Tiger Armor Issue

[shift8]

After considerable testing in CMBN, I have determined (as many here already are aware) that the Tiger deflects almost all 76mm hits from the front at ranges well within the penetration zone for the 76mm gun at low obliquity at ranges of 500 to 1000m. In my estimation, there seems to be no reason what-so-ever that the 76mm gun should not be able to reliably penetrate the Tigers frontal armor at reasonable angles under 1000m. At the very least under 800m. What exactly is battlefronts reason for this?

 

I personally suspect that this is intended to be the shatter gap, a effect that I personally think is nonsense. At the very least, it is being overdone. 

 

According to Rexfords book( battlefront having already made it clear that they used this author for advice) the shatter gap theory is predicated on a few oddball tidbits thrown together to prove an effect whose original source was unfounded in the first place. 

 

Rexford states that origin for historical belief in this problem comes from Bailey's accounts from Tiger engagements in Normandy. This entire source can be discarded out right since there were no Tiger tanks fighting the Americans in Normandy, making this a clear example of American tank crews presuming every vehicles was a Tiger. In other words, the origin for this is nonsense. 

 

He then goes on to state that Isigny tests  on the Panther mantlet, presuming that the reason 76mm rounds could only penetrate at 200m was due to shatter gap. This is as massive stretch, as we dont necessarily know what parts of the mantlet were struck, or at what angle. IE: if they hit the mantley square, they should go through, but striking the upper or lower parts would be alot harder to penetrate. Essentially, this is case of making specific assumptions about the conditions and results of a test to prove a phenomenon. Completely silly. 

 

He also shows the 3inch gun tests and makes alot of assumptions as to what they actually show. Said tests make no mention of shatter gap failure, but he assumes that when failures did occur inside the ratios he concocted up, that they occurred due to shatter gap. 

 

 

 

However the real issue here is that all of this witchcraft is in direct contention with the actual data. 

 

 

We already know from US gun tests that more than 50% of the time they were capable of penetrating the amount of armor listed in the charts. Those rounds were standard M62 projectiles with the same 59 Rockwell that he claims would have caused this this issue on American and other nations rounds. 

 

Shoeburyness tests even showed 76mm APCBC making it though 100mm armor at as much as 30 degrees at 500m. 

 

In other words, even if shatter gap was real, if did not prevent the rounds from performing according to the American penetration tables, which presume a 50% success rate like most other nations tables. Clearly there is room for success above this rate was well, as the shoeburyness tests show. This issue would also affect the 85mm gun on T-34, which should also be able to penetrate the Tiger in CMRT, but cannot......despite there being tests, complete with photographs, of this being the case. 

 

So what is the deal here? And how can we get this changed?

Edited July 21, 2015 by shift8

[slysniper]

This issue would also affect the 85mm gun on T-34, which should also be able to penetrate the Tiger in CMRT, but cannot......despite there being tests, complete with photographs, of this being the case. 

 

So what is the deal here? And how can we get this changed?

I am not here to disprove anything you have said. But I do know for a fact, this part of your statement was incorrect. I have played way to much to know that the 85 has no issue at all penetrating a Tigers armor. No matter what direction and at long distances, not just short ranges.

As for your other request. I know of too many actual accounts from the period that will disagree with what you think a 76 round is going to penetrate at the ranges you are hoping for. Since a Sherman 75 as I recall was just a fraction better as to performance. I am sure there is plenty of evidence that there was not a lot of chance of a full penetration unless the distances were very close. but for sure not at distances 500-1000 meters.

Edited July 21, 2015 by slysniper

[shift8]

I am not here to disprove anything you have said. But I do know for a fact, this part of your statement was incorrect. I have played way to much to know that the 85 has no issue at all penetrating a Tigers armor. No matter what direction and at long distances, not just short ranges.

As for your other request. I know of too many actual accounts from the period that will disagree with what you think a 76 round is going to penetrate at the ranges you are hoping for. Since a Sherman 75 as I recall was just a fraction better as to performance. I am sure there is plenty of evidence that there was not a lot of chance of a full penetration unless the distances were very close. but for sure not at distances 500-1000 meters.

I just went and double checked the 85mm gun in CMRT, since I did those tests separately and a long time ago. I got the results I expected. Just like the 76mm gun on the Sherman, most rounds are PP's or Just hits. about 1/3rd of all hits are penetrations, which is very much like the American 76 in CMBN. Test was at 600m. 

 

As for said reports, its hard to judge anecdotal evidence. Just like the stuff I mentioned, alot of vehicles that were not Tigers were reported as such. There is no reason what so ever that the 76mm and 85mm guns should not penetrate the Tigers front at normal combat ranges, unless the angle of impact is very high. Also, the 76mm and 75mm guns are Far more than fraction different in performance. It is night and day. The 76mm gun makes it through 93mm at 30 @ 500m, and the 75mm only makes it though 66. The difference is huge. 

[slysniper]

Well, my mistake.

that is not the type of numbers I remember for the 76 Russian T34 gun to the Sherman 75, I might have to go look and see what I was recalling.

But I am sure some Armor Grog will come along at some point and explain it all so clear as to what is and what isn't.

[shift8]

Well, my mistake.

that is not the type of numbers I remember for the 76 Russian T34 gun to the Sherman 75, I might have to go look and see what I was recalling.

But I am sure some Armor Grog will come along at some point and explain it all so clear as to what is and what isn't.

I am refering to the American long 76, not the Russian short one. 

[slysniper]

Not sure where you are getting your data, but it does not add up with what others say.

Here is a sight I like http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/

It calculates a Sherman firing 75M L40 AP likely to penetrate the Tiger front hull at 400M and unlikely up to 650M

The 76.2MM firing L41.5 APCR is likely out to 300M and unlikely out to 400M.

That is numbers that fall into what I remember. Plus the Sherman outperforms the T34

I bet you the game reflects these type of numbers even though I have not tested it. But that sounds about right from what I would expect.

[slysniper]

The 85 MM should not have a problem out to a 1000m if it is shooting APBC OR APCR,

what is interesting is 85AP rounds have that shatter effect shown. But it is a window from 400 to 800 m, 800-950, it still hasa high level of penetration.

So I guess my only question would be, what ammo is being used generally in the game for the T34/85.

And what is the real results of the game performance

[shift8]

The 85 MM should not have a problem out to a 1000m if it is shooting APBC OR APCR,

what is interesting is 85AP rounds have that shatter effect shown. But it is a window from 400 to 800 m, 800-950, it still hasa high level of penetration.

So I guess my only question would be, what ammo is being used generally in the game for the T34/85.

And what is the real results of the game performance

APCR doesnt have any problems getting through, which I think might be the reason you havent had issues with the Tigers armor since quite a few of the T-34s have about 3 rounds of APCR. 

 

When they fire APCBC, rounds from the 85mm and 76mm routinely bounce off the front of the Tiger, even the 100mm superstructure. Like I was saying earlier, this happens the majority of the time. It even appears to be the case with the 75mm gun on the Pz4, which I have not tested extensively, but doing a few runs yielded what appears to be similar results. This is odd, as the KwK 48 is ever so slightly more powerful than the aforementioned cannons, and according to the shatter gap myth should not have the same problem. 

 

Rexford even mentions in his book that his section on shatter gap is no as precise as the other sections, which makes sense given that it is predicated entirely on loosely connected and inconclusive evidence that is very much at odds with other data. 

[slysniper]

You are likely correct as to what I am seeing within the games I am playing.

Maybe you do have something there as to what you are seeing.

Finding someone else that likes getting into this stuff should happen. Getting someone else to set up test and see if they are getting any unusual results also is somewhat of a must. Or at least you making a test that is good enough to share and get someone else and get their input also to if there is a issue.

[shift8]

I would like to see what battlefront has to say about this

 

As a side note, the 76mm gun can penetrate the front turret of the panther apparently with ease, and its also 100mm thick. It also seems to get though the 110mm thick mantlet so long as the impact of the rounds is no too far off center and not at a high angle. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

After considerable testing in CMBN, I have determined (as many here already are aware) that the Tiger deflects almost all 76mm hits from the front at ranges well within the penetration zone for the 76mm gun at low obliquity at ranges of 500 to 1000m.

 

At 500 meters and 10° obliquity US 76mm M62A1 penetrates the Tiger I driver plate (102mm @ 10° from vertical) about half the time in CMBN and on around 20-25% of hits at 800 meters at the same angle.

 

The turret is an entirely different beast because of the mantlet.

 

Soviet 85L52 has slightly higher penetration than US 76mm at 500 meters and AFAIK does not suffer from shatter gap in Red Thunder.

 

My guess is that the odds of getting shatter gap removed from the game are essentially zero.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would like to see what battlefront has to say about this

Good luck. The guy who does BFCs ballistics modeling never reads this forum

 

As a side note, the 76mm gun can penetrate the front turret of the panther apparently with ease, and its also 100mm thick. It also seems to get though the 110mm thick mantlet so long as the impact of the rounds is no too far off center and not at a high angle.

 

The Panther mantlet is actually 100mm thick* and is cast armor so has slightly lower resistance compared to RHA of equal thickness.

 

*At the apex. It thins out near the upper and lower edges.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

Also keep in mind that shatter gap modeling in CM is understated compared to Rexford's numbers as evidenced by the 50% penetration vs. Tiger driver plate at 500 meters.

[Rinaldi]

Anecdotal evidence here: I've actually had more trouble penetrating the mantlet on a Panther and the turret of the Tiger I at 300m with the 17 pdr than I have with the US 76mm. I know its poppycock, but that was just a bit of rough luck on my part.

 

I've consistently been able to get partial, spalls and full penetrations on the Panther's turret with the US 76 so I need to agree with shift8 that something's up with Tigers. They should have functionally less armor as a result of the easier angles, but in my personal experience tend to be a bit tougher. No real complaints though because most of my opponents would rather have a company of StuGs than a platoon of Tigers, so they remain rare beasts.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Rinaldi

[shift8]

Good luck. The guy who does BFCs ballistics modeling never reads this forum

 

 

The Panther mantlet is actually 100mm thick* and is cast armor so has slightly lower resistance compared to RHA of equal thickness.

 

*At the apex. It thins out near the upper and lower edges.

 

Anecdotal evidence here: I've actually had more trouble penetrating the mantlet on a Panther and the turret of the Tiger I at 300m with the 17 pdr than I have with the US 76mm. I know its poppycock, but that was just a bit of rough luck on my part.

 

I've consistently been able to get partial, spalls and full penetrations on the Panther's turret with the US 76 so I need to agree with shift8 that something's up with Tigers. They should have functionally less armor as a result of the easier angles, but in my personal experience tend to be a bit tougher. No real complaints though because most of my opponents would rather have a company of StuGs than a platoon of Tigers, so they remain rare beasts.

 

At 500 meters and 10° obliquity US 76mm M62A1 penetrates the Tiger I driver plate (102mm @ 10° from vertical) about half the time in CMBN and on around 20-25% of hits at 800 meters at the same angle.

 

The turret is an entirely different beast because of the mantlet.

 

Soviet 85L52 has slightly higher penetration than US 76mm at 500 meters and AFAIK does not suffer from shatter gap in Red Thunder.

 

My guess is that the odds of getting shatter gap removed from the game are essentially zero.

I figure they wont change it, but out of principle I feel the need to bring it up.

 

85mm does suffer the problem. It is perhaps slightly less so, but the majority of hits on the Tiger front with the 85mm are not penetrations, even at zero. 

 

As for the 76mm, in over 100 test firings I got far less penetrations than you indicate for the 76mm. Keep in mind im not counting PP's. More than 2/3rds of all hits at as close to zero as possible were defeated in some manner. 

[shift8]

Good luck. The guy who does BFCs ballistics modeling never reads this forum

 

 

The Panther mantlet is actually 100mm thick* and is cast armor so has slightly lower resistance compared to RHA of equal thickness.

 

*At the apex. It thins out near the upper and lower edges.

The mantlet is 110mm thick, not 100mm. The front turret is 100mm. Ive seen this stated in Rexfords book and its one of a few typos in there. (the T-33 AP values being another....)

 

I completely agree though regarding cast armor reducing its resistance though. 

 

Sidenote: after a few hours I have completed more extensive tests on the front of the panther. Contrary to my previous post, 76mm M62 seems to penetrate the mantlet and front turret at 500m very rarely at normal, despite having 16mm more penetration than necessary......

Edited July 21, 2015 by shift8

[shift8]

Edited July 21, 2015 by shift8

[shift8]

Also keep in mind that shatter gap modeling in CM is understated compared to Rexford's numbers as evidenced by the 50% penetration vs. Tiger driver plate at 500 meters.

For Sure, but its still ridiculous. It was barely a problem at all in CMx1, not that that is in and of itself a good counter argument to BF. 

 

I agree with most of what is in Redford and Livingston's book, but this Shatter Gap thing is pure witchcraft. He even states in his book that it is less reliable than the other parts. 

 

All of the testing shows that the 76mm gun should be passing though 100mm (ish) plate with reletive ease, at the very least out to 800m, at least 50% of the time. Same with the 85mm. 

 

The entire theory originates from anecdotal reports from tankers who were misreporting the tanks they were engaging. Post Normandy, when there actually were Tiger tanks facing the Americans in certain sectors of the front, there are only 3 verified encounters of Sherman's fighting Tigers. Of those, I have never seen any data showing any of them were 76mm Shermans, and even if some of them were, 3 engagements would hardly tell us anything, much less provide precise information on some kind of shatter gap. You would need tons of engagements with Tigers to make any kind of assumption like that. And this is of course all irrelevant since the excerpts from Bailey's book Rexford uses as a base are supposed to have been in Normandy, where not so much as a single Tiger lurked on the American side of the front. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I've consistently been able to get partial, spalls and full penetrations on the Panther's turret with the US 76 so I need to agree with shift8 that something's up with Tigers. They should have functionally less armor as a result of the easier angles

 

While the Panther mantlet does benefit from curvature, the apex where it is vulnerable has almost nothing behind it.

 

 

Most of the Tiger mantlet area is backed by the 102mm-think front turret armor.

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

Keep in mind im not counting PP's.

I do.

 

The mantlet is 110mm thick, not 100mm. The front turret is 100mm. Ive seen this stated in Rexfords book and its one of a few typos in there. (the T-33 AP values being another....)

Not a typo. Mantlet is 100mm. Front turret is 100mm on ausf D, 110mm on ausf A and G.

 

 

The entire theory originates from anecdotal reports from tankers who were misreporting the tanks they were engaging. Post Normandy, when there actually were Tiger tanks facing the Americans in certain sectors of the front, there are only 3 verified encounters of Sherman's fighting Tigers. Of those, I have never seen any data showing any of them were 76mm Shermans, and even if some of them were, 3 engagements would hardly tell us anything, much less provide precise information on some kind of shatter gap. You would need tons of engagements with Tigers to make any kind of assumption like that. And this is of course all irrelevant since the excerpts from Bailey's book Rexford uses as a base are supposed to have been in Normandy, where not so much as a single Tiger lurked on the American side of the front.

 

I don't care to get into a debate on shatter gap but to claim that Bird and Livingston used Faint Praise as the basis for their shatter gap theory is highly disingenuous. Baily's book is mentioned in passing in a single sentence out of 4 pages of analysis.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Rinaldi]

Well you learn something new every day, thanks Vanir.

[shift8]

I do.

 

Not a typo. Mantlet is 100mm. Front turret is 100mm on ausf D, 110mm on ausf A and G.

 

 

 

I don't care to get into a debate on shatter gap but to claim that Bird and Livingston used Faint Praise as the basis for their shatter gap theory is highly disingenuous. Baily's book is mentioned in passing in a single sentence out of 4 pages of analysis.

I listed the other things he mentions in his book, so clearly there is no intent to be disingenuous. He uses Faint Praise as the Primary BASE for the historical precedent for this idea. Without baileys book, he doesnt have any real world reason to look into shatter gap at all with regards to the 76mm and Tiger specifically. I dont know if you read the first part of the post, but I went over in detail what I think of ALL the major points he makes on this issue, not just the anecdotes from Faint Praise, so lets not try to insinuate I left the other stuff k? Because its in print at the beginning of this thread. I didnt retype all 4 pages dedicated to it in this forum, but this argument has never been based on the idea that the only thing in Rexfords book was excerpts from Faint Praise. In Fact, it seems a little disingenuous to insinuate that I did.

 

The fact of the matter is this: unlike the rest of his book, the section on Shatter Gap is a whole lot of pieced together guess work that is in direct odds with other data. He takes several other tests, some of which have nothing to do with the 76mm gun, a few historical anecdotes that can be easily shown to have no basis in fact (Faint Praise) and then build upon those a entire theory to explain how they all mesh together. In short, he insert shatter gap into series of things that make no specific mention of it, when there could be an almost infinite number of alternative explanations---Especially since some of them dont have anything to do explicitly with the 76mm gun.

 

Not to mention the contradictory data. It is a matter of fact, a borne out by US  gun testing, that M62 APCBC will penetrate more than 100mm armor at 1000m at LEAST 50% of the time. Some rounds would penetrate more, other less, on the other side of that 50%. This is borne out of the Shoeburyness tests that show at least two rounds penetrating 100 plates at 30 degrees. IF there is a shatter gap effect, it would reside somewhere in that other 50%. Meaning that in a worse case scenario, 1 out of every 2 rounds should make it though the plate. If you fired 10 rounds, at least 5 would penetrate, with some of the other 5 doing better, and some doing worse. But at least 5 would meet the specs as an average. Right now in CMBN, FAR FAR less than half of 76mm hits penetrate an amount of armor equal to the Tigers front from normal. 

 

 

 

As for the Panthers frontal armor, obviously there is some kind of manufacturing issue going on here. The document dates the Panther from 1943, and it wouldn't be the first time that Panthers of different models had different armor specs. Different sources on the internet disagree as to what the thickness of the turret and the mantlet are, so I'm going to chock that up to different models until I find something more definitive. According to Rexford, some Panther G's had 50mm nose plates, which is reflected in game since if you choose certain models of the G in CMBN, the 76mm M1 will penetrate at 500m, whereas on a A model it will not. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

 I didnt retype all 4 pages dedicated to it in this forum, but this argument has never been based on the idea that the only thing in Rexfords book was excerpts from Faint Praise. In Fact, it seems a little disingenuous to insinuate that I did.

 

It would be, had I actually done that. It seems a little disingenuous to insinuate that I did

 

Apparently we have different views on the meaning of the word "basis". I think the word you may be looking for is inspiration. Semantics.

 

As for the Panther mantlet, Jentz lists 100mm as the mantlet thickness for all Panther models (Panther Tank, pgs 51, 57 and 86). If you find anything solid to suggest otherwise I will shoot it up to BFC.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[shift8]

It would be, had I actually done that. It seems a little disingenuous to insinuate that I did

 

Apparently we have different views on the meaning of the word "basis". I think the word you may be looking for is inspiration. Semantics.

 

As for the Panther mantlet, Jentz lists 100mm as the mantlet thickness for all Panther models (Panther Tank, pgs 51, 57 and 86). If you find anything solid to suggest otherwise I will shoot it up to BFC.

Inspiration would be a accurate word yes.

 

The chart I posted would be an example of an alternate measurement. Honestly debating that Panthers armor doesnt mean that much to me. I am finding hard, despite my last two test to tell if 76mm makes it through the mantlet at 500m or not. It keeps saying "weapon mount" penetration for every hit on the mantlet. I suppose this refers to the mantlet in general. Taking a closer look at the hits, there are penetrating hits on the flat part, and not on the curves near the top and bottom. No idea how precise the hit markers are. 

[Bil Hardenberger]

Right now in CMBN, FAR FAR less than half of 76mm hits penetrate an amount of armor equal to the Tigers front from normal. 

 

I don't think you can just jump to this conclusion, have you done tests in CM to prove it?  Or are you talking about your impression while playing the game?  What were the angles of the opposing tanks?  What were the height differences?  

 

In a real game we are never going to see a range setup with two tanks on level ground at set distances from each other.  

 

In my opinion, there are way too many things going on under hood to make a determination that something is broken.  I don't think this is something to really get all defensive and aggressive about either, I trust that Charles has put the best information he could find in the code and I am comfortable with the simulation of armored combat as it stands. We had a lot of discussion when CMBN was coming out about the armor and AT round modeling, those threads can be found with a search I'm sure... also see my CMBN BETA AAR (first link below) where Charles makes a rare appearance (through a quote in one of my posts) explaining some of this,.