danielh Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 Armor: The mantlet was very heavy, with 120mm of armor, and carried the long and heavy gun. At this point it should be noted that the Tiger I had the best quality armor of any German tank. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured it stayed that way. The Tiger's armor was much superior to that of, for example the Panther, which armor had a much higher Brinell index, and was thus very brittle. MODEL TIGER I Nr. 1 to 47 FRONT Gun Mantlet 120mm @ 0° Turretfront 100mm @ 10° Superstructure 100mm @ 9° Hull 100mm @ 25° SIDE Turret 80mm @ 0° Superstructure 80mm @ 0° REAR Turret 80mm @ 0° Hull 80mm @ 9° 80mm @ 30° 80mm @ 30° Gun accuracy (percentage of first round hit on a 2.5m x 2.5m target): Gun 88mm KwK 36 L/56 88mm KwK 43 L/71 Ammunition Pzgr. 39 Pzgr. 40 Gr.39 HL Pzgr. 39/43 Pzgr. 40/43 Range 500m 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (98) 100 (100) 100 (100) 1000m 100 (93) 99 (80) 94 (62) 100 (85) 100 (100) 1500m 98 (74) 89 (52) 72 (34) 95 (61) 97 (68) 2000m 87 (50) 71 (31) 52 (20) 85 (43) 89 (47) 2500m 71 (31) 55 (19) 74 (30) 78 (34) 3000m 53 (19) 61 (23) 66 (25) 3500m 51 (17) 4000m 42 (13) In brackets the practical values. Max turret traverse speed: 360° in 60 seconds. The expected performance from a Tiger I on a practice range was that the gunner would hit the target by the fourth round at ranges between 1200 and 2000 meters, In exceptional cases an individual Tiger I could fire at stationary enemy tanks at ranges up to 2500 meters. The expected performance of a Tiger I gunner (regular) on a practice range was one hit out of three rounds fired within 30 seconds at a tank traveling 20 kilometers per hour across the front at ranges from 800 to 1200 meters. To give you a picture of how effective the Tiger I really was: The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland reported their experience in employing the PzKpfw. VI Tiger from 7 to 19 March 1943 in the area of Poltawa-Belgorad: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes." "First-round hits were usually achieved with the 88mm KwK gun at ranges between 600 to 1000 meters. At these ranges, the Panzer-Granate absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor of T-34 tanks. After penetrating through the frontal armor, the Panzer-Granate usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the tank. In very few cases could the T-34 be set on fire when fired at from the front. In 80 percent of the cases, shots from the same range hitting the side of the hull toward the rear or the rear of the tank resulted in the fuel tanks exploding. Even at ranges of 1500 meters and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition." On 15 March 1943, schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 reported on their experience in tank versus tank combat as follows: "The Abteilung has experience with the 8.8 cm Panzergranate (APCBC/HE, used by the Tiger I)." "Using the 8.8 cm Panzergranate , successes against enemy tanks were achieved at short as well long ranges. The most favorable range is 1,200 to 2,000 meters. At ranges up to 2,000 meters, a direct hit is reckoned on the first or at the latest by the second shot. Additionally, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant. However, with good visibility success is even possible at ranges over 3,000 meters. As an example, at ranges from 2,500 meters to 3,000 meters, one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks (of which three were moving across the front)." And a note to the 76 mm Tungsten rounds of the allied: The front of the turret of the Tiger II could theoretically be penetrated using the 17 Pounder firing a special tungsten armor piercing, super velocity, discarding sabot round. These rounds, however, were not especially accurate, they did not have an explosive filler for blast effect after penetration, and ricocheted off steep angles like the lower hull front of the Tiger II. When will CM come up to this standards ?? Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 Im finding the Tiger and KT pretty damn hard to kill as they are, so to improve on them would truly unbalance the game. Of course, this is IMHO so... ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 This has been pretty well covered in prior discussions. I'd sugest checking out: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008480.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009348.html The 1st thread concerns the Tiger E mantlet & BTS adjusted it accordinly in 1.04 IIRC. The long range & German optic capabilities are discussed in the 2nd their iis no advantage to German tank optics presently because of the releavily short ranges modeled in CM & problems confirming how much better German optics realy were. Regards, John Waters ------------------ Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielh Posted September 30, 2000 Author Share Posted September 30, 2000 Unbalance ??? The impression the Tiger I gives today in CM is a shame, it can be killed easily by cromwells, M4 76 crap up to 1000 m which is complete nonsense. Of course they were very rare, and should therefore be much more expensive. Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would take that as the key-statement in the first report. The second report just deals with armour penetration by the Tiger, and I don't play enough with them to make a statement either way. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 I don't know guys, I kinda agree with 'danielh' here. I just tried playing the Villers-Boccage operation and I got all my Tigers waxed within turn 10 I believe. Oh I knocked out several tanks, but my Tigers were getting knocked out by cheesy shots that should have "realistically" bounced off. Hell, one even went up in a "catrostrophic" explosion. Whittman's Tiger got its gun damaged within the second or third turn by a long range shot from something further in town. But the others were getting knocked out by side shots while they were trying to traverse their dead slow turrets to face these pieces of **** Cromwells. Now while playing the Tiger's Corner scenario, I was getting bushwacked by 57mm-AT guns. I mean, Com'on!!! ------------------ All that sleeps, awakens... All that awakens, hungers... All that hungers, feeds... [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 09-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 I got very good results with the Tiger I after I start to use it as a sort of Stg. If you uses it as a turretless vehicle, then Tiger rocks. In fact, is one of my favorites German tanks. Ariel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by danielh: The impression the Tiger I gives today in CM is a shame, it can be killed easily by cromwells, M4 76 crap up to 1000 m which is complete nonsense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Cromwell's 75mm gun can penetrate 78mm at 0^ at 1000m. So, it's close, and it would have to be a side hit (barring a weak point penetration). The M4's 76 can penetrate 101 @ 0^ at 1000m, meaning it can take a Tiger out frontally at that range. If you have data showing these numbers to be inaccurate post them. Keep in mind that by the latter part of 1944 the Tiger had been around for 2 years and was no longer the invincible super tank it was in late '42-early '43. In fact, the Germans quit making them in August of '44. That's not to say it wasn't still a good tank, it was. It's just that Allied armor had caught up somewhat by then. In CM2 you will see how awesome they were in 42-43. The real ubertank at the time of CM was the King Tiger. In fact, the reason they stopped making Tigers is so they could start making King Tigers. ------------------ So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielh Posted September 30, 2000 Author Share Posted September 30, 2000 Vanir, Just take a look at the collected US-statements which Grisha provided to us. There are different aspects which make up a good tank: - Powerful gun with low trajectory - Good armorprotection - High mobility - Good sighting devices The Tiger I was superior on all or most of these categories against the allied tanks (M4' and Destroyers). And it is still suggested by CM that the Tiger had low quality armor, which there is no real proof of. The 100 mm mantlet is still no simulated correctly which has a gap to the additional 100 m by the turret itself. There must be a reason why the Tigers were so feared by the US-tankers...., or were they just wimpy ????!!!! The US 76 mm shell is undercalibrated against the 100 or 200 mm (in fact the turret has 200 mm +) of the Tiger, thus changing the possibility of a penetration significantly especially if it performs 101 mm at 1000 m which means only that 50 % of the shells will penetrate completely. The US projectiles were also inferior to the german ones using an explosive filler which boosted performance.The HVAP shells for the 76mm had the shatter gap from 200 - 1200 m where it shattered against armor (Not revealed by tests in the US, because plates of lower BNH were used, than acutally used in german tanks -> thus bringing the 101 mm further in question). Furthermore HVAP is very sensitive against angle of impact, where it's effectiveness fells off rapidly. Thus the quote of US-Tankers that the HVAP only partly offsets the more powerful 75 mm's and 88 mm's of the germans. Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 I think Vanir hit it on the head;I'd like to add the German's were having considerable problems putting out good quality steel at that point in the war,although I don't know if CM takes that into account. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielh Posted September 30, 2000 Author Share Posted September 30, 2000 Splinty, Yeah the low quality steel.., what source can proof this ?? Quotes by US-Tankers show a different picture. For instance: The US 76 mm with HVAP should be able to penetrate a Tiger I up to 2500 m (Taking into account the 85 or 90 % armor and the so called weak spots). Is there any evidence that this ever happened in the real ?? And to the US-steel quality, are there any numbers on quality of their steel in actual vehicles out of production ? What are the criterias for low quality steel ? The Brinnel numbers ? The critalline structure of the plate ? Or the actual performance in combat ? Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 Daniel, both the US & British did extensive static armor tests on the Tiger E armor, you can find the reports in the 1947 British BIOS Report, and the US Watertown Arsenal Report on the Tiger E. Both reports point out a deteriation in quality of German plate & in production methods. Anyway their are various snippets all over the forum archives concerning this, & the 2 Urls I gave you earlier , the mantlet one has some of the BIOS data & WA data, the 88 Lacking has some etc. Regards, John Waters ------------------ Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Tecate Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 True, I can't wait for CM2 too see just how powerfull and feared the Tiger tank was at the peak of its power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 Good post. I'll see what I can add. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by danielh: Vanir, Just take a look at the collected US-statements which Grisha provided to us. There are different aspects which make up a good tank: - Powerful gun with low trajectory - Good armorprotection - High mobility - Good sighting devices The Tiger I was superior on all or most of these categories against the allied tanks (M4' and Destroyers). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All else being equal, CM models gun accuracy based solely uppon muzzle velocity, exept for allied tanks with gyroscopes when moving. Sights are not modeled at all. Muzzel velocitys: Tiger I: 773m/s Sherman 75: 619 Sherman 76: 793 I personaly think gyroscopes are over-modeled, but I'm no expert on the subject. As far as power goes, I haven't seen anyone suggest that the 88L56 gun is underpowered in CM (88L71 is another matter ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And it is still suggested by CM that the Tiger had low quality armor, which there is no real proof of.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure what you mean here. CM gives the Tiger I 100% armor quality, which is the best you can get in the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 100 mm mantlet is still no simulated correctly which has a gap to the additional 100 m by the turret itself<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, I don't entirely understand this, but I'll take a crack at it. The way CM models the front turret is kinda funky. Because the turret armor and the mantlet are of different thickness, and because the mantlet is not of a uniform thickness, when a round strikes the front turret, CM generates a chance to hit the mantlet. If it hits the mantlet, the armor thickness for that one hit is randomly 100mm-200mm. Whether or not this is real accurate is debatable, but most of the armor experts here seem to think it's pretty close. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- High mobility<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By this I assume you mean off-road performance rather than speed. The Tiger was certainly not fast. CM models the chance of bogging based upon ground conditions, terrain, and the ground pressure of the tank. Some ground pressures: Tiger I: 13.8 M4A3: 13.6 M4A3 (76): 15.1 The Tiger's ground pressure is not very good, although it is better than most Shermans. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US projectiles were also inferior to the german ones using an explosive filler which boosted performance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is modeled in CM. At least it says it is at the bottom of page 69 in the manual. I quote: "German shells were made stonger than Allied shells, and the metal could withstand greater stress without breaking apart." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore HVAP is very sensitive against angle of impact, where it's effectiveness fells off rapidly. Thus the quote of US-Tankers that the HVAP only partly offsets the more powerful 75 mm's and 88 mm's of the germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. HVAP was also less accurate at long ranges because of its light weight. None of this is modeled in CM, but as things stand, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Due to the wacky way in which the TacAI decides if it should or should not use HVAP, you are unlikely to see much, if any, tungstun fired at your Tigers. Allied tank commanders in CM value the stuff so much they usually die rather than use it to save their lives. ------------------ So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy [This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uedel Posted October 1, 2000 Share Posted October 1, 2000 one thing what realy wonders me in CM is the high rate of Gun Damaged special on Tiger I. I did no special testing but seen it way to often. Also i mentioned that often the Germans get way to often Top penetratet at long ranges. Did some scenarios with long rang Tank Battles (for example Firefly vs Jagdpanther) not that the Firefly hit more often also he managed to kill him faster at 1400 meter then the Jagdpanther did (several times tried) allways was an Top-Armor penetration (seems that the game engine favors the more balistic way the slower allied projectil goes). just my 0.02€ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts