Some Illuminating Facts About The Tiger Tank

[Vanir]

I've been a lurker for about a week now and have seen some debates about the performance of the Tiger in CM compared to real life. I happen to have a book that goes into great detail about the technical aspects of the Tiger and its performance, so I thought I would post some info that might help shed some light. The book is called, appropriately enough, The Tiger Tank. Authored by Roger Ford, published in 1998 (ISBN 0-7603-0524-2).

On the subject of the Tiger's armor:

"The exposed vertical and near vertical faces - the upper and lower plate, the turret sides and the hull sides and rear, which was not vertical, but set at 81 degrees, parallel with the front (glacis) plate - were to be a maximum 100mm (4in) and a minimum 80mm (3.15) thick. The short, steeply angled front glacis plate and the lower hull side plates, inboard of the roadwheels, were 60mm (2.4in) thick - the large-diameter interlocking wheels themselves provided added protection - while the most vulnerable area of all, the face of the turret, was to be 120mm (4.7in) thick, and was further reinforced over much of its area by a cast-steel mantlet of similar thickness attached to the base of the gun tube. This specification meant, essentially, that the Tiger's hull and turret were virtually impervious to the T-34's 76mm gun at any range greater than 300-400m (330-44yds), no matter from what angle the attack came."

" The horizontal and near-horizontal faces - the turret top and the hull top, including the engine cover, as well as the belly of the tank - were more lightly protected, but still to 25mm (1in) thickness. In general, the level of protecrion here was considered adequate, though there were numerous incidents of tanks being lost to plunging artillery fire which pierced their top armour, and there were even occasions then the light tanks and armoured cars, which could never have taken on a Tiger in a conventional encounter, succeeded in knocking out one of the monsters by manoeuvring so as to be able to get in a shot from above or into the rear plate from a very close range."

" The vulnerability of the rear plate was compounded by its being cluttered with engine exhaust sovers, air filters and the like, which acted as shot traps."

" When close-support fighter-bomber aircraft came into wider use ... the vulnerability of the turret-top and hull-top armour proved the Tiger's undoing. Rocket-armed aircraft... were probably the single biggest destroyer of Tigers in the field. ... At no time was the armour over the engine increased in thickness, but from mid-1944 the thickness of the turret top was increased to 40 or 45mm (1.57 or 1.77in)."

The intersting thing here, for the purposes of our debate, is the 120mm front turret armor. In another recent post, I believe it is the "Tigers- No Spank You" one, Charles from BTS said CM models the Tiger as having front turret armor of 100mm. This may help explain why some people have been rather underwhelmed by the Tiger's survivability in the game.

On the subject of the Tiger's ability to turn in place:

"The gearbox itself - Maybach's OLVAR - was the most complex and expensive component of the Tiger tank. A pre-selector unit, which provided eight forward speeds and four in reverse from constantly meshed gear sets and a transfer set, the OLVAR gearbox was hydrauliclly actuated. Its ease of operation was in direct (and probably proportional) contrast to its complexity of design and manufacture, but the Tiger drivers were unanimous in their praise for it."

" The steering unit was regenerative, with an epicyclic train to each sprocket, driven from both the input to and the output from the main gearbox. Essentially, the steering unit separated the power train into two components; the main drive functioned as normal, but the subsidiary drive, which took its power off the input shaft to the gearbox, could be directed to one or other of the tracks to supplement it, thereby inducing one track to turn faster than the other, and thus slew the tank to left or right. With the main drive in neutral, only the supplementry drive functioned, and at 'full lock', drove one track in one direction and the other in the reverse, thus enabling the tank to turn in its own length."

" This system had been pioneered in the UK and had first been employed in the Churchhill tank; the German version was produced after captured vehicles had been studied. Both the speed and the direction of turn were controlled hydraulically from a conventional steering wheel. This was the first time a regenerative steering system had been installed in a German tank, which up until then had relied on much simpler, but less efficient, differential or clutch/brake systems. Like the OLVAR transmission, it was universally popular with Tiger crews. Disk brakes on the final driveshafts between the steering unit and the drive sprockets also functioned as emergency steering brakes, and could be used thus when the engine was not running - though one might imagine that the experience of coasting a 56-tonne (55 ton) tank downhill, steering it by differential braking, would have been illuminating to say the least."

The book has a table giving exact turn radius for the Tiger and some of its most common foes:

Tiger

Minimum turning radius: 3.44m (11.28ft)

Sherman M4: 9.5m (31.16ft)

T34-76A: 3.8m (12.46ft)

Cromwell MK V: In place

I'm aware that BTS has stated that turn radius is not modeled in the game due to the CPU cycles it eats (hopefully as CPU speeds improve BTS will change this in future releases). However, there has been some debate on the real world tank's ability in this area, so there it is.

Hope this has been helpfull. Comments? Flames?

Vanir

[Jarmo]

So I guess the armor values should be redone.

Shame really. The Tiger is currently cheap enough to be used

for combined infantry support/tank killer role. Upping the

armor would up the cost also.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest ACTOR]

I don't know that you have to change the armor model. The Tiger as currently modeled is a formidable opponent. I engaged one Tiger with two M4s last night at near point blank range and I ricocheted no less ten shots off that beast before I damaged the gun and immobilized it. (Note I was no more than 40 yards out, but they were all head on shots at the turrent, due to terrain.) I then hit it another five times before the crew abandoned it. That is pretty darn tough in my book.

[Paul Lakowski]

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.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

So I guess the armor values should be redone. Shame really. The Tiger is currently cheap enough to be used for combined infantry support/tank killer role. Upping the

armor would up the cost also.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well look at it this way currently the cheapest AT weapon in the game is the mortar (they even think their AT personel), you can destroy whole armored thrusts with them, armor shmarmer .

Think of the bang you get for the buck their, now theirs a case of something needing a cost adjustment .

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-04-2000).]

[RMC]

I keep wondering what part of the Tiger turret "front" could be hit that doesn't involve the mantlet. If you look at a front view, the mantlet dominates the strikable area. there is a thin portion below the mantlet and you can hit the turret sides, which actually seem to represent a considerable portion of the available target area.

I made two images showing the tiger from the front. Pardon the size of the images.

The first gives a good impression of the relatively small area covered by the mantlet.

And on this one a crudely painted some areas in.

Pink is the (on this late model) 40mm roof armor. I don't think this could have been penetrated because of the extremely shallow angle.

The blue covers the 80mm turret side wall armor. This, too, would be extremely resistant to penetration at this angle, though the angle is not as shallow on the right (tank's left, your right).

The orange is also part of the side plates, but it can be struck almost edge-on. The light blue can be considered turret front area under the mantlet.

The yellow is also part of the turret front, being one of two segments that undelap the mantlet on the top and the bottom. These are probably what is most commonly referred to with turret front armor, I would think.

If that is correct, then it seems to me that "turret front" hits should be extremely rare, we should get fewer mantlet hits and more "turret side" hits. Thoughts?

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 08-04-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

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.

[Tiger]

Armour:

Hull front-nose 100mm (3.9in) at 66 degrees

Hull front-drivers plate 100mm (3.9in) at 80 degrees

Hull sides 60-80mm (2.4-3.2in) at 90 degrees (straight vertical)

Hull rear 82mm (3.2in) at 82 degrees

Turrent front 100-110mm (3.9-4.3in) at 80 degrees

Turrent sides 80mm (3.2in) at 90 degrees

Turrent rear 80mm (3.2in) at 90 degrees

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)

[Paul Lakowski]

<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

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it would have applied to the 120mm @ 20^ front turret, on the Schmalturm of the Panther F as well Paul?.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul,you can't throw em up on Tanknet and provide a link?.

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-04-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

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

[Von Brizee]

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

[Priest]

Just pushing this one to the top. I would like to hear from BTS. This is pure curiousity and should not be taken that I am calling them out. Actually I would rather the Tiger be weaker than stronger (i usually play Ally).

------------------

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Formerly Babra]

This is fascinating stuff.

------------------

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Paul Lakowski]

<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).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The DesertFox:

OK,

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a small note while Helge is generaly correct on the quality of the German plate, their were flaws in the plate, the US's

wartime report from the Watertown Arsenal(WAL 710/542) on the Tiger1 armor, points out a few instances where the armor was ba1listicly not up to par with other German plate examined previuosly and indicated a decline in German quality control. The Report was done on an TigerE from Tunisia & completed in 1944.

Ie:

Hull Side plate: 3.2in thick 352 BHN.

'All Plates except one, the hull side plate, were of acceptable quality steel. Excessively large ammount of segregated nonmetallic inclusions, which appeared as laminations in the fracture test, were observed on examination of this plate'.

Main Front plate 4.0in 321BHN

'Improper heat treatment of the main front plate and the hull side plate wa1s reflected in poor notched bar impact strength which,in turn, would be associated with poor resistance to cracking under ballistic attack.

Heat-treating tests were conducted which revealed that approximately the same notch bar impact strength could be obtained by a normalize and draw of a small section as was observed in the 4" main front plate as recieved."

The report goes into detail on German welding practices as well:

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-05-2000).]

[Bullethead]

Before everybody gets carried away thinking the Tiger should have it's armor thickness doubled on the front turret due to the mantle, take a very good look at the cut-away photo DesertFox posted above.

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.

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.

------------------

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Paul Lakowski]

<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).]

[Paul Lakowski]

<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.

[The DesertFox]

<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

[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 .

[Guest Big Time Software]

I'm looking at p.34 of the Osprey Tiger I book and I'm not seeing what you guys see at all. I see what Bullethead described: the mantlet covers an (essentially) open space in the front of the turret. The so-called "turret front" armor is situated only around the edges of the mantlet, with some slight overlap. As I mentioned in the other thread, there is a good diagram on p.45 of Michael Green's "Tiger Tanks" which confirms this.

The Tiger did not have more than a very small percentage of its turret face which had both the mantlet and the "turret front" armor overlapping, producing 200mm+ of armor. So this will not be modeled in CM. The great majority of the Tiger's turret face was only the mantlet.

So the question is: How thick is the mantlet? Unfortunately, every book seems to have a different answer. My original Jentz book says 100mm. It's been pointed out here that another Jentz book says 120mm. And I'm seeing a figure of 140mm being kicked around as well.

I think I will boost CM's Tiger I turret front armor up a bit, probably at least to 110mm, maybe to 120mm. But I sure would like some more definite source material to base this on.

Charles

[Fangorn]

Couldn't the small space with 200 mm armor be modelate as a "strong spot", in the same way the "weak spot" shots are? Would that be hard to code? (I don't know anything about coding...)

[The DesertFox]

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).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So the question is: How thick is the mantlet? Unfortunately, every book seems to have a different answer. My original Jentz book says 100mm. It's been pointed out here that another Jentz book says 120mm. And I'm seeing a figure of 140mm being kicked around as well.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 1st book was in error, & it was corrected in his later books on the Tiger.

The mantlet by itself is 120mm @ 0^.

Now I have another question from some tests I ran I am seeing multiple: 'Front turret'

defeats, on the Tiger1 in my QBs.

Seeing as for all intents and purposes the mantlet is the front turret armor. As it covers the entire front turret & the FT armor is barely exposed, are these rounds defeating the mantlet or is the round hitting the FT armor & missing the mantlet?.

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-05-2000).]