| Wolfhag | 23 Sep 2025 12:48 p.m. PST |
After a recent trip to the UK National Archives in Kew, we have another stack of firing trials against a German big cat: this time a Tiger I. It was subject to an extensive firing trial, in which it was on the receiving end of various calibers until it looked like a sieve. Tiger lovers, and those who would prefer not to see their favorite tank get shot to pieces, should probably look away now. Before you start trembling with rage and hop in the comments to tell us how these tests don't mean anything because it "couldn't shoot back" or "the Tiger was old by 1945" – all of the weapons used in this test were either already in service or about to be when the Tiger arrived. link Wolfhag |
| PzGeneral | 23 Sep 2025 1:13 p.m. PST |
Very interesting…..thanks!! Dave |
Shagnasty  | 23 Sep 2025 1:24 p.m. PST |
|
 John the OFM | 23 Sep 2025 2:55 p.m. PST |
Why, they're TORTURING that poor kitty!
😄👍 |
 Herkybird | 23 Sep 2025 3:12 p.m. PST |
I was amazed that .303 ammo did so much! and the 6 pdr was such a killer! |
| mkenny | 23 Sep 2025 4:36 p.m. PST |
Its available elsewhere without all the pop-ups. |
| Wolfhag | 24 Sep 2025 6:25 a.m. PST |
There is a reason countries abandoned the bow gun after WWII. Machine gun crews were taught to aim at weak points and turret rings to potentially jam or cause spall damage. Especially with AP rounds at close range. Incapacitating just one crew member can be a mission kill. Wolfhag |
 deadhead | 24 Sep 2025 11:13 a.m. PST |
That is really interesting. I would love to see the suggested study of the PIAT and US Bazooka against Tiger armour. This Tiger did seem to disintegrate after countless batterings, as one might expect of course. But any of those dents, not penetrating, would be a nasty surprise inside for the crew, due to spalling. Its vulnerability contrasts with Brad Pitt's experience, but I guess M4s attacking frontally, three abreast and close together, is not the way to do it. He was better tactically as Achilles. |
| Frederick | 24 Sep 2025 12:40 p.m. PST |
As a coincidence I was looking up kinetic energy from small arms for a talk I was giving to a medical history group – WWII infantry rifles had quite a kick downrange, notably compared to current standard issue infantry longarms |
| emckinney | 24 Sep 2025 1:07 p.m. PST |
This is why the French were incredibly paranoid about bullet splash. When you have a one-man turret, losing the commander/gunner/loader taken out by bullet splash is a mission kill on the tank. A lot of the design decisions on the French tanks make no sense without that context. The French also had the most protective vision devices in the world in their episcopes. Essentially, they were periscopes where anything that penetrated the vision slit and armored glass hit a sheet of armor. |
| The Leidang | 24 Sep 2025 3:07 p.m. PST |
I haven't had a chance to read through it yet but from prior research one of the big questions in evaluating penetration is that different countries defined a penetration differently (ie. certain size wole vs crack vs spalling, etc.) Makes comparing different analysis difficult when using various sources. Also, not all rolled, homogenous steel is created equally. Still always good to have multiple sources of data. |
| Wolfhag | 25 Sep 2025 7:32 a.m. PST |
The book, "WWII Ballistics and Armor," goes into understandable detail on those questions. It states that to achieve maximum damage, the round must penetrate completely through the armor and enter the fighting compartment, ideally intact. That can mean a penetration of 20% greater than the armor. They can break up while penetrating. Panzer War is a game that takes some of these factors into account. Wolfhag |
| deadhead | 25 Sep 2025 11:34 a.m. PST |
A shaped charge, as I understand it, does not itself enter the tank compartment. Just as the crew is saying "Oh, that was lucky" the molten armour it has projected within…well it goes within. A panzerfaust could make a hole in a Sherman, but not one bit of the projectile ended up inside the tank. Bits of the tank armour did. I was also always unsure how important velocity was, when you are relying on the hollow charge cap effect against a massive German "cat". Stress I speak from absolutely no real knowledge. I am Irish, so profound ignorance of any topic has never stopped me standing up and speaking with great authority in many a lecture theatre |
| emckinney | 25 Sep 2025 12:35 p.m. PST |
That's not how HEAT warheads work. Thr "jet" of the liner is the penetrator. Spalling generally doesn't exist. Also, "jet" is an unfortunate term that has produced many myths about how the liner becomes molten, or even a plasma. This has been disproven by tests firing sectioned warheads into water tanks. You really don't need to do tests because simple mathematical/physics calculations show that there can't be enough heat transfer to melt the liner, much less the insane temperatures needed to dissociate electrons from nuclei. Anyhow, it's called a "jet" because the *pressure* achieved is so high that its behavior is described by fluid dynamics, even though it's still a solid. I prefer the term "trumpet" because it describes the shape. |
| emckinney | 25 Sep 2025 12:37 p.m. PST |
Oh, and velocity is irrelevant to shaped charge penetration. It's very convenient for testing because you can just set up the warhead on a stand and detonate it, instead of needing a complete missile (or a gun and a long firing range). |
| Wolfhag | 26 Sep 2025 4:45 a.m. PST |
Should we start a new discussion on HEAT rounds? Wolfhag |
