Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Quote:
In RL, the Panther had a higher stopping power than the Tiger I at close range because of the higher muzzle velocity, but the Tiger I had better longer distance performance due to the heavier round.
silly statement, as 8.8cm shell had much higher stopping power in comparison to 7.5cm shell, same as with .45 and 9mm round .
at long distances 7.5cm KwK42 shell had better penetration than 8.8cm KwK36, but higher chance to bounce off as well.
Quote:
though the CC combat model does allow things to happen which I don't find credible, such as a PaK 38 destroying a KV from the front.
only when the data is made really bad .
Quote:
Shermans outnumbered them, so could afford the losses, while the loss of a Tiger I was a big problem. But it seems that the opinions of all the tankers was that they would have preferred to be operating in a Tiger I outnumbered by Shermans, than the other way around, even though, in the scheme of things, the Tiger I was doomed eventually.
haha!
could you please tell me why no allied tank followed Tiger concept?
Quote:
The main threat to the Tiger I was the Firefly,
the main threat for T1 during WW2 was an AT mine .
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Stopping power should be considered in two ways, the ability to penetrate armour and what damage it does once it does. Size isn't everything for AP rounds. Size is greater weight, but KE is mass times the velocity squared. The KE, shape, and the material that the round is made from will determine how good it is at penetrating. So VonB's statement is not silly. For example the smaller but high velocity SABOT rounds had very good penetration but less destructive once penetrated with poor long range capability before the advent of fin stabilised SABOT. Also German AP rounds had an HE core that increased the chance of being catastrophic on an enemy tank once it had penetrated. Whether the Tiger I or Panther actually had better stopping power I don't know, as VonB said the Panther appears to have better penetration at shorter ranges, perhaps you have some stats on that Dima?
The allies history of tank building during the war was I my opinion was a mess. The Sherman's only advantage was that it could be mass produced in great numbers (but see how the Soviet's achieved that a whole lot better), it was driven on petrol so it needed greater logistical support (this was strategically a significant disadvantage after the allied break out of Normandy) and brewed up horrifically. The British kept on churning out tanks that were obsolete before they even went into production with only two exceptions, the hybrid Firefly, and at last the Comet which came close to a match to the Panther, but came too late to be of any consequence. Why didn't they produce a Tiger? Well it is difficult to engineer and takes too long to make is the simple argument and lacked the manoeuvrability once fielded. The Soviet's had it right, Guderian recognised this, the T34 had the right balance of armour, manoeuvrability, weapon, and easily manufactured.
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Quote:
Stopping power should be considered in two ways, the ability to penetrate armour and what damage it does once it does. Size isn't everything for AP rounds. Size is greater weight, but KE is mass times the velocity squared.
indeed, that's why i mentioned 9mm and .45cal as 9mm has better pentration at all distances.
Quote:
The KE, shape, and the material that the round is made from will determine how good it is at penetrating.
german APCBC shells had same shape and material for most guns.
as for KE you can calculate yourself basing on http://www.panzerworld.net/armourpenetration
8.8cm PzGr.39 - (10,2kg*(773m/s)^2)/2
7.5cm PzGr.39/42 - (6,8kg*(925m/s)^2)/2
Quote:
So VonB's statement is not silly.
it is, as the 1,5 times heavier shell will always have better stopping power.
Quote:
For example the smaller but high velocity SABOT rounds had very good penetration but less destructive once penetrated with poor long range capability before the advent of fin stabilised SABOT.
in real life WW2 APDS shells had much lower penetration vs sloped armor than standard APCBC because of its weight.
Quote:
Also German AP rounds had an HE core that increased the chance of being catastrophic on an enemy tank once it had penetrated.
don't exaggerate the amount of HE filler in AP shells, f.e. in 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 it weighted 18g.
i believe all the sides but brits used HE filler in AP shells.
Quote:
Whether the Tiger I or Panther actually had better stopping power I don't know, as VonB said the Panther appears to have better penetration at shorter ranges, perhaps you have some stats on that Dima?
theoretically Panther had better penetration at all ranges and APDS had way better penetration than APCBC . Practically 8.8cm shell had much better stopping power than 7.5cm shell. And btw, HE filler in 8.8cm PzGr.39 weighed 59g .
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
So Dima using your data the panther's shell had 1.4 times more KE. Theory and tests appear to show better penetration by the Panther main gun at smaller ranges, greater explosive charge in the Tiger's shell could make it a winner though. 'Stopping power' is probably best measured by tank kills to shots fired at equivalent ranges perhaps you have some stats there which may demonstrate the point, or alternatively eyewitness reports from tankies that had combat experience with both the Tiger I and the Panther?
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Regardless of the hearsay and guesswork, this is governed by physics, and the properties are well enough known to be able to calculate to a fine degree how these weapons will perform.
I would be interested to see a table calculating the effective penetration of these weapons based on physics.
In my simple understanding, if for example a weapon can penetrate 70mm of armour plate, then it is never going to be able to penetrate more. Ever. It is physically impossible. The fact that CC allows such events to happen merely demonstrates that the logic for deciding the outcome of strikes is not based on physics.
If my also simple understanding of the physics is on the right track, the Kinetic Energy of the 88mm projectile is going to decrease less than the 75mm over distance, and at some point, the 88mm will be greater, due to the difference in mass.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:48 am Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
It isn't a steel plate that is being fired on.
It is a tank that has vision slots, vents, etc. and having a very very small chance to damage a tank (or at least scare the crew) with a gun that couldn't normally penetrate does make sense....
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
@ vonB Steel plate is not perfect also each hit could cause fractures. No truth stranger than fiction also applies, freak events do occur, just not very often and when they do you remember them.
Dima I stand corrected, it was early morning and not enough sleep, that's my excuse and I am sticking to it. As I said though depends on KE shape and material. Trials indicate better penetration at most ranges for the panther. I and vonB may be wrong regarding stopping power, my earlier mistake may make me and idiot but the general point does not make a person an idiot.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:38 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Quote:
It isn't a steel plate that is being fired on.
It is a tank that has vision slots, vents, etc. and having a very very small chance to damage a tank (or at least scare the crew) with a gun that couldn't normally penetrate does make sense....
Well, yes it is, mostly.
However, you do still have a point, and I accept the possibility of causing damage which could disable or even cause casualties. Smashing the tracks is a good way to stop a tank from moving for example. Also, I remember an interesting comment by an Allied tanker being interviewed about his experience on the West Front. He described something they actually did do to try and deal with Panthers, which were significantly superior to the Sherman with the 75mm.
The early Panthers had rounded front turret armour mounting the main gun and co-ax 7.62. To all intents and purposes, a Sherman could not take on Panther from the front, but this turret plate was a potential weakness. A projectile hitting the lower part of the plate would get deflected down onto the top armour of the Panther which is thin in comparison. He was not describing it as 'lucky moments', but precision aiming by the gunner. The later Panthers modified the front turret to eliminate this weakness. Not withstanding the specific intentions of enemy gunners, these Panther could be compromised by random strikes from the front in this area so the modification was desirable.
CC has various compromised states for vehicles, from crew casualties, damaged weaponry, disablement, and destruction. I think these work quite well on the whole, but what BUGS me intensely is being unable to abandon a disabled or crippled vehicle.
So I accept a random element of chance of Sod's Law (which can cut both ways). How about the story of the Churchill tank commander who was shot up by a Tiger, abandoned the tank, and then returned to it after the battle.
The Churchill had taken a direct hit from a Tiger at close range from the front. The projectile had penetrated the front plate by the driver (who did not survive), and then buried itself behind the bulkhead at the rear of the fighting compartment. When the tanker looked at the hole where the shot had penetrated and where it had ended up, it looked like it should have struck him in the body. So he got a piece of string and placed it between the 2 points. It was clear that was sitting directly in line at the time. So why wasn't he a severed corpse?
Kinetic forces can display strange characteristics, especially in extremes. There can be only 1 explanation. When the shot penetrated, the combination of forces caused the shot to swerve and/or spin in such a way that it travelled around his body.
I am not sure this sort of detail should be modelled in detail. It was a one in a zillion chance. But it is still a good idea to allow for such abherrations. But how much detail do you need ar want to know? Does it make any difference when you are playing CC that when a Tiger shoots a Churchill from the front at close range, that it only damages some of the crew? It is enough to know that they have been damaged?
What about HESH? I do not know if such projectiles were used in WWII, but it is merely a refinement of a characteristic of steel when struck violently. Even if the plate is not penetrated, the forces can cause chunks of the inner face to seperate/shatter, sending high velocity shrapnel through the fighting compartment. This, and the danger of hollow charge projectiles encouraged the production of twin skinned armour in modern times. The Germans made extensive use of skirt armour to neutralise hollow charge projectiles.
But Andrew also has a point. Do we want to get into 'rolling the dice' for the probability of something extrememly unlikely happening? Well, yes, and no. No, because it is taking a point too far, and yes, because the element of chance is perfectly valid and desirable. However, sufficient that it should be something that is factored in the Logic at a general level; a 'shit happens' syndrome. I am not fussed whether I know that a tank is damaged or not damaged when the probabilities are against. Whether it's the drivers visor that get trashed, or a shot damaging the turret mechanism, or a piece of shrapnel gets through a vision slot and kills or injures one of the crew is more interesting in debrief rather than at the time...
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Just a remark on killing Panthers:
-If the ground was frozen or hard enough, allied tankers found out that a lucky/skilled shot could bounce and hit the beast on the lower part of the front armour (the one angled down) or even beneath it in the weak belly-armour.
"When the tough gets going, I run to live to run another day..."
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Quote:
In my simple understanding, if for example a weapon can penetrate 70mm of armour plate, then it is never going to be able to penetrate more. Ever. It is physically impossible.
possible, check reports of trial shooting of 100 and 122mm soviet guns against Panther and why it was chosen to have 122mm and not 100mm despite higher teoretical penetration of 100mm .
Quote:
Dima I stand corrected, it was early morning and not enough sleep, that's my excuse and I am sticking to it.
it's ok, we all make mistakes time to time .
Quote:
Trials indicate better penetration at most ranges for the panther.
not really
just one example:
During trial shooting at IS-122 (produced November 1944) with spare tracks attached at a lower hull plate there were 6 8.8cm AP39 hits and 5 7.5cm AP39/42 hits at 650-700m. All hits left dents but no penetrations. IS could start engine after that and drive through a testing grounds. After that they shot again and hit side armor at 45-55deg with 6 8.8cm AP39 and 4 7.5cm AP39/42 and had 2 penetrations by 8.8cm. No penetrations by 7.5cm .
Quote:
I and vonB may be wrong regarding stopping power,
yes, because heavier shell would always have better stopping power.
Quote:
What about HESH? I do not know if such projectiles were used in WWII, but it is merely a refinement of a characteristic of steel when struck violently.
AFAIK there wasn't such type of gun shell during WW2.
Quote:
Even if the plate is not penetrated, the forces can cause chunks of the inner face to seperate/shatter, sending high velocity shrapnel through the fighting compartment.
check what was was 7.5cm PzGr.40(w) - very intersting shell having pretty same idea .
Quote:
This, and the danger of hollow charge projectiles encouraged the production of twin skinned armour in modern times.
the germans used spaced armour to deal with APHE shells.
Quote:
The Germans made extensive use of skirt armour to neutralise hollow charge projectiles.
wrong, they developed shuerzen to deal with small caliber AP ammo and medium caliber HE ammo.
Quote:
If the ground was frozen or hard enough, allied tankers found out that a lucky/skilled shot could bounce and hit the beast on the lower part of the front armour (the one angled down) or even beneath it in the weak belly-armour.
urban myth IMO.
there is same about .50cal bullets shot from fighter beneath the belly armor .
-If the ground was frozen or hard enough, allied tankers found out that a lucky/skilled shot could bounce and hit the beast on the lower part of the front armour (the one angled down) or even beneath it in the weak belly-armour.
Dima says its an urban myth. I think that frustrated Allied tankers probably tried everything, inlcuding this. To get the right angle and weather though this probably did not happen often at all, which is why theres robably very little reference to it.
Watch The Valour and the Horror - In Desperate Battle. Its a documentry of Canadians in Normandy. They have a Sherman tank commander in there illustrating how he and his Sqn were forced to deal with Panther tanks. On a Panther in a museum he showed how he would fire at the bottom portion of the gun mantle to bounce a round through the thin armour above the driver.
So same theory pretty much, just a different part of the tank, and an eye witness account from the guy pulling the trigger.
Join Discord for technical support and online games.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Quote:
Quote:
The Germans made extensive use of skirt armour to neutralise hollow charge projectiles.
wrong, they developed shuerzen to deal with small caliber AP ammo and medium caliber HE ammo.
Have to disagree. Not that it might not useful against the low calibre ordnance as you suggest I am sure, but it definately was used as a means to neutralise hollow charge projectiles.
One variant of the skirting was metal mesh not solid sheet. Hardly much of a barrier for normal AP ordnance, but does the job fine for hollow charge.
Quote:
the germans used spaced armour to deal with APHE shells.
Which German tanks had 2 skins (as opposed to a single skin and skirting)? None that I know of...
Quote:
possible, check reports of trial shooting of 100 and 122mm soviet guns against Panther and why it was chosen to have 122mm and not 100mm despite higher teoretical penetration of 100mm
Now you have me confused. Are you saying that some weapons can penetrate more than they can penetrate? That is all I was saying. If for example a 100mm round can penetrate 100mm of vertical plate at x00 metres, then it will never be able to penetrate more at x00 metres. Never. To allow it to do so in a Sim is a defect.
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: Tiger I and Kingtiger
Quote:
Have to disagree. Not that it might not useful against the low calibre ordnance as you suggest I am sure, but it definately was used as a means to neutralise hollow charge projectiles.
let me quote myself please . http://closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4114 6-7th February 1943 - conference with Hitler where the report about protective armour suspended from the side of the hull against anti-tank rifle fire for PzIII,IV and StuG.
20th February 1943 - tests commited with 14.5mm russian ATR and "7,5cm Sprenggranate AZ Feldkanone n.A. 2. Ladung" (looks like 7.5cm HE shell with distant fuse and 2nd load - correct?).
6th March 1943 - results were shown to Hitler, he was statisfied and accepted Shuerzen to be put in production.
Spielberger: "Sturmgeschutze", 2, edition, Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 1994
Quote:
One variant of the skirting was metal mesh not solid sheet. Hardly much of a barrier for normal AP ordnance, but does the job fine for hollow charge.
Which German tanks had 2 skins (as opposed to a single skin and skirting)? None that I know of...
PzIIIL-N had spaced frontal armor that dealt very effectively with even 85mm APHE.
Quote:
Now you have me confused. Are you saying that some weapons can penetrate more than they can penetrate? That is all I was saying. If for example a 100mm round can penetrate 100mm of vertical plate at x00 metres, then it will never be able to penetrate more at x00 metres.
why not if the armor they made tests against (and put results in table) had different construction to the armor used in enemy tanks?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
.
