ostwind, tiger panzer iv armor

[Citabria]

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm

ostwind armor mm/angle:
Front Turret: 25/37
Front Superstructure: 80/10
Front Hull: 80/12
Side Turret: 25/30
Side Superstructure: 30/0
Side Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 25/30
Rear Superstructure: 20/11
Rear Hull: 20/9
Turret Top / Bottom: open
Superstructure Top / Bottom: 12/85-90
Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 25/round
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/flak4.htm



panzer IV armor mm/angle:
Front Turret: 50/11
Front Upper Hull: 50 or 50+30/10
Front Lower Hull: 50 or 50+30/12
Side Turret: 30/26
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/10
Rear Upper Hull: 20/12
Rear Lower Hull: 20/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 12/85
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 50/0
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4

tiger armor mm/angle:
Front Turret: 100/8
Front Upper Hull: 100/10
Front Lower Hull: 100/24
Side Turret: 80/0
Side Upper Hull: 80/0
Side Lower Hull: 80/8
Rear Turret: 80/0
Rear Hull: 80/8
Turret Top / Bottom: 25/81-90
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Gun Mantlet: 100-110/0
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm

[Staga]

PzIV Ausf.H has 7,5cm KwK40 L/48 and Tiger 8,8cm KwK36 L/56

Muzzle velocity in feets/min and penetration in millimeters. Direct 0-degree impact, penetration to rolled homogenous armour which is slightly worser that german face-hardened used in panzers.

What AH needs is better damagemodel, cover for tanks and correct sights etc and... hehe

[wulfie]

AP with a ballistic cap (APBC) is better vs. sloped German armor (face hardened) as the cap can 'grip' vs. the slope better.

However, the Russians used straight AP (no cap) until early '44 on most of their weapons...which is why the Germans liked sloped + face hardened armor more.

Also, rolled/homog armor isn't necessarily better. It depends on the size and velocity of the impacting round. FH armor has a better chance of causing 'shot shatter' vs. high velocity rounds.

A rough guideline - if effective thickness due to angle of impact (45 angle of impact = double effective thickness) of FH armor plate is greater than diameter of impacting high velocity solid steel AP penetrator (i.e. not a DS or APCR round) chance of a clean deflection or shot shatter is fairly good.

The general point of FH plate is to get better effective protection vs. most commonly encountered AT rounds with less weight in armor plate (partly thru good usage of sloping plate).

Mike/wulfie

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Staga
PzIV Ausf.H has 7,5cm KwK40 L/48 and Tiger 8,8cm KwK36 L/56

Muzzle velocity in feets/min and penetration in millimeters. Direct 0-degree impact, penetration to rolled homogenous armour which is slightly worser that german face-hardened used in panzers.

What AH needs is better damagemodel, cover for tanks and correct sights etc and... hehe

Great info, Staga! What is the source?

Do you have simialr ones for other guns, too?

[VO101_Isegrim]

Pz IV H and J armor and others according to German Datasheets:

Turm: Turret front
Front: SS Front
Bug: Hull Front

[Turbot]

Good stuff and it appears HTC is looking at thsi sort of thing too - thought the note hitech made on the ostwind could be interpreted two ways (either weaker ostwind gun or weaker ostwind armor?) they are indeed paying attention.

[Staga]

My source is book "World War II ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston.
Well it's more a booklet than a book, not much pictures but it's filled with charts, comparisons between different type of armour and penetration data.

[brady]

My impreshion is that they neutered the osty's effective ap value as a game play conshion to quell the whiners, I always thought it was about right.

[wulfie]

Brady,

German FlaK weapons (even the weapons on SPAA) generally only carried AP in small 'self defense' quantities.

Usually it was between 10-20% of the total ammunition loadout.

Everyone:

Be careful when looking at ammunition performance tables, especially for the 3.7cm German weapons. There was a big muzzle loaded HEAT round made for the 3.7cm PaK 36 (effective range of ~100 meters, ROF very slow - single shot muzzle loaded, etc.) to give it a chance vs. the T-34 and KV-1 (and if it hit it would really do some damage - 3.7cm was the size of the rod that went into the muzzle of the AT gun, the warhead was a very big HEAT warhead). So if you are perusing a table of German 3.7cm ammunition and come across a HEAT round that has a huge penetration value...that's what you are seeing.

APCR (tungsten core in this case) ammunition for the 3.7cm was used almost exclusively for PaK and big AT guns on aircraft. I've never seen accounts of it carried or used by FlaK weapons (and this includes actual AARs from German units) and 3.7cm KwK weapons might have carried 1 or 2 rounds total per vehicle.

Mike/wulfie

[wulfie]

One other thing:

That German chart on armor thickness...

It lists 8cm 'across the board' but keep in mind with Pz IVH, Pz IVJ that that thickness was gained thru applique plates on top of factory armor. Against certain types of attack this type of 'built up'/'factory modification' armor is no as effective as a single armor plate of equal thickness.

Mike/wulfie

p.s. For something minor but cool - note the hand written value modification for usage of 'Ost tracks' (tracks installed on MBTs once they had been shipped to the front - wider and thus lower ground pressure and better cross country handling) as opposed to 'factory installed' tracks.

[illo]

Originally posted by brady
My impreshion is that they neutered the osty's effective ap value as a game play conshion to quell the whiners, I always thought it was about right.

Yes that might be true, Osty has high velocity 37mm autocannon (37mm Flak 43 L/89).
I guess it would be enough to penetrate 50mm of armor at close ranges. (PzKpfw IV turret front)

[Fishu]

You would have to shoot from very close with 37mm to penetrate 50mm armour.
That would mean maximum of 100 meters and more like within 50 meters.

Theres hardly any difference in velocities between 37mm tank gun and flak gun.

[illo]

Originally posted by Fishu
You would have to shoot from very close with 37mm to penetrate 50mm armour.
That would mean maximum of 100 meters and more like within 50 meters.

Theres hardly any difference in velocities between 37mm tank gun and flak gun.

Yes i agree, 37mm Flak 43 /L89 penetrates barely over 50mm at 100m. Considering PzKpfw IVh armor quality in 1944 I think maximum range to punch clear through front turret would be something around 150m. 37mm Flak 43 penetrates about 45mm at 100m/30degrees IIRC.

[illo]

Originally posted by wulfie
One other thing:

That German chart on armor thickness...

It lists 8cm 'across the board' but keep in mind with Pz IVH, Pz IVJ that that thickness was gained thru applique plates on top of factory armor. Against certain types of attack this type of 'built up'/'factory modification' armor is no as effective as a single armor plate of equal thickness.

I think PzKpfw IVh/j had usually 50mm armor on front turret. And 80mm on front hull.

Bolted on spaced armor was with earlier variants AFAIK.

[wulfie]

I'm talking about the hull armor increase between 'F series' (F, F1, F2, G) and the Pz IVH and Pz IVJ.

If memory serves, the 'increase' to ~80mm hull armor wasn't from all Pz IVH and Pz IVJ having 'new' ~80mm armor plate protecting the hull. Armor plate was 'added' onto the hull of F2s and Gs to bring their hull armor up to ~80mm. It was a professional (as in factory or advanced refit station) modification, but that armor didn't provide the same degree of protection vs. certain types of attack that 80mm plate would have provided.

Mike/wulfie