Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: jolly22 on June 22, 2010, 10:03:41 PM
-
Where is the strongest part of the tiger at?
-
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2736/tigerarmor.jpg)
-
Front. If you park your Tiger so the front right or front left corner faces the oncoming enemy it will add slope to the armor too.
-
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2736/tigerarmor.jpg)
you asked :D
froger
-
thanks a lot!
-
Front of the turret is the absolute strongest part. AHwiki says its modeled with 110mm's of armor. Unfortunatly, you can never add slope to it, since you NEED to point it at your target in order to fire.
If you're a good shot, hang back, say 1500-2000yds back, and pick off whoever you can. At that range, you're likely to suffer a turreting shot at worst, unless you happen to bump into a firefly, or another tiger.
-
Most of the front of the turret is invulnerable to anything in AH. It has the mantlet and the turret front armour.
Over 200 mm of the best quality armour steel in WW2.
-
Most of the front of the turret is invulnerable to anything in AH.
Sorry... but: No. :)
Unless you say something like "At distances over XXX yards."
-
Most of the front of the turret is invulnerable to anything in AH. It has the mantlet and the turret front armour.
Over 200 mm of the best quality armour steel in WW2.
I see a lot of people try to add the armor of the front of the turret to the mantlet . . . I think that is a mistake on most tanks. Below is a pic of a turret mantlet removed from the turret. Note the gun, sighting equipment, etc. attached to the mantlet.
(http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/3779%20B3.jpg)
Now here is a pic of the turret without the mantlet.
(http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/3779%20A6.jpg)
So the mantlet essentially covers a huge, gaping hole in the front of the tank, meaning except for the small area where they overlap, the armor of the mantlet and the turret front aren't additive.
I can't find a picture of the Tiger specifically -- at least not a real one, just lots of models, and I don't want to assume those are put together the same way as the real deal -- so the "hole" in the front of the turret may be small relative to the whole mantlet. But if it is similar to the pics above, the likelihood of having nothing behind the mantlet may be much greater than having some additional armor. If anyone has additional information, especially decent pictures, I'd love to see them.
-
That is the first time I have ever seen someone try to describe the front turret armour of a tiger by posting pictures of a dissembled Sherman and churchill.
The Tiger is made nothing like that. It has a nearly solid plate 110 mm thick across the front that has the trunnion of the main armament on it. The only spot that is not armour is gun.
The Mantle is actually attached to the main armament and covers the entire front of the turret. The beefing up of the base of the main armament is armour, not anything to do with ballistics, no Pak or Flak has it.
Unless the round hits the gun itself, or slips under an elevated mantle if the gun is very elevated, it is hitting 220 mm plus of armour.
So the only accurate way to describe the front turret armour of a Tiger 1 is > 220mm. No weapon in AH except the 8" gun can penetrate that.
You can clearly see the structure of the front plate by its welds in a non zimmerit picture, you can clearly see the composition and coverage of the mantle in any picture.
Has anyone here ever seen a picture of a Tiger that was killed through the front of the turret? It is one of the most photographed vehicles of WW2.
-
No weapon in AH except the 8" gun can penetrate that.
Are you actually playing AH? This tour alone I have sucessfully turreted at least 2 tigers... with a frontal hits by a M4A3(76)w :)
-
So the only accurate way to describe the front turret armour of a Tiger 1 is > 220mm. No weapon in AH except the 8" gun can penetrate that.
What the hell are you smoking? Since when does the tiger have 220mm of armor? Last I checked, it had 110 (according to AHwiki), or 120 (according to lusche's pic). And thats the thickest.
-
The 17 pounder in the firefly probably couldn't come close to penetrating the front of a tiger turret at any range with any ammo. Its not a secret or anything, just the way it was.
Shot gap of 76mm to 200+ mm just made it shatter, the sabot was worse.
(http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/4272/tgii.jpg)
That is just the mantlet.
The cavity the gun goes in happens to be even more beefed up.
-
What the hell are you smoking? Since when does the tiger have 220mm of armor? Last I checked, it had 110 (according to AHwiki), or 120 (according to lusche's pic). And thats the thickest.
I am smoking the "how thick was the front turret of the tiger one weed I guess.
I thought the OP was really asking, not asking what AH had. I really do not remember what AH set it too.
-
The 17 pounder in the firefly probably couldn't come close to penetrating the front of a tiger turret at any range with any ammo. Its not a secret or anything, just the way it was.
Just for the record, the 76(w) in my example above is not a Firefly. ;)
(http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4057/76wvstiger.jpg)
Most tanks in AH can penetrate the Tigers frontal turret armor if getting close enough. It's not "safe from anything but a 8" gun".
-
The Tiger I didn't have 220mm thick armor. Perhaps you are thinking of the Elephant, or some other vehicle?
-
The Tiger I didn't have 220mm thick armor. Perhaps you are thinking of the Elephant, or some other vehicle?
Look at the pics he posted. He is talking about the small area, where mantlet & hull armor do overlap.
-
Ah yes, yes. I see know. However, the area is so small, that its pretty much irrelivent.
-
That is the first time I have ever seen someone try to describe the front turret armour of a tiger by posting pictures of a dissembled Sherman and churchill.
Like I said, it was the pictures I could find of a turret and the gun mantlet disassembled. If you have an actual photo of the Tiger's turret before the mantlet is attached, I'd be interested in seeing it.
You're diagram is helpful to a point. It shows where the trunions are, which is where the mantlet physically attaches to the turret. What is not clear from the diagram is whether the the mantlet is covering a hole in the turret front (similar to the pic I posted) or whether there is actually some kind of armor behind there with only a slot through which the gun, mg, and sighting equipment protrude. In other words, that impressive 135mm thick armor directly around the gun may not have anything directly behind it. And if not, than 135mm is all you get -- penetrate that, and the energy remaining in your shot is damaging gun / recoil mechanism / trunion / crew / something.
This picture:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/tigint.jpg)
appears to me to show a big square hole in the front of the turret covered by the mantlet.
This diagram of the mantlet assembly sure doesn't look like it leaves any room for additional armor from the turret other than the overlapping edges.
(http://www.one35th.com/tiger/manual/manual-ex05.jpg)
-
Armor penetration is not a kill.
Behind-armor effects need to be calculated to make a non-simplistic tank simulation.
I do not know how much HTC have done to recreate BAE effects.
-
The diagram I provided shows the outlines of the trunnions, if you take the inside edges of those trunnion boxes and make another box, that is the area that is open on the font of the turret armour. It is maybe half the front area of the turret. Ouside that box is double (200mm) armour.
do we accept that?
The area where the gun is has 135mm + the gun itself. maybe another 1/4 of the front area.
Yes, if you hit the gun itself that is a bad thing. No AH weapon will penetrate the 135+ the gun but it will hurt.
You can debate for yourself if that is a penetration or not.
do we accept that?
The two areas that are shown in profile are shown because they are the only areas that are not straight double(200mm +) and not the gun itself. They are the last 1/4 of the front area, and they are typically 150mm thick. They are 1/4 of the front area.
Do we accept that?
Now a Tiger had ammo that could get through that 150mm. And a Tiger is itself an AH vehicle so, I would have to conceed that.
Where exactly on the font of this turret is the 110mm armour?
No where.
-
The diagram I provided shows the outlines of the trunnions, if you take the inside edges of those trunnion boxes and make another box, that is the area that is open on the font of the turret armour. It is maybe half the front area of the turret. Ouside that box is double (200mm) armour.
do we accept that?
The area where the gun is has 135mm + the gun itself. maybe another 1/4 of the front area.
Yes, if you hit the gun itself that is a bad thing. No AH weapon will penetrate the 135+ the gun but it will hurt.
You can debate for yourself if that is a penetration or not.
do we accept that?
The two areas that are shown in profile are shown because they are the only areas that are not straight double(200mm +) and not the gun itself. They are the last 1/4 of the front area, and they are typically 150mm thick. They are 1/4 of the front area.
Do we accept that?
Now a Tiger had ammo that could get through that 150mm. And a Tiger is itself an AH vehicle so, I would have to conceed that.
Where exactly on the font of this turret is the 110mm armour?
No where.
I could argue semantics and say you claimed "most" of the turret front was 200mm thick, but I would only be doing it to get a rise out of you. :neener:
Conceded. Outside the inside mark of the trunions, the mantlet of 90mm to the left and right have the turret armor behind, so 190mm protection there. Similar double protection top and bottom. Yes, I was silly took tape measurer against my computer screen to see if it added up to half the front area -- it is only slightly less than half, not enough to argue about.
It still leaves half of the front of the turret being either gun or with no armor behind the mantlet, but rather a piece of equipment that would be damaged if the mantlet itself were penetrated, which was the point I was trying to get at. I expected it to be more than half, but the diagram you provided indicates otherwise.
Thanks for the diagram and discussion. I love learning something new. :aok
-
Your welcome, I just learned it too.
Kind of shows how this beast got some of its reputation, which is hard to reconcile with its behavior in many games, not just AH.
-
Agreed. The tiger is given far too little respect in many games. Likely because you can just bum rush it unlimited numbers of inferior tanks. Eventually, it'll run low on ammo, or it will be overwhelmed.
IRL: 6 M4's vs 1 Tiger
M4's find tiger by having #1 explode. They scatter, with #2 exploding before making it to cover. Remaining 4 flank the tiger, loosing #'s 3 and 4. #5 dies, just as #6 puts a round into the tigers engine, forcing the crew to abandon it.
Aces High: 6 M4's vs 1 Tiger
Tiger kills *game ID*. *Game ID* calls for help saying "hey, we got a tiger here on our left. Beter take it out, before he camps our spawn". *Game ID*'s 5 buddys swing left, and fail to take out the tiger due to the fact that they don't use any cover, and hope to get a lucky shot before all are killed. Pissed off, dispite the fact that their plan wasn't sensible, they all up heavy fighters, and bomb the tiger.
-
Agreed. The tiger is given far too little respect in many games.
On the other hand, our Tiger never ever suffers from mechanical breakdowns, high fuel consumption, and often reduced mobility like the real one did ;)
-
And the Russians and Germans (later in the war anyway) rather low quality steel don't come into play either.
And Lusche, wouldn't that make it MORE fomidable, not less?
-
And the Russians and Germans (later in the war anyway) rather low quality steel don't come into play either.
And Lusche, wouldn't that make it MORE fomidable, not less?
That's difficult to answer, because the battlefield and tactics are so much different in games like AH than real life. The ability to get bomb laden air support in a matter of minutes. The number of planes compared to GV's. Not having to worry about breakdown on the march or bogging down the tank in unsuitable terrain. And don't forget that the Tiger crews were usually much better trained than their Russian counterparts, which doesn't apply to AH.
-
Nemisis,
I think it is just confusing. The front of the turret has 110mm of armour..check, we will make it that way.
that little number at the bottom of the diagram that points at the mantlet. what could that mean?
No one here understood, I didn't understand. I just had always thought that people were a bit hysterical about the thing in 1944..
Well, they weren't, it was a beast hull down.
That clearly is the front turret armour, the slopped sides of the turret that can be hit from the front would be even worse.
What will pyro do about it, who knows. Its a pretty major change to the tank game dynamic, that would move the tiger from a good 1944 tank that fit in the game mix to a 262 kind of tank. It would lead to escalated requests for other vehicles etc. The terrain to flank the tiger is really not there on the AH battlefield. The smaller tanks need lots of micro contours to move cross open ground, they need way more small ridges etc.
AH 2 might well be a worse tank "game" with the tiger having the correct marginal front turret armour of 180 mm, if there is only one front turret hit box. Its resistance to all the aircraft that can precision drop 1000lb bombs in the game would not be increased though.
-
Lusche, I'm simply saying that armor made of a higher quality steel will better resist shells.
And Pongo, I would have absolutely no fear of taking on a tiger with the correct armor modled. It simply a matter of waiting, watching, and makeing your move at the correct time. Many are far too impatient in the game to deal with a correctly modled tiger, I will admit. And as soon as we got anything (even the Nashorn) with the Pak 43 'L71, the Tiger's armor would be moot.
-
That is the first time I have ever seen someone try to describe the front turret armour of a tiger by posting pictures of a dissembled Sherman and churchill.
The Tiger is made nothing like that. It has a nearly solid plate 110 mm thick across the front that has the trunnion of the main armament on it. The only spot that is not armour is gun.
The Mantle is actually attached to the main armament and covers the entire front of the turret. The beefing up of the base of the main armament is armour, not anything to do with ballistics, no Pak or Flak has it.
Unless the round hits the gun itself, or slips under an elevated mantle if the gun is very elevated, it is hitting 220 mm plus of armour.
So the only accurate way to describe the front turret armour of a Tiger 1 is > 220mm. No weapon in AH except the 8" gun can penetrate that.
You can clearly see the structure of the front plate by its welds in a non zimmerit picture, you can clearly see the composition and coverage of the mantle in any picture.
Has anyone here ever seen a picture of a Tiger that was killed through the front of the turret? It is one of the most photographed vehicles of WW2.
I am bumping this because I did find such a picture, where if it wasnt killed it was at least incapacitated through the mantle.
(http://ww2db.com/images/vehicle_panzervi25.jpg)
One round hit the actual hole for the gunners sight. It went down hill from there.
-
I am bumping this because I did find such a picture, where if it wasnt killed it was at least incapacitated through the mantle.
(http://ww2db.com/images/vehicle_panzervi25.jpg)
One round hit the actual hole for the gunners sight. It went down hill from there.
Why do I have images of the sniper duel scene in "Saving Private Ryan" in my head??? ya know, the one where the shot goes right through the enemy sniper's scope? :O
-
I am bumping this because I did find such a picture, where if it wasnt killed it was at least incapacitated through the mantle.
(http://ww2db.com/images/vehicle_panzervi25.jpg)
One round hit the actual hole for the gunners sight. It went down hill from there.
Nice find.
Interesting how the side of the mantlet shattered from the impact. From the previous discussion, I am not sure you could argue, then, that the mantlet over turret is really reacting the same as a solid 220mm plate would.
In other words, if a round shattering a portion of the mantlet takes the turret out of action, then in "game terms" the mantlet armor is all you get (protection for the crew in real life is obviously a different matter).
-
Some would argue that a space in the armour is more effective then a solid block. With the pieces sitting there they may have been removed in the shop?
Not sure, but it is interesting that later versions of the tiger 1 moved to a monocular sight and beefed up that specific part of the mantle.
-
Why do I have images of the sniper duel scene in "Saving Private Ryan" in my head??? ya know, the one where the shot goes right through the enemy sniper's scope? :O
Now that you mention it...
-
(http://image.wetpaint.com/image/3/dokqu4Q1ZvxE-LdH1Y0w5A460316/GW1280H1024)
(http://image.wetpaint.com/image/1/5-e7yxPdVvFF81hmM0QhwA789831/GW1280H1024)
these will probably help you. :x :aok
-
Why do I have images of the sniper duel scene in "Saving Private Ryan" in my head??? ya know, the one where the shot goes right through the enemy sniper's scope? :O
Yeah, looks cool but was proven impossible by Mythbusters? Basically the convex lenses deflect the round.
Hitting a Tiger on the numbers (side) of the turrent will normally knock out the turrent as well. :salute
-
Yeah, looks cool but was proven impossible by Mythbusters? Basically the convex lenses deflect the round.
Hitting a Tiger on the numbers (side) of the turrent will normally knock out the turrent as well. :salute
Lots of movies have sold that story-line clip, Sniper, Enemy at the Gate, and probably others.
-
Yeah, looks cool but was proven impossible by Mythbusters? Basically the convex lenses deflect the round.
Hitting a Tiger on the numbers (side) of the turrent will normally knock out the turrent as well. :salute
There is no such thing as a "turrent."
A "turret," on the other hand, is that spinny thingy that sits on top of a tank with a gun sticking out of it.
-
Photo edited. Thanks.
(http://image.wetpaint.com/image/1/iIbitiv94XUsqrb7CgBsjA1030517)
-
Been a while since I played aces high, those graphics are sweet...
-
There is no such thing as a "turret."
A "turrent," on the other hand, is that Bushy thingy that sits on the side of a tank with a broom sticking out of it.
Thank-you English Professor 101. :D anything useful to add?
-
I like the luck category myself as for sniping Carlos Hathcock a marine sniper in Vietnam shot an enemy sniper who was hunting him through his scope. and look up Michael Wittmann heck got took out by a rocket off of a typhoon. :aok
-
Been a while since I played aces high, those graphics are sweet...
And to think it's been upgraded since that SS was taken?
Come on back and give it another month
:cheers:
-
and look up Michael Wittmann heck got took out by a rocket off of a typhoon. :aok
That's been debunked and most historians give credit to a gentleman named Ekins from Sherman Firefly.
-
hmm up to speculation of course..... :noid
-
That's been debunked and most historians give credit to a gentleman named Ekins from Sherman Firefly.
Most historians that don't look at it very hard.
-
Most historians that don't look at it very hard.
Oh, sorry, didn't mean to get your Maple-leaf shaped panties in a bunch. ;)
I guess the most recent theory is it was someone from the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade.
Either way, not a Typhoon.