Paul Lakowski

OK looking at the pic on page 34 of the Osprey Tiger-1 book and using my trusty dial gauge caliper [capable of measurements of 1/40 th of a mm on the page] I note the following . The mantle is equal to the front plate in thickness and the area around the barrel is twice this thickness so that makes the Mantle 100-200mm thick and the front turret 100mm thick ....just as Jentz reports.Also visible is the ‘thick bar’ behind the which is attached to the gun cradle inside the turret. This thickness - from the mantle to the front turret - is just about equal to the mantle and front turret thickness... so thats about 100mm also . The extreme edge has there for 100mm cast manlte [down to 90mm] and 100mm front turret . Then the free edge effect. is 1-2 projectle diameter or 0.6-0.75 times the above thickness and finally ~ 0.97 reduction due to the airgap ... so thats [100mm x 0.9 + 100mm] x 0.6-0.7 x 0.97 = 111 Vs 122mm AP -129mm Vs 75-76mm AP. The middle mantle is 100mm cast [90mm] plus 100mm bar and the free edge efect is 2-3 projextile diameters .... thats 190mm x 0.75-0.83 = 142[100-122AP] -158mm[75-76 AP]. Around the barrel its 200mm Cast or about the same as the above figure. The thickened zone[ including the bulge around the barrel] in the middle accounts for 2/3 the manlte hight plus all the mantle width or 2/3 of the surface area. Since the ‘front turret ‘ is only ~ 60% the front turret profile this makes the area about 40% 14-16cm .The other half is 3/4 side turret armor at very sharp angle[ 65-75°] or >21cm LOS. while the top is over 17cm . These areas correspond to 1/3 of the front turret profile and 12% respesctively. <PRE> So thats 100-122mmAP 57-76mmAP 1/2 front turret is 14 cm 16cm 1/3 the turret is >21cm 21cm rest is 11 cm 13cm </PRE> So you need to revise the armor values .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Welding and Joint design: 'The Joint design is characterized by grooves machined in the heavy section of each weld joint to give a fitted or mortised joint which is in compression on impact from the direction of principal ballistic attack. Fit-up is fairly good.' 'Rough surface appearence, severe undercutting, and failure to completely fill the joint grooves with weld material indicate inexperience or carelessness on the part of the welders.' 'All welds were made up of multiple overlapping beads and appear to have been deposited, without preheat, on the armor in the final heat-treated condition. Very ex tensive base metal cracks were present in the heat affected zones of the three weld joint samples and sections from the samples break through these cracks on light impact with a hammer'. This examination revealed an amazeing lack of concern by German fabrication and inspection facilites, for base metal cracks w hich (1) would ordinarily be expected in welding of this high carbon armor plate, (2) must have occured soon after welding and were so extensive that they probably could have been detected by any of the usual inspection methods,and (3) are universally recognized to have a very serious effect on shock ressistance of the welded structure.' The Plates examined were: Hull Roof Plate - 1.0in 363BHN Turret Roof Plate - 1.0in 321BHN Hull Side Plate - 3.2in 352BHN Turret Side Plate - 3.2in 352BHN Main Front Plate - 4.0in 321BHN Front Glacis Plate - 2.4in 352BHN Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds good John , about what I expect to hear , it was well know by late war 43 on manufacturing declined and welding was a big problem. No one is saying make the Tiger 1 a super tank , noty even the Tiger 2 is a super tank. But I believe its front turret was more like 15-16cm KE armor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: As you can see, the Tiger's turret really didn't have a "front plate" per se. Instead it had more like a picture frame on the front of the turret, with a large rectangular opening in it. This rectangular opening was needed for the front ends of the recoil and recuperator cylinders, which were attached to the sides of the gun barrel. Besides the ends of these cylinders, the rectangular opening in the turret's face also contained the gun's trunions and their mounts, which were not armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm afraid this is not quite right , no matter what you put in the way of a projectile will effect its penetration even if this is mild steel it still contributes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The bottom line is, over most of the front of the Tiger's turret, the only armor was the mantle itself. The only places where there was a double thickness were around the edges of the mantle, where it covered the front "picture frame" of the turret face. So for the most part, the Tiger should NOT have 200+mm on the turret front. And for those places where it really did, I'm sure the random factors in the hit resolution routines produce enough bounces to cover that aspect. So the question, it seems to me, is really whether the front of the Tiger's turret should be rated for the thickness of the "picture frame" or for the thicker mantle. Because the mantle is what's going to be hit in most cases, let's use it. But considering that the mantle wasn't solidly attached to the turret structure, and thus couldn't transfer loads to the rest of the tank very easily, I don't think that it should get the benefit of its full thickness. So how much less? Given the mantle's varying thickness and lack of structural support, I think 100mm for it is close enough, especially given all the randomness and variables CM deals with. Thus, I see no reason to change the Tiger's turret front thickness in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I'll try again..... Either the projectile goes throu a mantle that has a 100-145mm cover plate and > 100mm thick chevron bar behind or it goes through mantle [ 100-145mm] and front 100mm turret plate. [Look at Osprey Tiger 1 book pp34] Or the side or top armor at very sharp angle 80mm @ 70 -80°. Either way its much much more than 100mm! The free edge effect will reduce both the resistance of the mantle and front turret but not by half... more like 2/3 to 3/4..... and thats not guess work thats from research work. Fact is most penetration calculations are horribly complicated ... in order to generate 1 'data point' on a penetration graph you need to crunch through upto 50 equations that usually takes a 'super computer' atleast 10 minutes. I'm afraid what were doing here is childs play . [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The DesertFox: OK, The figure chosen by Jentz is an approximation because the mantlet was NOT only 120mm - It was 100-145 mm thick. It has thickened part at the left and right edge, as well as the sight port and the big boss around the gun tube. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger also had heavy bars of turret armor in back of the mantlet, making the effective armor in these areas 200+ mm. Only small areas of the turret front had an effective thickness of 100 mm. In fact only the small area which is directly below the mantlet and above the turett roof was 100 mm thick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great Info Helge!I knew it must be about that thick as one top photo of the Tiger in JENTZ book clearly shows the 'thick bar' behind the manlte extending into the fighting compart ment. This same arrangement is in the LEO-1 with the thickness through the mantle being ~ 50cm thick with 10-20cm being airgap. But this brings up a question .... isn't this the Gun cradle and is that armor [mild steel etc?] and should it count. I believe it should and one final point is that the 'free edge effect will reduce the effective per unit resistance. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some additions to the penetration datas. This is from Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics" by Thomas L Jentz. The penetration tests were conducted in March 1945 with a medium series Tiger I captured in Normandy. This one was the turett No 334 [Fgst.Nr.250570] from 3./ schwere SS Panzerabteilung 101, produced in October 1943. page 18, you'll find: " 4. Turret Mantle at 30 degrees Compound Angle - 6 pounder APDS Three rounds. Numbers 27, 28, and 29, resulted in the nose lodging for one round and two non-defeats at striking velocities of 3357, 3351, and 3551 ft/sec, respectively. From rounds 27 and 28 an estimated limit was obtained at 3354 ft/s, representing a range of approximately 1200 yards. Round 27, striking in the area of the turret telescope, sheared two bracket-holding bolts but otherwise appeared to do little damage." "5. Turret Mantle at Normal - 6 pounder APCBC Round 73, striking at 2398 ft/s, 1.5 inches above the lower edge of the mantlet, scooped down through the roof, holing same 7.5 x 4 inches. Considerable damage was caused to the rear end of the transmission. Fragments of roof plate were found on the driver's seat.The driver would have been killed and other members of the crew may have been casualties." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good info but the proximity of penetrating hits implies the plate is progressively weakened...it would be nice to see which shot was first... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On page 13, in Table 7.3.3; Jentz states: Range in meters at which the Tiger I could be penetrated at a side angle of 30 degrees: FRONT 57mm 6 pounder APCBC Gun Mantlet 0 Turret 0 Superstructure 0 Hull 0 Penetration ability of the 6 pounder: Meters APCBC APCR 457 81mm 131mm 914 74mm 117mm 1371 63mm - 1828 56mm 90mm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jentz has a extensive paragraph pointing out that these are comparative estimates and theres a hugh variation in projectile penetration and plate resistance .I think I'll set up a JPeg on Tank Net and show you just how much variation is involved for AP and APFSDS shot. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Data for the 17 pounder: "12. Turret Mantlet at 40 degrees - 17 pounder APDS Strikes on this somewhat restricted target produced one fair hit which completely defeated the mantlet at 3482 ft/s. Round 43, passing through a thickened section of the casting and breaking up on the right side gun recoil cylinder casing. Further shooting was not possible owing to lack of space (too many rounds had been fired at this mantlet). It seems, however, that defeat would be likely up to a range of 1500 yards." Helge <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John I think your right about the Panther 88 turret .... [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Armour: Turrent roof 26mm (1in) at 0-9 degrees Mantlet 120mm (4.7in) Later in the war the turrent top armor was increased to 40mm (1.5in) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK 26mm @ 81° = 166mm LOS and 40mm = 255mm This doesn't take into acount the 'turning effect' pointed projectiles suffer when striking sloped armor which given the low T/d should be may be 1.02-1.03 times or 170-263mm

RMC, your absolutely right and the same problem applies to the Tiger-2 as most of the front profile is side 80mm turret at ~ 70° or ~ 27cm LOS thickness. This looks like the same angle and the profile is probably only ~ 1/2 Mantle and the rest is side/top armor at sharp angle. Wish I had a website to post some Jpegs but the mantle is much thicker than 120mm. In the middle behind the mantle the armor forms a 'inverted wedge or Chevron ' that extends into the firing compartment [where theres no front turret armor], this thickness must be about 200mm too.

The mantle thickness varies from 100-200mm in thickness , this much is confirmed by Jentz and is obvious in the diagrams. I missed the cast part in my estimate and the extreme edge is only about 120mm thick. This looks like 1-3 projectile diameters wide . The main manlte looks like 100mm thick and around the gun this thickens to 200mm.Around the port there is also evidence of thickening and the whole mantle is rated at 280 BHN . The main fron turret wall is 100mm thick but where the mantle is 200mm thick there is the 'gun embrassure'. The free edge effect and and airgap and T/d will tend to even these effective thickenss out...I have values from long rod penetration studies but nothing from AP type velocities....SO the thickness is 220mm at the edge 200mm in the middle and 200mm around the gun may be I'll do another estimate.

Armor estimates Tiger I tank. 100mm main front turret plus a mantle that is 20cm at the mantle edge ,then 12cm to 10cm thick , then thickening to ~20cm near the gun.Since the mantle covers about >90% of the front turret any projectile will have to punch through both plates or the thicker section of the mantle. Now if you space plates the net resistance goes down , depending on the airgap, which is 2-10cm or 1 projectile diameter at best. In test with such a small gap the resistance is atleast 97% of the solid LOS thickness , in addition the T/d would reduce the armor effectivenss to ~ 95% , from 30° angle. Tiger -1 armor was of high quality with hardness ~ 280BHN,Thomas Jentz list the mantle thicknes at 100-200 mm .So our Tiger 1 should offer atleast 10cm+10cm x 0.95= 19cm to 30cm LOS thickness which would make it impervious to any WW-II projectile. But we all know the 122 could penetrate the mantle area @30° off angle out to 500m range, which means straight on it should penetrate at >1000 meters [ I think Valera is now claiming 1800m?]. The 122 WWII AP shot could do 160mm vertical armor at 1000 meters and maybe 180mm @ 500m. Looking at Valeras page on russian guns I see the CP=142mm'Certified penetration'[which means 80% of shots will reach this penetration]and 133mm @ 1.5kms.The difference between the CP and max penetration is like 200m/s striking velocity or 5-6cm increase in penetration [for a 3-4 inch gun]. That means the values are <PRE> Hits 80% Ballistic limit ~5%[MAX] 1000m 142mm 16-17cm 19-20cm 1500m 133mm 15-16cm 18-19cm </PRE> Enough to exceed the Tigers front turret armor @ over 1.5km from straight on. This implies the 'effective armor' had to be >15cm . I remember Robert Livingston told me it was about 150-160mm including the mantle. So the 30cm LOS thickness near the edge is cut in half while the 20cm near the gun is down 0.75.I remember Robert thought the free edge effect reduce the front turret armor to atleast 70%. This happens to ALL TANKS So whats the ballistic limit on the 76mm & 75mm APC shots ? [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-02-2000).]

Dan the paper is quite extensive and what I should do is scan and Email it to you but its 14 pages long , if your interested drop me an Email . The basics are as follows the base metal was 450-520 HV[10] and 6 different weld arrangements were tried., from basic soft weld [Austenitic weld 19% Cr 9% Ni =250-320 HV] to face hardened [ 30% Cr 4% C = 650-780 VH] and layered approach.. The ‘projectile’ was a 7.62mm API and the plates 500mm x 300mm and 6mm deep, so the results were velocity loss. The results were as follows Start Velocity was 830m/s and plate was 6mm thick <PRE> Weld residual Velocity Aust 600m/s Aust/FH/Aust 0 m/s FH/Aust 0 m/s FH 800m/s <PRE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanW: Wouldn't the subsequent welding operations of the German tank designs result in the parent material being significantly softer, in an annealed condition, rather then the initial hardness from the as quenched condition? For the next ten days I'm still in my role as structural analyst, and these kind of discussions really float my boat. Dan W.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dan I'll do some digging tomorrow cause there are several 'papers' on the ballistic resistane of weld joints in the Int.J.Impact Engng. Have you read any of these? The one article I remember talked about 'Heat Affected Zones' They showed that you could harden these areas to 500-600 BHN by some process, but it wasn't homogeneous through the depth of the weld. As I recall the 'weld' ballistic resistance was much better than the 270-300 BHN plate resistance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: The Russians reported that in a live fire with the 122mm gun at Kublinka, that the AP-T round penetrated the Panther A Glacis and exited thru the engine. My problem with this has been their are cases where the 122mm failed vs the Panther glacis in combat, at lower ranges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I might be able to help here , the Panthers tested at Kublinka were captured at Kursk and the first production run of Panthers featured 'Face hardened glacis' when later models featured 250-300BHN plate[?]. Thus when struck by overmatching 122mm AP shot they would shatter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Russian armor at 400 - 500BHN was very brittle it was very vulnerable to the German long 75mm guns. Below is the BHN data for the T-34-76 Model 1942 from the British report on the T-34-76 42: Glacis - 354 - 400 Pannier side plate (nearside) - 388 - 434 "" " " (offside) - 387 - 398 Upper tail plate (outside) - 400 - 410 " " " (inside) - 389 - 406 Engine cover plate (cast) - 405 - 407 Turret escape hatch (pressing) - 390 Encasement for buffer and recuperator - 416 Gun mantlet - 407 The Sherman actualy had better armor vs overmatching then the T-34 or KV1 due to better materials in construction of the armor Ie, Russian armor tended to crack & break up under repeated hits, while US armor held together vs same calibre penetrations. German armor at 300BHN was about 10% more resistant vs overmatching, then US & UK armor at 200 - 250BHN as well. Another aspect was the published penetration data we have, US & UK results were vs 225BHN plate, and the Russian data was vs 400BHN plate, German tests were vs 300BHN plate. Against German plate at 300BHN results would be lower penetration data, which explains why 90mm APCBC etc, often failed to penetrate the Panther or Tiger 1 even at 500yrds.While German data would be higher vs 225 - 250BHN plate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again I might be able to help; Its been well know that WW-II ballistic Limit values for western tanks is based on the 50% mark. That means a projectile is marked a penetration value at the point when 50% of all projectiles fired completely penetrate the target plate. According to Valera Potapov on RMZ the standard Russian mark is 75% which means that if you reference them to the same mark [normalize] they get better penetration. Valera showed me some great data on the Russian WW-II guns at http://www.history.enjoy.ru/guns/defin_4.html <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'd also reccomend Paul if you get an intertest in WW2 armor (hopeing you do), you see if Robert can send you all 3 Watertown Arsenal reports as well as the British poldi test reports on the T-34 (which are 10% higher then the US poldi tests)etc, that Robert has, they make very interesting reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I always was interested in WW-II BTW great data I can see you've not been idle, I always wondered what happened to you after you dropped off the 'Tankers Net'

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Well, as you know armour is made in segments. Sometimes an entire hull or turret is cast but generally most WW2 tanks had the front, sides and rear of the turrets and hulls made separately and then welded together. At the junctures of these areas we have what is termed a "free edge". Basically it has been found that if a shell hits within about 3 calibres of a free edge that it can penetrate three times as far as it otherwise would ( well, really the armour presents only about 30% of the resistance so the penetration of the shell isn't changed but the resistance of the armour is... OTOH it is easier to understand if I just reference everything to the performance of the shell and ask that people just understand I'm not being 100% accurate but just trying to get the basics across). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I think we have a different view here.This may be due to the difference between AP & APFSDS. In the APFSDS studies the ratio is Td/Pd [Target diameter over projectile diameter]. The effective resistance VS Semi infinite blocks of Rc 27 [type 4340 steel] is [off the top of my head] <PRE> 1:1--2:1--4:1---8:1---16:1---32:1 0.6--0.65-0.7---0.88---0.95---0.99 For Cermic+RHA target the figures are 0.3--0.5--0.6 --0.7---0.85---0.95** { distance from gun in Meters } threat is 105/120 APDS 1:1--2:1--4:1---8:1---16:1---32:1 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.6-2 threat is 1st Gen APFSDS 0.04 0.07 0.14 0.3 0.55 1.1 threat is 2nd Gen APFSDS 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 ** Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-17,pp 615-626 </PRE> In any event I had to estimate the armor values for modern tanks on the new Tank Sim "steel Beast" and with this modification and the info on ceramics and layered targets etc, I was able to get pretty close to the published values. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Anyways,. what this basically means is that if you hit the centre of a Panther's mantlet with a 76 at 300 metres it'll bounce right off or fail to penetrate BUT if you hit within 20 or 30 cm of the edge of the mantlet ( either top, bottom or side edges) then the shell will actually penetrate through the armour as though the mantlet was only 1/3rd as thick as it really is.. (<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you include T/d this sounds close but the emphasis is that the mantle in each of these cases is 'unsupported' and thats why its 'free'. In theory the side turret welded to the front turret should have offered the support needed .But as you point out this was a problem with German tanks at first due to the'face hardened armor' which was difficult to weld any way. And in late model tanks due to the poor weldin. Do the Hetzers have 220 BHN steel in the game? How well does it do against 3 inch AP shells? This explains why every one after WW-II went in for cast turrets as this eliminated this problem altogether . Just the same thing happened with the 'MG ports' as these created a weakened zone for the hole glacis ...deminishing as you move away from the 'holes' or 'hatches'. In the modern case I know theres been work on welding that overcomes this and also allows duel hardness plates & ceramic layers to be included in the mix. John , When RObert and I discussed the KV-1 he pointed out the armor was 400 BHN cast and while it offered relative immunity to undermatching shells when struck by 75mm shell [ close to the plate thickness] , the brittle nature of these plates offered less resistance....by how much I can't tell.... But we have the case of the face hardened Panther Glacis penetrated by 122mm AP shots at 2km or more. Which on paper should not have happened.[RMZ source] Any one heard any more on this ? BTW will this 'free edge effect'ever get to CM update or patch? [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 07-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Ah, the infamous book . I heard about that too . Still, if he ever does it I'll buy it. We had good fun shooting the breeze on armour way back when. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually he was quite pessimistic about its chance's last time we spoke:-( <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Actually this discussion sparks something I've been toying with in my mind for a while. I'm going to speak generically of course with the usual caveats that details will vary depending on the tank types involved etc. Given that the number of armour plates utilised in a tank's construction is proportional to the squared area of its aspects shouldn't that mean that we are likely to see an over-representation of the edge effect ( since much more of the tank is within the 2 to 3 calibres of an edge of the armour) ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My understanding is this has to be a 'Free edge', if its supported by the side walls its not free .... to reflect the shock waves. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On a related note... Have you noticed how the vast majority of 75mm Sherman penetrations of Panthers and JagdPanthers occur at areas affected by the edge effect? I've seen very few central plate penetrations but have lost count of the number of penetrations within a calbire or two of the edge of the turret or hull. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This might be the problem of weld strength as well as free edge....mantle hits and hits near the MG-ports. I know the RMZ has great article on Tiger 2 pounded to death on a test range and the cracking along the weld lines is obvious. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ( Free edge effect isn't accounted for in CM... partially because I couldn't get enough hard data to really make a case for it.. Paul, can I drop you an email to discuss this and get some exchange of info going?) Ps. Always nice to meet another armour fan .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Definately Email me , but again most of my stuff is modern [ there is always 12.7 AP shot test etc but most is APFSDS work]and I need WW-II to link it together. psl@interchange.ubc.ca BTW I did have an idea along the line of your 'idea' relating to the shrinking of the front of modern tank turrets , since ceramic steel targets seem to be much more effected by 'free edge'.But an engineer friend assures me that if its a well, welded box structure the shock waves should be transmitted and distributed around around the turret. I actually thought that the Tiger -2 front turret was the best as it limited the free edge effect to a small area.Since most of the front turret profile is the side turret armor at very sharp angle.But this goes against the previous point so I'm not sure if it applies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Ah, you're talking about the calibre effect are you? The effect where a shot which hits within 2 to 3 shell calibres of the edge of an armour plate often meets 50 to 70% less resistance than if it hit the centre of the armour plate? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct, I'm doing an armor review of the American post war T-95 design and after you factor in T/d the only war to get the resistance reported by Hunnicutt is to include the Free edge effect as it effects APFSDS ammo. This suprised me as this effect still reduces armor at ratio's of 20:1 and more and explains why most tank armor is much thicker as you approach the gun embrassure. Looking at the reported vunerablity of the T-34 to 50L60 AP39 ammo ... this can be explained using the "Free edge effect". I noted that the Tiger -1 could be penetrated by 122mm AP ammo at 30° from 500 m range which is impossible if the armor is 200-300mm across the whole mantle. But if you include the Free edge effect and something for the spaced of mantle from main armor it does start to work out.....or so it seems. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This would lead to the effect you're suggesting. BTW How's Robert doing these days. It's been a while since I've talked with him. We got together to discuss armour about the time PzC came out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John & Fionn You know I talk to Steve Zaloga more than I talk to Robbert these days He's busy with a new job and house and only occasionally responds to any Emails . I expect he'll surface again sooon,David Honner was after us for pics of 'ductile hole growth and plugging ' etc hope Robert helped cause my stuff is all modern. But really what he needs to do is finish that darn book hes been trying to write for the last few years... then we'd all know alot more:)

Its good to see John Waters again and thank I got that Email...good info as usual. To the thorny problem of tank armor.Over on the old Tankers Net one Robert Livingston taught us all about just how difficult it 'Really is to model' armor and penetration and I've got hundreds of engineering journals that bear him out . The problem is that as with all such 'proffesional Journals' the more you learn the more questions your left with. My main interest is modern armor tech but its allways been based on the WW-II model. One thing that Robert noted was the 'Free edge effect' this is the weakening off a plate's resistance as you approach a 'free edge'. The Tiger I mantle is a case in point, the actual thickness is 100-200mm on the mantle and 100mm on the turret front. At the very edge of the mantle this is 200mm RHA [ Jentz reports 265-285BHN] plus the main 100mm front turret armor. As you move to the gun the mantle thins to 100mm plus the 100mm front turret and then [around the barrel ] it thicknes again to 200mm where there is no front turret armor behind. Was this modeled at all ? my estimates using modern Long rod penetration studies suggest the weakening of the plate could easly be 70% or less for the whole armor so the armor on the front armor of modern tanks is well over 100cm but is reduced to 85-95cm due to this 'free edge effect' and the actual armor tech involved in each tank design. The Tiger to glacis is a related problem . Robert reported the glacis was only 220 BHN and the MG ports present a 'free edge ' zone ,just as in the turret. So the glacis offers uneven resistance. Has this been modeled? Sorry to ramble:)

I wish to get this game since it comes highly rated but I have a few questions first. Whats the scale? Whats the scope? I'm most interested in armor technology and wonder how the armor values were estimated for this game. What level of protection is estimated for the Tiger 1 front turret [in mm]? What level of protection is estimated for the Tiger 2 glacis [in mm] ?