Tiger Mealtime Position

[ClarkWGriswold]

AFAIC this just exemplifies the seemingly undying obsession some have for the German big cats.

This has absolutely nothing to do with an obsession. It has to do with results that do not seem to match the data that is available.

If it makes you feel better, pretend that we're not looking at a Tiger but a Space Lobster crustacean-tank. Assume that a space lobster tank has 100mm frontal armor and 80mm side armor. You run a scenario and the side armor is ricocheting shots while the frontal armor is being penetrated at the same distance. And not just a few penetrations, but the majority of frontal shots penetrate. What would cause this? Is it a flaw in the armor? Is it a flaw in the test methodology? Is there an unknown factor not being accounted for? Is it a bug?

THAT is what this is about, and it's not the first time someone has uncovered strange behavior through some fairly simple testing. Far better to bring up the issue and find out why it's working that way (and get it fixed if it's broken), than to resign yourself to the fact that something doesn't work the way it should (if, indeed, that is what's happening here).

[gunnergoz]

Sure, Clark, have fun, knock yourself out: after all that's what we're all here for, entertainment, right? If this entertains you, by all means - enjoy.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Are you playing WeGo or Realtime? Realtime graphics have always been more 'precise' than Wego replays since CMSF days. Remember, there's hard-core calculations behind the scenes then there's the graphical representation onscreen. WeGo and Realtime both use the same hard-core caculations. In WeGo replay its just the representation of that explosion or tracer that can be slightly imprecise sometimes. The diference is not quite as apparent in CM:BN as it was in CMSF. In CMSF Wego tracers would sometimes appear to travel right through tall stone walls though they weren't really.

Are the hit texts accurate in WeGo?

[Vanir Ausf B]

In any case, there does appear to be something else amiss here. If the shot is ricocheting down into the top of the hull it should say "Top Front Hull" penetration. Even then, that would suggest the Tiger has a shot trap similar to the early Panthers, which it was never noted to have historically.

The other explanation is that the penetrations are going through the driver's vision slit or the hull MG mount, but the frequency with which the penetrations happen suggest otherwise. Those 2 weak points combined do not take up more than 10% of the area of the upper front hull plate.

The other possibility is a bug.

[Bastables]

Is everyone getting the penetration when it hits the 6cm glacis? or is it penetrating on drivers plate as well?

[simmox]

i for one salute the players whom take the time to note these observations

it is a simulation after all,and the better it can simulate,the better it is for the players.

keep up the good work

[Vanir Ausf B]

Is everyone getting the penetration when it hits the 6cm glacis? or is it penetrating on drivers plate as well?

Hard to say. The hit animations apparently cannot be trusted in WeGo mode. I never saw "glacis plate" in any of the hit text descriptions. What I did see was "Superstructure Front Hull" hits -- which never penetrated -- and "Upper Front Hull" hits, which always penetrated. One of these may well be referring to the 60mm plate, but I don't see how the shell would be penetrating there. That plate is only 10° off of horizontal so it seems unlikely to be penetrated directly unless the firer was at a higher elevation. A deflection off the drivers plate downward could happen, but that would also seem to require an elevation difference since the driver's plate is sloped back from the glacis somewhat.

[MikeyD]

Are the hit texts accurate in WeGo?

Sometimes a bit too accurate! We recently chased down a problem where a round went through a turret front, contiinued through the rear, then kept going through the engine deck plate too! And the game was electing the display the final hulltop penetration hit text which confused the heck out of everybody.

Remember the Tiger's off-angle pose wasn't some miracle tactic, it was an expedient solution meant to mitigate the very real design flaw of near-vertical bow armor. Sherman Jumbo bow had 101mm armor at 47 degrees, Tiger I had 100mm bow armor at 9 degrees.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Remember the Tiger's off-angle pose wasn't some miracle tactic, it was an expedient solution meant to mitigate the very real design flaw of near-vertical bow armor. Sherman Jumbo bow had 101mm armor at 47 degrees, Tiger I had 100mm bow armor at 9 degrees.

And the Tiger I side hull was only 80mm at 0°, yet in my testing it bounced every round that hit it. That makes no sense.

[WineCape]

In part, it may also be a penetration display text issue you gents are seeing, as Charles has recently changed some armor penetrations display texts in the patch. For example, the penetration texts reported as through a vehicle's main gun mantlet won't be reported as a hit on other locations.

[Zonks54]

It all comes down to how many hit locations are modeled on the tanks, are the "driver's vision slit or the hull MG mount" even a factor in the frontal armour? if so then maybe the text could be more specific, if the program knows it's happened, then I'm sure it can produce a text message to inform the player.

The OP has found what he thinks may be a bug, and as we have always been told, test and produce saves & Screen shots for the devs, he's done that, now let BF look into it if they deem it a priority.

[siffo998]

actually, should i leave the results of this test inside this topic and the devs will take a look at it themself or must i post it inside some special "take a look at" topic... (if there is something like this existent) ?

after all thanx for the response and testing !

[Vanir Ausf B]

I decided to remake the OP's test for myself. After some testing it appears that at a 45° angle to the M10 the Tiger's lower side hull -- which is only 60mm thick -- resists better (most hits penetrate but some do not) than the "Upper Front Hull", whatever that is. That led me to suspect that the UFH is in fact some weak point.

So, I reran the test with the M10 replaced with a 75mm armed Sherman and the Tiger facing directly at the Sherman. Range was 500m. On paper the Tiger should be nearly invulnerable frontally to the 75mm other than weak points. The purpose of this test was mainly to determine how often the Upper Front Hull weak point gets hit.

102 total hits

35 Upper Front Hull hits (34%)

• 17 partial penetrations
  
• 13 non-penetrations w/spalling
  
• 4 no damage
  
• 1 full penetration
  

So on average it appears we can expect about 1/3 of all hits on the Tiger front to be on the UFH weak point. The only weak points on the front of the Tiger that I know of are the driver slit and the hull MG. To my non-groggy mind, 1/3 of frontal hits striking those two small areas seems... excessive. I'm curious what the experts think.

[siffo998]

nice testing vanir,

this seems really wrong that a sherman 75mm is able to penetrate a tiger frontally... at least that often (maybe if he hits the driver slit... )

maybe this "upper frontal hull" part is really reffering to the 60mm at 80° plate and this whole plate is a real weak spot of the tiger and the devs got some sources to proof it !? on the other hand i have never heard from any source in the whole time that iam interested in ww2 tank warfare that the 60mm plate of tiger is a known week spot that would even be penetrated by a sherman 75mm at 500m...

those source that i have posted recently ago states that a sherman 75mm is even unable to penetrate a tigers frontal armor if hes at point blank range.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

and also the tigerfibel states that a tigers frontal armor will protect him in normal frontal direction from everything up to and including a 75mm if hes in the mealtime position it should be protected frontally up to an 152mm cannon (at least if it is not hit in the driver slit or the mg mount, or of course the turret ;-) )

but also i have to admit that none of my sources are reffering to that 60mm part which might be the "upper frontal hull" armor in game. so maybe the devs simply got better sources than us... maybe its a game flaw... we will see...nonetheless i have to admit... i love that game... ;-)

i

[Vanir Ausf B]

The 60mm glacis plate is nearly horizontal. I don't know how to do the calculations, but I would guess it's protective value against something shooting straight at the Tiger is greater than the 100mm plate above it that houses the hull MG and driver's vision slit.

[siffo998]

@ vanir: yes this is the same thought that i had. but on the other hand i have read a book some time ago, dont know excatly which one it was. Maybe some of the ospreys. This book says that the protective effect from an angled plate is lowered the same way as the diameter of the shell (in this case 75mm) is beyond the diameter of the armor (in this case 60mm). the book explained this way why the german big guns could penetrate the hugely sloped, but only 45 mm thick t34 frontal plate with that ease.

but on the other hand the t34 frontal plate isnt nearly that horizontal like the tigers and i also think that this rule isnt applicable for such an horizontal plate.

[Magpie_Oz]

There must be a point where a shell will simply skim the surface of a steeply angled plate, I'd think anything under 20 degrees or so. So the round would never get a 'bite" into the armour.

[slysniper]

I decided to remake the OP's test for myself. After some testing it appears that at a 45° angle to the M10 the Tiger's lower side hull -- which is only 60mm thick -- resists better (most hits penetrate but some do not) than the "Upper Front Hull", whatever that is. That led me to suspect that the UFH is in fact some weak point.

So, I reran the test with the M10 replaced with a 75mm armed Sherman and the Tiger facing directly at the Sherman. Range was 500m. On paper the Tiger should be nearly invulnerable frontally to the 75mm other than weak points. The purpose of this test was mainly to determine how often the Upper Front Hull weak point gets hit.

102 total hits

35 Upper Front Hull hits (34%)

• 17 partial penetrations
  
• 13 non-penetrations w/spalling
  
• 4 no damage
  
• 1 full penetration
  

So on average it appears we can expect about 1/3 of all hits on the Tiger front to be on the UFH weak point. The only weak points on the front of the Tiger that I know of are the driver slit and the hull MG. To my non-groggy mind, 1/3 of frontal hits striking those two small areas seems... excessive. I'm curious what the experts think.

Now that someone has actually posted some numbers as to what they are seeing, no these numbers do not reflect anything that should be happening within the game. This appears to be a data bug. Steve or someone needs to look at the tank and make sure they have the correct numbers for the armor thickness in the portion of the tank. It could be something as simple as that.

The trick is getting battlefront to check it. Seems like we need a inside source to take a look at this.

[bruhntasaur]

All right lads, I've done a quick calculation of line of sight thickness of the said 60mm upper hull plate set at 80 degrees from vertical - 60mm/cos80deg = 345,526 mm.

Now, this is only line of sight thickness, but still considering the angle of impact of most projectiles I don't think that any wartime AP projectile would 'bite' the armor inclined to that degree, thus leading to imminent ricochet.

At least not counting rounds of extreme caliber who just *might* overwhelm the 60 mm plate and dive in a bit without ricocheting.

By the way, hi all!

[YankeeDog]

Curious results; definitely something I'd like to see investigated further... something does seem amiss.

However, and pardon if I missed it and someone is already considering this in their tests, but one thing that may be affecting the results CMx2 does model degradation of armor from progressive hits in the same area. So ideally, these tests should be run first-hit only... otherwise, as the number of hits increases, you should see an increased chance of at least some damage or spalling, as it becomes more and more likely that a round hits on or near where another round already hit.

I don't think this would fully account for such a high percentage of the "Upper Hull" 75mm hits penetrating, but it may be one factor in the results.

[Magpie_Oz]

Whole stack of complex stuff here : http://www.spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm#PENETRATION_VS._ARMOR_BASICS

Oddly enough HV guns can fail to penetrate if the target is too CLOSE in some instances, the shot shattering as it is still going to fast.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The one full penetration with the 75mm gun was after several hits, so yeah, that is a factor but not a very large one. Most of the first hits on the UFH caused spalling or partially penetrated. When I ran that test I was mostly testing hit location.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I ran a new test

I was curious whether this was an issue unique to the Tiger or if other tanks had similar weak point modeling. So I swapped out the Tiger for a Panther D. Everything else is the same (straight on vs. Sherman 75 at 500m).

I was expecting results similar to the Tiger, if not worse. After all, in addition to a driver's slit and hull MG mount the Panther also has a shot trap under the mantlet.

Results:

203 hits

• 0 penetrations
  

No partials, no spalling. There was some damage, of course: radio, optics and main gun were usually knocked out. But in every case I ran the Sherman dry of AP and the Panther crew was sitting tight in the tank, slightly nervous but otherwise unscathed.

I really have no idea what's going on.

[slysniper]

I will tell you something else the seems strange, no comments from any battlefront guys. Sure seems like there is a flaw here and cannot sem to get any comments fom the design crew.

[siffo998]

hm i expected this panther penetration behaviour... i have played the german campaign with a lots of panthers and never recognized something strange. on the other side those early panthers really had a shot trap so 203 hits with absolutely no penetrations or else seems also very strange... ;-) also you have to keep in mind that the armor doenst get better with each hit so that a penetration with increasing number of hits will (and should) become more and more likely. maybe not if the glacis plate is hit by those weak 75mm sherman gun but i`ve read an account were a panther at the battle of the bulge was hit around 10 times at the glacis plate by some sherman 76mm and the panthers armor startet to crack so he retreated.

i really start to believe that these shot trap or weak spot at the "upper frontal hull" from the tiger is a design flaw. i`ve read an comment in these forum some time ago were someone from the design crew stated that the tiger was originally not even considered to be in the first release of cmbn (beccause their were very few ones in the american sector) but due to the fact that this would have created huge havock among the fans they finally decided to put it in. maybe but this is just a guess... they havent simply put that huge effort into the tigers design as into the other vehicles and so these weak spot "happened" .

but i guess also at the latest when the commonwealth module comes out (the sector where a bigger number of tigers and even kingtigers were fielded) we will see a fix or at least get an answer to this problem...