Recently saw a picture of a Jagd Tiger that was said to be blown apart by a flanking shot from an M-36's 90MM. I mean the entire upper hull and 122MM were just gone! I wonder if the caption was properly edited...I thought those "heavies" were supposed to be the most thickly armored AFV in the war...

Good point, wilconqr !

The photo you're referring to may the one of a schwere Panzerjager-Abteilung 653 Jagdtiger pictured near Rimling in Alsace-Lorraine in the aftermath of Operation Nordwind . It can be found on p.422 of Pallud's book 'Battle Of The Bulge - Then & Now' .

Sometimes captioned as a victim of Allied airpower, it's now thought that a 90mm Tank-Destroyer hit it with a flanking shot which touched off the Jagdtiger's own ammo supply - which may account for the truly awesome destruction.

A side- or rear-shot was always sought by 'tank-killers' of any kind ( or the top of the engine cover, for aircraft ). The sloping front and sides of the tank were thickest, the sloping sides were almost impreganble, but a good ( or lucky ! ) shot could find a 'shell-trap', in this case most probably the vertical bulkhead behind and above the tracks.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

After seeing films where tanks blow up when the ammunition explodes I always get shivers down my spine when they mention the term "brewing up"...(? is this the right term?)

__________________

Was in "Tank Battles in France" by Concord Publications. I believe it WAS Nordwind and Abt 653. I read a book few months ago called "Tigers In the Mud" (can't remember the author's name) and "think" this could have the the Battalion he was assigned to???

This vehicle was the first combat loss of a Jagdtiger. It was from 653 but was destroyed by Infantry with a bazooka. The loss is well documented in Fedorowicz's book on the Abteilung.
The series of photos of it were taken much later than 9th January (28th to be exact)and they turn up in many publications with lots of strange captions. The cause of its loss was witnessed by other members of the Unit who saw action with it on Jan.9th.

Execellent information, which goes to show that the bazooka should never be underestimated. The projectile may look small, but the explosive power must have been enormous to blow the Jagdtiger apart in such a fashion with one shot.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Not necessarily, you have to be very lucky and hit a loaded main gun cartridge case and bang you go. That's why the latest generation of MBTs, starting with the M-1, have their ammo stored behind the turret isolated from the crew compartment, and there are what are called blast doors (guess why) on the roof.

Otherwise the effect would be a very nasty jet of superheated gas from the hollow charge, together with a jet of molten steel from the perforated plate. Volunteers for the infantry, anyone?

Cheers,

__________________

Could'nt it have hit the fuel tank? Or simply ignited any gas fumes that may have been. Still,he must have been a brave soul to get in close to a Jagtiger. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________

The JagdTiger Wil mentions is vehicle werk # 305024 tactical number 134 of S. Pzjr Abt 653. This vehicle was destroyed by a bazooka hit not an M-36. Additional demolitions were carried out on it in an attempt to render the vehicle so badly damaged that Allied intelligence services would not be able to get useful information. The crew was killed in an initial internal explosion and fire when the ammunition detonated.
It is useful to note that the JadgTiger proved very vulnerable to fires and internal explosions when penetrated due to the use of seperate ammunition most of which was stored fairly high in the vehicle. So much for just early Shermans being ronsons.....

Thanks for that information, TA. It's useful to know the full story behind this often-reproduced photo.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Getting close to a JT wasn't the problem. Problem would be the little guys on foot close to the JT [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________

Sorry ZA, I meant the guy on the bazooka. [img]redface.gif[/img]

__________________

Out of curiosity, could those "rockets" the terrorists always carry penetrate a JagdTiger? Frontal armour.

__________________

I don't have my books around me, but per http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz12.htm , the JT front superstructure armour would be 250 mm, a lot, which made it rather immobile and road bound. In any case only 85 were made, which makes it rather insignificant, brush-stroke wise.

Do browse around www.achtungpanzer.com , it's worth it!

I suppose you mean the RPG-7 and cousins. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ssia/rpg-7.htm

It says penetration is 330mm, which is higher than the 250mm armour, but not overly so. I suppose yes, it would penetrate, but I would not be entirely certain. In any case US doctrine for Light Antitank Weapons states that more than one should be fired in a volley at the same target, so I wouldn't bet on the Jagdtiger.

In any case, in order to load the bets on the RPG, the best idea would be to lay quiet and let the beast pass, an then shoot at the thinner side armour.

Combat is not all about max penetration and technical capabilities, what gives the edge is always TACTICS [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,

__________________

... sorry, double post! ...

[ 10. April 2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

__________________

Just a note: By 1944 the various infantry anti-tank weapons had become the primary tank killers in terms of numbers of kills. The bazooka, PIAT, panzerfaust and, the like were the most likely weapon to be on hand in most units when faced by a tank.
In terms of killing a tank all of these, and the multitude of post war variants, could almost always achieve a penetration particularly from the side of rear of a target vehicle. But, their small warheads didn't always achieve a 'kill' on the first hit.

Read somewhere[think it was tank ace Witmann] that tankers would rather face other tanks than PAKs/anti-tank guns.It was harder to spot concealed AT-guns. I guess the same could be said about panzerfausts and the like.Unless you have infantry support.

__________________

Anyone see the news in Iraq the other day when an M-1A1 was hit by an RPG? I would not think that a Rocket Proppelled Grenade of RPG-7 type could do any serious damage to an M-1A1; anyway, not enough to wound anyone inside. During Desert Storm an Abrams was "said" to have been hit twice on the flank (by a T-??) and that no penetration was achieved. Although, I did see one report (recently) on T.V. where an Abrams was hit broadside by a T-72?, during the Storm, and suffered all kinds of electrical malfunctions, but the crew was not killed. Also, I wonder when the Marines started using the Abrams? They were not using them in the Storm and had M-60A-3's. I wonder if they're now using the M-2's as well? Back to WWII...anyone tell me why the TD's (M-18, M-10, M-36) did not carry any bow or co-axial machine guns? I know their roles were different from the "tanks," but the old Browning .50 on the ring mounts above the cammanders station looked quite vunerable to have been the only defense against infantry...

There is some difference between an AT gun with a barrel 20" above ground and a tank with its barrel 6-7 ft above ground. The problem with ATGs is getting ou of there after the first-shot (that's what Self-Propelled Guns are good at) and as the barrel is so low they raise a lot of dust an debris, at the same time denouncing themselves and obscuring vision for subsequent fire. Recoilless guns are even worse in this respect!

If weather was dry the ground in front of the gun should be watered to reduce dust.

As for the M-1, no tank is invulnerable, most especially in the rear aspect so these kind of events are to be expected, have happened and will happen again. Where did the RPG hit?

As for TDs not carrying co-ax, there you are, TDs are tank destroyers by definiti, they have no business to mess with infantry at all. Well, that is pretty inflexible, but that's what doctrine was [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 14. April 2004, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

__________________

I don't think the PAKs are moved after their 1st shot but instead keep firing asap.There simply would'nt be enough time to move this gun around by hand before the tank gets off his shot. A bazzoka team,maybe. The M-10 had an open turret with thin skin and was intended to knock out tanks and get back out of trouble quickly.Taking on infantry was'nt a priority.

__________________