Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/9/2000 2:46:00 PM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

Will I desided to use most of the stats for armour units to come up with a fermula for prices. Doing this I came up with the list below covering a number of German and soviet units. Penatration and armor were the most importent in the fermula. As you can see the Tiger I is 109 and the T-34/85 is only 86. UNIT NAME Price Porshe 205 Maus 173 Elefant 147 Elefant 147 Jagdtiger 145 PzKpfw-VIb 142 IS-3 126 IS-2m 120 Jagdpanther 119 ISU-152 112 PzKpfw-VIe 109 PzKpfw-Vg 108 ISU-122 108 Sturmtiger 104 PzKpfw-Va 104 PzKpfw-Vd 102 T-44 101 SU-100 100 IS-2 99 T-43 97 IS-1 97 KV-85 96 JPz-IV/70(V) 95 SU-152 95 JPz-IV/70(A) 93 SU-85 91 KV-1 M42 88 SU-122 88 Stug-IV 86 T-34/85 86 Hetzer 83 JPz-IV/48 82 Nashhorn 80 KV-1S 78 KV-1E 78 Stug IIIG 77 PzKpfw-IVh 75 KV-2a 73 PzKpfw-IVj 72 Pz T-34 M43(r) 71 PzKpfw-IVg 70 KV-1 M40 69 T-34 M43 67 KV-1 M41 67 PzKpfw-IVf2 (s) 66 T-34 M41 66 Brummbar 65 KV-1 M39 65

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 31

- 7/9/2000 10:40:00 PM

Hauptmann6

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Portage, MI
Status: offline

Voriax, I like your prices for armor, always seemed to me that tanks were way to cheap, although you may want to add more of a factor for fire control than you have. The tiger 2 (the PZVIe) seems way to cheap. You may want to add a factor for sheer numbers built, yes I know, no-one wants that, but... Tigers were a bit rare and T34/85 were relitivly common, so they should be a bit cheaper, and japanese tanks should be VERY expensive, I mean how many battles where they encountered... just a few more ideas... And that is another thing that bugs me, soon after the Tiger came out, it was no longer called the Pz VI, the official name was the Tiger, same with teh Tiger II... ok, I am ranting now... hehe Haupt

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 32

- 7/9/2000 11:21:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Hauptmann6: Voriax, I like your prices for armor, always seemed to me that tanks were way to cheap, although you may want to add more of a factor for fire control than you have. The tiger 2 (the PZVIe) seems way to cheap. You may want to add a factor for sheer numbers built, yes I know, no-one wants that, but... Tigers were a bit rare and T34/85 were relitivly common, so they should be a bit cheaper, and japanese tanks should be VERY expensive, I mean how many battles where they encountered... just a few more ideas... Haupt

Positive support! great

You probably mislooked the Tiger II's price. It's the VIb which is the King Tiger costing 193 points, and the 'normal' Tiger is the IVe with 151 points. Perhaps it's name in the lists should be changed to Tiger 2 as "Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B K�nigstiger" is bit too long

dunno about firecontrol...for example the difference in the FC rating between Tiger and T34/85 is only one point. I haven't played with russians that much to get a 'feel' of how much it really means. More important factor might be accuracy, for the 85mm D-5T gun it's 36 = 9 hexes while it's 13 hexes for the 88mm L56 gun. For now I will honour Paul's view that rarity should not be considered in price. I agree as this is not really a production cost or number thing but a method to try represent the combat value. King Tigers were also very rare, but that information probably didn't warm those poor suckers that ended up facing them

If some day a separate rarity factor can be programmed in that will limit the players choices of equipment it'll be great but now we are stuck with this. Btw, there is already a rarity factor in that will direct a bit of AI's buyings (the second number in unit's radio code). For human players we must rely on our good judgement

Regarding the Japanese tanks, you are suggesting that rarity factor. Besides, I think someone on another topic mentioned that while the numbers of Japanese tanks weren't that huge they were encountered quite commonly, if not in large numbers at one time. Also you could say that Japanese tanks suck so deep that it's really unfair make those tin cans very expensive.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 33

- 7/21/2000 5:02:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

I've found it, I've found it!!! I've found the picture I've been referring to. In case this picture doesn't last, which I'll put below, look on this link to the picture in the SW corner: http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/gallery.htm

Note the slab behind the mantlet, there's no open space there, and it's quite thick, but the mantlet is thicker. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-20-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 34

- 7/21/2000 6:04:00 AM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Well yes, nice pic of the turret. however that piece of armour is not very big, it's only a relatively narrow 'stripe'. 100 mm thick though if we assume that the guy at that modelling site has inspected that original workshop drawing correctly and represents it in here: http://www.tiger1e.com/turret/TurretShape5.html for me it's beginning to look that firstly we have this mantlet, which is about 100mm thick. Except in the area surrounding the gun it looks like it's even thicker. Then we have these 'stripes' of armour, one of which is visible in your photo. Those are 100mm thick. But if you remove the gun (darn I haven't found a turret photo with gun removed) there *will* be an opening. But as there will be a gun shield. Hmmm...a pic...okay, go to http://www.history.enjoy.ru/index.html select the 'soviet afv's' and 'T-34-85 development history'. The third pic from the top shows what I imagine the Tiger turret would like (roughly) if we remove the gun mantlet. There would still be the actual gun shield covering the hole. this place: http://www.panzernet.com/panzerfile/tigerIcob.html has a pic of Tiger turret that has been cut open, shows a bit about the hole in front and what is filling it. also the armour in focus has nice turret pics: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/tiger1/ Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 35

- 7/10/2000 4:47:00 PM

Fabio Prado

Posts: 503
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline

Ok, here we go again... I was searching for a photo to illustrate why the Tiger I front armor cannot be considered as a mere 100-120mm...And then you kindly provided it to all of us! Thanks very much! Now, looking at the beautiful photo above:How can anyone tell that it's only the mantle covering a "hole"? Can't you see there is another plate (and a lot many things) BEHIND the mantlet??? By the way, the mantlet was NOT only 120mm - It was 100-145 mm thick. It has thickened part at the left and right edge, as well as the sight port and the big boss around the gun tube. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger also had heavy bars of turret armor in back of the mantlet, making the effective armor in these areas 200+ mm. In fact only small areas of the turret front had an effective thickness of 100 mm. Look at the photo, please!! Now, what I feel we should do is to stop this discussion altogether and let everyone out there make its own mind on the subject... Best of luck FAP

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Well yes, nice pic of the turret. however that piece of armour is not very big, it's only a relatively narrow 'stripe'. 100 mm thick though if we assume that the guy at that modelling site has inspected that original workshop drawing correctly and represents it in here: http://www.tiger1e.com/turret/TurretShape5.html for me it's beginning to look that firstly we have this mantlet, which is about 100mm thick. Except in the area surrounding the gun it looks like it's even thicker. Then we have these 'stripes' of armour, one of which is visible in your photo. Those are 100mm thick. But if you remove the gun (darn I haven't found a turret photo with gun removed) there *will* be an opening. But as there will be a gun shield. Hmmm...a pic...okay, go to http://www.history.enjoy.ru/index.html select the 'soviet afv's' and 'T-34-85 development history'. The third pic from the top shows what I imagine the Tiger turret would like (roughly) if we remove the gun mantlet. There would still be the actual gun shield covering the hole. this place: http://www.panzernet.com/panzerfile/tigerIcob.html has a pic of Tiger turret that has been cut open, shows a bit about the hole in front and what is filling it. also the armour in focus has nice turret pics: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/tiger1/ Voriax

------------------ Fabio Prado [email]fprado@fprado.com[/email] Webmaster - The ARMOR Site!

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 36

- 7/10/2000 4:54:00 PM

Fabio Prado

Posts: 503
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline

URL for that beautiful photo was wrong - my mistake.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 37

- 7/11/2000 6:54:00 PM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

I see the exact same photo as everybody else, and I draw a completely different conclusion than the one Fabio does. A friend of mine has video footage of Tiger I's being assembled. I'll see if I can track it down. In any event, I think that no matter what number is eventually chosen for the front turret armor rating of the Tiger I in v3.0, there are going to be disagreements. At this point it appears that a "compromise" value of 150mm (between 100mm and 200mm) might satisfy most of the people most of the time. [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited 07-11-2000).]

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 38

- 7/11/2000 10:16:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

agree with victorhauser. Looking at the above photo gives me the same conclusion. Yes around the edges there is more armor behind the mantlet but the size of the gun machanism gives one a clear impression of the large rectangular opening in the front turret, the size of which necessitaed the large square external gun mantlet needed to protect the gun and crew. That last sentance is my main point on why i feel 200mm level protection is inappropriate for the Tiger I. We need to remember that in SP:WAW, we see a lot less one hit one kill situations than before. Even the larger shells tend to cause damage more vs a complete kill. Its true that all that metal from the gun mechanism itself and its support members behind the mantlet will add considerabley to abosrbing the effect of an incoming round. However, any shell that has sufficient velocity to slam through the mantlet and strikes the gun mechanism is bound to either a) damage the gun so that it cannot be fired and/or b) wound/kill turret crew members due to spall/splinters. having the Tiger I's turret armor set to 200mm would make the Turret virtually immune to both damage as well as penetration vs almost all Allied tank weapons. At least with a rating of 120mm (or maybe up to 145mm perhaps we need a greater # of subvarient Tigers?!) would allow a allied tank crew a chance to put the Tiger's gun out of action and force it to retreat

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 39

- 7/12/2000 4:24:00 AM

Pave

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

If mantlet increases the front turret armor value in Tiger I, maybe same kind of increase should happen in other tanks too, which have some sort of mantlet. I also noted that the KwK 36 has APCR round pen values set, but Tiger I doesn't carry any. Tiger I used at least two types of AT ammo. Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap Pzgr.40 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core) 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m '39 120mm 110mm 100mm 91mm 84mm '40 171mm 156mm 138mm 123mm 110mm (Source: Achtung Panzer) If the APCR in SPWAW is Pzgr.40 that 233mm pen value must be at a very close range. BTW. Why the Mause front turret angle is 90 degrees, which means horizontal plate?

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 40

- 7/12/2000 4:45:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

This boils down to being something of a "glass half empty/glass half full" sort of thing. The pictures show clearly that there are places where the armor is thicker than "front" or teh "mantle" and others where the mantle is teh nly protection. The problem comes in deciding which value to use if you have to pick one. Some think the lessor, some the higher. Jentz has a good record of shots at different locals by different weapons and summarizes by indicating that the "mantle" how ever he defined it, was significantly harder to penetrate than the "front". If someone has that book, what was teh penetration of the 6 lber APDS? I think it was largely ineffective but managed one penetration? THis would argue for something like 180 as a compromise value giving the 6 lber APDS some chance? Looking at this from an effectiveness standpoint I think is the only way to get a good compromise rather than simply picking numbers out of the air, or making it an "either/or"

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 41

- 7/12/2000 5:48:00 AM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Pave: If the APCR in SPWAW is Pzgr.40 that 233mm pen value must be at a very close range. BTW. Why the Mause front turret angle is 90 degrees, which means horizontal plate?

My guess is that the Tiger does not carry APCR because tungsten was in very short supply in Germany, especially after 1943. So whatever supplies remained was reserved to be used in machining tools. So in order of not to have two versions of same Tiger, one with APCR and one without it was decided to save space in the OOB and forget the *very* rare APCR. That Maus armour slope is a typo, those things happen

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 42

- 7/12/2000 7:50:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

While some have advocated the idea of helping other tanks with mantlets, I would suggest that if what we see there is really something of a hole (by that I mean something extraordinarily peculiar to large caliber tanks, or indeed any tanks), that we don't get all fired off sure that the other tanks don't have them, before we go adding armor to them, or subtracting from the Tiger. The Tiger's hull armor was nothing spectacular, so clearly, common sense would show you that the Tiger's legend of being relatively invincible was built off the turret, for more than a few Western Allied guns could penetrate 100mm.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 43

- 7/12/2000 9:27:00 AM

Jon Grasham

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline

Just a recomendation: For those who find the armor value offensive, disgusting, wrong, or otherwise in need of change, here is a simple solution. 1. Open up the SPWAW OOB editor, click on File, and edit OOB, then selecting OOB 70: Germany. Next, scroll down to unit 37, and click on it. Then, in the 4th space in the second to bottom column, enter in your new armor thicknes, in milimeters, which you feel is "right" (is there EVER gonna be one? :-) BTW, by giving detailed instructions, im not trying to be a wise a**, just there for anyone who may not be familiar with the editor. :-) Of course I realize in PBEM it may be an issue with changing unit stats, but you could simply agree to use a certain value, or make a backup OOB file for such instances. [This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited 07-11-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 44

- 7/12/2000 11:00:00 AM

teut_onic

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/29/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Phew, so much on the Tiger no one noticed we hadn't talked about the Panther yet :-)

well, why stop there and not the pzkw III series where the mantlet was over the entire front of the turret, unless i am looking at these pictures wrong. So that would mean that the panther and pzkw III should be 200mm and 60-100 mm depending on model. Teutonic Ps. I like the Idea there of changing it in the OOB editor.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 45

- 7/12/2000 7:44:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Actually I did upgrade the Panther, and many other things as well in version 2. May not be enough:-) The shades of grey here are many ;-)

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 46

- 7/12/2000 8:10:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Upgrade all Gerry front turret armor to 200mm? How absurd! I may be no expert, but me thinks there is such a thing as more variety regarding gun mantlet thickness, and if there were not, there would be legendary tales about the mighty PZIII series armor, of which there are none. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 47

- 7/12/2000 8:55:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Traditionally the Pz-III series has appeared to have been given a 'mantlet + front turret' bonus throughout the history of the SP series. Most sources credit the front turret as around 50-57mm of armor with the Mantlet being an additional 20-30mm. If memory serves, SP-I gave late series Pz-III tanks a 'front turret' rating of 7 or 8 (Old SP armor factors seemed to corespond "roughly" in ten milimeter increments i.e. a factor of '8' represented 80mm of armor) in comparison the Pz-IV was given a rating '5' (50mm) even though from a 'stat' point of view the same situation existed wheras the frontal turret had an armor listing and so did the mantlet. No "official" explanation was ever given for this but in studying photos i concluded to myself that this incongruity between the two marks of German tanks was due to Mantlet size as mentioned by others. The Pz-III mantlet covered the whole turret whereas teh Pz-IV mantlet covered only a very small space around the gun barrel leaving a large surface area of front turret exposed. SP:WAW changed this a bit....average 'Front Turret' rating has been increased from 50 to around 70-75mm. Not sure if this is accurate, guess it again comes down to personal preference as it 'is' possible for Mantlet hits as well as turret hits. I try to go for 'better than average prob' so given the small size of the mantlet of the Pz-IV would probably rather see it not added to the front turret. Pz-III though would seem a legitimate issue for Mantlet + turret. Reason i 'dont' agree in the case of the Tiger is because the gun mechanism is so much larger than in the case of the Pz-III. Its large enough to probably stop the shell, but again any shell with sufficient velocity to crack through the mantlet is gonna at least 7 out of 10 times disable/damage the gun and/or turret crew members. another reason is that if this particular Turret/Mantlet configuration was so effective (200mm equivilent) than why did not the Germans retain the feature for the Tiger II? Given the massive upgrade that that tank represented it just does'nt seem to make sense to have the two tanks have near equivilent front turret ratings to be a mere 15mm apart. Not trying to be anal about it. Obviously the easiest solution is to simply edit in the OOB but the only problem with that is for email/TCP games one must have unmodified OOB's for compatibility issues (i already have two sets of OOBs, one for personal, one for TCP/email)

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 48

- 7/12/2000 10:23:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

I believe the King Tiger had quite a bit more innovation applied to other areas. See the design. There's more slope and crucially, the hull and top armors have been upgraded. People complain about the King Tiger unreliability with the weight it had to pull, so why add that terribly much to a front mantlet which had already proven reliable? You will note that even the entire turret was redesigned. It's more oval than the Tiger. I'm not sure whether the front turret/mantlet is more sloped, but if that is so, then that would be another reason, other than the aforementioned reliability found in the old design, for not putting that terribly much more weight on the turret. Perhaps this was done also with the view of not slowing the traverse any more than it had been already. If we look at the Jagdtiger and such, we might have more to support this view, as the heavy tank destroyer design had very little traverse problem to worry about, so that this still later design could heap more armor on it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 49

- 7/12/2000 10:36:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I'm betting that the round manlet of the King Tiger vs the flat unsloped mantlet of the Tiger ties in with my issue on penetration of said Mantlet! For example, an 85mm round that smashes through the mantlet will probably be stoped by the gun breech/mechansim but once more time....what condition will the gun be at that point?! I'd say at the very least you will have a Tiger with it's teeth pulled! Hence my main objection to a 200mm rating for the turret. With the rounded mantlet first off there is a far smaller area to target and even if successful your chance of glance off is greatly increased. SP:WAW has made a great leap in being able to simulate AoI and the relationship to ricoshays however game engine limitations make simulating 'round' shapes like the latewar Panther, T-34 and Konigstiger mantlets a challege. no question the round mantlet was more effective. by that definition alone there should be a greater degree of 'difference' between the FT ratings of the Tiger I and II!

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 50

- 7/12/2000 10:50:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Nikademus: It seems as though you think that the mantlet is the circular part screwed onto the frame, whereas the mantlet is much larger. The bolting you refer to, is what I would refer to as part of the gun itself, though I guess that might be called part of the mantlet. I suppose the bolting is done to the mantlet and the mantlet is bolted to the turret (which does have a frontal slab, however large/small it may appear). The mantlet isn't circular, it's rectangular. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 51

- 7/12/2000 10:56:00 PM

JJU57

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/9/2000
From: Chicago, IL. USA
Status: offline

It seems the real reason behind this discussion is the difficulty in killing the Tiger. Well, get flank shots! Going toe to toe against the front armor is suicide. Manuver for flank shots where the armor is much easier to penetrate.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 52

- 7/12/2000 11:19:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Charles; was reffering to the mantlets on the Konigstiger which is round, compared to the large rectangular mantlet on the Tiger I

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 53

- 7/13/2000 12:19:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Yeah, I thought I might had got that confused. Just for curiousity's sake, achtungpanzer.com has these stats. for soem of the PZIII series: Specifications Model: Ausf H Ausf L/M Weight: 21800kg 22700kg Crew: 5 men 5 men Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 265hp Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 265hp Speed: Road: 40km/h Cross-Country: 20km/h Road: 40km/h Cross-Country: 20km/h Range: Road: 165km Cross-Country: 105km Road: 155km Cross-Country: 95km Fuel Capacity: 320 litres 320 litres Lenght: 5.52m (with the gun) 6.41m (with the gun) 5.56m (w/o the gun) Width: 2.95m 2.95m Height: 2.50m 2.50m Armament: 50mm KwK 38 L/42 2 x 7.92mm MG34 (1 x MG - hull) (1 x MG - coax) 50mm KwK 39 L/60 2 x 7.92mm MG34 (1 x MG - hull) (1 x MG - coax) Ammo: 50mm - 99 rounds 7.92mm - 2700 rounds 50mm - 92 rounds 7.92mm - 3750 rounds Armor (mm/angle): Front Turret: 30/13 Front Upper Hull: 30+30/90 Front Lower Hull: 30+30/23 Side Turret: 30/25 Side Upper Hull: 30/0 Side Lower Hull: 30/0 Rear Turret: 30/13 Rear Upper Hull: 30/30 Rear Lower Hull: 30+30/8 Turret Top / Bottom: 10/89 Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 17/77 Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 16/90 Gun Mantlet: 37/0 Front Turret: 57/15 Front Upper Hull: 50+20/9 Front Lower Hull: 50/21 Side Turret: 30/25 Side Upper Hull: 30/0 Side Lower Hull: 30/0 Rear Turret: 30/12 Rear Upper Hull: 50/17 Rear Lower Hull: 50/9 Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83 Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 18/79 Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 16/90 Gun Mantlet: 50+20/0 (me again) Notice the latter models, if you add up the front armor and mantlet both. Perhaps shooting the Tiger is revealing a bit more than some of us might be comfortable with (In one case, that would be 57mm turret added to sometimes 50mm mantlet, and at other times to a 70mm mantlet.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 54

- 7/13/2000 12:21:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: ...The Tiger's hull armor was nothing spectacular, so clearly, common sense would show you that the Tiger's legend of being relatively invincible was built off the turret, for more than a few Western Allied guns could penetrate 100mm.

I've read that the Tiger had the best quality armor in the world. The Germans had very strict quality control for it that was not applied to others like the panther. I'm not sure if this higher quality control was applied to the King Tiger or not. Based on this, it seems to me that some thickness of Tiger armor should be more resistant than an equal thickness of other tanks and perhaps the Tiger deserves a "bonus" thickness above what it physically had to model its superior quality. Similarly the early model Grants with bolted armor were weaker than an equal thickness of welded armor due to the bolts tendency to break off and fly around the inside when hit. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 55

- 7/13/2000 1:45:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Though the Tiger's frontal armor was somewhat legendary, I know the King Tiger was equally or more so (legendary that is), though the attention to quality may not had been there.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 56

- 7/13/2000 1:50:00 AM

Fabio Prado

Posts: 503
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline

Paul, I have the book.It's "Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics" by Thomas L Jentz. On page 18, you'll find: " 4. Turret Mantle at 30 degrees Compound Angle - 6 pounder APDS Three rounds. Numbers 27, 28, and 29, resulted in the nose lodging for one round and two non-defeats at striking velocities of 3357, 3351, and 3551 ft/sec, respectively. From rounds 27 and 28 an estimated limit was obtained at 3354 ft/s, representing a range of approximately 1200 yards. Round 27, striking in the area of the turret telescope, sheared two bracket-holding bolts but otherwise appeared to do little damage." "5. Turret Mantle at Normal - 6 pounder APCBC Round 73, striking at 2398 ft/s, 1.5 inches above the lower edge of the mantlet, scooped down through the roof, holing same 7.5 x 4 inches. Considerable damage was caused to the rear end of the transmission. Fragments of roof plate were found on the driver's seat.The driver would have beenkilled and other members of the crew may have been casualties." On page 13, however, in Table 7.3.3; Jentz states: Range in meters at which the Tiger I could be Penetrated at a side angle of 30 degrees: FRONT 57mm 6 pounder APCBC Gun Mantlet 0 Turret 0 Superstructure 0 Hull 0 Penetration ability of the 6 pounder: Meters APCBC APCR 457 81mm 131mm 914 74mm 117mm 1371 63mm - 1828 56mm 90mm Source: Guns vs. Armor Website, Copyright 1999 David Michael Honner. http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/british_guns4.html FAP

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: This boils down to being something of a "glass half empty/glass half full" sort of thing. The pictures show clearly that there are places where the armor is thicker than "front" or teh "mantle" and others where the mantle is teh nly protection. The problem comes in deciding which value to use if you have to pick one. Some think the lessor, some the higher. Jentz has a good record of shots at different locals by different weapons and summarizes by indicating that the "mantle" how ever he defined it, was significantly harder to penetrate than the "front". If someone has that book, what was teh penetration of the 6 lber APDS? I think it was largely ineffective but managed one penetration? THis would argue for something like 180 as a compromise value giving the 6 lber APDS some chance? Looking at this from an effectiveness standpoint I think is the only way to get a good compromise rather than simply picking numbers out of the air, or making it an "either/or"

------------------ Fabio Prado [email]fprado@fprado.com[/email] Webmaster - The ARMOR Site!

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 57

- 7/13/2000 2:11:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

with those figures for the 6pounder, a FT rating of 200mm would make it totally impervious to the weapon

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 58

- 7/13/2000 2:34:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Thanks Fabio! The 130 APDS penetration at 30 degrees and 500 yards, agrees favorably with the 170-ish value in the game. I guess I mistook the deflected APCBC shot, been a while since I read that book. Is there a range for 6# APDS or 17lber or other shell that gives the estimated range for penetration? AT least we know that at 1200 yards the thing is fairly proof against 6# APDS :-)

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 59

- 7/13/2000 2:58:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Nikademus: On the other hand the report states a range of zero couldn't penetrate it (with a 6pdr. that is). Also, look at this page from the same website, notice the Tiger and King Tiger front turret and mantlet ratings: http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/german_turret8.html Look at the PZVIB, it could "possibly", in combination, be as thick as 310mm (though it was pot cast, whatever that means)!!! [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 60