Product Code Database
The Tiger I () was a Nazi Germany heavy tank of World War II that began operational duty in 1942 in Africa and in the Soviet Union, usually in independent heavy tank battalions. It gave the German Army its first armoured fighting vehicle that mounted the KwK 36 gun (derived from the 8.8 cm Flak 36, the famous "eighty-eight" feared by Allied troops). 1,347 were built between August 1942 and August 1944. After August 1944, production of the Tiger I was phased out in favour of the Tiger II.
While the Tiger I has been called an outstanding design for its time, it has also been criticized for being overengineering, and for using expensive materials and labour-intensive production methods. In the early period, the Tiger was prone to certain types of track failures and breakdowns. It was expensive to maintain, but generally mechanically reliable. It was difficult to transport and vulnerable to immobilisation when mud, ice, and snow froze between its overlapping and interleaved Schachtellaufwerk-pattern road wheels, often jamming them solid.
The tank was given its nickname "Tiger" by the ministry for armament and ammunition by 7 August 1941, and the Roman numeral was added after the Tiger II entered production. It was classified with ordnance inventory designation Sd.Kfz. 182. The tank was later re-designated as Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung E (abbreviated as Pz.Kpfw. VI Ausf. E) in March 1943, with ordnance inventory designation Sd.Kfz. 181.
Today, only nine Tiger I tanks survive in museums and private collections worldwide. , Tiger 131 (captured during the North African campaign) at the UK's Tank Museum is the only example restored to running order.
Before Durchbruchwagen I was completed, a request was issued for a heavier 30-tonne class vehicle with thicker armour, the Durchbruchwagen II, which would have had of frontal armour and mounted a Panzer IV turret with a short-barrelled (24 calibres long) 7.5 cm KwK 37 gun. The overall weight would have been 36 tonnes. Only one hull was built, and no turret was fitted. Further development of the Durchbruchwagen was dropped in 1938 in favour of the larger and better-armoured VK 30.01 (H) and VK 36.01 (H) designs. Both the Durchbruchwagen I and II prototype hulls were used as test vehicles until 1941.
The VK 36.01 (H) was intended to weigh 40 tonnes, with of armour on front surfaces, on turret sides and on the hull sides. The VK 36.01 (H) was intended to carry a 7.5 cm L/24, a 7.5 cm L/43, or a 7.5 cm L/70, or a 12.8 cm L/28 cannon in a Krupp turret that looked similar to an enlarged Panzer IV Ausf. C turret. The hull for one prototype was built, followed later by five more. The six turrets built were never fitted and were used as part of the Atlantic Wall. The VK 36.01 (H) project was discontinued in early 1942 in favour of the VK 45.01 project.
On 26 May 1941, Henschel and Ferdinand Porsche were asked to submit designs for a 45-tonne heavy tank, to be ready by June 1942. Porsche worked on an updated version of their VK 30.01 (P) Leopard tank prototype while Henschel worked on an improved VK 36.01 (H) tank. Henschel built two prototypes: a VK 45.01 (H) H1 with an 8.8 cm L/56 cannon, and a VK 45.01 (H) H2 with a 7.5 cm L/70 cannon.
Weight increase to 45 tonnes and an increase in gun calibre to were ordered for it on 26 May 1941.Jenzt, Thomas L.; Doyle, Hilary L.: Germany's Tiger Tanks: Vk45.02 to Tiger II, 1997, page 10 The due date for the new prototypes was set for 20 April 1942, Adolf Hitler's 53rd birthday. Unlike the Panther tank, the designs did not incorporate sloped armour.
Porsche and Henschel submitted prototype designs, each making use of the Krupp-designed turret. They were demonstrated at Rastenburg in front of Hitler. The Henschel design was accepted, mainly because the Porsche VK 4501 (P) prototype design used a troubled petrol-electric transmission system which needed large quantities of copper for the manufacture of its electrical drivetrain components, a strategic war material of which Germany had limited supplies with acceptable electrical properties for such uses. Production of the Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. H began in August 1942. Expecting an order for his tank, Porsche built 100 chassis. After the contract was awarded to Henschel, they were used for a new turretless, casemate-style tank destroyer; 91 hulls were converted into the Elefant in early 1943.
The Tiger was still at the prototype stage when it was first hurried into service, and therefore changes both large and small were made throughout the production run. A redesigned turret with a lower cupola was the most significant change. The river-fording submersion capability and an external air-filtration system were dropped to cut costs. Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf.E (Sd.Kfz.181) Tiger I. Retrieved 8/28/2025. Published 4/20/2019. Andrew Hill.
While heavy, this tank was not slower than the best of its opponents. Although the general design and layout were broadly similar to the Panzer IV medium tank, the Tiger weighed more than twice as much. This was due to its substantially thicker armour, the larger Tank gun, greater volume of fuel and ammunition storage, larger engine, and a more solidly built transmission and suspension.
The ammunition for the Tiger had electrically fired primers. Four types of ammunition were available but not all were fully available; the PzGr 40 shell used tungsten, which was in short supply as the war progressed.
The 501st Heavy Panzer Battalion ( sPzAbt 501) reported in May 1943:
The engine drove the front sprockets through a drivetrain connecting to a transmission in the front portion of the lower hull; the front sprockets had to be mounted relatively low as a result. The Krupp-designed 11-tonne turret had a hydraulic motor whose pump was powered by mechanical drive from the engine. A full rotation took about a minute.
Another new feature was the Maybach-Olvar hydraulically controlled semi-automatic pre-selector gearbox. The extreme weight of the tank also required a new steering system. Germany's Argus Motoren, where Hermann Klaue had invented a ring brake Disk brake for use in motor cars, airplanes, and the like US Patent 2323052 A in 1940, supplied them for the Arado Ar 96 Arado Ar 96, Lexikon der Wehrmacht. and also supplied the disc. Klaue was acknowledged in the patent application that he had improved, it can even be traced back to British designs dating to 1904. It is unclear whether Klaue's patent ring brake was used in the Tiger brake design.
The clutch-and-brake system, typical for lighter vehicles, was retained only for emergencies. Normally, steering depended on a double differential, Henschel's development of the British Merritt-Brown system first encountered in the Churchill tank. The vehicle had an eight-speed gearbox, and the steering offered two fixed radii of turns on each gear, thus the Tiger had sixteen different radii of turn. In first gear, at a speed of a few km/h, the minimal turning radius was . In neutral gear, the tracks could be turned in opposite directions, so the Tiger I pivoted in place. There was a steering wheel instead of either a tiller – or, as most tanks had at that time, twin braking levers – making the Tiger I's steering system easy to use, and ahead of its time.
Powered turret traverse was provided by the variable speed Boehringer-Sturm L4 hydraulic motor, which was driven from the main engine by a secondary drive shaft. On early production versions of the Tiger maximum turret traverse was limited to 6 degrees per second, whilst on later versions a selectable high speed traverse gear was added. Thus, the turret could be rotated 360 degrees at up to 6 degrees per second in low gear independent of engine rpm (same as on early production versions), or up to 19 degrees per second with the high-speed setting and engine at 2,000 rpm, and at over 36 degrees per second at the maximum allowable engine speed of 3,000 rpm. The direction and speed of traverse was controlled by the gunner through foot pedals, the speed of traverse corresponding to the level of depression the gunner applied to the foot pedal. This system allowed for very precise control of powered traverse, a light touch on the pedal resulting in a minimum traverse speed of 0.1 degrees per second (360 degrees in 60 minutes), unlike in most other tanks of the time (e.g., the US M4 Sherman or Soviet T-34) this allowed for fine laying of the gun without the gunner needing to use his traverse handwheel.
Removing an inner wheel that had lost its solid rubber tire (a common occurrence) required the removal of up to nine other wheels first. During the rainy period that brought on the autumn rasputitsa mud season and onwards into the winter conditions on the Eastern front, the roadwheels of a Schachtellaufwerk-equipped vehicle could also become packed with mud or snow that could then freeze. Presumably, German engineers, based on the experience of the half-tracks, felt that the improvement in off-road performance, track and wheel life, mobility with wheels missing or damaged, plus additional protection from enemy fire was worth the maintenance difficulties of a complex system vulnerable to mud and ice. This approach was carried on, in various forms, to the Panther tank and the non-interleaved wheel design for the Tiger II. Eventually, a new 80 cm diameter 'steel' wheel design with an internally sprung steel-rim tire was substituted. As these new wheels could carry more weight, the outermost wheel on each suspension arm was removed. The same wheels would also be used on the Tiger II. To support the considerable weight of the Tiger, the tracks were wide. To meet Loading gauge, narrower wide 'transport' tracks ( Verladeketten) could be installed. For Tigers equipped with rubber-tired wheels, this also required the outermost roadwheel on each axle (16 total) to be removed. The track replacement and wheel removal took 30 minutes for each side of the tank. However, in service, Tigers were frequently transported by rail with their combat tracks fitted, as long as the train crew knew there were no narrow tunnels or other obstructions on the route that would prevent an oversized load from passing, despite this practice being strictly forbidden.
Post-war testing by the Allies found the tank to be uncomfortable and spartan. For example, the gunner suffered from clumsy controls and a cramped area. This was in contrast to German crews who found them to be spacious and comfortable.
From a technical point of view, it was better than its contemporaries. Despite the low number produced, shortages in qualified crew and the considerable fuel consumption in the face of ever shrinking resources, Tigers (including Tiger IIs) destroyed at least 10,300 enemy tanks and 11,380 anti-tank guns and artillery pieces for the loss of 1,725 Tigers (including large numbers of operational and strategic losses, i.e. abandoned, broken down, etc.).
In 1943, Japan bought several specimens of German tank designs for study. A single Tiger I was apparently purchased, along with a Panther and two Panzer IIIs, but only the Panzer IIIs were actually delivered. The undelivered Tiger was loaned to the German Wehrmacht by the Japanese government.
Many modifications were introduced during the production run to improve automotive performance, firepower and protection. Simplification of the design was implemented, along with cuts due to raw material shortages. In 1942 alone, at least six revisions were made, starting with the removal of the Vorpanzer (frontal armour shield) from the pre-production models in April. In May, mudguards bolted onto the side of the pre-production run were added, while removable mudguards saw full incorporation in September. Smoke discharge canisters, three on each side of the turret, were added in August 1942. In later years, similar changes and updates were added, such as the addition of Zimmerit (a non-magnetic anti-mine coating), in late 1943. Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E Sd. Kfz. 181 achtungpanzer.com Due to slow production rates at the factories, incorporation of the new modifications could take several months.
The humorous and somewhat racy crew manual, the Tigerfibel, was the first of its kind for the German Army and its success resulted in more unorthodox manuals that attempted to emulate its style.
Another variant was the Fahrschulpanzer VI Tiger tanks (driving school Tiger tanks). These tanks were Tigers with modified engines to run on either compressed Towngas gas (Stadtgas System) or wood gas (Holzgas System). This was due to shortages in fuel supply. They used a mixture of turreted and turretless hulls. They were used to train Tiger tank crews, and were not used in combat.
The Wa Prüf report estimated that the Tiger's 88 mm gun would be capable of penetrating the differential case of an American M4 Sherman from and the turret front from , but the Tiger's 88 mm gun would not penetrate the upper glacis plate at any range assuming a side angle of 30 degrees. The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun would not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure. The Sherman's upgraded 76 mm gun might penetrate the Tiger's driver's front plate from , the nose from and the turret front from . The M3 90 mm cannon used as a towed anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun, and later mounted in the M36 tank destroyer and finally the late-war M26 Pershing, could penetrate the Tiger's front plate at a range of 1,000 m using standard ammunition, and from beyond when using HVAP.
Soviet ground trial testing conducted in May 1943 determined that the 8.8 cm KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34/76 frontal beam nose from , and the front hull from 1500 m. A hit to the driver's hatch would force it to collapse inwards and break apart. According to the Wa Prüf 1 report, the Soviet T-34-85's upper glacis and turret front armour would be defeated between at a side angle of 30 deg, while the T-34's 85 mm gun was estimated to penetrate the front of a Tiger between at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round. Soviet testing showed that the 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger from with no side angle
At a side impact angle of 30 degrees the 120 mm hull armour of the Soviet IS-2 model 1943 would be defeated between at the driver's front plate and nose. The IS-2's 122 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's front armour from between , depending on the impact angle. However, according to Steven Zaloga, the IS-2 and Tiger I could each knock the other out in normal combat distances below 1,000 m. At longer ranges, the performance of each respective tank against each other was dependent on the crew and the combat situation.
The British Churchill tank was vulnerable to the Tiger from the front at between at a 30 degrees side angle, its strongest point being the nose and its weakest the turret. According to an STT document dated April 1944, it was estimated that the British 76.2 mm 17-pounder (used as an anti-tank gun, on the Sherman Firefly tank, and self-propelled guns) firing its normal APCBC ammunition, would penetrate the turret front and driver's visor plate of the Tiger out to .
When engaging targets, Tiger crews were encouraged to angle the hull to the 10:30 or 1:30 clock position (45 degrees) relative to the target, an orientation referred to as the Mahlzeit Stellung. This would maximize the effective front hull armour to 180 mm and side hull to 140 mm, making the Tiger impervious to any Allied gun up to 152 mm. The Tiger's lack of slope for its armour made angling the hull by manual means simple and effective, and unlike the lighter Panzer IV and , the Tiger's thick side armour gave a degree of confidence of immunity from flank attacks. The tank was also immune to Soviet anti-tank rifle fire to the sides and rear. Its large calibre 8.8 cm provided superior fragmentation and high explosive content over the 7.5 cm KwK 42 gun. Therefore, comparing the Tiger with the Panther, for supporting the infantry and destroying fortifications, the Tiger offered superior firepower.
The 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion was deployed to the Don Front in the autumn of 1942, but arrived too late to participate in Operation Winter Storm, the attempt to relieve Stalingrad. It was subsequently engaged in heavy defensive fighting in the Rostov-on-Don and adjacent sectors in January and February 1943.
In the North African Campaign, the Tiger I first saw action during the Tunisian Campaign on 1 December 1942 east of Tebourba, when three Tigers attacked an olive grove west of Djedeida. The thick olive grove made visibility very limited and enemy tanks were engaged at close range. The Tigers were hit by a number of M3 Lee tanks firing at a range of . Two of the Lees were knocked out in this action, while the Tiger tanks provided effective protection from enemy fire, which greatly increased the crews' trust in the quality of the armour. The first loss to an Allied gun was on 20 January 1943 near Robaa, when a battery of the British 72nd Anti-Tank Regiment knocked out a Tiger with their 6-pounder (57 mm) anti-tank guns. Seven Tigers were immobilised by mines during the failed attack on Béja during Operation Ochsenkopf at the end of February.
On 11 April 1945, a Tiger I destroyed three M4 Sherman tanks and an armoured car advancing on a road. On 12 April, a Tiger I (F02) destroyed two Comet tanks, one half-track and one scout car. This Tiger I was destroyed by a Comet tank of A Squadron of the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment on the next day without infantry support.
Early Tigers had a top speed of about over optimal terrain. This was not recommended for normal operation, and was discouraged in training. An engine governor was subsequently installed, capping the engine at 2,600 rpm and the Tiger's maximum speed to about . Tiger crews report that typical march speed off-road was . However, medium tanks of the time, such as the Sherman or T-34, had on average a top speed of about . Thus, despite the Tiger being nearly twice as heavy, its speed was comparatively respectable. With the tank's very wide tracks, a design feature borrowed from the Soviet T-34, the Tiger had a lower ground pressure than many smaller tanks, such as the M4 Sherman.
The first production series Tiger Fgst Nr 250001 with Motor Nr 46052 was only run-in for by Henschel before being sent to Kummersdorf for testing. During a test drive on 28 May 1942, with only 52 km on the odometer, a blockage occurred in the steering gear. This Tiger quickly went through the original and two replacement engines (Motor Nr 46051 from July 1st to 3rd, Motor Nr 46065 from 6 to 8 July) and was fitted with a fourth motor, Nr 46066, after 13 July. By 3 August 1942, this Tiger had covered a total of by 31 March 1943 a total of and by 31 July 1943 a total of .These figures clearly demonstrate that once the Tiger had overcome its teething troubles, it could withstand a lot of purposefully administered abuse during test programmes.
The sPzAbt 501 noted in Combat Report No.6 dated 3 May 1943:
The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Großdeutschland reported on their experience in employing the Tiger from 7 to 19 March 1943:
Tiger I tanks needed a high degree of support. It required two or sometimes three of the standard German Sd.Kfz. 9 Famo heavy recovery half-track tractors to tow it. Tiger crews often resorted to using another Tiger to tow the damaged vehicle, but this was not recommended as it often caused overheating and engine breakdown. The low-mounted sprocket limited the obstacle clearance height. The tracks also had a tendency to override the rear sprocket, resulting in immobilisation. If a track overrode and jammed, two Tigers were normally needed to tow the tank. The jammed track was also a big problem itself, since due to high tension, it was often impossible to split the track by removing the track pins. The track sometimes had to be blown apart with a small explosive charge.
The average reliability of the Tiger tank in the second half of 1943 was similar to that of the Panther tank, 36%, compared to the 48% of the Panzer IV and the 65% of the StuG III. From May 1944 to March 1945, the reliability of the Tiger tank was comparable to the Panzer IV. With an average of 70%, the Tiger's operational availability on the Western Front, was better than 62% of Panthers. On the Eastern Front, 65% of Tigers were operationally available, compared to the 71% of Panzer IVs and 65% of Panthers.
The Tiger was originally designed to be an offensive breakthrough weapon, but by the time it went into action, the military situation had changed dramatically, and its main use was on the defensive, as a mobile anti-tank and infantry gun support weapon. Tactically, this also meant moving the Tiger units constantly to parry breakthroughs, causing excessive mechanical wear. As a result, Tiger battalions rarely entered combat at full strength.
Efforts were hastened to get armed with 17-pounder guns into operation. The Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger (A30) was already at the prototype stage in 1942, but this tank had relatively weaker armor with a front hull thickness of 64 mm. In the end, it was produced and deployed in limited numbers (around 200 were ordered in 1943), though crews liked it for its high speed. The extemporised Sherman Firefly, armed with the 17-pounder, proved to be an excellent anti-tank weapon, but the gun lacked general-purpose capability until later in the war. Fireflies were successfully used against Tigers; in one engagement, a single Firefly destroyed three Tigers in 12 minutes with five rounds. Sherman Fireflies were deployed one per troop of four 75mm armed standard Shermans. The Germans learned to target Fireflies, so the gun barrel of the Firefly was painted to disguise its length, resembling the M3 75mm gun. This was partially effective. Over 2,000 Fireflies were built during the war. Five different 17-pounder-armed British designs saw combat during the war: the Challenger, the Comet tank (using the related QF 77mm HV), the Sherman Firefly, the 17pdr SP Achilles (up-gunned M10 GMC), and the 17pdr SP Archer self-propelled gun, while one more, the Centurion Tank, was about to enter service as the European war ended. In 1944 the British introduced an APDS round for the 17-pounder, which increased penetration performance considerably.
Initially, the Soviets responded to the Tiger I by restarting production of the 57 mm ZiS-2 anti-tank gun (production was stopped in 1941 in favour of cheaper and more versatile alternatives – e.g. the ZiS-3 – as the gun's performance was excessive for early German armour). The ZiS-2 had better armour penetration than the 76 mm F-34 tank gun used by most Red Army tanks, or the ZiS-3 76 mm divisional cannon, but was still inadequate against Tigers. A small number of T-34s were again fitted with a tank version of the ZiS-2, the ZiS-4, but it could not fire an adequate high-explosive round, making it an unsuitable tank gun.
Firing trials of the new 85 mm D-5T also had proved disappointing. Several captured German Tiger I tanks were shipped to Chelyabinsk, where they were subjected to 85 mm fire from various angles. The 85 mm gun could not reliably penetrate the Tiger I's armour except at ranges within the lethal envelope of the Tiger I's own 88 mm gun. It was still initially used on the SU-85 self-propelled gun (based on a T-34 chassis) from August 1943. The production of KV heavy tanks armed with the 85 mm D-5T in an IS-85 turret was also started. There was a short production run of 148 KV-85 tanks, which were sent to the front beginning in September 1943 with production ending by December 1943. By early 1944, the T-34/85 appeared; this up-gunned T-34 matched the SU-85's firepower, but with the advantage of mounting the gun in a turret. It also matched the firepower of the heavier IS-85 tank in a more cost-effective package, resulting in a repetition of the events which heralded the decline of KV-1 production. The IS was subsequently rearmed with the 122 mm D-25T, which with BR–471 AP rounds was capable of punching through the Tiger's armour from 1,200 m, and with the improved BR–471B APHEBC rounds at over 2,000 m. The redundant SU-85 was replaced by the SU-100, mounting a 100 mm D-10 tank gun, that could penetrate 149 mm of vertical armour plate at 1,000 m.
In May 1943, the Red Army deployed the SU-152, which was replaced in 1944 by the ISU-152. Both these self-propelled guns mounted the large 152 mm howitzer-gun. The SU-152 was intended to be a close-support gun for use against German fortifications rather than armour; however, it shared with the later fielded ISU-152 the nickname Zveroboy ("beast killer") for its rare ability to knock out German heavy tanks. The 152 mm armour-piercing shells weighed over and could penetrate a Tiger's frontal armour from about . Its high-explosive rounds would destroy anything that was attached to the outside of the tank, and had a knack for immobilizing any tank it hit. The sheer force of the shell meant that at certain points it could knock off the turrets of the Tiger series. However, the size and weight of the ammunition meant both vehicles had a low rate of fire.
The captured tank was officially handed over to the Bovington Tank Museum by the British Ministry of Supply on 25 September 1951. In June 1990, the tank was removed from display at the museum and work began on its restoration. This was carried out both by the museum and the Army Base Repair Organisation and involved an almost complete disassembly of the tank. The Maybach HL230 engine from the museum's Tiger II was installed (the Tiger's original Maybach HL210 had been sectioned for display), along with a modern fire-suppressant system in the engine compartment. In December 2003, Tiger 131 returned to the museum, restored and in running condition. This Tiger was used in the film Fury, the first time an original, fully mechanically operable Tiger I has appeared in a movie since World War II. The fire suppression system was removed as it interfered with engine maintenance and was too obtrusive.
|
|
