"When firing HE, is a Tiger scarier than a Sherman?" Topic

The AT effectiveness is obviously different, but is the HE?

Thanks!

Just the sight of a Tiger seemed enough to freak out Sherman tankers and infantry, let alone the type of round the thing fired. I doubt anyone wanted to stick around long enough in its firing arc to find out if HE were scarier than AT rounds. But an interesting question nonetheless.

I think any HE round fired at me will be scary…

In absolute terms, not really. I believe that the effective HE throw weight are about the same and the Sherman crew probably has more training in attacking targets with HE.

Here's a pretty good approximation of a platoon of Shermans attacking a tree line. YouTube link

Now tell me how scary that would have been for the Germans?

I should have probably used a different term than "scary". Then again maybe not! Im play testing a new approach in my home brew, where after the tank rolls to hit, the infantry unit takes an "suppression check", attempting to roll higher than the weapons Firepower stat. Firepower is a generic abstraction of how effective the weapon is at destroying enemy tanks, and is commonly either 3 (sherman) or 4 (tiger).

So for infantry units that means when hit, they'll take a result 50% of the time from a Sherman hit, or 66% from a Tiger hit. The result later can be that the unit is fine, probably that they're suppressed, and possibly that a team is KIA. In theory this just represents the explosion, but I'm not sure that it's unfair to take the "tank" into the equation as well. Then again, the fact that its a tiger (not the weapon) shouldn't result in a slightly greater chance of KIA, unless I guess that KIA represents a team that simply refuses to fight in the face of that size armor…

I have to agree that pretty much any HE shell from a 75mm or larger gun would be pretty scary

Not matter who or what is firing at you … It could be "scary". And from a technical standpoint, an 88mm is not that much larger than a 75 or 76mm. When comparing HE effectiveness.

IIRC 2-Hour Wargames has an "outgunned" mechanic, which I've always felt was a good one to capture the psychology of the battlefield.

About the same. 75mm Shermans had very good HE capability, better than a 76mm which is one reason they were reluctant to upgrade to 76mm.

An 88mm is larger and heavier but the HE weight was I gather about the same as a 75mm Sherman. Short barrel 75mm like on the early StuGs were even more effective compared to their calibre.

So – I echo the above – about the same.

Several accounts I have read would suggest yes it was.
The very high velocity of the 88mm gun meant that the shell arrived with no warning. The whistle/ shriek of the approaching shell and the report of the gun firing arrived afterwards. Also they mostly seemed to be fired as air bursts where as the HE from the Sherman was mainly contact fused.

As Skarper says, the Allied HE rounds for the much-maligned 75mm guns used by Sherman, Cromwell & Churchill were absolutely outstanding for their class.

While 88mm Flak might be able to use time-fusing to enable air bursts, I don't imagine that Tiger-mounted 88mm guns had that capability.

The Russians considered the 88 on the Tiger to have very effective HE and thought that the Panther was a step backwards because of the less effective HE shell.

Regardless of the mass of filler, the heavier casing of the 88 threw shrapnel further, producing a much larger potentially lethal area (hits not guaranteed, but anyone hit was very likely to die).

A good point, while George Blackburn was agunner and very good at identifying different calibers of gun, I don't think he was alwto bothered whether it was on a tank an sp or a static base :-)

From a quick look in the books, 88mm HE shells had between 1.9 & 2.2lbs of HE filling, compared to 1.5lbs for the US 75mm.

I think the long 88 is the 1.9lb option? The earlier tank round had 2.2lb and the later tank round had 1.9lb, presumably due to the long gun, higher velocity and need for thicker shell casing (and thus less room for HE filler)?

An HE shell need not have a higher velocity in a longer gun than a shorter one – all you do is reduce the propelling charge appropriately. It is about the choices the designers made when building the ammo rounds, not the size of the gun.

Considering that the original structure of the Tiger tank company included PzIIINs for HE support, I would make a guess that the German military thought that the 75mm Kwk 37 (L24) had a better HE performance.

The fact that the PZIIINs were later dropped probably had more to do with logistics and the fact that the PZIIIs were increasingly outclassed when it came to dealing with Soviet armor.

As was noted in a discussion of upgrading from the 75 to the 76 in the Sherman – if your HE round is less effective you can just fire more, if your AP round isn't as effective, you die.

I think the inclusion of PzIII's in the early heavy tank battalions had more to do with the lack of Tigers than anything else. They were there to make up the numbers. The Tigers 88 is based on the Flak gun and they need good fragmentation in order to generate the sharapnel to damage planes.

I had thought the inclusion of Panzer IIIs in with the Tigers was to allow the Tiger to fill up with AT rounds and concentrate on armor targets rather than the better HE performance of the 75mm L24. Though it certainly could be both.

From a field gun pov, 75mm is pretty piddly, once you get to 85mm and above, shells are a bit more serious. The 25pdr was 88mm.

I always rate 88mm he as more effective than 75, as do the vast majority of rules and the simple mechanics of HE throw weight.

Tigers were also very scary, weapons push and all that.

"As was noted in a discussion of upgrading from the 75 to the 76 in the Sherman – if your HE round is less effective you can just fire more, if your AP round isn't as effective, you die."

Yes. The War Office did comparative studies of the 75mm and 76mm HE and the 76mm round is only about 10% less effective (in terms of area coverage as opposed to HE throw weight, iirc it was 3000 sq/ft vs 3300 sq/ft).

The tactical advice was simply to fire more 76mm shells at the target.

Wot Tim said. The thickness of the shell-casing was increased and the HE filler reduced for the long 88 (as indeed, it was for the 17pdr).

Re the Pz III N – a low-velocity howitzer does have some advantages to a high-velocity gun when trying to plaster a target with HE at relatively close range.

IIRC, the Mk IIINs assigned to Tiger I companies were to provide flank cover to the big fellows.

B

This is all from memory so stay with me…

The Tiger gun being a higher velocity weapon had thicker shell walls due to the propulsive gas pressures. This means less room inside for the explosives.

The allied 75mm as used on the allied tanks was a low velocity weapon with less propulsive pressure and thinner walls. This meant more room for the explosive and a better shrapnel effect as the Tiger shells broke into larger chunks so a double whammy.

If I can find the reference I'll post it, but I suspect I read this somewhere in the Bovington Tank Museum. I think it's part of the tank gun display on the wall.

Scarier

…and yet

Jemina brought up what I also believe was a significant consideration – with a high velocity gun the miss can end up quite a ways down range before exploding. A lower velocity and therefore steeper trajectory can leave a 'miss' still impacting close enough to do some damage,

Better HE capability would still seem to be the rationale for using PZIIINs rather that J,L,Ms. If merely looking to bulk up the companies, why produce another variant of an existing model with poorer AP performance?

The TO&E was also established in '42 when Germany was still on the offensive and units were more likely to be dealing with dug in infantry and AT guns. As things shifted to defense anti-armor capability becomes more important and the PZIII chassis is focused on STUG production.

So can I conclude that the consensus is that there is no consensus, and that I can either make better AT also mean better HE, or make them the same, and neither would be incorrect? :D

Tim,
I think what he means is that at any range a round with a lower velocity will have a steeper descent angle. This means you get a better chance of a near miss. This is especially valuable when firing at targets with a low vertical profile like a dug in AT gun or a point target like infantry in improved positions

Sherman HE rounds had a delay fuse that allowed the gunner to bounce a round off the ground in front of the target. The round would travel about 25 more yards after the ricochet and the delay fuse would go off when the round was 8-10 feet off the ground giving a good air burst effect.

The lower velocity actually gives you more of a chance to hit the target directly or within the air burst IF firing at a point on the ground, not a target like a tank.

Wolfhag

Of course lost in all this is the original question merely asked about a Sherman vs Tiger. All discussion so far has been on the 75 and 76mm Shermans. But the Sherman was also armed with the 105.

I see your 105 and raise you a 380mm rocket launcher on the sturmtiger.

The HE filler on a Sherman 75 is 1.7 pounds. An German 88 is 2.0 to 2.2 pounds making it about 20% more effective than a Sherman 75mm. Both are faster than the speed of sound making them "scary" because the fist clue you are being shot at is the explosion because you don't hear them coming.

The descent angle of the German 88 at 1000 meters is 0.6 degrees. The Sherman 75mm is 0.9 degrees. This makes the Sherman more accurate at point targets on the ground that I'd think would make it scarier. However, the German 88 makes a bigger bang which is scarier. The more accurate the first shot will catch the enemy by surprise before they take cover.

Scarier is pretty subjective. Make your own conclusion.

I got this data from WWII Ballistics Armor & Gunnery by Livingston and Bird.

Wolfhag

HE effectiveness is more than the amount of explosive though. A thicker case leads to more energy going into breaking the casing rather than blowing up stuff.

The thing I always cone back to in debates on this subject is that Tiger companies originally consisted of a mix of PzIIIn and Tigers. Presumably to make up for an anti-infantry deficiency in the Tigers.

A conventional measure of barrage density is weight of HE per square foot of ground. The 88mm shells had more HE in them than the 75mm ones (20% more than US ones and a whopping 35% more than German ones), ergo they produced a bigger effect per shell. The frag patterns might be different, but the bang is much bigger.

This isn't a matter of conjecture but basic physics.

It isn't that simple though

The angle of fall of either of the high velocity rounds is not going to make much difference at the ranges they are going to be shooting at. Both are under 1 degree, which is to say minimal.

As for scary, the one with the better HE gunner.

Owen

If the tanks gun can penetrate the cover I am hiding behind and starts firing at me it is time to move. Higher velocity guns put more of the rounds explosive energy in the dirt. Lower velocity rounds would be less accurate but have lost less explosive effect/shrapnel in the dirt. I do not want to be getting shot at by a tank. That being said I would think that the tiger would have somewhat better HE capability but there is something to be said about time delayed fuses.