Auggy Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.