# German Tiger II tank vs Abrams M1 in wooded European terrain. Does it stand a chance? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 10, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573 "2005-10-10T15:19:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bradministrator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a698b9/32.png) [@bradministrator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bradministrator)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/21 "2005-10-10T22:14:28Z")
> [@Snooooopy](#): > > What if the Tiger were equipped with the [Existential Blue Crayon Gun](http://www.sjgames.com/car-wars/adq/5/1/Uncle_Schmalbert.html)? Wow, I thought I was the only one who remembered that. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/22 "2005-10-10T22:42:02Z")
How about a Merkava? Those things are pretty nasty. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/23 "2005-10-10T22:50:37Z")
> [@Inigo Montoya](#): > > One technique of tank-kiling invovles smacking the outer hull and knocking off a chunk of the interior wall into the cockpit (scabbing). I’m certain the M1A1 is immune to this, but could WWII ammo have this effect on a modern tank? Otherwise my money’s on the M1, even if it got hung up in the trees. If for no other reason than it can call in GPS guided air to ground weaponry of a level unavailable to any Tiger II crew. 😃 Partially correct; the M-1 series would be succeptible to a track hit (a much smaller target, to be sure, and any such hit would probably be due more to “luck” than any deliberate desire on the part of the Tiger’s gunner to hit said track). As such, the M-1 could conceivably succumb to a “mobility kill.” The armor around the M-1’s engine compartment isn’t all that thick, either, so it is also concievable for a flank shot to cripple the engine/transmission system, as well, also resulting in a mobility kill. If the M-1 were simply “tracked,” the M-1’s hydraulics and fire control system would still be operable, allowing the M-1 to locate and return fire, in all probability killing the Tiger. Even with the engine and hydraulics out, the M-1 series has full manual backups on the turret and gun controls, including a fairly decent optical sight, with which to continue the fight. > [@Hypno Toad](#): > > It wouldn’t fly anywhere. It would just sit there with two nice, neat holes in it. The armor on the Tiger II was rolled homogenous plate and would be a warm pat of butter as far as the APFSDS rounds of the M1. Again, partially correct. The APFSDS round, whether of the older Tungsten variety or newer DU, still generates considerable heat in its passage, and the Tiger has enough flammables to combust, perhaps even catastrophically. > [@Quartz](#): > > Didn’t Iraq show that the Abrams is vulnerable to ground troops with RPGs? Well, really, that can be said for just about any armored fighting vehicle _under the right circumstances_. The view from inside a tank, even an M-1, is quite limited, and in a close environment (urban fighting), an infantry heavy weapons team _can_ get close enough to fire upon an AFV with relative impunity. This makes tank platoon teamwork and infantry support in close environments particularly important. In open-country fighting, the “infantry threat” is much less prevalent, and a well-drilled and aware tank platoon/company can respond much more quickly and effectively to such threats. The real danger are “obstacles” (ditches, rows of wire) which may obstruct an armor unit’s advance, while they call up engineer support to clear the obstacle, and any anti-tank mines which may have been placed. But the threat in those types of situations is more likely to be pre-plotted artillery. With the introduction of the mine plows on select tanks within a platoon/company, this danger is somewhat mitigated. IN regards to **astro’s** question in the OP: most modern MBTs place a good deal of emphasis on crew survival, what with compartmentalized fuel and ammunion storage, as well as fire detection/supression systems, making the chance of a Tiger getting a catastrophic kill on just about _any_ modern MBT fairly low. Add in Thermal Imaging Systems of one type or another, and the M-1 (Leo, Challenger, Le Clerc, etc.) stand a good chance of detecting and engaging the Tiger _before_ entering the Tiger’s effective engagement envelope. Your question is along the lines of asking if a P-51 Mustang stands a chance against a modern jet fighter; sure, the six .50 caliber machineguns could, if many factors came together favorably for the P-51, shoot down a modern jet fighter. But the chances of all of those disparate factors coming together are highly improbable, bordering on the impossible, unless the jet pilot makes a critical mistake. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/24 "2005-10-10T23:04:43Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > How about a Merkava? Those things are pretty nasty. If I were mean-spirited, which I am not, I would ask how much gadgetry is needed to withstand a barrage of rocks and blow up a shanty. On a serious note, does anyone have a link to some technical data on the French, Israeli, South Korean and other tanks that were mentioned? I’d lvoe to read more about those. And was that other author stating that Russia had technological parity with the US in terms of airpower? I’d love to see a cite. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/25 "2005-10-10T23:25:41Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > If I were mean-spirited, which I am not, I would ask how much gadgetry is needed to withstand a barrage of rocks and blow up a shanty. Apparently a lot. The Merkava is a seriously badass piece of hardware. (Simply appreciating the technology here) > **[Merkava](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava)** > > The Merkava (Hebrew: מרכבה‎, \[mɛʁkaˈva\] (listen), "chariot") is a main battle tank used by the Israel Defense Forces. The tank began development in 1970, and entered official service in 1979. Four main variants have been deployed. It was first used extensively in the 1982 Lebanon War. The name "Merkava" was derived from the IDF's initial development program name. > Design criteria include rapid repair of battle damage, survivability, cost-effectiveness and off-road performance. Following the mod... The MK4 is the latest version debuting in 2004. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/26 "2005-10-11T04:09:00Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Yes, it has happened. As I understand it, numbers of RPG-armed foot soldiers fire at the M-1. This increases the chances of “getting lucky” against that particular tank and also means that the tank doesn’t have a single discrete target against which it can return fire. I believe, though I may be mistaken, that several M-1’s have been immobilized in this fashion, though I can recall hearing of only a single instance where one could be said to have been destroyed. When fired in the conventional way , G’s with rpg7s had complained that again the americans were not playing fair and that the M1 abrams had science fiction deflector shields , for the amount of times that the rockets simply bounced off , or did no apparent damage. When the G’s started to employ newer tactics , the sevens were aimed down from a height ,to the weaker areas of the Abrams , and at least one tank was disabled with an RPG7 fired right down the commanders hatch. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/27 "2005-10-11T09:33:56Z")
One final thought that occurred to me on the way home last night: an underbelly hit. You need the Abrams climbing out of a gully or over a steep embankment or similar, so it’s nose-high and its underside is exposed for a few seconds before it crashes down. Then you need the Tiger to score with a really difficult shot. Unless an Abrams has a disproportionately stronger floor than most AFVs, the 88 is in with a good chance. (I also thought about the Abrams crossing a girder-type railway bridge, but I’m not sure it can nor if a Tiger in the valley below could possibly elevate enough to hit it.) ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/28 "2005-10-11T10:16:00Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > A related thread saw people arguing that the Eurofighter can smoke anything the US currently has in its inventory, and suggested parity (in terms of aircraft performance) between the US and Russia. The posters pointed to a recent “competition” between the Eurofighter and an F-15, though one mock encounter is hardly the final word. I have to declare an interest here as I work at a company involved (no, I’m not saying which one), but the usual comment is that the Typhoon has 80% of the Raptor’s capability for 20% of the cost. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/29 "2005-10-11T11:47:25Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I have to declare an interest here as I work at a company involved (no, I’m not saying which one), but the usual comment is that the Typhoon has 80% of the Raptor’s capability for 20% of the cost. So they fixed the radar not working in the clouds then 😃 or was that another tabloid invention to scare the taxpayers? And in respect of the OP, I seem to recall at least one instance of a Bradley killing a T72 in the Iraq invasion using its gun. If a modern personnel carrier can defeat a 20-year old MBT by use of sophisticated ammunition and targeting systems, I think it’s fair to assume a modern MBT would make short work of a 60-year old tank. The only scenarios that would work out for the Tiger are the aforementioned track or engine mobility kill, a kill shot through the flooring, putting a shot down the main gun barrel or possibly hitting it just right with an HE shell when all the crew had their heads out of the hatches (leaving a barely scratched Abrams with the engine running but no crew). All of those fluke shots are possible, but as **Extank** said would require the Abrams crew to be desperately unlucky or seriously incompetent. Personally I think the Tiger crew would have a better chance if they got out of their vehicle and ambushed the Abrams from close cover. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/30 "2005-10-11T12:08:05Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > Personally I think the Tiger crew would have a better chance if they got out of their vehicle and ambushed the Abrams from close cover. You’re not far off. When the Germans first rolled into Poland before WWII the locals, who were significantly ill-equipped for dealing with the armor threat, resorted to a highly successful if short-lived tactic. It consisted of grabbing a brick, sneaking around the back of a tank rapping on the hull next to the engine case. The smooth rhythmic thrum of the German tank engine was easily picked up by the citizen who would then tap in time to one of the firing engine cylinders, mimicking a thrown rod. The tank commander would immediately shut down the motor and the crew would emerge only to be stoned to death by a hail of brick sherds. This technique became known to the German soldiers as [Panzer Klatschen](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=338213). There’s no reason it wouldn’t also work on an M1A1 crew. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/31 "2005-10-11T12:40:03Z")
> [@Inigo Montoya](#): > > he smooth rhythmic thrum of the German tank engine was easily picked up by the citizen who would then tap in time to one of the firing engine cylinders, mimicking a thrown rod. > … > There’s no reason it wouldn’t also work on an M1A1 crew. Apart from the fact that the Abrams has a gas turbine engine with no cylinders or rods? 😉 Although I suppose you could use a battery-powered angle grinder or similar to make it sound like something was out of balance or had run out of lubrication. Hmmmmm… maybe we’d better stop before we give the Iraqis any more ideas :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/32 "2005-10-11T12:45:08Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > If I were mean-spirited, which I am not, I would ask how much gadgetry is needed to withstand a barrage of rocks and blow up a shanty. > > On a serious note, does anyone have a link to some technical data on the French, Israeli, South Korean and other tanks that were mentioned? I’d lvoe to read more about those. It’s a good thing you’re not being mean-spirited, because then I’d be forced to remind you that the Hamasniks and their ilk have basically the same weaponry as their Iraqi counterparts - AK-47s, RPGs and various explosive devices - as well as a great deal more experience and expertise. I’d also add that despite the current conflict, Israeli defense is still geared primarily towards defense against foreign invasion. As such, doctrine posits that the IDF have an advantage of at least one generation, technologically, over the surrounding Arab naions, as well as parity with any European military. Do you really think we need Merkavas for Territories work, where upgraded M-60s would be just as good for the job? Those babies are for taking out Egyptian M-1s. Anyway, [here’s](http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html) some more info on the Merk 4. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/33 "2005-10-11T14:08:14Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Do you really think we need Merkavas for Territories work, where upgraded M-60s would be just as good for the job? Those babies are for taking out Egyptian M-1s. I dunno, didn’t the Israelis have to turn a bunch their M-3s into a new type of low intensity urban warfare vehicles because the others weren’t doing as well as they would have liked? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/34 "2005-10-11T14:44:43Z")
The best chance I can come up with for the Tiger is for the crew to abandon it. The Abrams crew finds it and recognizes it’s a vintage WWII tank. They get out of the Abrams to explore the Tiger, and the Tiger crew emerges from hiding and shoots them with small arms while they’re posing for a picture in front of the Tiger. Sailboat ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/35 "2005-10-11T16:45:35Z")
Here’s an article I wrote on the King Tiger II. [http://www.blackclawgames.com/bcg2/index.php?option=com\_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=26](http://www.blackclawgames.com/bcg2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=26) ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/36 "2005-10-11T16:48:45Z")
> [@Inigo Montoya](#): > > You’re not far off. When the Germans first rolled into Poland before WWII the locals, who were significantly ill-equipped for dealing with the armor threat, resorted to a highly successful if short-lived tactic. It consisted of grabbing a brick, sneaking around the back of a tank rapping on the hull next to the engine case. The smooth rhythmic thrum of the German tank engine was easily picked up by the citizen who would then tap in time to one of the firing engine cylinders, mimicking a thrown rod. The tank commander would immediately shut down the motor and the crew would emerge only to be stoned to death by a hail of brick sherds. This technique became known to the German soldiers as [Panzer Klatschen](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=338213). There’s no reason it wouldn’t also work on an M1A1 crew. IRL, yes there is: the other three tanks of the platoon. As well, the M-1 has engine indicators, and by checking engine tach, engine & tranny temp and oil pressures, the crew could easily rule out a mechanical. Next to the engine, the hydraulics make the most noise, and I seriously doubt (going from memory) that any handheld grinder (the **“slaphead maneuver”** ) would be able to make enough noise to get the crew’s attention. Actually, **Sailboat** probably has the best idea. After the cease-fire in '91, we found an abandoned T-72 in Iraq, and had a great deal of fun exploring it; had some Iraqi’s not heard the word, or just felt ornery, they could’ve taken out a platoon+ of dismounted tank crews, and captured 4-6 M1A1s perfectly intact. That T-72 now sits at the 1st Cavalry museum at Ft. Hood. We drove it out of there after some minor repairs. Everything was intact: machineguns, ammo, sights, tools, manuals, main gun rounds, everything. It was if the crew had simply walked away (which is what they probably did). Coming upon an intact, functioning Tiger? Fuhgeddaboutit. We’d be all over that thing so bad, the German crew could waltz right over us and have a shiny new M-1A1 or better to go beat up on the French with. ---
**Author:** ![Rodd\_Hill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3ab097/32.png) [@Rodd\_Hill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodd_Hill)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/37 "2005-10-11T18:34:04Z")
[“Always with the negative waves, Moriarity!”](http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/Briefings/Kellysheroes-03.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/38 "2005-10-11T18:59:35Z")
These threads are so cool. I’d want **Sailboat** in my army. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/39 "2005-10-11T19:36:09Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > It wouldn’t fly anywhere. It would just sit there with two nice, neat holes in it. The armor on the Tiger II was rolled homogenous plate and would be a warm pat of butter as far as the APFSDS rounds of the M1. My army officer brother told me that even against the more modern Russian tanks the Iraqis were using in the invasion, this was true. He said that the Americans switched from their depleted uranium rounds to more conventional explosive ones, because the uranium ones were just punching through both sides and back out again. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573/40 "2005-10-11T19:49:05Z")
The War Nerd at [exile.ru](http://exile.ru) has a great article called M1 vs. Rpg The exile site goes down once in awhile, so here’s a cached version [Here](http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:Kte1AHdM9yMJ:68.166.163.242/cgi-bin/readart.cgi%3FArtNum%3D50337+war+nerd+m1+vs+rpg+exile&hl=en) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-tiger-ii-tank-vs-abrams-m1-in-wooded-european-terrain-does-it-stand-a-chance/325573.md?page=3)