TIGER Roads Metadata Updated: February 27, 2019 The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB).

ProductBest For.File FormatType of DataLevel of DetailDescriptive AttributesVintages AvailableMost mapping projects-this is our most comprehensive dataset. Designed for use with GIS (geographic information systems).Shapefiles (.shp) and database files (.dbf)Boundaries, roads, address information, water features, and moreFull detail (not generalized)Extensive2006 - 2019, CD 113Useful for users needing national datasets or all major boundaries by state. Designed for use in ArcGIS. Files are extremely large.Geodatabase (.gdb)Boundaries, roads, address information, water features, and moreFull detail (not generalized)Limited2013-2019Data from selected attributes from the 2010 Census, 2006-2010 through 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates and County Business Patterns (CBP) for selected geographies. Designed for use with GIS.Shapefiles (.shp) and GeodatabasesBoundaries, Population Counts, Housing Unit Counts, 2010 Census Demographic Profile 1 attributes, 2006-2010 through 2013-2017 ACS 5-year estimates data profiles, CBP data.Full detail (not generalized)Limited2012 CBP, 2010, 2006-2010 to 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year EstimatesSmall scale (limited detail) mapping projects clipped to shoreline. Designed for thematic mapping using GIS.Shapefiles (.shp)Selected boundariesLess detail (generalized)Limited2013-2018, 2010, 2000, 1990Viewing data or creating maps using Google Earth, Google Maps, or other platforms that use KML.KML (.kml)Selected boundariesLess detail (generalized)Limited2013-2018Viewing spatial data online or streaming to your mapping application.Interactive viewer, HTML data files, plus REST and WMS map servicesBoundaries, roads, address information, water features, and moreDetailedExtensiveCurrent (ACS 2019), ACS 2018, 2010 Census.

Tiger I in northern France, March 1944TypePlace of originService historyIn service1942–1945WarsProduction historyDesignerDesigned1938–1941ManufacturerUnit cost250,800Produced1942–1944No. built1,347Specifications (RfRuK VK 4501H Ausf.E, Blatt: G-330)Mass54 tonnes (60 short tons)57 tonnes (63 short tons) (Ausf. E) (Combat weight)Length6.316 m (20 ft 8.7 in)8.45 m (27 ft 9 in) gun forwardWidth3.56 m (11 ft 8 in)Height3.0 m (9 ft 10 in)Crew5 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator)25–120 mm (0.98–4.72 in).

Contents.Design history Earlier designs Henschel & Sohn began the development of a large tank design in January 1937 when the requested Henschel to develop a Durchbruchwagen ('breakthrough vehicle') in the 30–33 tonne range. Only one prototype hull was ever built and it was never fitted with a turret. The Durchbruchwagen I's general shape and suspension resembled the, while the turret resembled the early Panzer IV C turret with the short-barrelled 7.5 cm L/24 cannon.Before Durchbruchwagen I was completed, a request was issued for a heavier 30-tonne class vehicle with thicker armour; this was the Durchbruchwagen II, which would have had 50 mm (2 in) of frontal armour and mounted a turret with a short-barrelled. 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 and designs. Both the Durchbruchwagen I and II prototype hulls were used as test vehicles until 1941.Another attempt The VK 30.01 (H) medium tank and the VK 36.01 (H) heavy tank designs pioneered the use of the complex Schachtellaufwerk track suspension system of -sprung, overlapped and interleaved main road wheels for tank use.

This concept was already common on German half-tracks such as the. The VK 30.01 (H) was intended to mount a low-velocity 7.5 cm L/24 infantry support gun, a 7.5 cm L/40 dual purpose anti-tank gun, or a 10.5 cm L/28 field gun in a turret. Overall weight was to be 33 tonnes.

The armour was designed to be 50 mm on frontal surfaces and 30 mm on the side surfaces. Four prototype hulls were completed for testing. Two of these were later modified to build the ' (12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette L/61) self-propelled anti-tank gun.The VK 36.01 (H) was intended to weigh 40 tonnes, with 100 mm (4 in) of armour on front surfaces, 80 mm on turret sides and 60 mm on the hull sides. The VK 36.01 (H) was intended to carry a 7.5 cm L/24, or 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. 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. The VK 36.01 (H) project was discontinued in early 1942 in favour of the VK 45.01 project.Further improvements Combat experience against the French and heavy tank, and the British during the in June 1940 showed that the German Army needed better armed and armoured tanks.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.Final designs On 22 June 1941, Germany launched, the invasion of the. The Germans were shocked to encounter Soviet medium and heavy tanks, and, according to Henschel designer: 'There was great consternation when it was discovered that the Soviet tanks were superior to anything available to the.' .Weight increase to 45 tonnes and an increase in gun calibre to 8.8 cm was ordered.

The due date for the new prototypes was set for 20 April 1942, 's 53rd birthday. Unlike the, the designs did not incorporate, an innovation taken from the T-34. Model reconstruction of Porsche prototypePorsche and Henschel submitted prototype designs, each making use of the Krupp-designed turret. They were demonstrated at in front of Hitler.

The Henschel design was accepted, mainly because the Porsche prototype design used a troubled gasoline-electric hybrid power unit which needed large quantities of for 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, -style; 91 hulls were converted into the in early 1943. Early tiger with tall cupolaThe 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. To cut costs, the submersion capability and an external air-filtration system were dropped.Design The Tiger differed from earlier principally in its design philosophy. Its predecessors balanced mobility, and, and were sometimes outgunned by their opponents.While heavy, this tank was not slower than the best of its opponents. However, at over 50 tonnes dead weight, the suspension, gearboxes, and other such items had clearly reached their design limits and breakdowns were frequent if regular maintenance was not undertaken.

Although the general design and layout were broadly similar to the previous medium tank, the, the Tiger weighed more than twice as much. This was due to its substantially thicker armour, the larger, greater volume of fuel and ammunition storage, larger engine, and a more solidly built transmission and suspension.Armour. The Tiger I's was up to 120 mm on the.The Tiger I had frontal hull armour 100 mm (3.9 in) thick, frontal armour of 100 mm (3.9 in) and a 120 mm (4.7 in) thick. The Tiger had 60 mm (2.4 in) thick hull side plates and 80 mm armour on the side superstructure/sponsons, while turret sides and rear were 80 mm. The top and bottom armour was 25 mm (1 in) thick; from March 1944, the turret roof was thickened to 40 mm (1.6 in). Armour plates were mostly flat, with interlocking construction.

The armour joints were of high quality, being stepped and welded rather than riveted and were made of. Main article:The 56-calibre long 8.8 cm KwK 36 was chosen for the Tiger. A combination of a flat trajectory from the high muzzle velocity and precision from Leitz Turmzielfernrohr TZF 9b sight (later replaced by the TZF 9c) made it very accurate. In British wartime firing trials, five successive hits were scored on a 410 by 460 mm (16 by 18 in) target at a range of 1,100 metres (3,600 ft).

Compared with the other contemporary German tank guns, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 had superior penetration to the on the and but inferior to the on the under ranges of 2,500 metres. At greater ranges, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 was superior in penetration and accuracy.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. PzGr. L/4.5 ( )Engine and drive. Crew working on the engine through the hatch on the rear hull roofThe rear of the tank held an engine compartment flanked by two separate rear compartments each containing a fuel tank and radiator. The Germans had not developed an adequate diesel engine, so a petrol (gasoline) powerplant had to be used instead.

The original engine utilised was a 21.35-litre (1303 cu.in.) 12-cylinder developing 485 kW (650 hp) at 3,000 rpm. Although a good engine, it was underpowered for the vehicle. From the 251st Tiger onwards, it was replaced by the upgraded P45, a 23.095 litre (1409 cu.in.) engine developing 521 kW (700 hp) at 3,000 rpm.

The main difference between these engines was that the original Maybach HL 210 used an aluminium engine block while the Maybach HL 230 used a cast-iron engine block. The cast-iron block allowed for larger cylinders (and thus, greater displacement) which increased the power output to 521 kW (700 hp).

The engine was in V-form, with two cylinder banks set at 60 degrees. An was mounted on its right side, driven via chain gears through a port in the rear wall. The engine could be lifted out through a hatch on the rear hull roof. Clear view of the Tiger I's Schachtellaufwerk overlapping and interleaved road wheels during productionThe suspension used sixteen, with eight suspension arms per side. To save space, the swing arms were leading on one side and trailing on the other.

There were three road wheels (one of them double, closest to the track's centre) on each arm, in a so-called Schachtellaufwerk overlapping and interleaved arrangement, similar to that pioneered on German half-tracked military vehicles of the pre-World War II era, with the Tiger I being the first all-tracked German AFV built in quantity to use such a road wheel arrangement. The wheels had a diameter of 800 mm (31 in) in the Schachtellaufwerk arrangement for the Tiger I's suspension, providing a high uniform distribution of the load onto the track, at the cost of increased maintenance. Wheel and track maintenance in muddy conditionsRemoving 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 mud season and onwards into the winter conditions on the, 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 and the non-interleaved wheel design for the Tiger II. Eventually, a new 80 cm diameter 'steel' wheel design, closely resembling those on the, with an internally sprung steel-rim tire was substituted, and which like the Tiger II, were only overlapped and not interleaved. Tiger at the is loaded onto a special rail car. The outer road wheels have been removed and narrow tracks put in place to decrease vehicle width, allowing it to fit within the of the German rail network.To support the considerable weight of the Tiger, the tracks were 725 mm (2 ft 4.5 in) wide.

To meet, the outermost roadwheel on each axle (16 total) could be unbolted from a flange and narrower 520 mm (20 in) wide 'transport' tracks ( Verladeketten) installed. 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. Fording system.

This section needs additional citations for. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: – ( February 2019) The Tiger tank's combat weight of 56 tons was often too heavy for small bridges which had 35 ton weight limits, so it was designed to ford bodies of water up to 15 ft (4.6 m) deep. This required unusual mechanisms for ventilation and cooling when underwater. At least 30 minutes of set-up time was required, with the turret and gun being locked in the forward position, and a large tube raised at the rear. An inflatable doughnut-shaped ring sealed the turret ring.

The two rear compartments (each containing a fuel tank, radiator and fans) were floodable. Only the first 495 units were fitted with this system; all later models were capable of fording water only two metres deep. However, this ability was found to be a limited practical value for its expensive cost and was removed from production lines in August 1943.

Crew compartment The internal layout was typical of German tanks. Forward was an open crew compartment, with the driver and radio-operator seated at the front on either side of the gearbox. Behind them the turret floor was surrounded by panels forming a continuous level surface.

This helped the loader to retrieve the ammunition, which was mostly stowed above the tracks. Three men were seated in the turret; the loader to the right of the gun facing to the rear, the gunner to the left of the gun, and the commander behind him. There was also a folding seat on the right for the loader.

The turret had a full circular floor and 157 cm headroom. Early versions of the Tiger I's turret included two however one of these was replaced with a loader escape hatch and the other deleted from later designs.Post-war testing by the Allies found the tank to be uncomfortable and spartan.

This was in contrast to German crews who found them to be spacious and comfortable. Cost The main problem with the Tiger was that its production required considerable resources in terms of manpower and material, which led to it being expensive: the Tiger I cost over twice as much as a Panzer IV and four times as much as a. Partly because of their high cost, only 1,347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II tanks were produced. The closest counterpart to the Tiger from the was the (around 200 deployed to the (ETO) during the war ) and the from the USSR (about 3,800 built during the conflict).From a technical point of view it was superior to its contemporaries, and despite the low number produced, shortages in qualified crew and the considerable fuel requirement in a context of ever shrinking resources, Tiger tanks had a large impact in the war with Tigers (including Tiger IIs) destroying at least 10,300 enemy tanks, and 11,380 AT guns and artillery pieces in WW2. This was achieved for the loss of 1,725 Tigers (including large numbers of operational and strategic losses, i.e abandoned, broken down, etc).

Production history. Installing the turretProduction of the Tiger I began in August 1942 at the factory of in, initially at a rate of 25 per month and peaking in April 1944 at 104 per month.

An official document of the time stated that the first Tiger I was completed in August 4. 1,355 had been built by August 1944, when production ceased. Deployed Tiger I's peaked at 671 on 1 July 1944. It took about twice as long to build a Tiger I as another German tank of the period.

When the improved Tiger II began production in January 1944, the Tiger I was soon phased out.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 (a non-magnetic anti-mine coating), in late 1943. 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, was the first of its kind for the German Army and its success resulted in more unorthodox manuals that attempted to emulate its style.By September 1943 at the latest, the Allies had information about the production of the Tiger tank. The resistance group around the later executed priest sent corresponding documents to the American Office of Strategic Services. With the location sketches of the manufacturing facilities, the Allied bombers were given precise air strikes.

Variants Among other variants of the Tiger, a citadel, heavily armoured self-propelled rocket projector, today commonly known as the, was built. A tank recovery version of the Porsche Tiger I , and one Porsche Tiger I, was issued to the 654th Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion, which was equipped with the Ferdinand/.In Italy, a demolition carrier version of the Tiger I without a main gun was built by maintenance crews in an effort to find a way to clear minefields. It is often misidentified as a BergeTiger recovery vehicle. As many as three may have been built. It carried a demolition charge on a small crane on the turret in place of the main gun.

It was to move up to a minefield and drop the charge, back away, and then set the charge off to clear the minefield. There is no verification of any being used in combat.Another variant was the VI Tiger tanks (driving school Tiger tanks). These tanks were Tigers with modified engines to run on either compressed gas (Stadtgas System) or (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. They were not used in combat.Designations.

A Tiger I deployed to supplement the operating in, January 1943Eager to make use of the powerful new weapon, Hitler ordered the vehicle be pressed into service months earlier than had been planned. A platoon of four Tigers went into action on 23 September 1942 near. Operating in swampy, forested terrain, their movement was largely confined to roads and tracks, making defence against them far easier.

Many of these early models were plagued by problems with the transmission, which had difficulty handling the great weight of the vehicle if pushed too hard. It took time for drivers to learn how to avoid overtaxing the engine and transmission, and many broke down. The most significant event from this engagement was that one of the Tigers became stuck in swampy ground and had to be abandoned. Captured largely intact, it enabled the Soviets to study the design and prepare countermeasures.The was deployed to the in the autumn of 1942, but arrived too late to participate in, the attempt to relieve Stalingrad. It was subsequently engaged in heavy defensive fighting in the and adjacent sectors in January and February 1943.In the, the Tiger I first saw action during the on 1 December 1942 east of when three Tigers attacked an olive grove 5 km 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 80 to 100 metres. Two of the Lees were knocked out in this action. The Tiger tanks proved that they had excellent protection from enemy fire; this greatly increased the crew's trust in the quality of the armour. The first loss to an Allied gun was on 20 January 1943 near, when a battery of the British 72nd Anti-Tank Regiment knocked out a Tiger with their. Seven Tigers were immobilised by mines during the failed attack on during at the end of February. Later actions.

Main article:On July 1943, two heavy tank battalions (503rd and 505th) took part in resulting in the with one battalion each on the northern (505th) and southern (503rd) flanks of the Kursk the operation was designed to encircle. However, the operation failed and the Germans were again put on the defensive. The resulting withdrawal led to the loss of many broken-down Tigers which were left unrecovered, battalions unable to do required maintenance or repairs.On 11 April 1945, a Tiger I destroyed three M4 Sherman tanks and an advancing on a road. On 12 April 1945, a Tiger I (F02) destroyed two Comet tanks, one halftrack 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. Mobility and reliability.

A Tiger undergoing engine repairsThe tank's weight significantly limited its use of bridges. For this reason, the Tiger was built with water tight hatches and a device that allowed it to water obstacles four metres deep. The tank's weight also made driving through buildings risky, as the presence of a cellar could result in a sudden drop. Another weakness was the slow traverse of the hydraulically operated turret.

Due to reliability problems with the Maybach HL 210 TRM P45, which was delivered within the first production batch of 250 Tigers, performance for its maximum power output at high gear ratio could not be fulfilled. Though the Maybach engines had a maximum of 3,000 rpm, crews were told in the not to exceed 2,600 rpm. The engine limitation was alleviated only by the adoption of the Maybach HL 230.

A British Army test report showed that the turret on the Tiger E tank turned 360 degrees, at 19º/second, with its power traverse system set at high ratio and with the engine speed at 2,000 revolutions per minute (rpm). The turret could also be traversed manually, but this option was rarely used, except for very small adjustments.Early Tigers had a top speed of about 45 kilometres per hour (28 mph) 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 38 kilometres per hour (24 mph).

Tiger crews report that typical march speed off-road was 10 kilometers per hour (6 mph). However, medium tanks of the time, such as the Sherman or T-34, had on average a top speed of about 45 kilometres per hour (28 mph). 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. Tiger I towed by twoTiger I tanks needed a high degree of support. It required two or sometimes three of the standard German 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, 36%, compared to the 48% of the and the 65% of the.

From May 1944 to March 1945, the reliability of the Tiger tank was as good as the Panzer IV. With an average of 70%, the Tiger's operational availability on the Western Front, was better than compared to 62% of Panthers.

On the Eastern Front, 65% of Tigers were operationally available, compared to the 71% of Panzer IVs and 65% of Panthers. Tactical organization. A Tiger I camouflaged in a static defensive positionTigers were usually employed in separate ( schwere Panzer-Abteilung) under army command. These battalions would be deployed to critical sectors, either for breakthrough operations or, more typically, counter-attacks. A few favoured divisions, such as the, and the, and at Kursk, had a Tiger company in their tank regiments. The Grossdeutschland Division had its Tiger company increased to a battalion as the III Panzer Battalion of the Panzer Regiment Grossdeutschland.

3rd SS Totenkopf retained its Tiger I company through the entire war. 1st SS and 2nd SS had their Tiger companies taken away and incorporated into the 101st SS Tiger Battalion, which was part of 1st SS Panzer Corps.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, there are almost no instances where a Tiger battalion went into combat at anything close to full strength.Against the Soviet and Western Allied production numbers, even a 10:1 kill ratio was not sufficient. These numbers must be set against the of the expensive Tiger. Every Tiger cost as much to build as four assault guns. Allied response British response. Tiger I that knocked out the first in combat.

It then backed into a pile of rubble and became stuck, leading to the crew abandoning it.The British had observed the gradual increase in German AFV armour and firepower since 1940 and had anticipated the need for more powerful anti-tank guns. Work on the 76.2 mm calibre had begun in late 1940 and in 1942 100 early-production guns were rushed to North Africa to help counter the new Tiger threat. The gun carriage had not yet been developed, and the guns were mounted on the carriages of and were known by the code name 'Pheasant'.Efforts were hastened to get armed with 17-pounder guns into operation. The was already at the prototype stage in 1942, but this tank was relatively unprotected, having a front hull thickness of 64 mm, and in the end was fielded in only limited numbers (around 200 were ordered in 1943), though crews liked it for its high speed. The, armed with the 17-pounder, was a notable success even though it was only intended to be a stopgap design.

Fireflies were successfully used against Tigers; in one engagement, a single Firefly destroyed three Tigers in 12 minutes with five rounds. Over 2,000 Fireflies were built during the war. Five different 17-pounder-armed British designs saw combat during the war: the A30 Challenger, the (using the variant), the Sherman Firefly, the, and the self-propelled gun, while one more, the, was about to enter service as the European war ended. In 1944 the British introduced an round for the 17-pounder, which increased penetration performance considerably.Soviet response.

Marshal inspecting a Tiger captured by the in 1943Initially, the Soviets responded to the Tiger I by restarting production of the anti-tank gun (production was stopped in 1941 in favour of cheaper and more versatile alternatives – e.g. The – as the gun's performance was excessive for early German armour). The ZiS-2 had better armour penetration than the 76 mm 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 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 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 going 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, mounting a 100 mm, that could penetrate 149 mm of vertical armour plate at 1,000 m.In May 1943, the Red Army deployed the, which was replaced in 1944 by the. These self-propelled guns both mounted the large,.

The SU-152 was intended to be a close-support gun for use against German fortifications rather than armour; however, it shared among 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 45 kilograms (99 lb) and could penetrate a Tiger's frontal armour from about 1,000 metres (1,100 yd). Its high-explosive rounds were powerful enough to cause significant damage to a tank, occasionally ripping the turret off outright. However, the size and weight of the ammunition meant both vehicles had a low rate of fire, and each could carry only 20 rounds.U.S. Response.

Tiger 712 captured by US forces in, 1943The US Army hesitated to place 76 mm M1 guns in action even when they were already available, as combat through early 1944 indicated that the 75 mm M3 was more than adequate for handling the German tank threat. This conclusion was partly based on the correct estimate that Tigers would be encountered in relatively small numbers, and on the assumption that anti-tank gun-fire (as in Tunisia and Sicily) rather than tanks could knock them out. Operators. – The main operator.

– 13 examples given by GermanySurvivors Tiger 131. Bovington Tank Museum, United KingdomOn 21 April 1943, a Tiger I of the 504th, with, was captured on a hill called Djebel Djaffa in Tunisia. A solid shot from a Churchill tank of the British hit the Tiger's gun barrel and ricocheted into its turret ring, jamming its traverse and wounding the commander. The crew bailed out and the tank was captured.

After repairs, the tank was sent to England for a thorough inspection.The captured tank was officially handed over to the by the British 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 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, the first time an original, fully mechanically operable Tiger I has appeared in a movie since World War II.

Others Given the low number of just over 1,300 Tiger Is produced during World War II, very few survived the war and the subsequent post-war scrapping drives. Many large components have been salvaged over the years, but the discovery of a more or less and generally complete vehicle has so far eluded armour enthusiasts and tank collectors. In addition to Tiger 131, six other Tiger I tanks survive as of April 2018 at these following locations:. in,. Indoor exhibit in good condition. Mid-production (1944) version with overlapping 'steel'-type roadwheels adopted from the Tiger II and fitted with the narrow transport tracks. This Tiger was part of the 2nd company of the which fought in the sector and was later abandoned by her crew after a mechanical breakdown.

She was recommissioned as Colmar with the 2nd squadron of the Free French and joined the new unit in fighting all the way back to Germany. in, France. The renowned '.

Abandoned and then destroyed (to prevent enemy capture) by its German crew in August 1944. An outdoor monument in poor condition due to the effect of time and the elements (many original parts such as hatches and both rear exhaust pipes missing). in,. In good condition; displayed as an indoor exhibit (although the outermost row of four roadwheels are missing on this vehicle). Military-Historical Museum of Lenino-Snegiri in Russia. In very bad condition; displayed outdoors.

This tank was a former firing-range target and has been badly shot-at and cut up (damage include broken running gear and multiple shell-holes on its armour). Tiger 712 Hull Number 250031 of the is a part of the United States Army Armor & Cavalry Museum in, the US. In good condition; formerly displayed outdoors, it has since been moved indoors.

This vehicle appears to have had its left turret and upper-hull sides partially cut open (possibly for vehicle studies and analysis) during or after WWII but the cut openings have since been covered up by false metal plates. The German Panzer Museum in Munster now has a Tiger I on display. This tank was reconstructed by Mr. Hoebig in Germany using parts found in the Trun Scrapyard in Normandy and some other parts found in Kurland (in Latvia). Anderson, Thomas (2013). Osprey Publishing. CS1 maint: ref=harv.

Agte, Patrick (2006). Michael Wittmann and the Waffen SS Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte in WWII, Vol. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books.

CS1 maint: ref=harv. Baryatinsky, Mikhail (2008). The T-34 in Combat. Jauza, Moscow. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Bird, Lorrin Rexford; Livingston, Robert D. World War II Ballistics – Armor and Gunnery.

Albany, N.Y.: Overmatch Press. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Bishop, Chris (2002). The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. London: Metrobooks. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Carius, Otto (2003).

Tigers in the Mud – The Combat Career of German Panzer Commander Otto Carius. Translated by Edwards, Robert J.

Stackpole Books. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Carruthers, Bob (2000). German Tanks at War. London: Cassell. CS1 maint: ref=harv.

Carruthers, Bob (2013). Coda Books Ltd. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Drabkin, Artem; Sheremet, Oleg (2006). T-34 in action. Barnsley (S-Y): Pen & Sword Military.

CS1 maint: ref=harv. (2011). Tiger Tank: Owners' Workshop Manual. Haynes Publishing. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Forty, George (2004).

Villers Bocage. Battle Zone Normandy. Sutton Publishing.

CS1 maint: ref=harv. (2005).

Colossus Reborn: the Red Army at War: 1941–1943. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Green, Michael; Brown, James D.

Tiger Tanks at War. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. CS1 maint: ref=harv. (1952).

Panzer Leader (Reissue edition, 2001 ed.). New York: Da Capo Press. CS1 maint: ref=harv.

Hart, Stephen (2007). Sherman Firefly vs Tiger: Normandy 1944. Reading: Osprey Publishing.

CS1 maint: ref=harv. (1971). Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series. Navato, CA: Presidio Press.

CS1 maint: ref=harv. Jentz, Thomas (1996). Panzertruppen 2: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943–1945. CS1 maint: ref=harv.

Jentz, Tom; Doyle, Hillary (1993). Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942–45. Illustrated by Sarson, Peter. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Jentz, Tom; Doyle, Hillary (1997).

Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Schiffer Publishing. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Jentz, Tom; Doyle, Hillary (2000). Germany's Tiger tanks D.W.

CS1 maint: ref=harv. Kolomiets, Maxim (2013). 'Tiger Tierra del Arc' (in Russian).

KM Strategy. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Lochmann, Franz-Wilhelm; Rubbel, Alfred (2000). Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503.

Mechanicsburg, PA, USA: Stackpole Books. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Perrett, Bryan (1999). Panzerkampfwagen IV medium tank: 1936 – 1945. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Schneider, Wolfgang (2004) First published 2000 by; Winnipeg.

Tigers in Combat I (2nd ed.). Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Schneider, Wolfgang (2005). Tigers in Combat II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books; originally published 1998 by J.J.

Fedorowicz; Winnipeg, Canada. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Showalter, Dennis E (2013). Armor and Blood: the Battle of Kursk, the turning point of World War II.

New York, NY: Random House. CS1 maint: ref=harv.

Spielberger, Walter & Doyle, Hilary (2007). Tigers I and II and their variants. Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing Ltd,. Tucker-Jones, Anthony (2012). Tiger I and Tiger II.

Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Wilbeck, Christopher (2004).

Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II. Bedford, Pa.: The Aberjona Press. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Zaloga, Steven (1994). IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944–73. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Zaloga, Steven (2003).

Gran turismo 7 car list. I will grant you that the car shortage is a relatively easy fix via DLC that had better be free, but you guys REALLY. There is no excuse for this product, given what the Forza franchise has been able to do in shorter timeframes. We waited a digital century for this game, only to be greeted with a paltry car list and a frankly insulting track list? NO LAGUNA SECA???

M4 (76mm) Medium Tank 1943–65. New Vanguard.

CS1 maint: ref=harv. Zaloga, Steven (2005). US Anti-Tank Artillery 1941–45. New Vanguard. CS1 maint: ref=harv.

Zaloga, Steven (2007). Japanese Tanks 1939–45. New Vanguard. CS1 maint: ref=harv.

Zaloga, Steven (2015). Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Zetterling, Niklas (2000). Kursk 1943: a statistical analysis.

London: Frank Cass. CS1 maint: ref=harv. Bird, Lorrin Rexford; Livingston, Robert D. WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. Overmatch Press.

CS1 maint: ref=harv External links. – Comprehensive website about the Tiger I. – June 1945. – PDF, Surviving Tiger Tanks.