How Well Do Tigers Fare?

[Atilla]

To Attila: the problem with relying of gun and armour testing is that nations are rarely honest about such figures, reflecting as they do on national pride. I am not saying that we should construct such figures exclusively out of 1st hand accounts but that all constructs should be qualified by them. If an M4 cannot knock-out a Tiger or Panther at point-blank range - then that is the measure by which the gun-power must be set. Anything else is fantasy.

There is no way you can construct CC data files from first hand accounts - however interesting they might be to read.

The gun and armor performance tests do yield objective data. Even if they are tricky to work with; every nation had it's own tests. Good knowledge of the way in which tests were performed is absolutely nescessary.

As one can see, I'm erring towards the scientific point of view. Since the time of the Wiener Kreis it has been a matter of debate wether history is true science or not

Wien1938, I'm looking forward to your CC armor and gun performance mod based on first hand eye-witness accounts

[anzac_lord4war]

http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerflorence/index.html
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...ger/index.html

[Panzer_M]

just got back from Combat Mission

but I'd add, I'd take a StuG III ausf. G over a tiger any day.

[ArmeeGruppeSud]

Originally Posted by Panzer_M

but I'd add, I'd take a StuG III ausf. G over a tiger any day.

Cant remember where I saw it, but it was an Armoured unit's history from the Italian campaign (I think it was a Canadian unit).

NOT A QUOTE
The Tigers were big, we could see them, it was the little StuGs hiding in the olive groves that realy worried us!

Now to jump in on the Tiger debate.

When you are doing the armor profile values for a mod, you usally take into consideration 2 things; (A) Armor thickness (B) Armor Angle

Tiger front hull armor plate 100mm thick @ 9degrees from vertical, relative armour thickness = 101.1mm

T-34 front hull armor plate 45mm thick @ 60degrees from vertical, relative armour thickness = 90.00mm.

This is what I have done in the DOF mod, but this is TOTALLY unfair to the Germans!

WHY?

Because the T34's armour was mass produced, cast out of some kind of iron/steel alloy, or the like.

The Tigers armor plate was made from the highest quality, specially treated, temperred, hammered steel made by Craftsmen!

Considerring these factors, 100mm of Tiger armor was probably equivalent to, at least 120mm+ of T34 or Sherman armor.
Now thats relative armor thickness!
The Tiger was built like a Rolls Royce, while T34s and Shermans were mass produced like 1970s Datsuns.

If someone says:
"We have tested the 75mm Sherman gun and it is proven to penentrate 110mm of steel armor at 100 metres, therefore it should be able to destroy a Tiger at that range!
What must be asked is;
"Of what quality was the steel plate?"
(was it rusty?).

[anzac_lord4war]

did it have a primer undercoat?
thats good for another 20mm

[fj stiener]

whats the DOF mod? and when can we play it?

[ArmeeGruppeSud]

Originally Posted by fj stiener

whats the DOF mod? and when can we play it?

The DOF mod is a Close Combat 3 mod; "Der Ost Front". It is palyable now and downloadable on this site from the following page:
http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/modul...wnload&sid=130
For information about DOF, check these out:
The 17/07/2003 CSO article I posted telling CCers about the upcoming mod
http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/modu...order=0&thold=0
The CSO article announcing the release of DOF on CSO in February 2005
http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/modu...order=0&thold=0
A forum thread with CSO community feedback about the mod
http://www.closecombat.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8044
Also the CSO Der Ost Front Forum would be a good idea
http://www.closecombat.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=74
It is presently being upgraded and DOF2 will be available later this year

[fj stiener]

are there maps included with the main DL plugin?
if not.....where do we get them?

the mod looks interesting.....i played a lot of RR before GJS.

[ArmeeGruppeSud]

Originally Posted by fj stiener

are there maps included with the main DL plugin?
if not.....where do we get them?

the mod looks interesting.....i played a lot of RR before GJS.

If you are not a dial-up peasant like myself, there is a MASSIVE (700MB) mappack for DOF's massive Campaigns on this page;
http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/modul...wnload&sid=142
Most of the required maps are individually downloadable in the CSO CC3 map download section. Some maps were not available here when DOF was released and CCfans found them elsewhere. If you search the forums.

On the DOF download page there are some useful text files with map lists etc. There may be some errors in the text files, like the Rumigny map is listed, but never ended up being needed (oops).

[ArmeeGruppeSud]

I have reposted (with ammendments) my 1st post in this thread because I think the point I am making, in regard to the Tiger's armour, is crucial to understanding the reason why its seemingly mythical invincibility was in fact a tangible reality.

When you are doing the armor profile values for a mod, you usally take into consideration 2 things; (A) Armor thickness (B) Armor Angle

Tiger front hull armor plate 100mm thick @ 9degrees from vertical, relative armour thickness = 101.1mm

T-34 front hull armor plate 45mm thick @ 60degrees from vertical, relative armour thickness = 90.00mm.

This is what I most CC modders do.

But this is TOTALLY unfair to the Tiger!

WHY?

Because the T34's armour was mass produced, it was cast out of some kind of iron/steel alloy, or the like.

The Tigers armor plate was made from the highest quality, specially treated, temperred, hammered steel made by Craftsmen!

Considerring these factors, 100mm of Tiger armor was probably equivalent to, at least 120mm+ of T34 or Sherman armor.

Now, thats relative armor thickness!

The Tiger was built like a Rolls Royce, while T34s and Shermans were mass produced like 1970s Datsuns.


You all read armor penetration data from various sources and you may see some differing results from tests. This could well depend on the quality of the armor plate used in testing.

If someone tells you:
That tests of the 75mm Sherman gun, has proven it to penentrate 110mm of steel armor plate at 100 metres, therefore it should be able to destroy a Tiger at that range!
What must be asked is;
"Of what quality was the steel armor plate used in the test?"
(was it rusty?).

[OldMan]

I know I am late to thiss discussion, but I think I can add some valuable data. I've been working for some time in a WW I and WWII Battleship simmulation game. With enormous focus on realistic damage system and terminal ballistics.

On the effect is that there are numerous formulaes and techniques for calculating the projectile penetration on armor of that time frame. Form formulaes from Both Krupp, thompson and Royal Navy. These formulaes work very wel from .50 caliber guns up to huge BB guns. So if needed I can perform the calculations if requested.

On the armor quality. It is a common misconception to think that Armor quality A being better than B makes 100 mm of A armor worth >100 mm of B armor. Quality of armor greatest effect is on the result of the question, who will break? the armor, or the projectile ? (yep, remember that the projectile receives the same impact as the armor). If the quality of armor is higher than the projectile.... So if anyone can grasp the name of the steel composition used on german tanks we can have precise numbers on the effect of that.

The information needed for precise calculation would be. Armor material, angle on impact, armor basement (any material behind it helping distribute the impact, or any secondary layer of armor). Projectile steel type, caliber, weight, nose shape and speed.

Also, impostant to notice that the Hardened face armor that US produced was BETTER than german armor. I just don know if US used the high quality steel on tanks (since they needed most of it for the large number of Battleships built).

On the case of BB quality armor as Krupp Cemented armor, 100 mm was imune to shots from 4 inch guns at close range (on the sea, close range is 2 km).

I don't have much data on steel used on tanks, but a lot about the steel itself. If anyone can find the type of steel used, these questions may be answered.

[anzac_lord4war]

Truth was for the allied forces having to face tanks with a 100mm of frontal armour was unheard of at the time.
That is where myth came from.
ALLIED Tankers talking about running into a Tiger.
ud think all ur worries would be how to penetrate the armour
with ur not up to the job type guns.
thing that really bothered the tankers,was that it was armed with a 88.
also in regard to the metals used for tank production,if u were going to go to lengths to claim it is realistic,ud have to take it a step further and allow for variations in shells.
easier for there to be a difference in shell strength.

[hns]

the Tiger was built to knock out enemy tanks from great distance, from 2-2,5km a Tiger was the killing machine, its armor couldnt get penetrated from that range, and his 88mm gun worked like just a stationary flak gun.

In africa/italy/eastern front this distance was given, however in the western front it was very rare (the bocage was called bocage for a reason)

the Tigers were vulnerable in close range (less than 500meters)
Medium tanks could knock them out, not with 1 hit, usually by hitting the turret directly

that said, close combat is not a good simulation how Tigers, let alone tanks were used, if the maps would be 3km long we could call it a good playground for tanks.

[hellblazer]

http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerheavytank/index.html
Printed by the U.S. Military Intelligence Service during WWII, the Intelligence Bulletin was designed to inform officers and enlisted men of the latest enemy tactics and weapons. The June 1943 issue of the Intelligence Bulletin contained a report on the new German heavy tanks encountered in North Africa, the Pz. Kw. 6 Tiger.

NEW GERMAN HEAVY TANK

In Tunisia the German Army sent into combat, apparently for the first time, its new heavy tank, the Pz. Kw. 6, which it calls the "Tiger" (see fig. 3). The new tank's most notable features are its 88-mm gun, 4-inch frontal armor, great weight, and lack of spaced armor. Although the Pz. Kw. 6 has probably been adopted as a standard German tank, future modifications may be expected.

The "Tiger" tank, which is larger and more powerful than the Pz. Kw. 4,1 is about 20 feet long, 12 feet wide, and 9 1/2 feet high. The barrel of the 88-mm gun overhangs the nose by almost 7 feet. The tank weighs 56 tons in action (or, with certain alterations, as much as 62 tons), and is reported to have a maximum speed of about 20 miles per hour. It normally has a crew of five.

The armor plating of the Pz. Kw. 6 has the following thicknesses and angles:
Lower nose plate_________ 62 mm (2.4 in), 60° inwards.
Upper nose plate_________ 102 mm (4 in), 20° inwards.
Front plate_____________ 62 mm (2.4 in), 80° outwards.
Driver plate____________ 102 mm (4 in), 10° outwards.
Turret front and mantlet_____ Possibly as much as 200 mm (8 in), rounded.
Turret sides and rear_______ 82 mm (3.2 in), vertical.
Lower sides (behind bogies)__ 60 mm (2.4 in), vertical.
Upper sides____________ 82 mm (3.2 in), vertical.
Rear________________ 82 mm (3.2 in), 20° inwards.
Floor________________ 26 mm (1 in).
Top_________________ 26 mm (1 in).


The angular (as opposed to rounded) arrangement of most of the armor is a bad design feature; reliance seems to be placed on the quality and thickness of the armor, with no effort having been made to present difficult angles of impact. In addition, none of the armor is face-hardened. The familiar German practice of increasing a tank's frontal armor at the expense of the side armor is also apparent in the case of the Pz. Kw. 6.

Undoubtedly the Germans developed the "Tiger" tank to meet the need for a fully armored vehicle equipped with a heavy weapon capable of dealing with a variety of targets, including hostile tanks. Although the "Tiger" can perform these duties, its weight and size make it a logistical headache. It is entirely probable that the Germans, realizing this disadvantage, are continuing to develop tanks in the 30-ton class. Further, it is interesting to note that the Pz. Kw. 6 has proved vulnerable to the British 6-pounder (57-mm) antitank gun when fired at a range of about 500 yards.

1 To date there is no record of a Pz. Kw. 5 having been used in combat.

[von Loringen]

Originally Posted by OldMan

Also, impostant to notice that the Hardened face armor that US produced was BETTER than german armor. I just don know if US used the high quality steel on tanks (since they needed most of it for the large number of Battleships built).

No, they didn't. It seems that the Army and Navy didn't cooperate on armour at all. Ironically, the US had a hard time producing any decent Face-Hardened armour for it's tanks, and nobody could manage to Face-Harden plates of the same thickness, or to the same depth as the Germans (in tank armour).

I know, that seems odd. I've read about comparisons between B Steel and Krupp Wh, etc, so I am familiar with what you are talking about. But the ground forces were left totally out in the cold in this department.

I recommend David Michael Honner's Guns vs. Armour website for anyone trying to do research on WWII tank armour.

Some general guidelines: Yes, tank German armour was better than most of the Allied nations. For a start, US and British armour plate was generally consistently flawed until 1944, and as such resisted penetration an average of 15% less than it's specifications indicated it should have.

Second, the US and British relied heavily on cast armour. The front turret plates for late war German tanks were also often made of cast armour.

Most cast armour is inferior to Rolled Homogonous Armour (RHA). In WWII, it averaged a 15% inferiority.

So, that already leaves the turret armour for a 1943 Sherman at only 72% of the expected resistance.

An exception: Russian cast armour does not seem to have shown this inferiority, presumably because of the ample supplies of rare metal alloy components the Russians had access to.

Generally, pre-1943 German armour was about 20% better than equivelent US or British armour, without taking into account the use of cast armour, or the flaws in pre-1944 armour. With that, there is a 66% difference in effective thickness between a 1942 German turret and a 1943 US/British one.

After 1942, German armour declines, and is only about @10% better than equivilent, unflawed Western RHA.

Russian armour is a bit odd. First, it's quality is totally inconsistant. Some is much worse than it should be, some actually better. On average, it is equivilent to early German armour. I am not sure how one would model the wide variation from one plate to another.

Lastly: One issue that gets totally ignored by just about every wargame I have seen: Armour resistance is not a linear function of thickness. (Old Man should be familiar with this one.)

Consider how Rolled Homogonous Armour is made: it is pressed together by large rollers, which compress and harden the plate. This means that thinner plates can be more easily worked than thicker ones.

So, all those supposedly flimsy early war vehicles like Pz.Hpfw Is and IIs, and armoured cars, are nowhere near as weak as is supposed. Using German armour as an example, plates 15mm and thinner was something like 35% harder than an equivilent 50mm plate, 42% harder than an 80mm plate, and 53% harder than a 100mm plate.

Thus, attempting to use armour thickness as a measure of plate resistance, while the obvious answer, is totally inaccurate without knowing about the specifications of the armour in question.

The same problem appears for penetration: the Germans tested their weapons against their own (better) plates, so they end up penetrating less armour than they would if used against US/British test plates.

The interrelationship between thickness and hardness also interferes here: It is usually assumed that a gun that penetrates 120mm is twice as good as one that penetrates 60mm. But, as seen, even of from the same nation, that will not be true. Again, using the Germans as an example, the weapon that penetrated 120mm would only have about 60% superior penetration to the one that penetrated 60mm, not 100%.

If one wanted to get REALLY technical (some of the stuff Old Man refers to), there is also an interesting interplay between the diameter of the shell and the thickness of the plate, and other factors such as the way the construction of the shell interacts with the make-up of the plate. (German Face-Hardened armour tended to shatter Soviet AP rounds, but tended to work LESS well than an equivilent piece of un-hardened plate vs. US/British APC rounds.)

But, given the way the game models such things, it would be easier just to assign a quality value to a given nationality, period, type and thickness range of plate, and multiply all thickness values in the data appropriately. That would give a good approximation, at least, certainly better than the present system of using thickness alone.