Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Tiger Tank vs. Current Issue

7STW's pic got me to wondering. How would a Tiger Tank stack up against today's tanks?

Can you say "Scrap"???

Be a slaughter worse than the Iraqi desert.

Tiger might get one shot off, if it was hidden well.

High quality German steel scrap is in demand so I'm sure there would be a use for a former Tiger.

There really is no comparision in any respect, range, speed, weapon, targeting, armor are all generations better in a modern tank. A while back I saw a video during Desert Storm (now 17 years ago!) of an M1A1 destroying former Soviet top line tanks at will, in the dark before the Iraqi's ever had a chance to get off a round. It was impressive to say the least. At the same time the anti-tank weapons of today, both airborne and infantry would make quick work of the Tiger.

Yeah, those dings in an M1 or Challenger 2's paintwork would sure take some buffing out...

Consider that you are referring to 65+ year old technology ...

A KonigsTiger's main gun could cause serious problems. Armor heavy enuff to give SOME protection. SERIOUS mobility problems. SUPERBLY trained crews though.

One interesting fact though, isn't the MIAI using the same barrel as top of the line current German tanks, made by the same German company that made barrels for the Tiger?

Rheinmetal Borsig for the Ml's, Krupp for the Tigers

Tiger would get it's butt kicked by the Abrams.

Target acquisition, cannon size, land speed, mechanical dependibility, communications, are all multiple generations of equipment better in the Abrams.

The Tiger was indeed superior to it'w adversary, the WW2 US Sherman tank, which was a mediocre tank for the time period, in all respects save three.

First, it was much easier to repair. Slap in a new engine, hose out the old crew, and you were ready to go the next day. The Tiger often had to be hauled back to the depot for repair. And the Tiger had more mechanical problems than the Sherman did.

Second, the Sherman was much easier to manufacture than the Tiger.

Third, the Sherman was much easier to ship than the Tiger.

The Sherman's main faults were the relatively weak gun, and the light armor. It also had an alarming tendency to burn.

Chuck

Cool.

Still a good pic ol Mike has up of that Tiger...

Sherman=The "Ronson",lights first time every time.

Yes, but with 65 years worth of improvements.

The British designed armour on the M1 and Challenger 2 can with stand any of the main guns on Soviet cold war era tanks, so a WW2 Tiger's is not going to be a match...Tanks and armour design took huge strides in the Cold War, and again in the 1980's...

Now if you wanted to compare a Tiger to say on M48 Patton, or a Centurion, then things would be a bit more interesting, and the skill and combat experience of the crew would play a bigger factor..

Within 1km that 88 would reek massive havoc on the M1a1.Yes the American tanks are using the German 120 mm gun from the Leopard tanks.

I don't know specs, but I would agree with Pete.

While the Tiger was ahead of its time and pretty much reduced anything coming up against it to scrap iron during WWII, it did so mainly because the opposition was severely lacking. It was a well-armored, well-armed tank in its own right, but overwelming-ness of its success was the fact that even the heavy armor up against it either wasn't armored enough to withstand the powerful 88mm gun or didn't have the gun to punch through the armor.

Remember that the Sherman was a "Medium" tank and really not built to go up against the likes of the Tigers. It was through sheer numbers of fielded tanks and the iron guts of the US and British crews who went up against the Tigers in them that there were any successes at all. BUt despite it's strengths, the Tiger's reputation and record could be based more on the weaknesses of it's opponents. Sort of like a Major League ball team building it's winning record by playing and defeating only minor-league teams.

The Tiger had its shortcomings as well, weight, lack of speed, fuel consumption, etc.

Pound for pound, even the M60 tanks were superior to the Tiger, I believe, in armor and performance. The M1 Abrams is far superior to the M60. That's not even factoring in the technology of targeting and armament.

If I remember, once the HEAT rounds were developed (High Explosive Anti-Tank), the threat of German armor was lessened greatly. The current sabot rounds and the like would turn a Tiger into a molten lump in less than a second.

Novel idea though, but even good things become obsolete.

Aqualung

7STW, do you really think an 88 hits harder than the T-72 125mm smoothbore - using modern ammunition - that couldn't take out an Abrahms? Really?

7 STW,

When the design for the Centurion was laid down in 1945, one of its main requirements was that it could withstand direct hits from the famed German 88mm, and post war trials proved it was successful. If a 1945 vintage tank could with stand the 88cm, what on earth makes you think it would "reek havoc" with an M1a1???

Incidently the Centurian was probably one of the most succesful post WW2 designs and has seen more combat than any other Western design. As recently as 2006, the Isreali's used heavily modified versions during the Invasion of Lebenon. Truely a landmark design, and another bit of British history that used a version of the famous Merlin engine..

Regards,

Peter