Either the Ammo rack cooked off or the Fuel detonated. which can cause this explosion. Not many people in the comments know how common Ammunition or fuel can explode.
to the people saying the grenade wouldn't destroy the tank, there is photage of russian tanks exploding from Ukrainian drones dropping standard rdg-5 grenade down an open hatch
A report prepared by the Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 gave the calculated probability of perforation at range, on which various adversaries would be defeated reliably at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round.
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 2,100 m (1.3 mi) and the turret front from 1,800 m (1.1 mi), 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 100 m (300 ft) 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 600 m (2,000 ft), the nose from 400 m (1,300 ft) and the turret front from 700 m (2,300 ft).[64] 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 2,000 m (6,600 ft) when using HVAP.[65][unreliable source?]
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 1,500 m (4,900 ft), and the front hull from 1500 m. A hit to the driver's hatch would force it to collapse inwards and break apart.[66][67][h] According to the Wa Prüf 1 report, the Soviet T-34-85's upper glacis and turret front armour would be defeated between 100 and 1,400 m (0.062 and 0.870 mi) 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 200 and 500 m (660 and 1,640 ft) at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round.[64] Soviet testing showed that the 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger from 1,000 m (3,000 ft) with no side angle[68]
At a side impact angle of 30 degrees the 120 mm hull armour of the Soviet IS-2 model 1943 would be defeated between 100 and 300 m (330 and 980 ft) at the driver's front plate and nose.[64] The IS-2's 122 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's front armour from between 1,500 and 2,500 m (0.93 and 1.55 mi), depending on the impact angle.[64] 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.[69] At longer ranges, the performance of each respective tank against each other was dependent on the crew and the combat situation.[70]
The British Churchill Mk IV was vulnerable to the Tiger from the front at between 1,100 and 1,700 m (3,600 and 5,600 ft) 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 1,900 yards (1,700 m).[64]
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.[i] 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.[71][72] 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 Panther tanks, the Tiger's thick side armour gave a degree of confidence of immunity from flank attacks.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed]
The destruction of an antitank gun was often accepted as nothing special by lay people and soldiers from other branches. Only the destruction of other tanks counted as a success. On the other hand, antitank guns counted twice as much to the experienced tanker. They were much more dangerous to us. The antitank cannon waited in ambush, well camouflaged, and magnificently set up in the terrain. Because of that, it was very difficult to identify. It was also very difficult to hit because of its low height. Usually, we didn't make out the antitank guns until they had fired the first shot. We were often hit right away, if the antitank crew was on top of things, because we had run into a wall of antitank guns. It was then advisable to keep as cool as possible and take care of the enemy, before the second aimed shot was fired.
so no, a frag grenade couldn't have exploded a tiger I. but its added for dramatic effect.
too many idiots dont realize what "ammo rack" is. basically the Tiger or tanks isnt a vehicle just covered in a stupidly hard shell, it carries ammunition like 88mm or 76mm and etc for ww2 tanks. since a frag grenade sends shrapnels it makes the ammunition explode which is simply "ammo racked". not "nuclear grenade" not "strongest grenade ever". yall need to know more bout tanks bruv
Tiger 1, Prototypes completed mid 1942, Invasion of France, 1940. Battlefield is disappointing nowadays. Big budget big graphics anddd stupid historical inaccuracies
33 Comments
Watch the full video please!❤
The sacrifices of older is like this , best example may God bless our older brothers ameen❤
It must be considered that these kinds of sacrifices also happen in real life 💔🤲🏻
Poor Idrisa had family
😮😮😮😮
ah, yes…The nuclear frag grenade that can obliterate a tank. Yeah, right, my grandpa told me about those!😂
Ah yes frag grenade that’s not made to make big explosions make a m1 American tank explode yes logic is not logicing
not real
Why the fuck would the tank commander open his vulnerable hatch in an enclosed area, stupid campaign
Is this a comedy? 😂😂😂😂
Why blow up like that?
Ahh yes I remember the frag grenade that could destroy a Tiger 1
Game name Battlefield 5
Either the Ammo rack cooked off or the Fuel detonated. which can cause this explosion.
Not many people in the comments know how common Ammunition or fuel can explode.
to the people saying the grenade wouldn't destroy the tank, there is photage of russian tanks exploding from Ukrainian drones dropping standard rdg-5 grenade down an open hatch
Amazing how a grenade can destroy a fully armed tiger tankd
A report prepared by the Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 gave the calculated probability of perforation at range, on which various adversaries would be defeated reliably at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round.
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 2,100 m (1.3 mi) and the turret front from 1,800 m (1.1 mi), 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 100 m (300 ft) 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 600 m (2,000 ft), the nose from 400 m (1,300 ft) and the turret front from 700 m (2,300 ft).[64] 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 2,000 m (6,600 ft) when using HVAP.[65][unreliable source?]
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 1,500 m (4,900 ft), and the front hull from 1500 m. A hit to the driver's hatch would force it to collapse inwards and break apart.[66][67][h] According to the Wa Prüf 1 report, the Soviet T-34-85's upper glacis and turret front armour would be defeated between 100 and 1,400 m (0.062 and 0.870 mi) 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 200 and 500 m (660 and 1,640 ft) at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round.[64] Soviet testing showed that the 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger from 1,000 m (3,000 ft) with no side angle[68]
At a side impact angle of 30 degrees the 120 mm hull armour of the Soviet IS-2 model 1943 would be defeated between 100 and 300 m (330 and 980 ft) at the driver's front plate and nose.[64] The IS-2's 122 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's front armour from between 1,500 and 2,500 m (0.93 and 1.55 mi), depending on the impact angle.[64] 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.[69] At longer ranges, the performance of each respective tank against each other was dependent on the crew and the combat situation.[70]
The British Churchill Mk IV was vulnerable to the Tiger from the front at between 1,100 and 1,700 m (3,600 and 5,600 ft) 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 1,900 yards (1,700 m).[64]
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.[i] 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.[71][72] 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 Panther tanks, the Tiger's thick side armour gave a degree of confidence of immunity from flank attacks.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed]
The destruction of an antitank gun was often accepted as nothing special by lay people and soldiers from other branches. Only the destruction of other tanks counted as a success. On the other hand, antitank guns counted twice as much to the experienced tanker. They were much more dangerous to us. The antitank cannon waited in ambush, well camouflaged, and magnificently set up in the terrain. Because of that, it was very difficult to identify. It was also very difficult to hit because of its low height. Usually, we didn't make out the antitank guns until they had fired the first shot. We were often hit right away, if the antitank crew was on top of things, because we had run into a wall of antitank guns. It was then advisable to keep as cool as possible and take care of the enemy, before the second aimed shot was fired.
so no, a frag grenade couldn't have exploded a tiger I. but its added for dramatic effect.
That is the strongest grenade ever built
you can't ammo rack a tiger with a granade you can only dissable the tank😭🙏
The bow gunner had a good nap
Noo idissa😢
too many idiots dont realize what "ammo rack" is.
basically the Tiger or tanks isnt a vehicle just covered in a stupidly hard shell, it carries ammunition like 88mm or 76mm and etc for ww2 tanks. since a frag grenade sends shrapnels it makes the ammunition explode which is simply "ammo racked". not "nuclear grenade" not "strongest grenade ever". yall need to know more bout tanks bruv
Most of the guys in the comments don't know much about the explosion
Why the heck would the comander open the hatch?
Bro had a 500% booster
Thats the Alpha Kenny One Nade
Is this battlefield 5 or call of duty?
You knkw the devs were taki g the liss when his ass got launched 20m into the air
Tiger 1, Prototypes completed mid 1942, Invasion of France, 1940. Battlefield is disappointing nowadays. Big budget big graphics anddd stupid historical inaccuracies
Ah yes the 1939 Tigers lol
Gotta love how they claim that’s historical realism.
For people who say that the Tiger1 didn't exist in 1940, the scene takes place during the liberation of France in 1944
Probably blew up the ammo rack
The whole tank filled with ammo