Tiger Mealtime Position

[siffo998]

I`ve did some testing and positioned a tiger (mid) opposite to an m10 500m away in the editor. i was very pleasantly surprised that finally you could use the mealtime position (as described in the tiger manual "tigerfibel", 45° posioning of the tiger facing the enemy, the tigerfibel states that the tiger positioned in this way could even deflect a shot from a josef stalin tank with its 122mm cannon) for the tiger in a strategy game. as far as i know it was not possible in cm1. even if the m10 destroyed the tracks, optics and radio after 10+ hits it could not penetrate the tiger. I`ve then placed the tiger directly facing the m10 and it was knocked out after 1-2 shots just like i have imagined.

but then i`ve found something very strange: all hits to the side armor in this 45° angled position were deflected just like they should (due to the 45° positioning) but 4 times during my testing the upper front hull armor of the tiger was hit in the same 45° positon and every time it was penetrated. how is that possible ? till now i`ve thougt that the front armor of the tiger is thicker than the side armor !? i`ve searched the web for a tiger armor diagram and found out that the place between the front superstructer armor (100mm at 9°) and the lower hull armor (100mm at 25°) is 60mm at 80°. (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm, look at the armor sheme) but even if my hits to the upper front hull during testing are referring to this 60mm part the shot should cleary bounce of due to the steep angle of 80° and the addition of the mealtime position. at least from my point of view...otherwise the mealtime position would be useless !? does somebody knows it better ;-)

[ClarkWGriswold]

Are you sure you were at 45 degrees? If you were slightly less angled, side shots would be more likely to ricochet and front shots would be less likely to - possibly explaining why the front shots penetrated. Another possibility: The armor on a Tiger (especially the front armor, where the coax MG, driver's view port, etc. are located) is not a uniform piece of steel. There are weak points and the penetrations may have been hitting those spots. It's too bad we don't have hit graphics, or you could see more clearly where the shots were landing to see if they were on known weak spots.

[gunnergoz]

It may be because the side armor is smooth and does not interfere with hits bouncing off but the front armor is cluttered with protrusions like the driver's vision slot and bow MG mount which conceivably trap shots and not allow them to bounce.

[siffo998]

might be that the tank was not exactly at 45 ° but i've tested it again with exactly the edge of the tiger facing the enemy and still nothing penetrates (10+ hits) and then a hit to the "upper frontal hull" penetrates. the mg and drivers slit you are reffering too are placed (at least at far as i can see) in the frontal superstructere armor. but all penetrations occured in the "upper frontal hull armor". and the only thing i could imagine to be the "upper frontal hull armor" in game terms is those steep angled 60mm part which is completely smooth.

[Bastables]

You might be seeing the affects of armour failure due to repeated hits in the same spot.

Or penetration due to impacting on flawed parts of the armour. The Tiger I Late is modeled (going by the manual) with plates lacking the hardness of earlier models.

[gunnergoz]

Late Panthers also suffered from flawed armor plate that sometimes cracked under certain hit conditions...I think it may have been hardened too much, making it brittle.

Oddly enough, the vaunted Soviet JS-III tank that we may get to see some day also proved to have vulnerabilities in that the complex armor welds required in its hull front, often failed, leading to a good hit cracking the hull wide open in the pointy "prow" of the tank. IIRC it was the Israelis that noticed that defect in either the 1967 or 1973 war, which one escapes me now.

[roadiemullet]

Or mebbe the game has just has it wrong

siffo998, how many times have you tried this? - (Using 'fresh' Tigers, ie. ones that so far have taken no damage, deflections or otherwise)

Nice bit of research btw

[Bastables]

Or mebbe the game has just has it wrong

siffo998, how many times have you tried this? - (Using 'fresh' Tigers, ie. ones that so far have taken no damage, deflections or otherwise)

Nice bit of research btw

Sure I mean Jentz table (derived from german wartime sources http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm) is reproduced at the site

showing the drivers front plate 10cm vulnerable to US M1 7,62cm gun at 600m at 30 deg angle. . . Oh wait maybe you don't know what you're talking about because the Germans themselves thought the Tiger was vulnerable to the 76 at lower combat ranges and angles.

[siffo998]

could be that the armor is flawed or brittle or that multiple hits in the same spot are penetrating. but always the penetration occured in the "upper frontal hull" even after the first hit in this part (no multiple hits). shots to the lower hull part were allways deflected.

i`ve tested it about 8 times.

@Bastables: I have no problem with the fact that the tiger is vulnerable at lower combat ranges against the 76mm cannon. I`ve even tested it as i have statet in my first post that in the normal direct facing the tiger was taken out after 1-2 hits. but in the mealtime position (due to the angle) the tiger front armor of 10cm should behave just as an 18cm armor (according to the tigerfibel wich is the manual for the tiger crew) and in this case the 76 should never be able to penetrete (ok maybe if the armor is flawed or weekspots are hit :-), but as i`ve statet further above the driver slit and the mg are mounted in the frontal superstructere armor not in the upper hull armor, at least as far as i can see).

also in my testing all the hits to the side armor (80mm normally) were deflected but the upper frontal armor (angled the same way) is penetrated...seems strange to me...because the frontal armor should be more difficult to pentrate...at least from my perspective...

[siffo998]

ok i`ve tested it again for another 8+ times. tiger turned 45° to the right so that the left side and front side were facing the m10. most of the hits hit the upper and lower left hull (side hull), armor skirts, some the wheels and the superstructure frontal armor (where the driver slit and the mg is located). it really worked and most of the hits were deflected only a few of the lower left side armor shots resulted in spalling. all hits to the turret resulted in mount hits and deflected or in direct turret hits with a partial penetration or penetration in most cases. Just like i imagined. if the turret was not hit the tiger even survied the beating from the m10 for about 10 minutes until the m10 ran out of ammo at least if the crew dont panic and boot out. which seems right.

but 2 times during my testing it happened again and the "upper frontal hull" (those hits are very seldom) was hit wich instantly resulted in a penetration unlike the hits to the frontal superstructere armor or the lower frontal armor wich both were deflected.

seems like this "upper frontal hull" is really some kind of week spot for the tiger ?! as i`ve stated further above these "upper frontal armor" seems to be those 60mm part with very steep angle of 80°. but this doesnt make it clear to me why a hit to this part is always a penetration while hits to the side, and the rest of the frontal armor are deflected !

[Bastables]

Do you have any saves?

I wonder if the "detailed hit" penetration labels are not so much detailed but brush strokes as the stepped armour configuration of a Tiger and PIV has more plates than just: Upper and Lower.

And the way it's occurring seems to indicate that a specific part is prone to failing when matched with 76mm shells. Have you tried advancing the "movie" in increments to pinpoint what the shell is actually striking.

| Driver frontplate

-\ Glacis

/ Nose

[gunnergoz]

When I was referring to shot traps in the Tiger's front upper hull armor, this is what I meant:

Any gun with sufficient penetrating power that managed to find one of those shot traps might have well have gone into the hull...not that there were many contemporary guns that could accomplish this, mind you. Here, the hits only damaged the armor but did not penetrate completely. Still, the noise and shock effect on the crew must have been substantial.

[siffo998]

https://rapidshare.com/files/203221616/test_001.bts

it happened again all deflected (even a lot of superstructere hits). and then one hit to the "upper frontal hull" and the whole tank burned.

you just have to press go... maybe you could turn the tank a little bit more i think it is not exactly in a 45 ° position but still it works like it should at least for the demonstration.

[siffo998]

When I was referring to shot traps in the Tiger's front upper hull armor, this is what I meant:

Any gun with sufficient penetrating power that managed to find one of those shot traps might have well have gone into the hull...not that there were many contemporary guns that could accomplish this, mind you. Here, the hits only damaged the armor but did not penetrate completely. Still, the noise and shock effect on the crew must have been substantial.

yep but the hits in this picture are all placed over the frontal superstructere armor (where the driver slit and mg is located) and the turret or mantlet... the "upper frontal armor" were all the penetrations happened during my testing must be (at least in my point of view...maybe someone from the battlefront staff could clear this up) the heavily sloped armor part directly under the superstructere armor (the part in the picture where a part of the tracks and some ammunition and clothes are placed).

by the way thanx for the picture maybe my explanation is now a bit more clear.

PS: also all of this hits seem to be direct hits because the dents are very deep. in case of a mealtime position most of the hits would be deflected and would not leave that deep wholes at least not in the superstructure armor.

[Bastables]

I'll down load and take a look at it mate. Ok I can't as rapid share is playing silly bugger, I'll priv message my email to you.

[womble]

From what I saw in my first run through, all the hits to "Upper Front Hull" were above that near-horizontal bit. In the 6 minutes it took the M10 to kill the Tiger, there were 6 Upper Front Hull hits. One didn't penetrate, the others were all partial or full penetrations, but did no more damage than 'Left Lower Hull' hits did, i.e to radio and optics. The killing hit was a penetration that scratched the bow MG gunner (made his icon yellow). Think that was a morale kill more than a physical one, though.

Didn't see any turret hits at all, nor lower front hull.

[siffo998]

doesnt it seem strange that allways those "upper frontal armor" hit brings the penetration while everything else most of the times gets deflected or in some cases causes spalling ?!

[Bastables]

Ok, I got the Upper front KO. It hit on the right near the fender. I can't track the shell once it impacts but I'm guessing it either digging down into the the 6cm glacis because the T/D ratio is not on the Tiger's side or it's skidding up and into the drivers front plate just to the right of the Driver.

The thing to check is if it's reproducible at 600 and 800 and 1000m. It might be a combination of poor T/D married to the range and therefore the velocity of the 76mm shell. If it does not happen at different ranges it means their is something special with the factors currently interacting at circa 500m. If it happens at different ranges then glacis is being modelled as susceptible to 76mm.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I ran the test 10 times. There were 9 hits on the "Upper Front Hull" resulting in 8 full penetrations and 1 partial penetration.

There were 8 hits to the "Superstructure Front Hull" and I stopped counting hits to the "Left Front Hull" at 9. None penetrated.

One other thing I noticed is that the graphical representation for where the round hits does not match the hit description text.

I never once saw a hit on the right side (from the Tiger's perspective) of the hull, although with the graphical representation being unreliable there is no way to tell for sure.

[stikkypixie]

I ran the test 10 times. There were 9 hits on the "Upper Front Hull" resulting in 8 full penetrations and 1 partial penetration.

There were 8 hits to the "Superstructure Front Hull" and I stopped counting hits to the "Left Front Hull" at 9. None penetrated.

One other thing I noticed is that the graphical representation for where the round hits does not match the hit description text.

I never once saw a hit on the right side (from the Tiger's perspective) of the hull, although with the graphical representation being unreliable there is no way to tell for sure.

I would say the text description is unreliable. The hit penetration is calculated using what is shown on screen.

[roadiemullet]

Sure I mean Jentz table (derived from german wartime sources http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm) is reproduced at the site

showing the drivers front plate 10cm vulnerable to US M1 7,62cm gun at 600m at 30 deg angle. . . Oh wait maybe you don't know what you're talking about because the Germans themselves thought the Tiger was vulnerable to the 76 at lower combat ranges and angles.

Sorry to butt in Gents....but was this aimed at me? I don't understand what you're getting at with "Oh wait you don't know what you're talking about" ... Is this because I suggested there may be a flaw in the game?

It's just this seems like a bit of a bite back for just a little comment that I made.. kind of amusing really, it's certainly made me chuckle at how hot under the collar some people can get over nothing really.

If this wasn't aimed at what I said and I've missed something then please ignore this -

[Reaver]

It's not doing something odd like very slighting striking the base of the gun mantlet and ricocheting down into the upper front hull is it? I admit it's a very unlikely occurance given the angles involved. Or would that say "Hit: Gun Mantlet" instead? You must excuse my lack of technical knowledge about the game.

[roadiemullet]

I would say the text description is unreliable. The hit penetration is calculated using what is shown on screen.

Actually methinks mebbe both are correct. I may sound a bit weird but the graphic for the explosion may be 'off'.

Its just a stab in the dark theory but I've got 10 mins to kill so why not:

The graphic of the explosion file comes in a 4x4 jpeg with the explosion graphic in the centre and alpha channels turning the rest invisible around the edges. We are assuming that the hit point is dead centre of the file, but it may be off and in one of the corners of the file, so it might be hitting the right place but the graphic appears to be off. If you observe say, the arty explosions you will notice that the game randomly seems to orientate the graphic to give the appearance of multiple explosion effects, which may account for the explosion 'gathering' around that spot under the turret. Maybe the game orientates the file between an invisible centre point on the tank model and where it actually 'hits' the tank.

I'm basing this off working with Lightwave 7's physics engine on something I made about 3 years ago so its probably totally wrong, but ya never know.

[Bastables]

Sorry to butt in Gents....but was this aimed at me? I don't understand what you're getting at with "Oh wait you don't know what you're talking about" ... Is this because I suggested there may be a flaw in the game?

It's just this seems like a bit of a bite back for just a little comment that I made.. kind of amusing really, it's certainly made me chuckle at how hot under the collar some people can get over nothing really.

If this wasn't aimed at what I said and I've missed something then please ignore this -

Really,

You put in a throw away comment that the game might have it wrong when the wartime Germans decided that the Tiger was vulnerable to the 76mm at 600m on the front hull at assumed "combat angles".

Considering the tests are at higher angles but at closer ranges meaning a similar situations to when the Germans judged that they'd lose tigers why would one assume the game is wrong? Because it seems in line with the German wartime experience and judgement or that it does not accord with Tigger's are invincible.

[stoex]

It certainly appears that something within the whole system of representing armor hits is off somehow. Those hit texts definitely don't correspond to what one appears to be seeing.