The DesertFox

Lutz, ROFLMAO Cheers Helge

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helge: YIPEEH!!!! I won a toaster! Now what do I have to do to claim my price?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lutz, Ja, und sogar einen Mark LXVII mit eingebauter Geschirrspuelmaschine. Na, was sagst Du nun ? Problem ist nur, er hat eine Leistungsaufnahme von 25000 Watt.... Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

No need to feel sorry Lindan. You gave us all an interesting training for our little grey cells <G> And an interesting excurse about the possible pitfalls of tank identification. I enjoyed it. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

LOL! Thanks for clearing that up Lutz. Yep, I´d be interested in the name of the movie too. Perhaps "Stalingrad" by Vilsmaier ? Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Ugh, While looking at this "Wespe" something more occured to me. Look at the muzzle of the gun and the gun itself. Is it just me or is the front part of the barrel thicker than the rear part near the superstructure. It can be the perspective of the photo... Helge

Fionn, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helge, Look at the back of the chassis. The position of the wheel there simply isn't correct for a Pz II.It IS however more correct for a T60 chassis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, that doesn´t exactly fit the picture of the PzII chassis (the prototype LKAII). But if you imagine a combination of the LKA II and the Ausf D/E suspension you pretty much get what you see in the above "Wespe". Of course I don´t have pictorial evidence so I have to make clear that this is just an educated guess, that such prototypes existed and were converted. Here´s the Ausf. D/E However coming to your T60 assumption: We most certainly can agree that some elements of the T60 suspension can´t be found in the "Wespe" above: Spacing between the roadwheels, the missing 3rd bogie (sp?) wheel and last but not least the distance between the drive sprocket and the 1st roadwheel doesn´t seem to be right to me. Another point is that the T60 drivesprocket is much higher than it seems to me the case in this "Wespe". Certainly not a perfect fit either. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also check out the gaps in between the wheels. See the suspension portions visible there.. Very typical T60 chassis but not very typical Pz II chassis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That´s the ends of the "Schwingarme" which connect to the torsion bars. It´s the same for my guestimated Ausf.D/E suspension, but you can´t see them (the Schwingarm) because the roadwheels are much bigger in the original Ausf D/E than in this "Wespe". And you are correct in the T60 chassis you can see ´em but their distance is bigger as it is in this "Wespe". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course we'd need a properly lit picture of the chassis to be precise but it really doesn't look like the 37 prototype's suspension to me. How do you explain the bogies placement too high up on the chassis?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The bogies are strange too, but both for my LKA II example and for the T60. In the LKA II the bogies are deeper, no doubt, but they are aprox in the middle between the roadwheels, slightly less distant to the inner roadwheels. If we look at the T60, we see that the rearmost bogie would fit the picture but neither do the middle nor the front bogie wheel. Especially for the front bogie wheel it´s obvious that it is closer to the front roadwheel than being in the middle between them. However all this is pure guesswork and we can´t have a close look at the "Wespe" in question. Neither possibility, nor PzII nor T60 fit the picture exactly. Now, if we really have an authentic WW2 vehicle here in front of us, I´d say its suspension has it´s origin in the PzII line. But... BIG BUT, as I have mentioned above, there is one thing wrong with this "Wespe" and that is the triangular structure on the right front. This structure and the overall appearance of the vehicle itself make me think that we really can´t exclude a postwar "constructed" Wespe fake. Perhaps for a movie or whatever reason. If this is the case, I´m sure as hell that it is a Hotchkiss they took to construct it. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Sorry guys, I fear nobody has won a toaster with the replys yet [just kidding] What you see above is indeed a Wespe, no question. The part in question is the suspension it was build on. If you have a very close look at the suspension, you easily can find out, that this suspension does not seem to be a leafspring suspension. BUT all Pz35/38(t) suspensions including the Hetzer were leafspring suspensions. That clearly excludes the Pz35/38(t) chassis for me. Furthermore there is no single Pz35/38(t) conversion to Wespe documented. As far as I can say of course. Now what´s with the PzII suspension ? The later [past 1938] suspensions wich were used for Wespe conversions were leafspring suspensions too and furthermore had 5 wheels. OK and here comes my answer to this mystery: The suspension is a PzII suspension, but what we have here is a) a torsion bar suspension and the exact suspension of the 1937 Krupp prototype for the PzII. You can have a look at the Chamberlain/Doyle/Jentz "Enzyclopedia of german tanks", there you will find a pic in the PzII section and of course in the PzI section, because that was the origin of the prototype. Ah well, I finally found a pic at Achtung Panzer. The Krupp PzKpfw I (LKA 1) prototype. And Krupp's LKA II - Panzer II prototype: Of course the best way to find the final proof [and if I´m right or wrong] is to ask the folks at Sinsheim about this very special Wespe. I´d furthermore be interested to know how much of these prototype suspensions were converted and how reliable their suspension was. AFAIK it was very unreliable, because in 1937/38 the development still was somehow in its infancy concerning this special suspension. Hmmmm, but I have still the strange feeling that the Hotchkiss TT looks damn close as well. Especially the charakteristic triangular structure on the right front of this so called "Wespe". It can be coincidence... Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 08-15-2000).] [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 08-15-2000).]

Hi, I made some additions to represent a well known unit Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Hi folks, Might be some of you are interested. I experimented a little bit with several graphicprogramms and managed to finish my first MOD for Combat Mission™. Check out my adapted Tiger-IE MOD. To download the file go to: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/ Have fun ! Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just tried it witH my MP44 (non firing unfortunately!) and you have to fall with the weapon in a decidely non-firing postion. Then you have to prop your elbow up to full position, adjust the weapon, then aquire the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! Steve, Don´t hurt yourself while trying this. We need you for programming CM-2 Seriously, it´s a question of propper military training. There are more than enough battledrills to hammer this into your soldiers until they are able to do it without accident. I still can remember the times when I was a little private and had the honour to be tought this procedure the whole day. Don´t ask how my knees and elbows looked at the end of the day Bottomline is that you don´t need more than 3-5 seconds to get lying down and aquire the target. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

150mm Heavy Infantry Gun and sIGs in general: IIRC it was a gamedesign decision not to give them indirect firing ability. Ask BTS about it. Reality was that the sIG towed or armoured [bison, etc..] were Arty pieces under direct command of the regimental commander [PzGren, Inf]. These allowed him to be independ from the Division and have fast responding Artillery available for the units committed to his center of gravity [schwerpunkt]. Due to their assignment to the direct frontline troops these sIGs off course were used in dual purpose role, as were the Wespe and Hummel if necessary [although not intended to]. Due to the scale of CM [mostly 2 x 2 km maps] you only can have one thing on your map. Either the target or the Arty piece but not both. At least it isn´t possible to fire with an Arty piece on map indirectly on a target which is 1.5-2 km away in the game. I think that was the reason to modell the sIGs as units which only are able to provide direct fire. You see IIRC it was a decision made out of gameplay reasons not because it was reality. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Something often forgotten about the Sten is that it could be fired while lying down- due to the magazine being horizontal. It was much more difficult/impractical to fire the MP44/40 while lying down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> KIA, Don´t get me wrong, but have you ever fired with these guns while lying down ? If you would have, you would have seen that there is no problem at all firing them while lying down. One comparable example of todays weapons would be to fire the AK 47 while lying down. No problem either. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>say, 25% of the time the Tiger front turret armor acts anywhere from 1-100% stronger than the "regular" 100mm armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting approach Charles. That would take into account strong and week points. But you have to change the percentage values to get it right. After reviewing the percentage areas of the overlap, strong areas, week spots etc. your equation has to be more like 33%@100mm, 33%@150mm and 33%@200mm. Otherwise your turret modell remains faulty IMHO. And yes, this most likely will open a can of worms Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1) "Tiger I Heavy Tank" by Jentz, Doyle, Sarson (New Vanguard). p.17-18. "The data presented [in the 17pdr penetration table] was found in an STT secret document dated April 1944: It is obvious that the 17pdr firing APCBC rounds could defeat the frontal armour of the Tiger I at most combat ranges for tank vs. tank actions in Europe." The table lists penetration range for the 17pdr vs. the Tiger I at 1900 yards (turret and driver front plate) and 1700 yards (nose).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, Ahhh, that´s a new one for me. Actually I was referring to the data presented at David Honners site. Due to his sources front turret penetrations with APCBC would be a little bit difficult at 1800 metres. However fiddling around with all these pen data is no easy task. The Tiger definitively wasn´t invincible. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There was likely a side angle present here. Even just thirty degrees angle-off would be enough to account for this phenomenon completely. Side angles are enormously important in armor combat, especially when the armor is "undermatched" (i.e. thick compared to the diameter of the incoming shell) as it would be in this case<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Might be so...it´s quite a while that I have read Touts book. However the reason why I remembered this part was that it was an account of a british officer who participated in the defeat of Wittmanns ill conducted [without flank security] charge at 8th August 44 near St.Aignan de Cramesnil. BTW: 5 out of 8 Tiger Is were burning crap at the end of the day due to british Fireflies that caught the Tigers in their flanks. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know about the barrel change but how would you change out the gun? If you had to replace the main weapon? Take off the whole turret? I dont know where but I have seen photos of the Tiger I with the mantlet/ gun combonation removed while the turret is on the tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I´ve never seen such pictures. However to change the "Selenrohr" or the "Mantelrohr" the turret had to be pulled and the barrel be pushed back, then elevated and finally pulled out of the turret back downwards. Not an easy task for the field maintenance guys Look in Bruce Culver "Tiger in Action" or Jean Restayn "Tiger I on the Eastern Front" IIRC they have some pretty good pics about this task. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It might be in order to tweak a couple of small things in this great game after what I've read in the forum, nothing big just like I said a little<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. The sign that we end up in these discussions that occasionally are almost nitpicking is actually a good sign, since it shows BTS that: a) We love this game and We aren´t able to find something more important so that we start whining at relatively minor matters. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Using APDS [Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot] the 17pounder [Firefly gun] was able to defeat the Tiger I armour as it is modelled in CM right now [basically 100mm hull and turret front] at ranges up to 1800 metres. If you look at the Tiger thread the Tiger turret front modell needs a little bit tweaking here to reflect the effective turett front armour it really had. Using APCBC [Armour Piercing Capped with Ballistic Cap] the 17 pounder wasn´t able to defeat the Tiger I frontally until below 400 metres. In Ken Touts book "A fine night for tanks" there is a first hand account which mentions NOT getting a penetration frontally on a Tiger I when engaging it at eight, repeat eight!, metres with ABCBC. So you don´t have a 100 % chance to suceed here To frontally engage a Tiger with a Firefly was suicide. Allied tankers were trying to get a flank shot at the Tiger or any other german tank. Common allied practice was first to blaster the monster with HE and AP out of the 3 other 75mm Shermans of the platoon to force the Tiger Commander to button up and then to come in for the KILL with the Firefly. BTW: To NOT frontally engage any enemy tank at all is something you really should consider. It enhances the survival rate of your tanks dramatically. Hunt for his weak flanks and you almost ever will suceed, regardless which tank you are engaging. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Paul, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>See if the value was 120mm penetration would be over 1500m ,so what this suggest that against a 122mm AP shot the Tiger -1 front mantle armor should be less than 151mm but more than 142mm .15cm sounds about right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 150mm sounds good to me. Seems like I wasn´t too much off with my rough guesstimation. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Charles, Ok, seems like we are moving in the correct direction <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Charles: I think the mantlet thickness is more important than the "turret front" thickness in the case of the Tiger I. My question is simply what thickness should it be rated at? Since it appears to vary in thickness, there's no precise answer - but Combat Mission needs a "single" rating. So what is most appropriate? (I don't think the overlap between mantlet and turret front is significant, so I'm looking just for mantlet thickness).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So first question which has to be solved is: Which area in % of the turret front is exclusively covered by the mantlet ? And how thick is the mantlet in this area ? I´m using very rough figures here so please bear with me. If we look at this picture we can see that aprox. 33 % of the mantlet has an overlap to the turret front armour [look at the sketches] which itself is 100 mm. So I think we can assume 200-220 mm effective armor for these areas. Now to the rest of the mantlet armour. As you can see in this pic: The mantlet armour in the area where it isn´t overlapping with turett front armour is between 120 mm and 200 mm [200mm for the area around the barell which is aprox. 1/5 of the remaining 66 %] This will give us aprox. 136 mm armour for the mantlet without overlap and 200 mm for the mantlet with overlap. So altogether I come to the conclusion that we have 157 mm effective armour which has to be considered as effective armour for the turett front of the Tiger I. With 200 mm where there is overlap [the outer areas of the mantlet] and 136 mm for the inner square without overlap. As I mentioned these are VERY VERY rough figures. Someone really has to exactly find out the percentage of the overlap between mantlet [which is 120mm in the areas of overlap] and turret front [100mm]. But I think if we take into account published penetration figures that 157 mm effective armour is very close to reality. And we have to keep in mind that we don´t have uniformly distributed armour, but the effective armour is varying from 120mm to 200mm. As you said if you need one single figure for the Tiger I front, I´d use 157-160mm for it, because then the mantlet thickness needs to be adjusted IMHO to reflect both the mantlet & the turett front armor with 1 value representing both. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You could not pull the gun and mantlet out of the front as one piece (which I thought they could)!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wasn´t necessary, because the 8,8 barrel was in two parts; an inner sleeve (Seelenrohr) and an outer jacket (Mantelrohr). They only had to change the "Seelenrohr" if it was necessary. Drawings 5155-2 and 5155-7, Bundesarchiv. These specify how to make the two pieces of the barrel The penetration figures I quoted are taken out of a WaPruef Report (german) dated 5 October 1944. All ranges are in metres at which the Tiger I can be penetrated at a side angle of 30 degrees. BTW: Data is available for open review in "Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics" by Thomas L Jentz, Schiffer Publications Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 08-07-2000).]

Bullethead, I think you really should measure it out yourself, if all the data presented here isn´t sufficient for you. Somehow this reminds me of a discussion when some folks were claiming the earth is a table some times back in history. Really if you don´t believe the cited sources, go ahead and measure it out and you easily will come to the result that where the mantlet had 100mm there was the front turret armor with additional 100mm behind it. And in the areas of the opening the mantlet had 140mm up to 200mm in the area of the gun mount. Find out the truth yourself. Oh and one addition. If you believe that the turret front and superstructure front both had an armour value of 100mm you certainly can explain why the 76 mm M1A1 M62 can defeat the superstructure front at 600 metres but the mantlet only at 100 metres, why the 17pounder APCBC can defeat the superstructure front at 1700 metres and the turret front not at all and why the 122 mm A 19 APBC/HE can defeat the superstructure front at 1300 metres but the mantlet only at 500 metres ? You see there is a difference ? Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 08-06-2000).]

Charles, Would be the data being produced by the Brits while examining Tiger [Chassis No. 250570] plus this scan of a sketch out of the original Tiger turret manual be sufficient to convince you that there was something behind the mantlet ? In fact both you can find in Tom Jentz book "Germany´s Tiger Tanks, DW to Tiger I" BTW: The Brits measured the gun mantlet having 100-200 mm and measured the hardness with a Poldi portable hardness tester as 280 BNH. cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 08-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So what I am seeing hear is that Tigers should be better than we are seeing them in CM? ------------------ Weak men are the enemy of all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I yet have to see something strange happening in the game. Fact is that I have the game for a little more than 2 weeks now and I wasn´t able to observe some turret front armor penetrations with US 75 mm. Indeed only 17pounder and 76mm rounds should IMO be able to score front penetrations above 1200 metres. Well perhaps it´s too early for a final statement. More testing necessary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Naaaa, not above 200+ mm, but fact is that 100mm is nowhere near reality for the mantlet. Indeed as you can see from the pics and quotes above the effective armour is somewhere near 120mm-140mm, if you allow me to generalize. The question that remains is: Is the data which is in the game right now leading to "realistic" results or is it allowing let´s say 75 mm calibers to penetrate the mantlet plate ? As I say above, perhaps more testing is necessary to find this out, but I haven´t seen something which I would call a highly unlikely event yet. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Taken into account the amount of thoroughly research necessary and the amount of data which have to be included into CM:2 Eastern Front and CM:3 North Africa you won´t see neither of both before 2002. That´s just my estimation. Earlier is better of course Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

OK, I thought I´ll give you all some data to deal with on this somehow difficult topic. First, here´s how the mantlet and the armour behind the mantlet look like. The pic was IIRC taken when the Tiger I was temporarily loaned to Panzermuseum Munster. This Tiger was an early model [build in 1942] and was captured by the Brits in North Africa. It is AFAIK now given back to Bovington, England and on display there. 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. Furthermore the quality of Tiger I armour was one of, perhaps THE, best quality armour in the world at the time it was produced. All armour plates were produced in 1943. What does that mean? In 1943 german industry wasn´t suffering from negative influences of allied air superiority. The contracts stated that in the production process of the Tiger Is ALL armour plates had to be manufactured 9 month before the Tiger leaves the production plant. That means for the last Tiger I produced [Fgst.Nr. 251346] accepted by WaA August ´44, the armour plates were already produced in November 1943. Especially the Tiger I production was undergoing very strict quality control, that was not applied to that amount to other tanks. 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." 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 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 ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891