Roksovkiy Posted July 15, 2001 Share Posted July 15, 2001 Is the report shown at "http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons7.html", a valid source. There is a lot of contradictory statements in the report. Valera has written up a lot of the statements between the pictures. If someone could get a copy from the russian achives, they could compare it. I have also heard that the report was done post war, using improved ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 16, 2001 Author Share Posted July 16, 2001 We look at reports before we accept them as reasonable, and we analyzed the penetration range results. It looks valid, and we wrote up our findings in our book. We took the penetration range info for 85mm and U.S. 76mm guns against the Tiger II side armor and analyzed the data, filling in some of the missing data from the bits and pieces (76mm penetration range is longer than 85mm, penetration range for both guns was from XXX to XXXX, etc). The resulting analysis showed the penetration range results to be in line with U.S. penetration data for 76mm APCBC, and with our data for 85mm projectiles. The Tiger II firing tests at Kubinka appear reasonable and realistic for WW II ammunition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 Sorry to bring the question again, but is there truth to the added 65mm front turret of the tiger II? As Roksovkiy stated that AchtungPanzer shows the king tiger with a 65mm mantle covering the entire front turret, in addition to its 180mm turret. And that the close-up picture above shows the turret with a cast armour mantle, that would give it a 245mm front turret. Roksovkiy qoute: "For some reason SPWAW uses 215mm thickness for front turret value." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 16, 2001 Author Share Posted July 16, 2001 We have never seen a photograph of a Tiger II with added armor to the turret front, the mantlet only covered the area immediately around the gun opening. WW II tanks had trouble adding turret front and mantlet armor due to the impact it would have on turret balance and weight on front wheels. This is why Pzkpfw IVH turret front armor is not increased when hull front goes from 50mm to 85mm, why IS-2 tanks only have 100mm turret front/mantlet, why 76mm armed Shermans only have 89mm mantlet, Panther mantlet is only 100mm thick, etc. Tiger E mantlet has minimum thickness of 135mm in center areas, upper and lower mantlet edges thin to 100mm but these are backed up by a space and then the 100mm turret front armor. Tiger mantlet is much thicker than the hull front, but Tiger E is an unusual example. Tiger II turret speed was slow enough, adding another 65mm to turret front would throw balance out and do all sorts of bad things. The only tank I can think of that had added resistance to turret front is PzKpfw IIIL and M, where 20mm spaced was added in front of turret and upper hull. I bet the PzKpfw IIIL,M turret rotation speed decreased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 16, 2001 Author Share Posted July 16, 2001 What is the address for the Achtung Panzer data for Tiger II which suggests 65mm added armor to turret front. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 I unreservedly withdraw my initial flippant post. Clearly there IS enourmous pent up demand for this sort of information. :eek: Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: What about this extra 65mm of armor on the mantlet? Is this true? Would give kingtiger 185mm + 65mm armor thickness. Maybe an add on in the field?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look at a picture of a KT and see for yourself. As Rexford said, the mantlet obviously only covers the area immediately around the gun opening. It doesn't even come close to covering the whole turret front. In fact, I just looked over at Achtung Panzer and they list the KTs front turret at 180mm at 9 degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Look at a picture of a KT and see for yourself. As Rexford said, the mantlet obviously only covers the area immediately around the gun opening. It doesn't even come close to covering the whole turret front. In fact, I just looked over at Achtung Panzer and they list the KTs front turret at 180mm at 9 degrees.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well thanks for the added response Vanir. I did look at the turret and and can see that its gun mantle is fairly small in comparison to the rest of the front turret. When I first looked at this photo before I posed the question, I had thought that the entire front turret had an extra add on of armor. As you can see it almost has the illusion that there is indeed and etra slab of armor there. Of course I hadn't realized the difference of what the true mantlet is by its definition. So I was eronously thinking that the Mantlet outstretched the entire or most of the front turret, much like the tiger E or panther mantlet. [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Freak ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: I unreservedly withdraw my initial flippant post. Clearly there IS enourmous pent up demand for this sort of information. :eek: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Clearly. You didn't happen to see the threads of Tiger I mantlet and the other one of Tiger I optics. One of the finest things in the forum when people argue for pages and pages of details like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Clearly. You didn't happen to see the threads of Tiger I mantlet and the other one of Tiger I optics. One of the finest things in the forum when people argue for pages and pages of details like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, thanks for reminding me Jarmo. Now you've brought back deeply repressed memories from my childhood that included being forced to read Graham Greene's novels at school. :mad: Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts