The Sherman firefly equipped with the British 17 pdr was better able to penetrate the heavier German tanks, like the Panther and Panzer IV.

7329077
Silly question, why ou think they used the flanking tactic?

Well, depends, the regular shermans with a 75 gun won't even make it to the Tiger, the M4A3E8 armed with a 76 gun can flank the Tiger and got its side or the rear. The firefly can just go straight through.

7329077
The 75mm and the 76mm Sherman could pen a Tiger 1 from the front. It could also pen a Panzer IV from the front. The Panther could not be penned from a sherman of that caliber, though.

7329080
That wasn't a tactic.

7329083
Also a myth.

7329090
The 75mm on the Sherman can't penn the frontal armor of a Tiger 1 except MAYBE the lower glacis plate, but even that will only be due to weak metal or faulty /rushed construction. The 17-pounder can go through the front of a Tiger 1 just like certain variants of the 76mm. All of these can penn the sides and rear at a 90 degree angle though.

7329077
The firefly was NOT able to penn the Panther's frontal armor due to it being sloped, but if at a angle between 75?, 80, and 90 it could.

7329291
Sloped armour is really good. The T-34 had it, and the panther tried incorporating it.

The short answer is the Tiger 1 with the 88mm high-velocity cannon can defeat the armor of a Sherman from front, back and sides quite easily, while the Sherman with the normal 75mm cannon had almost no chance of punching any kind of hole in the front of a Tiger 1, even at close range with multiple Shermans firing, and only a small chance of punching through the sides at close range. That was made worse by the German strategy of turning to angle the front of the tank slightly, which angled the front *and* side armor against a known enemy firing at them. Still, Shermans made quite a few kills in return, since they had the advantage of numbers, a stabilized main gun that could fire accurately on the run, and had a strategy of surrounding the Tiger 1 to pound it from all sides. (Think of a tin can being walloped repeatedly by a golf club)

Remember the Tiger 1 was a *heavy* tank when compared to the Sherman, which was a *medium* tank about 2/3 the weight at best. It also had all the blessings of German wartime engineering with a carburetor that leaked gasoline, fairly weak suspension, and a transmission that fractured under stress, so sometimes even minor damage could score a mobility kill. The Sherman was generally treated as an infantry support tool, able to take out machine gun nests without risk, engage bunkers, radio back for artillery, and engage in point-blank artillery of its own when needed. Artillery was the Army's right arm.

World War 2 joke: How do you tell what infantry units are hiding in that cluster of trees on the hill?
Answer: Fire one shot at them. If the unknowns respond with precise, regimented rifle fire, they are British. If they respond with heavy machinegun fire, they are German. But if nothing happens for a few minutes, then your whole position gets leveled by artillery, they are American.

If they surrender, they're French.

7329334
Heavy German tanks like the King tiger were too heavy to cross small bridges, and the weight gradually wore out the parts. On top of that, Germany was struggling to supply its shrinking frontlines with tanks and the fuel for them thanks to the bomber offensive by the RAF and 8th AF in England. (up until 1917, the RAF was the RFC, and the USAAF was renamed the USAF in 1947)

7329077
What Georg said. Maybe, at very close range, could the 75 go through the tiger's frontal armor. The side, and especially rear, armor was a different story, so the general strategy was to use superior numbers and the Tiger's comparatively poor mobility (especially in its turret traverse) to flank around it. The 76mm was better at getting through the Tiger's armor, but (unsurprisingly given one was an over-engineered heavy tank and one a medium) the Tiger could still knock out an Easy 8 from much further away. The Firefly could go through quite easily, but it had extremely poor ergonomics, a very distinctive muzzle flash that drew attention to it, and it, like most British AT guns, had horrible HE ammo that made it a TD masquerading as a Medium tank, and since allied tanks fought infantry like 95% of time time, this had some pretty major downsides (which was why squads of Shermans only had 1 Firefly).

But, um, why did you ask this? Of course it could pen a Tiger 1's rear armor, that's why they had that "4v1" tactic to counter them, and why it didn't get replaced/upgraded really quickly.

7329506
Because the Shermans gun was inadequate at penetrating the thicker German tanks, and tank armour is usually weaker in the rear. Usually the allies would rely on fighter-bombers like the P-47 thunderbolt or Hawker typhoon to deal with German heavy tanks.

7329542
1. This is literally what I and others have said. Why would you ask a question that you apparently know the answer to, especially one with a fairly self-evidence answer (i.e. armor is thinner in the rear).
2. The P-47 and Typhoon were amazing planes, but they honestly were awful at killing tanks. This is true for basically any aircraft of WWII. What they were good at was killing moral (an airplane shooting you with ineffective .50cals and rockets/bombs that miss usually don't do much damage to the tank, but that's a good way to have your day ruined) and killing squishy targets, like trains, or big nonmoving ones, like bridges. They usually let their tank destroyers or artillery to deal with heavy tanks, if they could.

7329560
Nevermind.

Why do you think the Sherman-to-Tiger ratio ranged from 5-1 to 10-1. On average it took 7 Sherman’s to take out a single Tiger. Not only because of the frontal armor, which the short barreled 75mm could not pen unless at suicidal ranges, but because of how the Germans used those Tigers, and the Panthers as well to some extent. Tigers were at their best when hiding in a bush or similar piece of cover and sniping Allied tanks. That’s how they slaughtered whole armored columns: from long range behind cover. Course, the US Army’s love of artillery made that very difficult at times, but that’s where a Tiger preferred to be. Remember, the main purpose of the Tiger was simply to make a mobile chassis capable of transporting the legendary 88mm gun. The German tanks had a lot of faults, I’ll admit. But they had some of if not the best targeting optics fitted to a tank. They were extremely accurate, able to shoot targets at ranges most could hardly believe at the time.

7332065
Now this is simply not true.

Why do you think the Sherman-to-Tiger ratio ranged from 5-1 to 10-1

What 'ratio'? A U.S. tank platoon is 5 tanks, and tanks engaged in platoons. It didn't 'take 5 shermans to kill a tiger' but 5-10 shermans were the average amount a tiger would engage at a time. 1-2 platoons. A tank platoon would just go 'oh dont worry guys its just a stug, the rest of the platoon can go home'.

On average it took 7 Sherman’s to take out a single Tiger.

see previous

Not only because of the frontal armor, which the short barreled 75mm could not pen unless at suicidal ranges

From 650 meters away, the M-61 and M-72 shell could pen a Tiger's turret and detonate the ammunition frontally from a 75mm short barrelled sherman, according to tests performed in 1943 with captured examples in good condition. I would hardly say 650 meters is suicidal, considering the average engagement distance was 100 to 200 meters.

how the Germans used those Tigers, and the Panthers as well to some extent. Tigers were at their best when hiding in a bush or similar piece of cover and sniping Allied tanks.

Yes, a situation that usually meant the Germans had just been pushed back from their defensive line and are attempting to stall the enemy who are pushing towards a secondary line, a situation where the Germans are losing. Michael Wittman used this tactic to stop the British from completely destroying multiple divisions due to an exposed flank that he had to cover with his battalion at 50% strength. He destroyed artillery observer tanks and infantry transports before having to withdraw after a Sherman firefly spotted and engaged him. They won the battle, barely and his tank was disabled by an AT gun.

that’s where a Tiger preferred to be

Tigers were most successful on the eastern front, hull-down in an open field.

Remember, the main purpose of the Tiger was simply to make a mobile chassis capable of transporting the legendary 88mm gun

The Tiger was initially engineered as a 'breakthrough tank' and as early allied armoured outclassed early German armour in almost every way (with french calvary tanks and british maltildas being the main examples) they attempted to make a tank that could destroy such vehicles. It was overengineered and had massive mechanical issues. The 88mm gun was also often outclassed by the time it was introduced in 1942, with the 90mm US AT gun which was introduced in 1938 and fitted as the main gun of the Pershing and M36 TD.

The German tanks had a lot of faults, I’ll admit. But they had some of if not the best targeting optics fitted to a tank. They were extremely accurate, able to shoot targets at ranges most could hardly believe at the time.

What 'targeting optics'? It had a gun sight that could range up to 2500 meters. That's not special. The reason the Tiger had a higher first hit ratio and hit targets at longer ranges was because 90% of the time, it was on the defensive and could spot the enemy tanks on the move.