Heathen1 Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 I am surprised no has spoken up about the excessive toughness of the jumbo. Further more quite the reverse for the Panther, Hezter, and the Jagdepanzer IV, Who's armor seems to be there in names sake only. Jumbo: Historical stats as I know them are: 7" gun shield (152mm) CM has it at 178mm 6" side and rear turret (132mm) Cm has it at 152mm 5.5" lower front hull (121mm) CM has it at 131mm 4" upper hull (88mm) CM has it at 102mm CM appears to be toughening up this Tank. Could someone help me understand, why there is a difference? In regard to the Panther and others, I have been following the discussion about the bad mix of steel alloy do to shortages. Now this may well be true, according to a British study done in 44, but if you were to take into account ALL the studies done on the armored protection of the Panther, by other British, American, and the Germans, the big picture becomes clear. The picture seems to be, that the Panther was one hell of a tank to knock out, from the front. Now using this 85% armor modifier creates whole new scene. The Cat becomes more of a pussy, then a beast. It seems to me that the one study done by the Brits in 44 may have been narrow in scope, for with it the Panther behaves uncharacteristic. Dismiss it, as flawed and the pieces fall back into place. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 I think you might want to check your math. 7"x 2.54cm/in =178mm etc... I just had a feeling you must be from florida. [This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 11-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted November 29, 2000 Share Posted November 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heathen1: I am surprised no has spoken up about the excessive toughness of the jumbo. Further more quite the reverse for the Panther, Hezter, and the Jagdepanzer IV, Who's armor seems to be there in names sake only. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heathen; if your interested in the details I sugest searching the old threads the most recent was the Panther turret one. I'd also add that the Panther's armor quality varied from tank to tank because of deteraiting German production Q&C standards, Ie, improper quenching process in some plants reportedly reduced the Panther's glacis equivent protection by 10 - 20% etc. It realy is hard to define armore quality as its all conflicting data Ie, Speilberger maintains that the metulargy content quality was kept to constant high standards on the Panther's armor despite the shortages of chromium, nickel & molybdenum. Yet the studies on Panther's armor conducted by the US & UK both found that German armor quality had deteriated to the point the comment was made that the Tiger E examined in detail in 1943 had some of the worst faults seen yet in German armor. As the problems continued do to stringent measures taken to conserve resources the Germans began using mild steel in AFVs Ie, the Nashorn & Hummel's front hull, sides & rear etc. Overall IMHO BTS has done an great job on CM & if you read the past threads you will see that much research has been done concerning this & armor in general that led to BTS values and more are still being asked and answered I'm curious how the 95% AQ that the Churchill models was reached myself as the armor at the time most Churchills were produced, was realy sub of standard quality and I'm sure Charles or Steve will explain the reasoning behind it when they get some time. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts