tiger 1 non-sloped armor efficiency

[bulbulhoca]

I admit the superiority of the sloped armor at least in CMBO terms but, yesterday I ve found an article which is partially negating the game engine.

here is a excerpt:

The armor of the Tiger I was not well sloped, but it was thick. Here is where many fail to understand that, in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness is a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor. The quality of the armor was another major asset of the Tiger I, and it can't be emphasized enough that the Tiger I was a very special kind of Panzer, since it had the best quality of everything, compared to any other German tank. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. The Tiger I's armor was much superior to that of, for example the Panther, which armor had a much higher Brinell index, and consequently, was very brittle. The Tiger, as a side effect from the usage of this special armor, also was a very expensive tank. The nominal cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In contrast, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios.

[Soddball]

How does that negate the game engine? Take a close look at the Tiger's stats when you next use one. What information do you see?

[aka_tom_w]

where's Rexford when you need him?

-tom w

[Guest Mike]

I think you'll find that the T/d ratio is actually part and parcel of the CM penetratino engine and always has been.

[Silvio Manuel]

Yeah BFC leaves no stone unturned when computing the Armor Penetration tables/engine. rexford is their consultant (IIRC) and he is probably more of an expert than just about anyone.

[bulbulhoca]

sorry..

game manual page 124 indicates this aspect of the engine.

I love this game.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by bulbulhoca:

[snips]

This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor. The quality of the armor was another major asset of the Tiger I, and it can't be emphasized enough that the Tiger I was a very special kind of Panzer, since it had the best quality of everything, compared to any other German tank. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way.

Apart from the point, already made, that CM already reflects all of this, some of it sounds a bit like Tiger-worship to me.

PRO document WO 185/118, "DDG/FV(D) Armour plate experiments", includes a report of the results of test shoots against a captive Tiger in Tunisia.

The 6-pounder Mark V with high-velocity AP shot was found to be capable, at normal impact, of penetrating the front 102mm plate at 700 yards, and the side 82mm plate at 1250 yards.

The report also mentions that the left-side superstructure plate of the experimental Tiger was of markedly lower quality than the other plates on the tank, and could be penetrated at much longer ranges than usual. So much for "rigorous quality control".

All the best,

John.

[illo]

Hi John,

was that Tiger I captured in good condition?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by illo:

Hi John,

was that Tiger I captured in good condition?

I don't think it had suffered anything that would have reduced the armour quality of the left side plate.

All the best,

John.

[Foxbat]

"many fail to understand that, in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness is a quality in itself"

And there I was thinking that everyone was impressed by the fact that the tiger had very thick armor..

And I must say that I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that the Tiger is great because 80mm thick armor is supposedly in itself significantly better than sloped armor giving 80mm effective armor. That would depend greatly on the actual thickness of the sloped plate, and especially the extent to which overmatch is even an issue.

[MeatEtr]

some of it sounds a bit like Tiger-worship to me.

C'mon John, whats wrong with this? Im sitting in my very own Tiger tank shrine.

[Tigrii]

Also note that, aprt from sloped armor making a greater ricochet chance, a shot hitting sloped armor head-on has more armor to penetrate, which effectively makes it thicker. Sloped armor being shot at from below is even more effective, because the angle of gun to armor is greater, while sloped armor shot at from above is just like straight because the angle of attack negates the slope. This is why it's a big advantage to be on hills with tanks, especially partially on the slope so the tank is slanted up even more.

[rexford]

The one advantage of thick armor is that it promotes shot shatter because the thickness is greater than the projectile diameter.

If U.S. 76mm APCBC hits Tiger 82mm at a 30 degrees side angle from gun to armor facing, and the round can overpenetrate the armor resistance by 1.05 to 1.25, the round will shatter and fail. Same thing for hits on front of Tiger that should penetrate when penetration is compared to effective armor resistance.

We believe that many 57mm L73 hits on Russian front that theoretically should overpenetrate actually failed to defeat the armor because the round self-destructed on the plates.

Panther side armor is too thin to generate shatter in most hits.

U.S. tests against Tigers at Aberdeen Proving Grounds showed that the armor resistance varied widely, from above average to below average. In addition, the Tiger armor was on the brittle side with very low impact resistance.

[LightningWar]

But couldnt you increase the speed of the projectile to overcome in size issues it may have in regards to the thickness of the armor?

Gen

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by LightningWar:

But couldnt you increase the speed of the projectile to overcome in size issues it may have in regards to the thickness of the armor?

Gen

I don't think so, I expect the only thing that would help (short of increasing the calibre) would be to make the projectile from better quality steel.

[Hortlund]

Ok, I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly.

Are you guys saying that if the projectile has a smaller diameter than the thickness of the armour surface it hits, it will shatter/the likelyhood of the projectile shattering is substantial?

The armour thickness, would that be the total thickness (armour plate thickness + angle) or just the armour plate thickness regardless of angle?

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Are you guys saying that if the projectile has a smaller diameter than the thickness of the armour surface it hits, it will shatter/the likelyhood of the projectile shattering is substantial?

Yes, especially for certain projectiles this phenomen actually causes them to penetrate a far thinner amount of armor than you would expect based on nominal penetration.

The armour thickness, would that be the total thickness (armour plate thickness + angle) or just the armour plate thickness regardless of angle?

Just the thickness of the plate.

[Hortlund]

Then I dont understand the principle behind APCR or modern day Sabot rounds.

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Then I dont understand the principle behind APCR or modern day Sabot rounds.

Tungsten or DU is far less shatter prone than steel.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Then I dont understand the principle behind APCR or modern day Sabot rounds.

Tungsten or DU is far less shatter prone than steel.</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[snips]Yes, I know, but I didnt think we were talking about solid steel shots. Anyway, the principle must be the same no matter if we are talking about old iron cannonballs or modern DU shells.

AIUI the principle needn't be the same at all. I am told by people who should know that APFSDS penetration is essentially a question of hydrodynamic flow, much more like HEAT penetration than classical AP/C/BC.

All the best,

John.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[snips]Yes, I know, but I didnt think we were talking about solid steel shots. Anyway, the principle must be the same no matter if we are talking about old iron cannonballs or modern DU shells.

AIUI the principle needn't be the same at all. I am told by people who should know that APFSDS penetration is essentially a question of hydrodynamic flow, much more like HEAT penetration than classical AP/C/BC.

All the best,

John.</font>

[StellarRat]

Well, you can look at it this way. As velocity increases solids start to act more like atomic particles and the results of impacts and such become more predictable. A HEAT explosion is just a bunch of high speed gas particles focused on a certain point. A marshmellow moving at very high velocity (like in space) would produce the same type of damage as piece of iron weighing the same amount at the same velocity. One of the shuttles was damaged by a paint flake it looked like bullet hit. I don't know a better way to describe it, but I think you can make that leap intutively.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Ok, now Im lost again, I was talking about solid shots penetrating armour plates. To me that is something completely different from HEAT.

As for APFSDS (or Sabot as I call them) penetration being a question of hydrodynamic flow creating something like a HEAT effect

WWOOOOOSSHHHHHH

(that was the sound of that one passing right over my head)

Could you explain that like you would explain it to a 3 year old?

Sorry.

Essentially, armour penetration means trying to throw a lump of stuff through a block of armour.

Obviously, you need to throw this lump of stuff pretty fast, and you would want it to be pretty solid; but, if you throw it really, really fast, you can throw a blob of goo through the armour, just as you can cut steel with a high-pressure water jet.

Classical AP/C/BC shots or shells are solid lumps of stuff, moving relatively slowly (1000 m/sec, maybe).

Classical HEAT penetrators are formed from the particles of the warhead liner moving really fast (maybe 10000 m/sec); rather than solid lumps, they are fast-moving goo.

Explosively-formed penetrators are much the same, expect that the liner material is formed into more interesting shapes, which may travel for considerable distances and behave in some ways more like a solid lump.

Long-rod sabot hits at such high speeds that the temperatures and pressures involved make the solid lump behave in some ways more like a tube of fast-moving goo.

All the best,

John.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Then I dont understand the principle behind APCR or modern day Sabot rounds.

I think that can be explained without going in to the particularities of hydronomolonolucular flow

Basically what APCR/subcalibre/sabot does is that a harder or heavier projeticle (solid steel subcalibre was still generally of a higher hardness than normal solid shot) is hitting a smaller area at a higher speed.

That it doesn't shatter is partly because the harder (or heavier) material is less shatter prone, and because penetration is more instantanious. For a comparison imagine for example pricking a needle into a cushion vs stabbing it with a knife, stabbing it with a knife uses more force and the blade is subjected to the same force it exerts. Take that situation to to the extreme and the stabbing force would be enough to break the point of the knife, while the needle would still penetrate. Things work much the same with sabot vs solid shot (and that that is caused by the penetrator acting like a flow through the armour is nice to know, but I'm pretty sure that that was only discovered after such penetrators come into use ).

Well I guess my explanations isn't half as clear as I hoped, but I hope it helps some anyway.