Tiger Mantlet Armor: Superb Superiority

[rexford]

While the Tiger is a 1942 tank, the mantlet armor would not be matched or exceeded by very many turreted tanks during the war.

The Tiger mantlet ranges in effective thickness from 135mm to 197mm (while the minimum thickness is 97mm on the upper and lower edges, that armor is backed up by a spaced 100mm armor area), and is only exceeded by:

King Tiger

Jumbo Sherman

Super Pershing

The Tiger mantlet armor was high quality cast material that was capable of taking extensive punishment without severe cracking, and the castings resisted penetration like rolled armor due to the thickness. There are pictures of Tigers with 122mm rounds stuck in the mantlet, which suggests good armor toughness.

IS-2 has a 110mm mantlet and 100mm turret front, Panther has a 100m mantlet. U.S. 76mm armed Shermans have 89mm mantlets. Even the standard, late war Pershings don't have as thick a mantlet.

The Tiger mantlet is capable of stopping hits from U.S. 76mm APCBC and Russian 85mm AP or APBC at just about any range, and it takes the U.S. 90mm or Russian 122mm or 100mm to really score a kill with one hit.

A hulldown Tiger is a difficult target for most tanks and SPG right up to the end of the war.

[ June 26, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Mr. Tittles]

While it does offer excellent protection, it appears that turret hits are very damaging. Great for crew morale but many hits put tanks out of combat.

[rexford]

Forgot the Churchill VII.

Alot of heavy mantlet hits would have the potential to break things through vibration, and misalign critical components.

But 135mm to 197mm of good cast armor can take quite a few hits with minimal problems.

[rexford]

I read a few books on the Tiger which described the impact of repeated hits by 57mm and 76mm ammo on the hull, where the shaking broke equipment free from attachments on the wall. In one case, a 76mm hit on the 102mm thick driver plate pushed the plate in far enough to hit the driver on the head and kill him.

A 135mm-197mm ductile casting is going to absorb more of the hit impact energy, and cause the projectile to self-absorb more of the impact energy, than a 102mm front or 80mm side plate.

Remember that as the resistance of the armor increases above the penetration of the round, more of the impact energy is used up in self-destruction of the projectile. When 37mm and 50mm rounds hit the KV-I and KV-II armor during the early battles of 1941, the rounds would bounce off the armor and the only mark would be some damage to the paint. Very little impact energy was absorbed by the tank armor.

It's similar to hitting a thick wall with a hammer, the hammer bounces and does not leave much of a scar because the thick armor spreads the impact out over an immense area. The impact energy of the hammer is converted to rebound energy.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.geocities.com/jwxspoon/militaryalbum.htm

Check out the pic of the 17 lbr AP stuck in the tiger armor from jwxspoons website.

Its a fascinating image that really shows just how hard the AP round is and how elastic the armor is.

Note the elongation of the armor and crack in the AP round. The armor has absorbed all the velocity energy as well as the rotational energy from this round. If a crewmens face was behind the armor, he would be severly injured to say the least.

[ June 27, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://www.geocities.com/jwxspoon/militaryalbum.htm

Check out the pic of the 17 lbr AP stuck in the tiger armor from jwxspoons website.

Its a fascinating image that really shows just how hard the AP round is and how elastic the armor is.

Note the elongation of the armor and crack in the AP round. The armor has absorbed all the velocity energy as well as the rotational energy from this round. If a crewmens face was behind the armor, he would be severly injured to say the least.

Interesting that we're talking about the Tiger mantlet and the picture refers to the 100mm front hull plates. Most defeated hits will not lodge in the armor, the penetration has to be very very close to the effective armor resistance for a lodged hit, which doesn't occur very often.

Yes, a lodged round may do all sorts of things to the crew inside a tank, but no with regard to a lodged hit being the normal defeat mode.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by rexford:

I read a few books on the Tiger which described the impact of repeated hits by 57mm and 76mm ammo on the hull, where the shaking broke equipment free from attachments on the wall. In one case, a 76mm hit on the 102mm thick driver plate pushed the plate in far enough to hit the driver on the head and kill him.

A 135mm-197mm ductile casting is going to absorb more of the hit impact energy, and cause the projectile to self-absorb more of the impact energy, than a 102mm front or 80mm side plate.

Remember that as the resistance of the armor increases above the penetration of the round, more of the impact energy is used up in self-destruction of the projectile. When 37mm and 50mm rounds hit the KV-I and KV-II armor during the early battles of 1941, the rounds would bounce off the armor and the only mark would be some damage to the paint. Very little impact energy was absorbed by the tank armor.

It's similar to hitting a thick wall with a hammer, the hammer bounces and does not leave much of a scar because the thick armor spreads the impact out over an immense area. The impact energy of the hammer is converted to rebound energy.

I posted a link to that pic because of these statements you made. The idea that the round is being self-destructed seems especially odd.

[YankeeDog]

Rexford --

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Tiger mantlet was not only exceptionally thick, but unusually durable; IOW the armor was less prone to degradation from repeated hits when compared to other mantlets of similar thickness.

To flip this whole thing around, then, are there other AFVs with armor plates that, while capable of resisting isolated hits, would be prone to loss of integrity if subjected to several hits in the same area?

I am wondering especially about face hardened armor and the whole StuG III vs. Zis-5 issue that's been kicking around here lately. Is it possible that the 80mm and/or 30+50mm plates of some StuG models would be especially prone to loss of integrity after being hit a few times? From what little I know about metallurgy and the physics of projectile vs. armor, it seems quite possible that this might be the case. the top FH layers might be prone to cracking, and I imagine the top 30mm plate of the 30+50mm spaced armor would get torn up pretty quickly by 76.2 & 45mm projectiles, given that it is dramatically overmatched by both.

If such plates are prone to degradation from non-penetrating hits, I wonder whether this might be a good thing to model in the next CM engine; I have in some games bounced a dozen or more non-penetrating 76.2mm and 45mm hits off a single StuG's frontal plates. I would think that, with that many hits, there would be a pretty high liklihood of a shell striking close to a previous hit's mark.

Curious to hear your opinions,

YD

[Mr. Tittles]

This image shows hits on both the areas of Tiger I.

Notice the hit on the turret under the turret MG area. This type of hit could throw off the zero of the main gun. The mantlet pivots on the trunion. Hits along the edges would put a severe shock on this area.

[ June 28, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

This image shows hits on both the areas of Tiger I.

Notice the hit on the turret under the turret MG area. This type of hit could throw off the zero of the main gun. The mantlet pivots on the trunion. Hits along the edges would put a severe shock on this area.

Notice that Mr. Tittles said the mantlet hit in the image "could throw off the zero", and he didn't say it definitely would.

No one can say any hit would definitely do anything, cause short range Panther hits on Shermans failed due to cracked projectiles and even the thickest armor could send fragments flying inside a tank.

That being said, the Tiger mantlet would have less of a chance for bad results on defeated hits due to its thickness and mass.

With a minimum mantlet thickness of 135mm, the Tiger mantlet would defeat hits from M10 3" APCBC at 750m with a comfortable margin (109mm penetration, 135mm to 197mm resistance).

The Panther mantlet is 100mm at its thickest, and on a 25 degree impact would present about 120mm effective resistance.

Given the mass and thickness of the Tiger mantlet, the 3" APCBC hit on the Tiger mantlet would have a higher probability of using alot of its energy destroying the projectile than against the Panther. There would be a higher probability that the hit would bore into the Panther mantlet and shake the heck out of the lighter mantlet.

There would be a higher probability of the M10 hit throwing off the gun zero on the Panther.

There would be a higher probability that the M10 hit on the Tiger would suffer severe damage and bounce away without digging in very far.

Heavier mantlets would seem to have many advantages over lighter mantlets. And it should be noted that the 100mm to 110mm curved mantlets on Panther and IS-2 tapered, with the Panther mantlet reducing to 75mm at the upper and lower edges.

There are many reports of single Tigers taking all sorts of hits from 57mm and 76mm guns after being surrounded and not only blowing away the enemy but driving off afterwards. Thick armor helps.

Mr. Tittles is right that some hits have enough penetration to dig deep into the mantlet and shake things up really well, but the Tiger mantlet is probably going to do better against rounds it can defeat than the Panther. That's my point.

As an aside, the curved 100mm Panther mantlet will present over 120mm resistance on half the hits and over 150mm on a good percentage of hits, and that is the benefit of a curved mantlet. The resistance can be very high on hits near the upper and lower edges.

But around the center area, and considering the cast armor, the Panther mantlet puts up less than 110mm resistance on a good share of the hits.

[rexford]

One point which came out during a discussion is that the Panther mantlet may weigh about the same as the Tiger mantlet even though the Panther has a thinner casting (100mm max versus 150mm+ on Tiger).

If the Panther mantlet is assumed to be half a circle with a 92.5mm average thickness (it tapers down to 75mm or so at the edges), the total mass would equal 92.5mm x pi x radius x width, or about 145mm x height x width.

If the Tiger and Panther mantlets ahev about the same height and width, their weights would seem to be comparable.

The difference in ballistic resistance would make the Panther mantlet more vulnerable than Tiger on hits within the center half (within 30 degrees of apex) and less vulnerable on hits above and below the central area. And the curved shape would create a shot trap where hits could be deflected down onto the hull top where they could penetrate.

Rounding of the Panther mantlet may make gun balance and elevation easier, but I am not sure.

[jrrich0000]

I can't argue the ballistics effects at your level but I can tell you from practical experience: A hit on a mantlet like the one in the photo would definitely throw off the zero on that gun. No question.

[Mr. Tittles]

Ive read accounts of non-penetrating hits on that wide mantlet knocking the gun off the trunnions. The further away from those pivot points, the greater the cantilever effect. So a hit near the edges really is a hammer blow to the whole gun system. Ive seen pics of this whole piece and the whole gun system on a trailer. That big mantlet is part of the gun system.

I prefer what the germans did with the Tiger II turret. Ive read of many tigers being put in the repair shop from turret hits. The restored tiger in england was supposedly KOd due to a lucky hit that somehow disabled the elevation of the gun by hitting those bolts that stick out the side.

[flamingknives]

No, the Tiger 131 at Bovington had it's gun disabled when a 6pdr shot from a Churchill ricocheted from the under side of the gun barrel into the turret ring, disabling the traverse.

Picture of the damage

[Mr. Tittles]

No, thats different than what I am refering to but it does reinforce what I said earlier about turrets being susceptible to damge.

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal35.htm

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal37.htm

This damage to

the mantlet trunnions

is quite distinctive

and still visible (see p35),

but how significant is it?

You could still elevate and depress the gun, so it may not have been that bad,

but once again

it was not until ABRO

began the restoration process

that the extent of

the damage was revealed.

Click to find out how to purchase this photo.

Tank Museum photo No0292/C/3 (detail)

Tank Museum photo No. 5768/C/4 The large cylinder at the bottom

of this picture is described in

the British report on Tiger 131 as

the Gun Balance Spring Casing.

In effect it is a counter-balance to offset the weight of the gun, it contains a large compression spring and is adjustable.

It is located on the right side of the turret, just above turret ring level and attached to the mantlet by the complicated bracket, visible on the right.

It was found to be damaged during restoration and may well have affected operation of the gun at the time of the action. It also serves to show the punishment tanks take under impact. That a round striking the left trunnions can damage a unit such as this on the opposite side argues a fairly hefty blow

[ June 29, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by jrrich0000:

I can't argue the ballistics effects at your level but I can tell you from practical experience: A hit on a mantlet like the one in the photo would definitely throw off the zero on that gun. No question.

Yes, a hit that digs in that much and transfers its energy to the mantlet by pushing armor out of the way would do quite a bit of shaking and rocking.

But my point is that the thickness of the Tiger mantlet would prevent alot of those deep dig-ins by Russian 85mm and U.S. 76mm AP type ammo, hits that would completely penetrate or kick the heck out of the Panther mantlet.

As the penetration stats show, Russian 85mm and U.S. 76mm won't do much to the Tiger mantlet at 500m and beyond, but they can fry the Panther mantlet on center area hits or shake things up real good on partial penetrations.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

No, thats different than what I am refering to but it does reinforce what I said earlier about turrets being susceptible to damge.

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal35.htm

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal37.htm

Thanks for the site addresses, neat photo's.

What it comes down to is would you rather have a Panther type mantlet, 100mm maximum thickness and some very good slope effects away from the center area, or the Tiger mantlet which clearly overmatches the penetrative effects of the Russian 85mm and U.S. 76mm guns firing steel AP type ammo?

Being curved, the Panther mantlet has this advantage: when it defeats a hit it will do it by angle and slope effect, which means that the round damages itself and is deflected away carrying velocity with it, which reduces the impact on the Panther mantlet.

The Tiger mantlet will defeat the round by just being too thick and causing the round to crush itself, or the round will really dig in.

So there are advants and cons to each mantlet type.

[flamingknives]

Not really a hit on the mantlet though, is it?

[Mr. Tittles]

Its worse. The claim is that a hit of the outside of the trunnion traveled a shock wave across the gun system (including the mantlet) and KOd the balancer on the other side!

I think the tiger II turret front design is superior. Keep the gun parts small and isolated. The frontal turret armor is reinforced structurally by the sides.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Its worse. The claim is that a hit of the outside of the trunnion traveled a shock wave across the gun system (including the mantlet) and KOd the balancer on the other side!

I think the tiger II turret front design is superior. Keep the gun parts small and isolated. The frontal turret armor is reinforced structurally by the sides.

Good point on the Tiger II turret front design, which I included in a post on the AFV News site.

[Mr. Tittles]

The Panther II turret was also a good design. It added overall protection without a weight penalty. I believe the Panzer IV turret should have had some kind of redesign after the L48 was fitted. narrow turret fronts and small mantlets being a goal.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.alanhamby.com/cutaway.html

This is a nice cutaway showing the mantlet.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.alanhamby.com/Gallery/Pz6_19.jpg

Heres a good pic of tje mantlet showing that the area behind it had a slope. I would not have extended the mantletas far left or right but rather have built up the armor behind it instead.

[ June 30, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://www.alanhamby.com/Gallery/Pz6_19.jpg

Heres a good pic of tje mantlet showing that the area behind it had a slope. I would not have extended the mantletas far left or right but rather have built up the armor behind it instead.

Thanks for all the web site addresses and info, good stuff I never would have seen otherwise.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/panther/panther_inside.htm

This is a panther cutaway. It also appears that the Panther has overlap in its turret front.