Some Illuminating Facts About The Tiger Tank

[Silencer]

just bumping this excellent tread up.

S.

[Paul Lakowski]

On the issue of 75mm Vs Tiger-1, the ricochet of a 75mm AP shot should be about [ from test]...

600m/s = 45o+/- 5o

800m/s = 55o +/- 5o

So if the 75s are not penetrating the front hull its because the angle must be ~ 40o.... at that angle even the 100mm bow plates and driver face plates are nearly 200mm effective resistance.

On the issue of Bazooka Vs Tiger-1 , the ricochet angle should be some thing like 20-30o making hits difficult . The original warhead was 2.67 inches?, and test on bazooka suggest ~ 2 cone diameter penetration depending on stand off.In addition there should be a shot to shot variation of some thing like +/- 1/2 a cone diameter. So at any kind of angle Bazooka penetration of the hull or side armor would be possible but not very likely.

The front turret is out of the question cause the 200mm cast and rolled plate is uneffected by free edge effect and should offer about ~ 200mm resistance.

I'll check these when I get home and edit if needed.

[Simon Fox]

Is the resistance to penetration of two 100mm armour plates spaced apart effectively identical or sufficiently similar to one homogeneous plate 200mm thick?

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Is the resistance to penetration of two 100mm armour plates spaced apart effectively identical or sufficiently similar to one homogeneous plate 200mm thick? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vs shaped Charges yes , infact given sufficent gap the spaced plate should offer a bit more.

Vs AP shots the gap will reduce the efficency by about 3-5% in this case[ 1-2 projectile diameters]

In the case of the Tiger mantle the 'free edge effect' will reduce this even more and the mantle is cast which should offer ~ 90% resistance of Rolled plate of the same hardness. All told the Tiger -1 front turret probably offers about 15cm resistance Vs WW-II APC type ammo.

[Vanir]

Does anyone know exactly what the value will be when BTS changes it? Is Charles going to do the 100+ 25% of 100? It sounds like an interesting idea, but I wonder where he got the 25% from. The mantlet obviously covers a heck of a lot more of the front plate than 25%. I'm starting to think it would be best if it was just set at 120mm. I know you think it should be more, Paul, and you know more about the mathematics than me, but that matches Jentz's (revised) number and most of the values in the game seem to be based on his numbers. I think maybe we're over analysing this.

[Paul Lakowski]

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

Does anyone know exactly what the value will be when BTS changes it? Is Charles going to do the 100+ 25% of 100? It sounds like an interesting idea, but I wonder where he got the 25% from. The mantlet obviously covers a heck of a lot more of the front plate than 25%. I'm starting to think it would be best if it was just set at 120mm. I know you think it should be more, Paul, and you know more about the mathematics than me, but that matches Jentz's (revised) number and most of the values in the game seem to be based on his numbers. I think maybe we're over analysing this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No if anything this is under analysed. When shooting at the front turret from straight on do you ever get ricochet off the side turret , if so then that part is covered[ > 200mm].

But the latest Jentz work puts the front turret at 100mm and mantle at 100-200mm and Helge's drawing clearly shows the extent of the over lap....so across the front the LOS thickness is 200mm.

But if you think this is over analysed then lets look at some other tanks to see if the same mistake is being made.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

But the latest Jentz work puts the front turret at 100mm and mantle at 100-200mm and Helge's drawing clearly shows the extent of the over lap....so across the front the LOS thickness is 200mm.

But if you think this is over analysed then lets look at some other tanks to see if the same mistake is being made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What new Jentz work Paul?. Anyway I think the Panther armor will also need looking into check out:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009066.html

Note the mantlet or lack one of comments.

The Panther Ausf G late in CM has an TF armor protection of 110mm @ 11^. Their is no apperent reprsentation of the curved mantlets added 100mm protection. The TF on an Ausf.G was 100mm @ 12^so is the xtra 10mm of TF armor added in CM to simulate somewhat the mantlet's protection ?.

I understand from reading Charles post the TF can only have 1 value and the mantlet is the important 1 as it covers the most area on the TF, but it may need an adjustment as the Panther was vulnerable on the TF @ 700ms to 76mm APCBC but it was only vulnerable on the mantlet @ 100ms to 76mm APCBC.

In CM I see TF penetrations on Panthers at 700ms etc, usualy a 'weak point' hit I had assumed this was modeling a hit on the small flat turret face on the exposed corners, until now.

It very well may be that all tanks turret fronts in CM need adjusting.

Regards, John Waters

-------

"Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!"

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-18-2000).]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I thought it would get round to the Panther's mantlet. 110@11 degrees seems reasonable to me. I have just pulled out my copy of Jentz's Panther Tank The Quest for Combat Supremacy and there is very little overlap of the mantlet and turret front so modelling "100mm curved" should be the aim. The problem is the same as the Tiger's mantlet. On the Panther there will have been a band across the centre offering not much more than 100mm of protection with far more protection above and below as the "curve", angle of strike, increased.

I would have gone for 100@25 degrees if I had to go for one figure, but 110@11 is almost the same. It seems fine to me.

Jentz even gives an example of the Soviet 45 penetrating the mantlet, must have been the "arrowhead" round, so on a bad day a number of rounds will have been able to penetrate the centre portion of the mantlet.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I am not giving too much weight to the 45mm example, I do not think one should to any one example, but what I know of German armour quality, the thinkness of the plate and the power of various guns there were around at the time.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Hi,

I thought it would get round to the Panther's mantlet. 110@11 degrees seems reasonable to me. I have just pulled out my copy of Jentz's Panther Tank The Quest for Combat Supremacy and there is very little overlap of the mantlet and turret front so modelling "100mm curved" should be the aim. The problem is the same as the Tiger's mantlet. On the Panther there will have been a band across the centre offering not much more than 100mm of protection with far more protection above and below as the "curve", angle of strike, increased.

I would have gone for 100@25 degrees if I had to go for one figure, but 110@11 is almost the same. It seems fine to me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kip, then what do you sugest be done about the diferences between an turret front defeat and an mantlet defeat?, as their is no distinction currently modeled.

We can only have 1 value and the Panther turret front & in my games as Ge or US 76mm rounds are penetrating the TF on a regular basis from 500 - 700ms. I'm not saying an penetration of the TF should never occur.

I'm saying it should be a very rare occurence for the Panther's TF to be penetrated period, by 76mm APCBC. In the US LF tests in August 44 76mm APCBC consitantly failed at 300yrds vs the mantlet, and the glacis could not be defeated, but the TF lower face corners could be defeated with no problem.

And I agree on the mantlet upper lower curve, problem is it apperently has no bearing on CM penetration formula currently either, or the Tiger E or Panther TF. Again I think this effects every tank in CM.

I'm aware of the 45mm penetration, and I have no problem with a wild penetration happening in CM, my problem is I have seen it repeatedly Ie, 4 Panthers killed by TF weak point hits, at 500 - 700ms, I was happy my Shermans did this but at the same time it caught my attention as well.

Regards, John Waters

----------

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!!"

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Germany's Tiger Tanks, pp 21

"Mantlet 100-200mm 280BHN" and Helge's picture clearly shows the thickenin of the mantle in the area where the mantle goes through the front turret!So you've either got to go through 200mm cast turret or two 100mm plates, since the free edge plays a roll here the value of 15cm seems reasonable and works Vs the 122mm AP shell.

Panthers Mantle :

The front is listed as 100mm on the mantle,I think you should always atleast include a 20° angle bringing this upto ~ 12cm. Robert told me that the mantle near the extreme edge [top & bottom] is only 25mm @ 70° ~ 7cm effective but then theres the overlap with the front turret [100mm] . The free edge will reduce the mantle edge effectiveness by 0.6 to ~ 5cm while the Front turret should be down only 0.8 to 8cm for a total of 12cm. The gradual thinning of the mantle suggest this is cast reducing the mantle by 90% to ~ 11cm.

But we have a problem , I was looking at the 'Panther in Detail" and it shows the gun cradle as armor box which covers most of the mantle area.This is a box with 4cm thick casing which probably 0.6 for the free edge and 0.7 t/d or 2-3cm total The free edge on the mantle is ~ 3-4 projectile diameters or about 0.75 x 12cm = 9cm, for a total of 11cm effective resistance .

The FT is listed at 250 BHN and 110mm @ 10° thats x 1.04[angle] x 0.97[hardness] or 11cm.

but this is a cast so the resistance should be ~ 10cm.

 [url="http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/gunsarm.htm"]http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/gunsarm.htm[/url] 

[/HTML]

Looks to me like ~ 11cm mantle and 10cm FT.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Germany's Tiger Tanks, pp 21

"Mantlet 100-200mm 280BHN"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm confused here as Jentz lists the mantlet on page 12 under 'armor protection' as being 120mm @ 0^ .

The 100 - 200mm figure was from the British LF tests which a portable poldi was set up, IIRC. also Robert told us that British Poldi results were 10% higher then US results.

Do we know how they obtained this figure and why no firm mm thickness was settled on for the mantlet ?.

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

Looks to me like ~ 11cm mantle and 10cm FT.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So thats 110mm mantlet & 100mm TF?.

I thought you meant he had a new book out .

Regards, John Waters

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

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes"

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Tiger]

Username, to remove the tiger's entire gun assembly, there are 6 bolts holding it in place on the mantle, 3 bolts on each side. The entire gun will slide out (you'd pull the breech assembly out from the inside after removing the turrent. The mantlet stays in place, and you can slide an entire new gun breech into the turrent, from the inside part of the turrent. As desert fox says, you can replace the barrel as well.

-johnS

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I'm confused here as Jentz lists the mantlet on page 12 under 'armor protection' as being 120mm @ 0^ .

The 100 - 200mm figure was from the British LF tests which a portable poldi was set up, IIRC. also Robert told us that British Poldi results were 10% higher then US results.

Do we know how they obtained this figure and why no firm mm thickness was settled on for the mantlet ?.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at helge's pic of the cutaway mamtle on page 1 of this topic youll see the mantle thickness is far from uniform instead it thickens towards the middle where the mantle comes through the front turret

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

Looks to me like ~ 11cm mantle and 10cm FT.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So thats 110mm mantlet & 100mm TF?.

Thats what I get from this inital look

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree that there is a general problem with the "one figure" for turret fronts if they are at all "curved" or of uneven thickness as many were. This problem will get worse when we move to CM2, think of the T34/76 mantlets and the "turret" fronts of the T34/85 and JS tanks. However the Charles solution of say 40% 100mm and then 60% 100mm- 150mm as a type of formula has a lot of mileage in it. However it will have to be applied to a number of tanks. Charles and Steve have set themselves such high standards for realism that it is my hope they will support the idea of similar solutions for a number of tanks.

When it comes to the extent of the "overlap" of mantlet and turret front in both the Tiger and the Panther I intend to go down and "crawl around" inside both at Bovington Tank Museum in September. Chap that runs the place is not keen on that sort of thing in the holidays because there are too many kids around, they all suddenly want to do the same.

When it comes to the exact figures for a given tank we are never all going to agree, we just have to leave the final word to Charles. But the "Charles solution/formula" certainly helps even if we do not all agree on his exact figures.

All the best,

Kip.

[Cardinal Fang]

Howdy folks,

I was just searching the web more or less randomly and I came across this site

http://tiger1e.com/saumur/English/tourelle.html

I don't think its been mentioned before.

I hope this helps.

Cardinal Fang

Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!