that, what was generally accepted was that the light tank was to be employed in reconnaissance missions, that demanded great mobility but didn't require much armor protection nor great lethality. The medium tank were to be used in exploitation or pursuit missions, requiring a different mix of mobility, armor protection and firepower. To fulfill these requirements, medium tanks had to be fast, and to have a greater level of mechanical reliability, since those tanks were to be able of conducting fast maneuvers necessary to exploitation or pursuit missions. Under this classification, heavy tanks were to act as support for the infantry and artillery, but the main purpose of the heavy tank was to penetrate the enemy's defenses, thus allowing the medium tanks to exploit

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 2 of 28

the breakthrough. However, that classification also implied the assumption that the light and medium tanks could, to an extent, perform each other's missions. This was not possible for the heavy tanks, as they wouldn't have the same degree of speed and the operational range of the other two types, because of the greater weight, consequence of the heavier weapons and high degree of armor protection required for these tanks. In 1937, Guderian described the operational principles and tactics that would shape German thinking on how to employ armored formations in a future war. The mission of the heavy tank within this concept was to effect a breakthrough, and it's first objective was to engage and destroy the enemy's anti-tank guns in the defensive line. The next objective of the heavy tanks was to destroy the enemy artillery - but Guderian correctly anticipated that the penetration of the defensive lines would force the enemy to throw his armor reserves in a counter-attack. About the importance of defeating this counter-attack, Guderian emphasized that the greatest enemy of the tank is another tank, and that because of that, the armored forces had to be capable of defeating this counterattack, or the breakthrough would fail. The German doctrine of that time focused mainly on the offensive. Naturally, when the tide turned against Germany, the doctrinal recommendation was that the armor formations would be kept back, and ready to counter-attack any breakthrough of the German defense lines. Consequently, the doctrinal mission of the Tiger was first and foremost, whether in the offense or in the defense, to kill the enemy's tanks. Understanding this way of thinking is fundamental to comprehend why the Tiger was developed and employed the way it was (Source: WILBECK, Christopher W., Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Heavy Tank Battalions in World War II).

Heinz Guderian, Germany's greatest armor theorist, thought that the primary mission of the heavy tank was to kill enemy's tanks in counter-attacks against German breakthrough attempts. As Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen, Guderian understood the value of the Tiger as a force multiplier factor either in the offense or in the defense. After the tide turned against the Wehrmacht, the Tiger proved to be a most effective weapons system in defensive operations.

Development of the Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E Despite the decision to mass produce the Pz.Kpfw.III and IV, and the far certainty at the time that these two models would be adequate for the expected battles of the future, the German general staff also called for an even heavier tank in 1937. This was to be of 29.53 tons (30,000 kg) or more and was to be a heavy "breakthrough" tank to lead the armored assaults. The design lapsed until 1941, by when it was realized that the Pz.Kpfw.III and IV had been less successful than had been expected against the heavily armored French and British tanks in 1940. This view was fully endorsed when the Soviet T-34s and KV-1s were met later in 1941, and resulted in a specification for a heavy tank capable of mounting the highly successful 88 mm high-velocity gun in a turret with full traverse and carrying sufficient armor to defeat all present and future anti-tank weapons. Two firms submitted prototypes, using some of the developments from the 1937 ideas. These were Porsche and Henschel. The turret was common to both and came from Krupp. The official WaPrüf 6 designation to the Porsche prototype from 5 March 1942 was PzKpfw VI (VK 45.01 P) (Ausfürung P). The Inspekteur der Panzertruppen (In6) designation, specified for use in training and maintenance manuals and in organization tables, was Panzerkampfwagen VI P (88 mm) (SdKfz 181) Ausfürung P. Suggested names were 'Tiger (P)', 'Tiger P1' or 'Porsche Tiger'. The Henschel prototype received the designation VK 45.01 (H). This Henschel model came into being as a rush job, quickly assembled from a mixture of components available from previous heavy panzer designs. Henschel were not originally involved in the 45 metric ton heavy tanks project, as they had been tasked with the development of a 36 metric ton medium tank with 80 mm front armor, the designation of which was Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausfürung B (VK 36.01). To meet the demand that the production program was to start in 1942, the VK

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 3 of 28

45.01(H) was quickly created by redesigning the VK 36.01. A new feature was the Vorpanzer (frontal shield) which could be lowered to protect the track and drive sprockets. However, this feature was quickly dropped, having only been fitted on this Versuchsserie Tiger Nr. 'V1'.

The Porsche prototype - VK 45.01(P).

Ferdinand Porsche (with the hat) and the VK 45.01(P).

The Henschel prototype - VK 45.01(H) - with the Vorpanzer (frontal shield).

After tests conducted on 20 April 1942, the Henschel prototype was chosen for series production. The decision was based on a maneuverability test, and on the fact that the Henschel prototype was more conventional, cheaper and easier to produce than the extravagant Porsche design. At the time of its introduction, and for some time afterwards, the Tiger was the most powerful tank in the world. The 88 mm gun, which had 92 rounds of ammunition, was enormously formidable, and the armor ensured that any frontal shot could not penetrate. So effectively was it that the Allies had to develop special tactics to deal with it. Production began slowly in August 1942.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 4 of 28

The Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E

Official Designation
Thomas L. Jentz, in "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Vol.1 - D.W. to Tiger I" (Schiffer, 2000), presents a list of official names given to the Tiger I, ordered by date, from 1941 to 1944:
VK 45.01 Pz.Kpfw.VI Ausf.H1 (VK 4501) VK 4501 (H) Tiger H1 (VK 4501 - Aufbau für 8,8 cm Kw.K.Krupp-Turm Pz.Kpfw.VI (VK 4501/H Ausf. H1 (Tiger) Pz.Kpfw. "Tiger" H Pz.Kpfw.VI, VK 4501 (H), Tiger (H) Krupp-Turm mit 8.8 cm Kw.K. L/56 für Ausf. H1 Panzerkampfwagen VI H (Sd.Kfz. 182) Tiger I Pz.Kpfw.VI H Ausf.H1 (Tiger H1) Panzerkampfwagen VI H AUSF.H1 corrected over to Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E Pz.Kpfw.Tiger (8,8 cm L56) (Sd.Kfz.181) Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E (Sd.Kfz.181) Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E 28 July 1941 - Henschel 21 October 1941 - Wa Prüf 6 05 January 1942 - Wa J Rue (WuG 6) February 1943 - Wa Prüf 6 02 March 1942 - Wa Prüf 6 20 June 1942 - Wa J Rue (WuG 6) 01 July 1942 - Wa Prüf 6 15 August 1942 - KStN 1150d 15 October 1942 - Wa Prüf 6 01 December - n/a March 1943 - D656/21+ 05 March 1943 - KStN 1176e 07 September 1944 - D 656/22

The last denomination is the one that is the official name for the Tiger I. So, it is either Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E (Sd.Kfz.181), - Sd.Kfz. is the abbreviation for Sonderkraftfahrzeug (Special Purpose Vehicle, or Special Ordnance Vehicle, a classification used - beside other vehicles - for the Panzers), or Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E, and that's the official designation until the end of the war. Walter J. Spielberger, in "Tigers I and II and their Variants" (Schiffer, 2007), cites a Führer's order, dated February 27, 1944, which abolished the designation "Panzerkampfwagen VI" and ratified the name Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E as the official designation.

Armor Protection

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 5 of 28

A Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E (late production, with the new commander's cupola, steel rimmed roadwheels, small muzzle brake and monocular Turmzielfernröhr 9c sights), assigned to s.SS.PzAbt.101, destroyed in France, Normandy 1944.

The hull of the Tiger was a comparatively simple welded unit with a one-piece superstructure welded on top. At the front it was 100 mm, around the sides 80 mm, and 26 mm on the top. To assist production all shapes were kept simple. The turret was also simple, and the sides were almost upright. It remains a curious fact why Henschel's engineers came up with what was essentially a square box for the Tiger's hull. The only steeply sloping element on the Tiger was the short glacis plate, forward of the hull upper front plate with its ball-mounted machine gun and driver's vision slots, which was set at 81 degrees to the vertical. However, the vertical plating was massive enough to withstand virtually everything. The mantlet was very heavy, with 120 mm of armor, and carried the long and heavy gun. Below, the armor tables for the Tiger I: Armor Data for the Tiger I (slope in degrees from the vertical)
Front Gun Mantlet Turret Superstructure Hull 120 mm @ 0° 100 mm @ 10° 100 mm @ 9° 100 mm @ 25° Side Turret Superstructure Hull 80 mm @ 0° 80 mm @ 0° 60 mm @ 0° Rear Turret Hull 80 mm @ 0° 80 mm @ 0°

Source: JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

Armor Scheme - Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E (slope in degrees from the horizontal)

Source: SPIELBERGER, Walther J., DOYLE, Hilary L., Tigers I and II and their Variants. ISBN: 978-0-7643-2780-3

According to Jentz (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.), "The Tiger's armor was invulnerable to attack from most tank guns firing normal armor-piercing shells or shot at ranges over 800 meters, including the American 75 mm and the Russian 76 mm. It is obvious that the 17-pdr. firing normal APCBC rounds could defeat the frontal armor of the Tiger I at most combat ranges for tank vs. tank actions in Europe. However, by 23 June 1944, only 109 Shermans with 17-pdrs. had landed in France along with six replacements. By the end of the war, on 5 May 1945, the British 21st Army Group possessed 1,235 Sherman tanks with 17-pdrs., while the remaining 1,915 Sherman tanks were all equipped with the 75 mm M3 gun". Below, three more tables from the same source (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 6 of 28

TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.), that show clearly the tactical superiority the Tiger I had over its contemporary adversaries: Penetration Table 01: Cromwell, Churchill.
Tiger I vs. Cromwell Cromwell vs. Tiger I Tiger I vs. Churchill Churchill vs. Tiger I (75 mm M3) (88 mm KwK) (75 mm M3) (88 mm KwK) Front: Turret 2000 m 0m 1700 m 0m Mantlet 2700 m 0m 1400 m 0m DFP* 3500 m 0m 1300 m 0m Nose 2500 m 0m 1100 m 0m Side: Turret 3400 m 100 m 1700 m 100 m Superstructure 3500 m 100 m 3000 m 100 m Hull 3500 m 900 m 3000 m 900 m Rear: Turret 3500 m 100 m 2600 m 100 m Hull 3500 m 0m 3500 m 0m * DFP = Drivers Front Plate Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

Penetration Table 02: Sherman A2, Sherman A4.
Tiger I vs. Sherman A4 Sherman A4 vs. Tiger I Tiger I vs. Sherman Sherman vs. Tiger I (88 mm KwK) (75 mm M3) (88 mm KwK) (76 mm M1A1) Front: Turret 1800 m 0m 1800 m 700 m Mantlet 200 m 0m 200 m 100 m DFP* 0m 0m 0m 600 m Nose 2100 m 0m 2100 m 400 m Side: Turret 3500 m 100 m 3500 m 1800 m Superstructure 3500 m 100 m 3500 m 1800 m Hull 3500 m 900 m 3500 m 3200 m Rear: Turret 3500 m 100 m 3500 m 1800 m Hull 3500 m 0m 3500 m 1700 m * DFP = Drivers Front Plate Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

Penetration Table 03: T-34/85, JS-122.
Tiger I vs. T-34/85 (88 mm KwK) Front: Turret Mantlet DFP* Nose Side: Turret Superstructure Hull Rear: Turret Hull 1400 m 400 m 100 m 100 m 2200 m 2100 m 3500 m 3200 m 2100 m T-34/85 vs. Tiger I (85 mm S53) 500 m 0m 300 m 200 m 1600 m 1600 m 2900 m 1600 m 1500 m Tiger I vs. JS-122 (88 mm KwK) 100 m 100 m 100 m 300 m 1000 m 1000 m 1500 m 100 m 300 m JS-122 vs. Tiger I (122 mm A19) 1500 m 500 m 1300 m 1000 m 2900 m 2900 m 3500 m 2900 m 2700 m

* DFP = Drivers Front Plate Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

With the exception of British guns, the data on the penetration tables above were extracted from "a Wa Prüf 1 report dated 5th October 1944 which relate the relative ability of the major opponents to penetrate the Tiger and vice versa. Data on British gun capabilities were extracted from British penetration test reports. The penetration ranges in the tables were determined for conditions in which the tanks stood at a side angle of 30 degrees of the incoming round. These tables should be used only for comparison of the relative vulnerability of the opponent's tanks. The data are not to be misconstructed as the absolute ranges at which the armor could be penetrated. There was a fairly large variance in both the protection offered by the same thickness of different armor plates and thickness penetrated by the same type of armor-piercing projectiles. "Also, the ranges shown in tables above "are all approximations based on calculations using estimates of the capabilities of American and Russian guns and penetration numbers derived from German guns firing against German armor plate." (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 7 of 28

The Tiger I armor could take a lot of punishment, as can be seen by the number of hits taken by Tiger 312.

One of the Tigers from 2.Kompanie, sPzAbt.504, lost in the first days following the Allied landings on Tunisia on 10 July 1943.

The armor of the Tiger I was not well sloped, but it was thick. Here is where many fail to understand that, in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness was a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of around 255-280 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for the corresponding thickness level of the Tiger's armor, by WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. About this issue, and according to Thomas L. Jentz, "there is no proof that substandard german armour plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war" (JENTZ, Thomas L. Germany's TIGER Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production & Modifications). Moreover, in the same reference book, Jentz presents the data from a British testing of the Tiger's armor protection by firing different guns against it. The tests were realized in a place beside the the main road from Beja to to Sidi N'sir in Tunisia, on May 19, 1943. The reports from these tests stated that the resistance of the Tiger's armor was "considerably higher than that of the British machineable quality armor. The side armor, with a thickness of 82 mm (nominal thickness was 80 mm) had a resistance equivalent of 92 mm of British armor" (Jentz, op cit, page 15). However, a little further, when addressing directly the issue of the Tiger's armor quality, the report states that "The armor plates (with exception of the hull roof plates) did not show any marked tendency to brittleness, and their behavior generally was not unlike British mechineable plates. The following table gives a list of Poldi hardness, corrected to Brinell figures, taken at the surface of the armor".
Armor Turret Roof Hull Roof Glacis Hull Sides Turret Sides Superstructure Hull Rear Driver's Front Plate Hull Front Mantlet Nominal Thickness 25 mm 25 mm 60 mm 60 mm 80 mm 80 mm 80 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100-200 mm Brinell Hardness No. 290 335 265 265 255 260-255 255 265 265 280

NOTE: Actually, the Tiger I chassis Nbr. 250570, object of the trials, was assembled in early October 1943, and its armor would have been rolled, cut, hardened, and welded together at least three months earlier - that is, before July 1943.

The Tiger, as a result of it's intrinsic doctrinal mission - that is, to effect a breakthrough and to support medium tanks, during the breakthrough, by destroying enemy tanks - was, production-wise, a very expensive and resource consuming tank. The nominal cost of a Tiger was 250,800 Reichsmarks. In contrast, a PzKpfw III Ausf. M cost RM 103,163, a PzKpfw IV Ausf. G RM 115,962, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,100; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios. However, the final cost of the Tiger's production was even higher - 299,800 Reichsmarks (Source: HAHN, Fritz. Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1943 Band 1 & Band 2. Koblenz : Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1987, in Christian

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 8 of 28

Ankerstjerne's Panzerworld web site. Accessed in June 21, 2007). Christopher W. Wilbeck, in "Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Heavy Tank Battalions in World War II", citing the Tigerfibel (the Tiger's manual), states that the final cost of the Tiger's production was much higher - 800,000 Reichsmarks - and 300,000 man-hours were required to produce one single Tiger. The Tigerfibel , in view of making those numbers more personal to the Tiger crewmen, stated that it was required one week of hard work from 6,000 people to produce one Tiger. It also stated that 800,000 Reichsmarks figure was equivalent to the weekly wages for 30,000 people.

The frontal vertical plating was massive enough to withstand virtually anything.

Tiger I disabled by a side penetration that hit the engine and caused the suspension to collapse.

As an added benefit, due to its resilience, when a Tiger was damaged and was subsequently destroyed by its crew, the crew frequently managed to escape capture and return to its unit, and this helped to create experienced crews. This benefit oviously came at a cost in other aspects, however. Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affected allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail. Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect. As a general rule, BHN (Brinell Hardness Index) effects, shot shatter, and obliquity effects are related to the ratio between shot diameter and plate thickness. The relationship is complex, but a larger projectile hitting relatively thinner plate will usually have the advantage. There is an optimum BHN level for every shot vs plate confrontation, usually in the 260-300 BHN range for World War Two situations. Below that, the armor is too soft and resists poorly, above that, the armor is too hard and therefore too brittle. The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 9 of 28

Tiger 223, 2. Kompanie, schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 102 was stopped by track damage near Tostes, just a few miles from the Seine. It was examined by this Canadian soldier on 30 August 1944.

All this considered, and analyzing the tables above, it stands clear that, "based on opposing ranges, without considering other factors, the Tiger I had only been outclassed by the Russian Josef Stalin heavy tank with the 122 mm gun" (Again, JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). It was said that it took at least five American M4 Sherman medium tanks to knock out a cornered Tiger. Whether it is fact or hearsay was not confirmed - however, it's interesting to note that according to the kill/losses achived by the Tiger battalions, the overall ratio was 5.74 to 1 (WILBECK, Christopher W., op cit). When speaking about opposing ranges, it becomes necessary to take a look at another essential Tiger I feature: the KwK 36 L/56 8.8 cm gun.

Firepower

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E of sPzAbt.501, covering another Tiger, both firing at long range, in Russia.

Introduction to the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 gun. The 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 was an adaptation of the famous 8.8 cm Flak 36, which was a development of the Flugzeugabwehrkanone Model 18 (Flak 18). In informal German use, this gun was universally known as the Acht-acht, a contraction of Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter (8.8 cm = 88 mm), and was first used in combat by the Condor Legion, in Spain, where it earned the reputation of being an excellent anti-aircraft gun

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 10 of 28

as well as a tank killer. This capacity would be confirmed during the French campaign in 1940, and most spectacularly in the hands of Rommel's Afrika Korps in North Africa. The Flak 36 was essentially a Flak 18 mounted in three sections, making possible to change the part of the barrel that suffered most attrition from the high-velocity rounds. By the time the Wehrmacht was heavily committed in Russia, it proved to be the only gun in the German inventory capable to destroy the new T-34 and KV-2 Russian tanks at longer ranges.

The famous 8.8 cm Flak 36 in action as anti-tank gun in Russia, 1942. Note the use of the stereoscopic range finder at right, which made possible for the 8.8 cm Flak 36 guns to hit targets at record ranges.

In 1938 the 8.8 cm Flak 18 was considered for firing against ground targets, specifically armored/concrete pillboxes and enclosures, and the armor piercing ammunition that would be in service from this time onwards consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing around 9.5 kg with armor piercing cap and ballistic cap with a high explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37. During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s. The early Blitzkrieg up to early 1942 saw the use of the large capacity Pzgr. with penetration less than 100 mm at 30 degrees. The 88 mm Flak APCBC round which fought the KV and T34 tanks during 1941 and early 1942 was less effective than the round fired by the Tiger's 88 mm KwK 36 L/56. Even the later 88 mm Flak round with a large capacity high explosive filler (and 9.54 kg weight) penetrated from 8% to 23% less than the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 APCBC round.

Tigers fighting at the Kursk Offensive - firing at long range.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 11 of 28

Still at Kursk, a Tiger advances and pass some destroyed T-34's.

In May 1941 the German general staff had demanded a new Kampfwagen Kanone (Tank Gun) specification for the Tiger; it had to be capable of penetrating 140 mm thick armor at a range of 1,000 meters, without specifying that the caliber had to be 88mm. This specification was a direct consequence of Hitler's directive dated 26 May 1941, which stated that if the same penetration capability could be achieved by a gun of smaller caliber than 88mm, then preference should be given to the smaller caliber gun, based on the increased ammunition load and the lower turret weight. However, the same directive stated that the chosen caliber must be adequate to engaging tanks, ground targets, and bunkers. This resulted in Rheinmetall receiving a contract in mid-July 1941 to design a turret with a gun that fulfilled those requirements. The first gun designed by Rheinmetall, the 75mm KwK L/60, barely met the requirements, being able to achieve a penetration of 100mm of armor inclined at 30 degrees, at a range of 1400 meters. In face of that, Rheinmetall, in order to to ensure that the penetration specificaton was met, developed a longer gun, the 75mm KwK 42 L/70, to be fitted in a new turret, designed around ths new gun. By July 1 1942, long range plans under Hitler Panzerprogramm II established that the first 100 production series tanks would mount the 88mm KwK 36 L/56 in the Krupp turret. Form the 101st tank on, in February 1943, production should be shifted to the Rheinmetall turret with the 75mm KwK 42 L/70. This was to be the famous gun that would be mounted on the PzKpfw. V Panther. However, at a Panzerkomission meeting on 14 July 1942, the subject of Tiger armament was discussed again, and it was verified that the ability to penetrate 100mm of armor, under the requiderd conditions, was also achieved by the 88mm KwK 36 L/56, therefore conversion to the 75mm KwK 42 L/70 was no longer necessary, and conversion to the 88mm KwK L/71 would ocurr at the end of the same year. This decision resulted in the entire production run of the Tiger being outfitted with turrets mounting the 88mm KwK 36 L/56. As a matter of fact, this increase of the penetration abilities of the 88mm KwK 36 L/56 resulted exclusively from changes to the design of the armor piercing (APCBC) ammunition. Greater armor penetration was achieved by decreasing the size of the explosive filler cavity inside the shell, which also increased the weight to 10.2 kilograms (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). Behind the decision to retain the the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 as the main gun of the Tiger I, instead of the Rheinmetall 75 mm KwK 42 L/70, was the fact that at that time armor penetration was mainly a function of thickness to diameter (T/d) ratio. During World War II, the Armor Piercing (AP) round relied on its own weight (and a 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 gun APCBC shell weighed 10.2 Kilograms, as opposed by an 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 gun APCBC shell, which weighed 6.8 Kilograms) to penetrate the enemy's armor. Theoretically, the higher the muzzle velocity, the more penetration any kind of AP round would have, all other variables remaining constant. In real World War Two tank combat, however, other important variables intervened, such as the thickness to diameter (T/d) coefficient, which means that the bigger the diameter of any given round relative to the thickness of the armor it is going to strike, the better the probability of achieving a penetration. Furthermore, if the diameter of the armor piercing round overmatches the thickness of the armor plate, the protection given by the inclination of the armor plate diminishes proportionally to the increase in the overmatch of the armor piercing round diameter or, in other words, to the increase in this T/d overmatch. So, when a Tiger hit a T-34, the 88 mm diameter of the Tiger's round overmatched the 45 mm glacis plate of the T-34 by so much that it made no difference that the Russian tank's glacis was inclined at an angle of 60 degrees from vertical. For those facts, the 88mm KwK 36 L/56 was a better choice for a breakthrough tank such as the Tiger, according to the German doctrine, as stated in the Manual for Combat and Combat Employment of Smaller Units: "The heavy tanks form the core of the spearhead and their main objective is the enemy tanks and antitank guns that can be eliminated only by using the greater range and larger caliber gun of those tanks. The mission of the first wave is to penetrate into the enemy lines as deeply as possible while the second wave enlarges the penetration, never losing sight of the first wave in order to provide fire protection to that wave" (Source: WILBECK, Christopher W., Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Heavy Tank Battalions in World War II). And more: "Armor obliquity effects decrease as the shot diameter overmatches plate thickness in part because there is a smaller cylindrical surface area of the displaced slug of armor which can cling to the surrounding plate. If the volume which the shot displaces has lots of area to cling to the parent plate, it resists penetration better than if that same volume is spread out into a disc with relatively small area where it joins the undisturbed armor. Plate greatly overmatching shot involves the projectile digging its own tunnel, as it were, through the thick interior of the plate. It was found experimentally that the regions in the center of the plate produced the bulk of the resistance to penetration, while the outer regions, near front and rear surfaces, presented minimal resistance because they are unsupported. Thus, an overmatched plate will be forced to rely on tensile stresses within the displaced disc, and will tend to break out in front of the attacking projectile, regardless of whether the edges cling to the parent material or not. Plate obliquity works in defeating projectiles partly because it turns and deflects the projectile before it begins digging in. If there is insufficient material where the side of the nose contacts the plate, stresses will travel all the way through the plate and break out the unsupported back surface. The plate will fail instantaneously rather than gradually".

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 12 of 28

"You can angle the armor any way you want, and beyond a certain point of shot overmatching plate, the obliquity will cease to be relevant. In fact, at certain conditions of shot overmatching plate, the cosine rule is broken and the plate resists less well than the simple cosine relationship would predict (LOS thickness is greater than effective thickness). The above only applies to WWII era AP and APC/APCBC, and WWII sub caliber ammunition. The long rod penetrators of today are greatly overmatched but they bring so much energy to the plate that they penetrate by "ablation" - in which both projectile and armor behave like fluids. Hollow charge also enters the field of fluid dynamics, with a very thin jet penetrating overmatching armor with ease, regardless of obliquity" (Robert Livingston; excerpts of a response to a question posted on the old "Tanker's Forum (Heavy Metal Website)", back in 1998).

The Tiger I crossing a devastated battlefield, in full killer-hunting action. Note the BT 7, in the background, destroyed. A second Tiger follows just behind.These Tigers are from sPzAbt.502.

The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the performance of the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56, when their Tigers engaged the T-34: "First round hits were usually achieved at ranges between 800 to 1,000 meters. At these ranges, the Panzer Granate (they are referring to the PzGr. 39 APCBC ammunition) absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor, and usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the T-34 tank. In 80 percent of the cases, shots from the same range hitting the side of the hull toward the rear of the tank resulted in the fuel tanks exploding. Even at ranges of 1,500 meters and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). Many more reports like this one attest to the precedent arguments on the superior performance of the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 gun.

The Tiger I, with its 88 KwK 36 L/56 gun, coupled with superior optics, could accurately hit targets at ranges the enemy could not even aim at.

Accuracy and Penetration Tables for the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56. The 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 was a very accurate gun capable of first round hits at over 1,000 meters - the Tiger I actually started first round killing at 1,200 meters, under combat conditions. Considering that the

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 13 of 28

Tiger I was nearly impervious to penetration by most tank and anti-tank guns at normal combat ranges (+/- 800 meters), these were the two main assets (Firepower + Armor Protection) that made it possible for the Tiger I to virtually dominate the battlefield. The long and powerful 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 could outrange and outshoot nearly all Allied tanks, and this allowed the Tiger I to stand off and engage targets as it chose. On 21 July 1943, General der Panzertruppe Breith, commander of the III.Panzer - Korps, issued the following directive: "Based on experience in the recent battles, I issue the following instructions for the cooperation of Tigers with other weapons: As a result of its high performance weapon and strong armor, the Tiger should be used primarily against enemy tanks and anti-tank weapons and secondarily - and then only as a complete exception - against infantry units. As experience has shown, its weapons allow the Tiger to fight enemy tanks at ranges of 2,000 meters and longer, which has especially worked on the morale of the opponent. As a result of the strong armor, it is possible to close to short range with the enemy tanks without being seriously damaged by the hits. Still, the Tiger should attempt to start engaging enemy tanks at ranges over 1,000 meters". According to Jentz (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.): "These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion. The figures in the second column include the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition and gunners. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column". Accuracy:
Gun Ammunition Type Range 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m 2500 m 3000 m 100 (100) 100 (93) 98 (74) 87 (50) 71 (31) 53 (19) 100 (100) 99 (80) 89 (52) 71 (31) 55 (19) 100 (98) 94 (62) 72 (34) 52 (20) Pzgr. 39 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 Pzgr. 40 Gr.39 HL

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

Penetration:
Gun Ammunition Type Shell Weight Initial Velocity Range 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m 120 mm 110 mm 100 mm 91 mm 84 mm 170 mm 155 mm 138 mm 122 mm 110 mm 90 mm 90 mm 90 mm 90 mm 90 mm Pzgr.39 10.2 Kg 773 m/s 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 Pzgr.40 7.3 Kg 930 m/s Gr.39HL 7.65 Kg 600 m/s

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

Please note that 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 means: The diameter of the bore (caliber) of this gun is 88 mm; this is a Tank Gun (Kampfwagenkanone); that the year the development of this gun was finalized was 1936; and that the length of the gun equals 56 times the diameter of the bore (caliber) of the same gun. This measurement was done from the rear face of the breech to the end of the muzzle, not counting the muzzle brake. This was the main gun installed on the Tiger I. Ammunition used with the 88mm KwK 36 L/56 gun.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 14 of 28

This drawing illustrates how the APCBC round (the main type of armor piercing ammunition used by the Tiger's crews) works. The first cap, the aerodynamic one, makes possible an efficient trajectory. Then, it disintegrates when the target is hit. The second cap, the blunt one, designed for ballistic performance, takes over and avoids the projectile from ricocheting off inclined armor. The projectile penetrates the armor and then explodes inside the tank, causing catastrophic damage.

As far as the Tiger I is concerned, the two main types of armor piercing ammunition were the APCBC and the APCR. The Armor Piercing Capped, Ballistic Capped (APCBC) round relied not only on its own weight to penetrate the enemy's armor, but was also filled with high explosive that caused great internal damage. The APCBC round has two caps covering the main body of the round. The first one is a cap designed for ballistic performance, and is a blunt cap, because a projectile with a blunt nose has less chance to ricochet off inclined armor. This is covered by the second cap, a sharp one, a "windshield" made of light metal, designed to give the round a better aerodynamic shape. The Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (APCR) round was made with a tungsten core. For flight performance effects and to aid the shot from shattering against armor plating, the APCR round was surrounded by a ballistic cap. The APCR rounds had a higher penetration capacity, but were less lethal than the APCBC after penetration, and also had a shorter effective range.

The Panzergranate 39 - the APCBC ammunition used with the Tiger's high-velocity 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 gun.

The Tiger I carried 92 rounds of ammunition, although it is known that experienced crews frequently broke the regulations, by storing more than that. The recommended and most usual mix was 50 percent APCBC (Pzgr.39) and 50 percent HE (Sprenggranaten - high explosive shells). A few rounds of the rare (due to the shortage of tungsten carbide) APCR (Pzgr.40) ammunition might be carried for use against the heaviest armored Russian tanks and tank destroyers. The Gr.39 HL (Hohlgranate) based on the hollow charge principle (HEAT), was less accurate and much less destructive than the APCBC rounds, but could be carried in place of the HE rounds and used either to combat armor or as effective high explosive ammunition against soft targets. The Tiger I optics, by Zeiss: The Turmzielfernröhr 9b.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 15 of 28

The sights that equipped the Tiger I up to 1944 were the binocular Turmzielfernröhr 9b mounted parallel and on the same axis as the main gun. The Turmzielfernröhr 9b was an articulated binocular sight, with 2.5x magnification. The range scale was graduated at 100 meter intervals up to a maximum range of 4,000 meters.

The commander (right), exposed in the open cupola hatch using binoculars to scout the far horizon. He determined the target selection, type of ammunition, and range. The 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 was a very accurate gun (left), capable of first round hits at over 1,000 meters - the Tiger I could actually start first round killing at 1,200 meters, under combat conditions.

The commander ordered the target selection, type of ammunition, and range. The gunner observed the tracer and the strike of the round and reported his observations to the commander, who then ordered corrections. To quickly traverse onto a target, the Tiger I was outfitted with a hydraulic motor for the turret drive. The hydraulic drive traversed the turret at a maximum rate of 360 degrees in 60 seconds, dependent on the engine speed. Placing the target on the point of a triangle allowed the gunner to aim without obstructing the view of the target. The triangle height and separation distances in mils were used as an aid in estimating the range to the target, by comparing them with the size of the target. Tiger gunners knew the size of their targets from target tables and later, by practice, instinctively knew distances. The pattern in the right reticule also contained the 7 triangles plus adjustable range scales that allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target. The gunner adjusted the range through this sight by lowering or raising the gun to set the aiming sight again on target. The range scale was graduated at 100 meter intervals out to a range of 3,000 meters for the APCR rounds, 4,000 meters for the APCBC rounds, and up to 6,000 meters for the HE rounds.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 16 of 28

The Tiger I, firing at long range on the vast Russian plains, and scoring a hit!

The 88 mm KwK 36L/56 gun had a very high muzzle velocity and the shell traveled in a stretched arc, which gave the Tiger I more advantages than just penetration power. Besides providing a higher penetration power it also allowed a higher margin of error in range guessing, because the gunner could guess wrong up to 200 meters and still hit the target, since aiming too high simply raised the striking point by less than a meter, too little an error to miss a 3 meter high tank when aimed at its center. From April 1944 on, the monocular Turmzielfernröhr 9c (sighting telescope) replaced the binocular Turmzielfernröhr 9b.This sight allowed the gunner to select two magnifications, 2.5x and 5x. The lower magnification was intended for target acquisition, as it showed a wider field of view. The higher magnification allowed precise aiming at longer ranges. The range scale was graduated in the same way as the Turmzielfernröhr 9b sight - at 100 meters jumps up to 3,000 meters for APCR rounds, up to 4,000 meters for APCBC rounds, and up to 6,000 meters for HE rounds. Tiger platoons could open fire (concentrated platoon fire) for effect against stationary targets at up to 3,000 meters. When firing against moving targets, the rule was to open fire starting at 1,200 meters and up to 2,000 meters.

Mobility

Tiger I, tactical number 217, of 1st Lieutenant Otto Carius , negotiating rough ground. Companies from sPzAbt.502 sometimes fielded 28 Tigers each, which explains such high numbers.

High maneuverability, low operational mobility. Much have been said about the Tiger's maneuverability, that the Tiger was a "lumbering monster", or that "it could barely move", but that is not exactly the truth. The Tiger I was very maneuverable for its weight and size, and superior to the Sherman in muddy terrain, despite its size and weight, as it had less ground pressure. This capability was provided by the the combat tracks of 755 mm width, which resulted in a ground pressure of 15.0 psi, or 1.05 kg/cm². The Tiger I engine was developed by Maybach-Motorenbau GmbH. Maybach produced the engines for all medium and heavy German tanks. The Tiger's engine, the Maybach HL 210 P45, was a V-12 water-cooled gasoline engine with a capacity of 21.33 liters and a power output of 650 bhp at 3,000 rpm. This engine was mounted in a sealed compartment at the rear of the Tiger.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 17 of 28

However, it could not be reliably operated at its maximum power output of 3,000 rpm because the transmission, the Maybach OG 40 12 16 A, with 8 speeds forward and 4 reverse, although a surprisingly light set of controls for the driver, had a tendency to breakdowns if adequate preventive maintenance was not done. The weight of the Tiger (the combat weight was 57 tons) was too much for the German transmissions available at the time. Since it was not always possible to do this preventive maintenance as required, many Tigers broke down and had to be destroyed and then abandoned. The recommendation was that the driver should not exceed 2,600 rpm, when operating the Tiger. Only the first 250 Tigers received the Maybach HL 210 P45 engine. In May, 1943, the Maybach HK 230 P45 engine with two air filters was installed, and the transmission was improved. The new engine, also a V-12 water-cooled gasoline engine, with a capacity of 23.88 liters, had a power output of 700 bhp at 3,000 rpm. With this upgrade the Tiger's performance improved in normal use, but the transmission was still weak for the stress of the power generated by the engine moving the weight of the tank at maximum output, and preventive maintenance continued to be an imperative. Tigers, like all German tanks, used regenerative steering, hydraulically operated - the separate tracks could be turned in opposite directions at the same time, so the Tiger I could neutral steer (pivoting in place) , and completely turn around in a distance of 3.44 meters (11.28ft). This used to take by surprise many unlucky enemy crews. As a result of all those facts, the reality is that the Tiger I was not slow at all: The Panzer IV road speed was 40 km/h. Cross country speed was 20 km/h. The Panzer III (Ausf E to N) road speed was 40 km/h. Cross country speed was 18 km/h. The Tiger I road speed was 38 km/h. Cross country speed was 20 km/h. The only german tank that was faster than the Tiger I was the Panther, with a road speed of 46 km/h and a cross country speed of 24 km/h. But, overall, the Panther was not more reliable than the Tiger I. The table below demonstrate that the percentage of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw. IV and as good as or better than the Panther. Percentage Operational At The Front:
EASTERN FRONT Pz IV 31 May44 15 Sep44 30 Sep44 31 Oct44 15 Nov44 30 Nov44 15 Dec44 30 Dec44 15 Jan45 15 Mar45 Overall 84 65 65 52 72 78 79 72 71 54 68 Panther 77 72 60 53 66 67 69 61 60 49 62 Tiger 79 70 81 54 61 72 79 80 73 53 70 Pz IV 88 80 50 74 78 76 78 63 56 44 71 WESTERN FRONT Panther 82 74 57 85 71 71 71 53 45 32 65 Tiger 87 98 67 88 81 45 64 50 58 36 65

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

This fact is evidenced by the following excerpt from the Experience Report of the Tiger Abteilung 506, dated 15 January 1944: "During long term operations, which stretched over 12 days, time for care and maintenance of the Tigers was too short and losses were correspondingly high. On 2 January 1944, the Abteilung went into action with 13 Panzers. Not a single Tiger was still operational on the evening of 14 January. The last two Tigers had driven a distance of about 340 kilometers. Without being given any time for care and servicing, most of them managed to cover 250 kilometers" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 18 of 28

The Tiger I was a very maneuverable tank, especially for its weight and size, but had its shortcomings. The necessity to change tracks for rail travel was one of those.

But there were still other complications. Given the characteristics of the Tigers as a battlefield superiority weapon, they were constantly being transferred form one point to the other on the battlefield and even front to front - as "fire brigades". Long road marches implied in mechanical problems, and Tigers consumed high quantities of precious gasoline (the Tiger had a maximum combat radius of 195 Kilometers, using 540 liters of fuel in the process) - thus, the preferred method of movement across great distances was by rail. As the war went on, the German rail net was progressively more and more disrupted by Allied strategic and tactical air attack. This eventually limited transportation of Tigers by rail to the night. Rail movement of Tigers, however, involved more complications, because special cars were required to transport Tigers, and the tracks were too wide for rail transport - narrower ones were fitted for normal road and railway transport, when the outer set of road wheels was also removed. This limited the transfer of Tigers from one sector to another without a great deal of lead time and careful coordination. Beyond the great additional effort by the crewmen that was required, such a complicated transport process took even more time from the Tiger's combat availability. This process implied in a heavy logistical burden on the Tiger units, as they had to necessarily maintain two sets of tracks for each tank (WILBECK, Christopher W., op cit). The bottom line is that the Tiger had high maneuverability, but low operational mobility. Tigers were prone to transmission problems, if they did not received adequate periodic maintenance. This high degree of maintenance required to keep Tigers operational was one of their biggest deficiencies, and usually resulted in a low operational rate of combat available tanks within the schwere Panzer Abteilungen - especially after long marches or extended periods of combat. The tendency of the Tigers to break down, coupled with the weight of the tanks, made recovery of broken down Tigers difficult. The outcome was low operational mobility as a result of those problems, which meant that Tiger units frequently had a very limited radius of action. The Allies exploited this fact during the numerous and frequent operational and strategic withdrawals of the Tiger battalions. That, and the overwhelming Allied air power, were the main reason of the destruction of Tigers, more than any tank versus tank combat, specially on the Western Front. On the East Front, the main causes of destruction of Tigers were the transmission problems (with consequent abandon and/or destruction by the crews), the Russian air attacks, and being terribly outnumbered and fighting to the very end.

In the absence of special recovery vehicles, and in violation of regulations, Tigers sometimes had to tow other broken tanks. These Tigers are of the 2 nd Kompanie, sPzAbt. 101.

Production

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 19 of 28

Tiger tanks, rolling out of the production line, May, 1943.The second Tiger, from the right, is still in the red oxide primer. In the distance, at the right, a Panther, also still in the red oxide primer. Panthers were assembled alongsite Tigers at Henschel for a period in 1943.

Henschel und Sohn, of Kassel, Germany, was a well-known manufacturer of heavy industrial and railroad equipment, especially railroad locomotives and large dock cranes. Because of the size and weight of the Tiger, Henschel was considered to be the ideal manufacturer, having all the facilities needed to produce such a heavy vehicle. Henschel also had a fine engineering staff, and a complete vehicle test facility. The final assembly hall at Henschel's plant dwarfed the tanks being produced there and the final assembly line was capable of producing several tanks a day. Although much of the installed equipment on the Tiger was subcontracted, Henschel manufactured most of the major components in their plant. Hulls, turrets, and other contract items and assemblies were brought into the assembly building where final machining operations and detail assembling were done. Henschel's facilities allowed the firm to machine the turret rings and other critical areas of the hull within the plant without outside assistance.

Lowering the turret onto the hull was done near the end of the assembly process.

The finished product - a new Tiger - left the assembly line at the Henschel works in Kassel.

Tiger I Production Statistics April 1942 - August 1944
Month and Year April 1942 May 1942 June 1942 July 1942 August 1942 September 1942 October 1942 November 1942 December 1942 January 1943 February 1943 March 1943 April 1943 May 1943 Monthly Goal 0 0 5 15 10 15 16 18 30 30 30 40 45 50 Accepted 0+V1 0 1 0 8 3 10+V2 17 37+V3 35 32 41 43 50 Normal 1 1 0 0 9 2 8 14 35 30 30 35 42 43 Befehls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 5 4 Rebuilt Chassis Nr. 0 0 0 25001 0 0 25009 0 250012 0 250022 0 250039 0 250076 1 250111 0 250143 0 250184 0 250230 0 250280

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 20 of 28

June 1943 60 60 49 6 0 250340 July 1943 65 65 53 4 0 250405 70 60 63 11 0 250465 August 1943 75 85 48 7 0 250550 September 1943 October 1943 80 50 82 3 0 250600 84 56 34 2 0 250656 November 1943 December 1943 88 67 80 0 0 250723 93 93 78 9 0 250816 January 1944 95 95 96 6 1 250911 February 1944 March 1944 95 86 84 4 1 250997 95 104 88 6 3 251101 April 1944 95 100 79 6 5 251201 May 1944 June 1944 75 75 100 4 5 251276 58 64 63 2 8 251340 July 1944 August 1944 9 6 13 3 11 251346 1441 1349 1260 89 35 TOTAL Source: JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-76430225-6

Like all German Panzers, the Tiger I was subject of continuous changes and additions, as it became obvious that improvements could be made in the performance and effectiveness of the Tiger. Gradually the various problems reported were worked out, although some were never solved completely. The problems with ice and snow freezing on the interleaved road wheels were not solved until the introduction of the Tiger II with overlapping, not interleaved, road wheels In May, 1943, the Maybach HK 230 P45 engine with two air filters was installed in place of the Maybach HL 210 P45, and the transmission was improved, and with this upgrade the Tiger performance improved in normal use. In July 1943, the turret was extensively redesigned. A new commanders cupola with periscopes and a swivel hatch was installed, and along other modifications, an improved spring counter balance connected with a chain was installed for the 88 mm main gun. Starting in September, 1943, Zimmerit anti-magnetic coating was applied at the factory to all upright surfaces that could be reached by a man standing on the ground. The surface was rippled to increase the distance to the steel surface without increasing the weight of the coating. From January 1944 on, the Nahverteidigungswaffe (close defense weapon) was mounted on the turret roof. This weapon could fire smoke cartridges, signal cartridges, and grenades, but due to shortages, was not mounted on the Tiger I until March 1944. In February 1944, steel road wheels with internal rubber cushioning, adopted from the Tiger II, were mounted in the Tiger I. These were chosen because of their ability to bear the weight of heavy armored vehicles. From March 1944 on, the 25 mm roof plate was increased to 40 mm, to prevent penetration by large caliber artillery shells (over 150 mm), and the loader's hatch originally designed for the Tiger II turret was installed in the thicker turret roof. Finally, in April 1944, The monocular Turmzielfernröhr 9c sighting telescope replaced the previously used binocular Turmzielfernröhr 9b.

From August 1943 on, and in order to simplify production, Henschel and Wegmann were ordered to to cease installation of deep fording components. To ensure that the Tiger I could ford streams up to a depth of 1.5 meters, gaskets continued to be installed where components

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 21 of 28

penetrated the hull.

While the Germans stayed close to their original production schedule for the Tiger, it is interesting to note that, for example, during Operation Zitadelle (the Kursk Offensive - July 1943) there were a total of only 133 Tigers available at the start of the offensive - 45 serving with sPzAbt.503, 13 with 13.Kp.SSPzRgt1 (LSSAH), 14 with 8.Kp.SSPzRgt2 (Das Reich), 15 with s.Kp.SSPzRgt3 (Totenkopf), 15 with 13.Kp.PzRgtGD (Großdeutschland), and finally 31 with sPzAbt.505. A total of 19 Tigers arrived as replacements during Operation Zitadelle: 5 for 13.Kp.SSPzRgt1 (LSSAH), and 14 for sPzAbt. 505. From 5 July to 20 July 1943, 13 Tigers were lost (total writeoffs): 4 by sPzAbt.503, 1 by 13.Kp.SSPzRgt1 (LSSAH), 1 by 8.Kp.SSPzRgt2 (Das Reich), 1 by s.Kp.SSPzRgt3 (Totenkopf), and 6 by sPzAbt.505. Source: JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.

Conclusion: The Successes and Failures of the Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E, of the s.SS.PzAbt.101 - Late Model - Normandy, 1944, destroyed.

The Tiger dominated the battlefield, and this occurred basically because the it managed to maintain a stand off ability which was made possible by a combination of thick armor and a high-velocity, very accurate gun, coupled with superior optics - thus being capable of first hits at ranges well beyond 1.000 meters. As it was, the Tiger could choose its targets at will, and destroy them at ranges they either couldn't hit; or if they could hit, couldn't defeat the Tiger's thick armor. The Tiger I maintained this stand off capability until nearly the end of the war, as it was only outclassed by the Russian Josef Stalin heavy tank. On the other hand, Tigers were maintenance intensive tanks - and prone to mechanic failures if periodic maintenance procedures were not done - and because of that, plus the weight of the tank, had low operational mobility - a problem that was magnified during retreats, when damaged or broken Tigers couldn't be recovered, and had to be destroyed by their crews. By February 1944, sPzAbt.502 had 71 Tiger I tanks. At the same time, sPzAbt.503, 507, and 509 had respectively 69, 56 and 58 Tigers. This was due to transfers from other units training with the Tiger II, or due to the delivery of the last production Tiger I models. Tiger I production reached its peak between January and May 1944. Anyway, the maximum degree of success attained by the Tiger units was limited and/or localized tactical superiority. The truth was that the German industry simply couldn't produce Tigers in sufficient numbers to make any difference in the big picture - it was a task well beyond wartime German industry capabilities. Just as a comparison on productive capabilities, the Russians produced 23,937 T-34/76 from 1942 to 1945. The American Pershing tank was built at a rate of 1,350 tanks over a six month period. When production ceased in June 1945, 49,234 Sherman tanks had been built - more than all the German tank production during the entire war. In the end, it was this difference in production philosophy and

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 22 of 28

faster Allied production that made the difference between defeat and victory. The real failure of the German very heavy tanks was that they exceeded the capabilities of the German industry to produce them in sufficient numbers. All this said and done, the Tiger was very sucessful in fullfilling its doctrinal mission - to destroy other tanks - and its reputation has grown up on the battlefield as the war went on. The basis for this is the kill/loss ratio attained by the Tiger battalions. The overall ratio for all Tiger battalions is a respectable 5.74 to 1 kill ratio. Kill/Loss Ratio of the Tiger Battalions (1942 - 1945):
Unit Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 504 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 505 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 506 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 507 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 509 Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 510 13./Panzer-Regiment Großdeutschland III./Panzer-Regiment Großdeutschland 13./SS-Panzer-Regiment 1 8./SS-Panzer-Regiment 2 9./SS-Panzer-Regiment 3 Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (501) Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 102 (502) Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (503) TOTAL: Losses 120 107 252 109 126 179 104 78 120 65 6 98 42 31 56 107 76 39 1,715 Kills 450 1,400 1,700 250 900 400 600 100 500 200 100 500 400 250 500 500 600 500 9,850 Kill/Loss Ratio 3.75 13.08 6.75 2.29 7.14 2.23 5.77 1.28 4.17 3.08 16.67 5.10 9.52 8.06 8.93 4.67 7.89 12.82 5.74

OBS. Those numbers probably include Tigers that were send back to undergone heavy repair, and latter send to another unit, plus total writ offs. That's why the totals above are higher than the overall production figure. Source: Alan Hamby's excellent Tiger I Information Center web site.

The Last Stand, late 1944.

The Tiger I was phased out in 1944. By August of that year 1,300+ had been made, not many in view of their reputation and effect on Allied morale. Perhaps this is the best epitaph the Tigers could have.

Tiger 131, Bovington Tank Museum, 2004

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 23 of 28

Tiger number 131, of the Bovington Tank Museum. This Tiger was restored to running condition, with work beginning in 1999. The full restoration process, an epic battle which showed that the famous British willpower remains at its best, ended in 2004, and Tiger Number 131 could finally be seen running again. Photo: Author unknown. Visit the BovingtonTank Museum - Tiger Tank Restoration Website!

Specifications

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E - Specifications: Date of first acceptance August 1942 Total acceptances 1346 5 men: Commander in turret left rear Gunner in turret left front Loader in turret right rear Driver in hull left front Radio operator in hull right front

Manufacturer

Henschel & Sohn AG

Crew

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E - Dimansions 126,000 lbs Combat weight 57,000 kg 241.6" Length without gun 631.6 cm 145.9" Width with track guards 370.5 cm Tread with combat tracks 282.2 cm Gun overhang forward 211.6 cm 111.1" Height 300.0 cm 83.31" 118.1"

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 24 of 28

18.5" Ground clearance 47.0 cm 72.05" Turret ring diameter 183.0 cm Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E - Armament Type 8.8cm KwK.36 L/56 Mount Ammunition Traverse 360° (manual and hydraulic) 360° (manual and hydraulic) 4800 rounds 7.92mm M.G.34 Kugelblende 100 in right bow 30° (15° left and right; manual) -Max traverse rate 6°/sec Ground pressure with combat tracks, zero penetration Fire height

86.42" 219.5 cm 15.0 psi 1.05 kg/cm²

Elevation +15° to -8° (manual) +15° to -8° (manual) +20° to 10° (manual)

Turret

92 rounds

7.92mm M.G.34

Coaxial to 8.8cm gun

6°/sec

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E - Armor Assembly Welding Hull Location Upper front 100 mm 3.94" Lower front 100 mm 3.1" Upper sides 80 mm 2.4" Lower sides 60 mm 3.1" Rear 80 mm .98" Top 25 mm .98" Floor 25 mm Turret Location Gun mantlet 100 mm to 120 mm 3.94" Front 100 mm 3.1" Sides 80 mm 3.1" Rear 80 mm .98" Top 25 mm Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf.E -- Automotive Specifications 90° 0° 0° 8° Thickness 3.94" to 4.72" 0° Angle from vertical 90° 90° 9° 0° 0° 25° Thickness 3.94" 9° Angle from vertical

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 25 of 28

Engine Horsepower Transmission Steering Brakes

Maybach HL230P45; 12 cylinder, 60° in "V" gasoline 143 gal 700@3000 rpm Fuel capacity 540 L Maybach OG 40 12 16 A, 8 speeds forward, 4 reverse Henschel & Sohn double-radius L600C, steering wheel Mechanical, disc Suspension

Type Torsion bar Drive sprockets 20-tooth front drive

Road wheels 8 independently sprung interleaved triple/track Idlers Dual adjustable at rear of track Track Kgs 63/725/130 Dual center guide, single pin, steel 29.7" 5.12" Pitch Shoes/track 13.0 cm Kgs 63/520/130 Dual center guide, single pin, steel 20.5" 5.12" Pitch Shoes/track 13.0 cm Performance 28 mph 96 96

Track return rollers Flat track Shock absorbers On first 2 and last 2 road wheels/track

141.9" Ground contact length 360.5 cm

Width 75.5 cm

141.9" Ground contact length 360.5 cm

Width 52.0 cm

98.4" Max trench 250 cm 31" Max vertical obstacle 79 cm 63.0"

Max level road speed 45 kph Max grade 78%

Min turning diameter

Pivot

Max fording depth 160 cm ~120 mi, roads

Cruising range ~195 km, roads The Tiger I Specifications table is courtesy of Chris Conners' American Fighting Vehicle Database web site.

Bibliography
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Germany's Tiger Tanks: Vol. 1 - D.W. to Tiger I: Design, Production and Modifications; Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle; ISBN 0-7643-1038-0 Germany's Tiger Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; Thomas L Jentz; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6 An Illustrated Guide to World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles; Salamander Books Ltd. ISBN 0-86101-083-3 Tiger I Heavy Tank 1942-1945; Thomas L Jentz, Hilary Doyle and Peter Sarson; Osprey Publishing Ltd.; ISBN 1-85532-337-0 The Tiger Tank; Roger Ford; Motorbooks International Publishers and Wholesalers; ISBN 0-7603-0524-2 TIGER in action - Armor Number 27; Squadron/Signal Publications; ISBN 0-89747-230-6 TIGER I on the Eastern Front; Jean Restayn; Histoire and Collections; ISBN 2-908182-82-3 SLEDGEHAMMERS - Strenghts and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II; Christopher W. Wilbeck; The Aberjona Press, 2004; ISBN 0-9717650-2-2 Tigers I and II and their Variants, Walther J. Spielberger and Hilary L.Doyle. ISBN 978-0-7643-2780-3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 26 of 28

You can find Mr Jean Restayn's books at J.J.Fedorowicz Publishing, Inc. and Histoire and Collections: 5, Avenue de la Republique 75541, Paris, cedex 11 FRANCE

PanzerTracts! Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary L. Doyle Web Site.

Sledgehammers, by Christopher W. Wilbeck.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 27 of 28

" PANZERHELD" - Hauptsturmführer Michael Wittmann - art by Jody Harmon.

Blood and Iron - Kursk 1943 - art by Jody Harmon. All pictures above are © Copyright 2004-2006 Jody Harmon - All Rights Reserved.

The Tiger I, during the Kursk offensive, in two computer-generated art pictures by Gary J. Nemeth.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

Page 28 of 28

All pictures above are © Copyright 2003-2006 Gary J. Nemeth - 3D Modelmother. All Rights Reserved.

Download the Tigerfibel, the original Tiger tank manual, in Adobe PDF Format.

Download the Michael Wittmann's Tiger I Movie (AVI)

Download the Bovington Tank Musem's Tiger 131 presentation movie (WMV)

Every bit of information on www.fprado.com/armorsite is for the purpose of information, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research.

The ARMOR Site! is © Copyright 1997-2008 Fabio Prado . All Rights Reserved.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\tiger1.htm

8/22/2008