Victor Semensi Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 I've noticed that in Steel Panthers the turret front armor of the later Mark IV's ( except the J model) are 75mm vs the 50mm in CM. Does anyone know where the SP designers got that value? My limited home library doesn't go into much detail on the various Mark IV versions. I could sure use that extra 15mm in CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 From Jentz Panzer Tracts No. 4. 50mm is okee dokee. SP may be reporting equivelent armor inclusive of slope effects...perhaps a FH bonus thrown in to boot. I didnt bother crunching any numbers but thats probable the descrepency your seeing. In case you don't get by again...your welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 Than again a quick numbers crunch doesnt seem to come close to 75mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 Maybe SP are averaging out the mantlet over teh turret front armour, assuming the mantlet covers half the front and is on top of the turret armour? It's not a great way of doing it, and I don't know if it IS what they did, but there appears to be at least a little overlap that perhaps CM doesn't ive credit for. Perhaps there's room for het opposite of a "weak spot" - that is a "Strong spot", where the armour is particularly resistant due to a fortuitous line-up of mantlet and turret plates?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Semensi Posted June 5, 2001 Author Share Posted June 5, 2001 Thanks Jeff. What I can't figure out is why the SP folks singled out the 'J' model for a 50mm rating while the F,G and H get 75mm. The slope values are the same for these models in SP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 The SP value might allow for better armour plate quality/inferior enemy AP shot quality. I forget if in the SP the Soviet AP shots for example were penalized or the German was armour slightly overrated for statistical purposes. [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: tero ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tero Said: What was the spaced armour of the mantlet rated in mm's again ? The most excellent drawing does not seem to have the spaced armour mantlet installed. The basic mantlet could well be that 50mm but what about the "calculated" effect of the spaced additional mantlet armour rating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you elaborate on what you mean? I have seen only one reference to an experimental 20mm Vorpanzer homogeneous plate considered for the turret front of the F2. Are you saying this was actually implemented in production versions of the F,G,H and J models? How did the front suspension of the MKIV perform with this extra weight of this additional plate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 hmmmm....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 >Can you elaborate on what you mean? I have >seen only one reference to an experimental >20mm Vorpanzer homogeneous plate considered >for the turret front of the F2. Are you >saying this was actually implemented in >production versions of the F,G,H and J >models? How did the front suspension of the >MKIV perform with this extra weight of this >additional plate? > >hmmmm....? Quite. I had two ideas brewing in my head, spaced armour effect of the mantlet+gun shield and/or the Vorpanzer a la PzKw-III and armour/AP shot quality. I posted the original version before checked out the ACTUAL layout of the production vehicle, which indeed does not include the Vorpanzer. I tried to take the foot out of my mouth but you beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 you had me goin' there for a second. I had to dig back through my techno-minutia manuals on the MkIV to see if I hadn't missed something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorBeef Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Question: I remember a big discussions back in the fairly-not-old-days about the tiger turret's mantlet adding protection on some areas on the turret, effectively doubling the armor protection for some parts. But the diagram makes the mkIV seem to have the same advantage - 50mm of mantlet over 50mm of turret armor. Now.. was the tiger a special case wherein most tanks have thin turret armor specifically behind the mantlet, or should tanks in general have 'strong spots' in their turret armor like the tiger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hangover Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 Of course, you could speculate about it here, or you could go over to matrix games and actually ask them about it. They'd probably have a better answer for why they did it than anyone here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 6, 2001 Share Posted June 6, 2001 I don't disagree that some overlap of mantlet and turret armor is occurring on the MkIV. What the actual percentage of area is "double plated" -so to speak -- can be done with some simple geometry. The mantlet on the MkIV is considerably smaller relative to the area of the entire turret face. On the other hand, the mantlet of the Tiger I is spread over a large chunk of its turret face. Take a look at the following images and compare how much more area of the turret front the Tiger mantlet covers relative to the MkIV mantlet. But yes I agree that some doubling up occurs over portions of the MkIV turret front. Image From Achtung Panzer web page: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4 Image From Achtung Panzer web page: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm I think Rexford is detailing this whole Tiger Mantlet controversy in his armor manual. Should be interesting to see what he's come up with. [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts