Tiger I and Kingtiger
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 4: Battle Of The Bulge
#41: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger Author: vonB,  PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:44 pm
    —
Quote:
PzIIIL-N had spaced frontal armor that dealt very effectively with even 85mm APHE.


Does that include the whole front, or just the Driver/MG Ports (where the plate had gaps)?  If it is just the Driver/MG Plate, then that is an add on.  The basic structure is still a PzKw III.  The extra plate sits in front of the body armour, and is not an intrinsic part of the construction.  I am talking about double skin production which as far as I know was not taking place in WWII, which means either the whole body & turret, or the fighting compartment.  However, I do not pretend I know enough to be 100% definite about it.

Regarding the spaced armour, I am not denying that it is helpful in combatting such weapons.  Fair enough.  If you are contending that schurtzen were applied in the beginning to foil AT Rifle and similar then your quote would substantiate that, so accepted.  However, I am sure that it was used to combat Hollow Charge projectiles?  It is an High Explosive Anti Tank device, though there were others.  I don't know how much use AT Rifles were from Normandy onwards.  Were they an issue?

On the penetration capabilities, how can a weapon penetrate more than it can penetrate?  It can't.  End of story.

If you want to argue the various different types of metals used (the Tiger I used a particularly high grade), that still makes no difference.  The penetration capabilities will vary from metal to metal, but for each metal, it will still be the same,  I think this discussion is at cross purposes as we are not arguing about the same thing...  Wink
#42: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger Author: Dima,  PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:37 am
    —
Quote:
Does that include the whole front, or just the Driver/MG Ports (where the plate had gaps)?  If it is just the Driver/MG Plate, then that is an add on.  The basic structure is still a PzKw III.

just google for WW2 spaced armor.

Quote:
I don't know how much use AT Rifles were from Normandy onwards.  Were they an issue?

another quote http://closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4114&start=0
i'd sooner beliebe that they applied them to protect from soviet 45mm guns as 5mm high hardness armor plates could easily chnge the angle of impact of such small shell. (as was several time tested in Kubinka for both 14.5mm and 45mm).
and sometimes shuerzen gave some anti-HEAT defence and some anti-APCR defence as a bonus . But sometimes they worsen it by providing better impact angle for HEAT charges.

btw, PzF.100 could penetrate PzIV turret with schuerzen from one side to another..

Quote:
On the penetration capabilities, how can a weapon penetrate more than it can penetrate?  It can't.  End of story.

you are wrong, f.e. since late 1944 IS-122 started to penetrate Panther frontal hull armor at 1800m - according to all the sense, trials and physics it could not Smile.
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 4: Battle Of The Bulge


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  :| |:
Page 3 of 3