tiger spalling

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

So I´m advancing a buttoned Tiger I towards a known sherman position. The Tiger is pointed exactly towards the Sherman. In the exchange the Shermann fires three shots (hit/ricochet)), the Tiger one (miss) at abot 200m. Two of the three Sherman hits cause spalling and a casualty in the tiger. the crew bails. Is this even remotely likely (the spalling)? We are talking hits against the thick armor of the tiger turret.

[poesel]

I'm the lucky one in this event.

What I see in the replay (which I know is not always accurate) is that it is not the front of the tower that has been hit but the commanders cupola (or is that the hatch?).

To be seen here:

and again:

and some lucky Sherman:

Is that modelled? Or was it just two lucky hits on flaky armour?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

;1399686']So I´m advancing a buttoned Tiger I towards a known sherman position. The Tiger is pointed exactly towards the Sherman. In the exchange the Shermann fires three shots (hit/ricochet))' date=' the Tiger one (miss) at abot 200m. Two of the three Sherman hits cause spalling and a casualty in the tiger. the crew bails. Is this even remotely likely (the spalling)? We are talking hits against the thick armor of the tiger turret.[/quote']

Spalling can absolutely happen, even with thick armor. It could happen even at the thickest point, but imagine that something like the driver's visor, or a rivet head, or who knows what gets hit, that causes problems in the interior and wounds or kills crewmen.

[MikeyD]

By coincidence I was just today reading a Brit report on firing tests against a Tiger I hull. In one instance they found a shard of the roof armor embedded in the commander's seat. Ouch!

[herr_oberst]

;1399686']So I´m advancing a buttoned Tiger I towards a known sherman position. The Tiger is pointed exactly towards the Sherman. In the exchange the Shermann fires three shots (hit/ricochet))' date=' the Tiger one (miss) at abot 200m. Two of the three Sherman hits cause spalling and a casualty in the tiger. the crew bails. Is this even remotely likely (the spalling)? We are talking hits against the thick armor of the tiger turret.[/quote']

That impact energy has to go somewhere, either deformation of the armor on the outside, or cracks and/or spalling on the inside. Being pointed exactly at the Sherman is actually a bad idea, as you leave little chance for deflection. Angling your approach increases the chance for a deflection, and increases the effective armor thickness relative to your target.

If your commander is peeking out his vision slits to direct the tank, and takes a couple of hits on the cupola, I can hazard a guess at who the casualty was, which might be why the crew bailed on you.

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is due to a flaw or bug in the way the Tiger front turret is modeled in the game. I have tested this extensively in CMBN. You can see my test results here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105032&highlight=tiger

Long story short is that spalling (with 75mm) only happens when the front turret armor is hit, not when the mantlet is hit because the mantlet is thicker. The problem is that the mantlet actually covers the entire front turret area directly facing forward. It should be nearly impossible to strike the front turret armor when the turret is facing directly towards the shooter. But you can, and not all that rarely.

It is disappointing the bug is still in CMFI after the new patch. Hopefully it gets looked at for the CMBN patch.

[sburke]

This is due to a flaw or bug in the way the Tiger front turret is modeled in the game. I have tested this extensively in CMBN. You can see my test results here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105032&highlight=tiger

Long story short is that spalling (with 75mm) only happens when the front turret armor is hit, not when the mantlet is hit because the mantlet is thicker. The problem is that the mantlet actually covers the entire front turret area directly facing forward. It should be nearly impossible to strike the front turret armor when the turret is facing directly towards the shooter. But you can, and not all that rarely.

It is disappointing the bug is still in CMFI after the new patch. Hopefully it gets looked at for the CMBN patch.

I am not sure this example supports that conclusion. It seems more that the text just doesn't reflect the actual hit location. It doesn't seem to be the turret or mantlet, but rather the cupola that took the hit. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd think this was about on target.

If your commander is peeking out his vision slits to direct the tank, and takes a couple of hits on the cupola, I can hazard a guess at who the casualty was, which might be why the crew bailed on you.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I am not sure this example supports that conclusion. It seems more that the text just doesn't reflect the actual hit location. It doesn't seem to be the turret or mantlet, but rather the cupola that took the hit. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd think this was about on target.

That could be the case, although hits on the cupola are rare in my experience and two consecutive hits on the cupola would be an extremely rare coincidence.

[John Kettler]

Yossarian,

A 75mm hit on the cupola could easily generate the results you report, never mind two.

On what do I base this assertion? An entire Tiger company at Kursk was rendered inoperable by 14.5mm antitank rifle fire aimed directly at the vision slits and such. So many vision blocks were knocked out that even battalion's spares were exhausted, forcing a delay until they could be brought in from regiment. Worse, there were numerous eye casualties requiring medical attention and several extended hospitalizations of TCs who got not only the vision block beaten in by 14.5mm fire, but had their faces smashed by the bracket housing said block. How I wish I'd bookmarked that report, which I saw back in my Panzer Elite days!

On balance, given where you were hit, I'm surprised the TC even survived. I also agree with Vanir Ausf B's argument regarding the high rarity of two cupola hits in succession. Round-to-round dispersion alone would make hitting such a small target twice in a row exceedingly unlikely. That said, truly unexplainable things happen in war.

Donald Burgett of the 101st Airborne was playing hot potato and wound up with a stick grenade's exploding in his hand before he could throw it back. It knocked him out, temporarily deafened him and blew all his clothes off, but that's all that happened to him. Not a wound anywhere. He was completely intact. What are the odds of that?

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Tanks do tend to aim a bit high initially in the game (nobody has laser rangefinders). When that happens to a Sherman target it often clips the commander's .50 cal mount - a fairly common occurrance. If a round just grazes the turret top of an early Tiger I there's no denying a big drum cupola is sitting up there.

[akd]

That could be the case, although hits on the cupola are rare in my experience and two consecutive hits on the cupola would be an extremely rare coincidence.

I bet both of these tanks are only marginally turret-up to each other.

[poesel]

I bet both of these tanks are only marginally turret-up to each other.

Yes, they were. The Sherman was behind a railroad embankment and the Tiger on a reverse slope. The round before the unbuttoned Sherman TC could see the Tiger but didn't (probably couldn't) shoot (no CA). As he moved up on the embankment he first shot the .50 cal and then the main gun.

[vossiewulf1212]

Even weirder is I'm testing a big QB map and I watched 4 Shermans cause two Tigers to pop smoke and reverse... twice... at >1700 yards<. As a matter of fact, in my tests at 1500 yards +, Shermans beat the living crap out of Pz-IVs. Who knew? They're crazy accurate, have watched Sherman platoons repeatedly kill Pz-IV platoons taking few or no losses. Who would have guessed a shorter barreled gun with not as good optics would shoot way more accurately at long ranges. Anyone else tested that and seen the same thing?

[akd]

Even weirder is I'm testing a big QB map and I watched 4 Shermans cause two Tigers to pop smoke and reverse... twice... at >1700 yards<. As a matter of fact, in my tests at 1500 yards +, Shermans beat the living crap out of Pz-IVs. Who knew? They're crazy accurate, have watched Sherman platoons repeatedly kill Pz-IV platoons taking few or no losses. Who would have guessed a shorter barreled gun with not as good optics would shoot way more accurately at long ranges. Anyone else tested that and seen the same thing?

Yes, it has been tested and test results do not reflect your impressions.

[vossiewulf1212]

Wonder what was different in those tests, then. Admittedly this is not table top flat terrain but have run through it several times with roughly equivalent numbers of Shermans and Pz-IVs of equal experience with both sides seeing each other clearly, and each time the Pz-IVs come away far worse. When they get back inside 1000 yards (at least in my tests) the Pz-IVs begin to dominate.

[MikeyD]

...cause two Tigers to pop smoke and reverse

I've found that armor really doesn't like being fired on when it can't locate the firer. Had the Tigers spotted the Shermans? Often it seems to be buttoned Tigers versus unbuttoned Shermans. 2-3 hits to the turret side when you can't locate the source is enough to rattle anybody. That being said, playing CMBN recently King Tigers versus Cromwells the King Tigers were uncharacteristically (annoyingly) hesitant.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Had another closer look after seein poesels screenshots. Really looks like a cupola hit, BUT, the loader was killed, not the commander.

I´m pretty sure the loader is on the other side of the turret.

Explanations?

[Vanir Ausf B]

As a matter of fact, in my tests at 1500 yards +, Shermans beat the living crap out of Pz-IVs. Who knew? They're crazy accurate, have watched Sherman platoons repeatedly kill Pz-IV platoons taking few or no losses.

Are you using Pz IVs with the L/43 cannon or the L/48 cannon? Also, some earlier versions of the Pz IV that were still in use in 1943 had upper front hulls that are only 50mm thick compared to 80mm on later G, H and J models.

[Vanir Ausf B]

;1400020']

Had another closer look after seein poesels screenshots. Really looks like a cupola hit, BUT, the loader was killed, not the commander.

I´m pretty sure the loader is on the other side of the turret.

Explanations?

One possible explanation is that crew casualties may be randomly assigned rather than determined by hit location.

[Baneman]

One possible explanation is that crew casualties may be randomly assigned rather than determined by hit location.

I hope not, after going to all the trouble to exactly plot where the shell hits and penetrates and having crew models, it seems to me that it would barely be more work to track the penetration and know which crewman bought it.

Until now I assumed they did - sure I've seen a driver casualty from a lower front hit on a tank recently which reinforced the impression that the casualty reflects the hit location.

[John Kettler]

Baneman,

Real world vulnerability studies are done using shotline models, which evaluate everything in the path of the penetrating munition or fragments thereof. Here's a description of shotline modeling via one of the standard programs, FASTGEN.

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/fastgen.htm

From what I can tell, BFC does use some form of shot-line modeling for AFV component damage, but I think human casualties are handled in a different manner. Maybe Steve will drop in to enlighten us on the latter?

Regards,

John Kettler

[vossiewulf1212]

Yes, it has been tested and test results do not reflect your impressions.

I had to look into this because what I was seeing was pretty clear to me, so I made the test more explicit: I cleared away and leveled some terrain on my map, set Shermans and Pz-IVs facing each other in open terrain at 1500 yards (17 a side) and hit the go button 10 times.

The losses for each side were...

US German

5 14

5 10

1 12

9 12

6 13

What am I missing? Be happy to send map and save to you.

[vossiewulf1212]

I've found that armor really doesn't like being fired on when it can't locate the firer. Had the Tigers spotted the Shermans? Often it seems to be buttoned Tigers versus unbuttoned Shermans. 2-3 hits to the turret side when you can't locate the source is enough to rattle anybody. That being said, playing CMBN recently King Tigers versus Cromwells the King Tigers were uncharacteristically (annoyingly) hesitant.

It's something like that... I've run through it a few times now and if the Tigers are outnumbered 2-1 or so they'll start taking lots of front turret hits which damage optics and the coax and they start popping smoke, getting rattled, and reversing. Once they get in that mode they'll do the same thing with every new hit even though those hits don't have a rat's ass chance of penetrating at that range, and the idea of a few Shermans keeping two Tigers in frontal aspect completely suppressed and out of the fight at a range of 1500 yards + seems really odd to me.

[vossiewulf1212]

And before anyone asks, I forgot to say that the Shermans and Pz-IVs are both regular average exp, I just added regular medium tank battalions and whittled them down to a single company each. I'm not sure how to make it more even than I did.

[akd]

You said earlier that accuracy was the issue, but I suspect protection is playing a more decisive role in your outcomes. Sherman was the better protected tank. Please see this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105831&highlight=PzIV