Some Illuminating Facts About The Tiger Tank

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

To penetrate or not to penetrate...

What does it mean?

As noted there were, and still is, great variations in what it means when it's stated that a round can penetrate X mm of armour...

Suppose a round penetrates, then what?

*If* there's any energy left in the round, it might cause some damage, otherwise it just drops dead on the floor.

In the American standard it seems like those few shots that penetrate the given armour have so little energy left that they're pretty harmless...

If there's no armour penetration, that doesn't mean the target is unharmed. There are several vulnerable spots on tanks;

vision blocks/slits, external weapon parts (gun barrels, aiming and ranging devices), antennae, suspension and in some cases external fuel tanks.

All of these are vulnerable to hits from light ATGs, small arms or shrapnel and will degrade the tanks ability to fight.

It is impossible to compute and correctly take into account every parameter that determines the outcome of a shot.

Therefore a large degree of randomness is necessary.

What's the chance, in CM, of a 37mm AP disable a Tiger, given a straight frontal hit at 400m range?

IMO it should be more than 1%.

Cheers

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Olle good to see you here . I have long wondered why the American standard is different. I first encountered this in modern armor and penetration and I'm not 100% sure the WW-II armor was rated the same , but Robert reported it was, sooo.

In Jentzs book in notes the Americans mounted a captured German 75mm shell to one of there 75mm rounds and test fired it to find out how much difference their 'bursting charge' [APHE] made in the penetration.They found that even a incomplete projectile penetration would convert into a 'kill' due to the bursting out of the 'bursting charge'.

'Tank Combat in North Africa'

"These projectiles at long range need only attain a partial penetration and the explosive charge can complete the destruction of at least the tank crew"

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-07-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

<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

[Paul Lakowski]

BTT so 'Tiger' can contribute

[kipanderson]

Hi,

This has been an interesting debate and clearly there is a wide range of sources one can turn to. My own view is that Charles should not increase the thickness of the Tiger's mantlet.

Although there are no perfect sources I believe that turning to the reports made by British and American engineers after examining the Tiger are as good as it gets. I have three such reports from British sources and one American. The British reports are dated 10/11/1942, 30/9/1943, and January 1944. The 1942 report is a field report from North Africa, the other two reports are more considered and the result of examination in the UK. The 1943 report is aimed specifically at the question of the Tiger's armour protection. Importantly all three reports conclude that the Tiger's mantlet provided 100mm of protection. The January 1944 report, this is a formal report by the Military College of Science, School of Tank Technology, Chobham, ( the place "Chobham" armour came from), states that the "armour is comparable in hardness to British machineable plate."

For the purposes of this debate the 1943 report is the most interesting, dealing in detail with the very question we are discussing. It states the following,

"The mantlet is cast in one piece, having a flat front plate 92mm thick extending over the full hieght and breadth of the front turret, which is shaped to allow free movement of the plate when elevating or depressing the gun. The thickness of the mantlet , measured through the gun site wholes is 150mm; in the central portion, where the front plate is reinforced around the gun, the thickness is approximately 205mm. These thicknesses of over 100mm are only local and it is thought the protection afforded by the mantlet as a whole would not be greater than that given by a plate of uniform thickness of 100mm." (Note it is likely that the figure of 92mm is a transcription error as in all other British reports, including other places in the 1943 report, the figure is given as 97mm.)

Given that Charles says that one figure is needed for the whole mantlet it might at first seem reasonable to increase the "one" figure to 110mm or 120mm as some form of average. However given that what we are all after is as close a representation of tactical reality as possible there is a serious problem with this.

Lets take a situation in which two American 76mm gunned vehicles are firing at a hull down Tiger at 1000m. Once they got the range they would have a very good chance of a kill, assuming 2/3 of the mantlet is 100mm thick and 1/3 200mm thick.However if you made the mantlet 110mm thick there would be a chance of six, seven or more strikes before there was a kill. If you have a situation in which there is an armour plate that is 2/3 100mm thick and 1/3 200mm taking an average does not give you a representation of reality in terms of the tactical situation. If you make the mantlet 110mm thick you halve the effective range of the American 76mm guns against it from around 1200m to around 600m. The real world figure having been 1200m given that around 2/3 of the mantlet was 100mm thick. When it comes to CM2 you have similar problems. The effective range of the Soviet 76.2mm gun, firing the tungsten core BR350P round, against the mantlet was 400m-500m. If you increase the thickness to 110mm that decreases to around 200m, not a representation of the real tactical situation as it was.

The American report I referred to is the well known Handbook on German Forces from March 1945. This gives the mmantlet as 100mm.By this time many examples will have been carefully examined and 100mm was claerly the considered view for the mantlet's effectiveness.

In summary there is no perfect answer to this problem but when all the factors mentioned above are considered it is my view that the mantlet should stay at 100mm. To change it would create unreal tactical situations.

Sources.

The British reports all come from the excellent book,

Tiger! The Tiger tank: A British View.

Edited by David Fletcher, Keeper of the Tank Museum, Bovington, UK.

It is simply a collection of reports on the Tiger produced during the war, if you can get hold of it, as good a book as any Jentz book.

[Ubermac]

Once upon a time a guy named Ubermac posted a message by the name of "Tigers, no spank you". Little did he know this subject would turn into a stat-war.

Can't we all just get along? =)

Let's put some fuel on the fire....how about the Tiger's 88mm...it seems to miss a lot, even with a crack crew!

I'm damn sure a crack Tiger crew could hit a stationary target at 1km with every shot they would fire....either that or the game Panzer Elite is complete crap.

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

And remember kids....dressing up like Hitler in school, is NOT cool!

[Paul Lakowski]

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

Hi,

Lets take a situation in which two American 76mm gunned vehicles are firing at a hull down Tiger at 1000m. Once they got the range they would have a very good chance of a kill, assuming 2/3 of the mantlet is 100mm thick and 1/3 200mm thick.However if you made the mantlet 110mm thick there would be a chance of six, seven or more strikes before there was a kill. If you have a situation in which there is an armour plate that is 2/3 100mm thick and 1/3 200mm taking an average does not give you a representation of reality in terms of the tactical situation. If you make the mantlet 110mm thick you halve the effective range of the American 76mm guns against it from around 1200m to around 600m. The real world figure having been 1200m given that around 2/3 of the mantlet was 100mm thick. When it comes to CM2 you have similar problems. The effective range of the Soviet 76.2mm gun, firing the tungsten core BR350P round, against the mantlet was 400m-500m. If you increase the thickness to 110mm that decreases to around 200m, not a representation of the real tactical situation as it was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The unfortunate problem here is that you can't use american penetration figures as a yard stick cause they used a completely different penetration criteria than the Brits Germans or Russians.

If you quote which ammo does what penetration maybe we can sort this out more clearly.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

If you quote which ammo does what penetration maybe we can sort this out more clearly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

76L41 Fireing BR-350A APC, BR-350P HVAP results in ( )'s all results @ 30^

300ms - 71mm (89mm)

500ms - 67 (75mm)

1000ms - 60mm (47mm)

1500ms - 54

Now as for the T-34-76 & Tiger frontaly, etc, neither 350A or 350P sub-calibre at any range, is going to make much diference, the T-34-76's were in the same boat as Sherman 75's vs the Tiger frontaly.

Even the 85mm fireing BR-365P sub-calibre couldn't defeat the mantlet above 400ms. So it should not change any tactical considerations in the the T-34-76 vs Tiger E situation, in CM2 IMHO.

Regards, John Waters

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

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree that there is a serious problem with the "official" penetration figures from the various countries. To overcome this problem I always start with the official German figures, for their own guns, and then use a version of the Milne-de-Marre penetration equation, part of which sets V squared to the power of 0.6993. That way all the figures that emerge are calculated on the same "basis". In this case all use the German definition of penetration and assumptions.

When you calculate peneration using the German definitions and assumptions you find that the British tend to over state peneration by about 5%, the American figures are very similar to the Germans' and the Soviets understate penetration by about 23%. The British view was that "official" Soviet figures understated peneration by as much as 30%-35%.

In the post above the American 76mm projectile is the APC M62. The official American figure is 88mm of peneration at 30dergees at 1000 yards. Against vertical plate at 1000m I would agree with Charles's figure of around 101mm of peneration. So for the 76mm guns I am assuming a figure of 100mm of peneration at 1000m in the above post.

For the Soviet BR350P projectile the official figures given by the Soviets and used in their war time manuals is 128mm at 100m, 110mm at 300m and 92mm at 500m, all against vertical plate. All the Soviet figures are likely to be understated by about 20%.

I have used vertical plate figures because it is a Tiger 1 we are talking about.

All the best,

Kip.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

For the Soviet BR350P projectile the official figures given by the Soviets and used in their war time manuals is 128mm at 100m, 110mm at 300m and 92mm at 500m, all against vertical plate. All the Soviet figures are likely to be understated by about 20%.Kip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kip is correct, the data I listed previously for the BR-350A APC & 350P sub-calibre were for 30^. Below is the 0^ pen data, my report only lists 300ms - 1500ms on all guns as well.

The 0^ results for BR-350P sub-calibre were:

300ms 110mm

500ms - 92mm

1000ms - 60mm

Another aspect that also needs to be factored concerning Soviet sub-calibre it was generaly not manufactured to the standards of Westren APCR-T etc, its qualities due to poor materials & production methods, deteriorated its performance.

We can also compare the Soviet results to the German test results of the Soviet 76mm to see the difrences in results Ie,

BR-350A APC, Soviet test results, German test results in ( )'s @ 30^

500ms - 67mm (75mm)

1000ms - 60mm (67mm)

1500ms - 54mm (60mm)

Regards, John Waters

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

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

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

[kipanderson]

Hi,

very interesting to see John's German test results for the BR350A. If you apply the standard plus 20% factor for moving from penetration at 30degrees to the vertical you get a figure of 90mm penetration at 500m and 80mm at 1000m. A real problem for the Germans given the 80mm front armour of stgIIIs and MarkIVs.

Once development of CM2 is well under way there are going to be some stimulating discussion. I have some interesting data on the combat effectiveness of the Soviets in the second half of the war that shows them as far better soldiers than they are normally given credit for, more of that in a few weeks.

All the best,

Kip.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, there is an alternative to increasing the mantlet thickness to a single "average" value. I can add some tailored code (just for the Tiger I, our special little baby ) that will do something like Lee's suggestion of "strong points". It won't show that label when hit (like weak points do), but it could work behind the scenes, say, 25% of the time the Tiger front turret armor acts anywhere from 1-100% stronger than the "regular" 100mm armor.

Charles

[kipanderson]

Charles,

Perfect is all I can think of saying.

BTS comes to the rescue again.

Careful though, I can see a long list of "special requests" coming your way.

Thanks for all the effort,

all the best,

Kip.

[Guest Turret]

The probability of a strong point hit is a great idea!

I did some model testing using 4 1/35th scale Tigers made of scale steel (3,200 lbs each!). For test rounds, I melted depleted plutonium from the core of a decaying star into a mold made from the round of plastic 1/35th scale US 75mm gun. I put the round into a Crossman 766 BB gun and gave it 50 pumps. I wanted to simulate the kind of shots that would occur in battle. So I installed R/C units in the tanks and gave the controls to my wife and instructed her to drive each test tank in "combatish" way. I drank a pot of Starbucks coffee to simulate the heat of battle and then a case of beer to simulate the fog of war. I then went "hunting" in the yard. The results of my test:

Typically the Tiger was shot in the front as it was hard to get a flanking shot with my wife's quickly learned simulation of German tank tactics. 3 out of the the 4 tests it was a mantle hit. Tank one was taken out in the first shot at the mantle. Tank two and three survived their mantle hits. With tank 4 It was a rear trap shot that hit a fuel line.

Empirically the data suggest that the strong point hit probability is more like 33%.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

The probability of a strong point hit is a great idea!

I did some model testing using 4 1/35th scale Tigers made of scale steel (3,200 lbs each!). For test rounds, I melted depleted plutonium from the core of a decaying star into a mold made from the round of plastic 1/35th scale US 75mm gun. I put the round into a Crossman 766 BB gun and gave it 50 pumps. I wanted to simulate the kind of shots that would occur in battle. So I installed R/C units in the tanks and gave the controls to my wife and instructed her to drive each test tank in "combatish" way. I drank a pot of Starbucks coffee to simulate the heat of battle and then a case of beer to simulate the fog of war. I then went "hunting" in the yard. The results of my test:

Typically the Tiger was shot in the front as it was hard to get a flanking shot with my wife's quickly learned simulation of German tank tactics. 3 out of the the 4 tests it was a mantle hit. Tank one was taken out in the first shot at the mantle. Tank two and three survived their mantle hits. With tank 4 It was a rear trap shot that hit a fuel line.

Empirically the data suggest that the strong point hit probability is more like 33%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha! Scale Steel - it must have been Kryptonite to weigh 3,200lbs. Get your math right, Turret.

Apart from that obvious error, this is one of the more hilarious posts I have seen. Thanks for that. Sorry you had to drink Starbuck's coffee to make the test though.

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

Andreas

[Chupacabra]

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

Charles,

I can see a long list of "special requests" coming your way.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How come the chance of a small arms round traveling through a tank gun and hitting an HE round, thereby blowing up the tank isn't modeled, huh? HUH??

Snap to it!

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

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

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

[IntelWeenie]

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

OK, there is an alternative to increasing the mantlet thickness to a single "average" value. I can add some tailored code (just for the Tiger I, our special little baby ) that will do something like Lee's suggestion of "strong points". It won't show that label when hit (like weak points do), but it could work behind the scenes, say, 25% of the time the Tiger front turret armor acts anywhere from 1-100% stronger than the "regular" 100mm armor.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, oh, BIG can 'o worms yer opening there!

Will the (insert favorite tank here) be the next one you can do this for?

Actually, if you can make something like this workable (and easy to code), expanding the number of tanks covered by this type of fix would be excellent for CM2.

YOU DA MAN!

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[R-Man]

Turret said;

"So I installed R/C units in the tanks and gave the controls to my wife and instructed her to drive each test tank in "combatish" way. I drank a pot of Starbucks coffee to simulate the heat of battle and then a case of beer to simulate the fog of war. I then went "hunting" in the yard.

"The results of my test: Typically the Tiger was shot in the front as it was hard to get a flanking shot with my wife's quickly learned simulation of German tank tactics."

Oh my God! I'm at work, so I couldn't LOL. I was therefore reduced to violent convulsions with tears running out of my eyes.

Thanks for the belly-laugh.

I just read it again, and I'm still laughing.

[This message has been edited by R-Man (edited 08-08-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

OK, there is an alternative to increasing the mantlet thickness to a single "average" value. I can add some tailored code (just for the Tiger I, our special little baby ) that will do something like Lee's suggestion of "strong points". It won't show that label when hit (like weak points do), but it could work behind the scenes, say, 25% of the time the Tiger front turret armor acts anywhere from 1-100% stronger than the "regular" 100mm armor.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Charles thanks. I'd also add that I can't personaly see another problem with the tank's in CM concerning the armor, the tiger1 realy was/is a special case as its equivelent protection was undermodeled, compared to source material data so it stood out when under close examination of the vehichle unit data.

Regards, John Waters

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

[Paul Lakowski]

Some facts for you to chew on.... Both zaloga and Jentz report the Russian 76mm Gun was incapable of penetrating Tiger -1 frontally.

Even the American 76mm is only rated at 100m @ 30° while the T-34/85 was rated at 0m range.

Zaloga reports "However , by this time , the new BR-350P APDS round ,which could penetrate 92mm of armor at 500m , was introduced. The T-34 76.2mm gun was far less effective against the new tanks introduced by the Wehrmacht in 1943. The Tiger first appeared on the Leningrad Front in January 1943 , and could not be defeated frontally by the T-34."

Every weapon tested against the Tiger 1 front armor show a difference in penetration against the mantle area compared to the hull @ 500m [122mm] 300m [uS 76mm] > 200m [85mm]. The hull is rated at 100mm@ 25°@ 30° which is about 127mm effective LOS armor .Thus the difference is the penetration for those guns ....

<PRE>

122mm = 500m ;12-15mm + 127mm= 139-143mm

76mm& 85mm = 300m ;10-12mm + 127mm= 137-139mm

</PRE>

sounds like it should be ~ 14cm to me

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-08-2000).]

[Lee]

Wow, thanks, Charles! I didn't really think you'd implement that, but,

like always, you go above and beyond for the sake of quality and accuracy.

Way to go. Your solution is elegant and that variable percentage of

extra armor (after the strong point hit has been determined to

have taken place) will nicely take into account hits over a wide

variety of zones on the mantlet, all the way from just a little thicker

armor, up to 200mm. If you want, you could even weight the results

to lean towards the thicknesses likely to be encountered if one of

the uncommon strong point hits does occur. In other words, if you hit

a strong point in the first place, you're likely to meet a good

deal more than an extra 1mm of armor.

But, in any case, well done!

[Paul Lakowski]

OK if your going to use this notion of stong points you'd better be ready to change to some thing like 20% @ 100mm + 50% @ 140mm & 30%@ 200mm, cause those are the approximate resistance levels....and BTW you ought to do this to every tank cause they all have it to one extent or another.

If you don't do this you'll end up with unrealistic penetration events ....unless the penetration system is also faulty.

Does the penetration system take into account the fact that theres no such thing as a singular penetration value at any given range and angle? How does it distribute the probablity of X penetration or Y penetration?

Is it a '± normal distribution' around a common value and if so which one ...the V50 'ballistic limit'?

[The DesertFox]

<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

[Paul Lakowski]

If you stick with the mostly 100mm value for the Tiger 1 Mantle, the JS-2 should ace Tiger tank at over 2.5km range and T-34/85 should get the same results at 1.0-1.5Km ....when Zaloga & Jentz puts the values at 500m @ 0m respectively.

[Jarmo]

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

say, 25% of the time the Tiger front turret armor acts anywhere from 1-100% stronger than the "regular" 100mm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant........ BUT.

How about making it something like 50-75% of the time.

This would also include hitting the side of the turret from front.

Those hits would be ineffective as well.

The mantle is, after all, only about half the surface area.

I bet the side areas are included in the silhoouette figure.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Bastables]

So can anyone explain to me what 85% armour quality in the game represents? Is it telling me that its 25% less effective than a corresponding 100% armour or does it indicate a higher chance (25%) of a ‘critical’ or weak spot penetration?

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 08-09-2000).]