The people's tank

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The people's tank


  • Total voters
    244
Status
Not open for further replies.

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
This article on battlefield.ru has been thrown around the forum for the past year. It proves 1 thing. NOTHING! Pounding the hell out of an empty tank with 100 and 50 pound HE shells and APBC rounds will eventually cause fractures and spalling.:rolleyes:

From looking at the photos the only thing that looked like it penetrated was the Tiger II's own 88mm gun.
They stated that both the Russian 100mm & 122mm high velocity AP rounds penetrated its frontal plate & front turret. But I really don't care, Germans can have the King Tiger if they like but I really don't think it's what's needed the most. The only 2 tank maps I play are Orel and BDJ which are both Kursk scenarios and are both German teamstack Vunderlands because Russians have no "heavies" (either in armor or firepower) to compete. No SU-152 no SU-122 no KV-1E. Another side benefit of adding for instance the KV-1E would be that now the Tiger could be featured in 1942 scenarios with less protest on the Russian side if they had the "good" KV. But I still say SU-152 would be the best bet for "bang for your buck" because it was the earliest available tank capable of destroying Tigers & Panthers and can be used for Kursk scenarios all the way until the end of the war.
 

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
Really? Well, you should read the article again. Then check out the penetration data there.

4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres.

5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres.
When they say "hull" they are refering to the glacias. Look in the picture where it says: "penetrations in the front hull armor" notice the "hull" they are talking about is in fact the upper plate or glacias (whatever the technical term is).
 

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
35
When they say "hull" they are refering to the glacias. Look in the picture where it says: "penetrations in the front hull armor" notice the "hull" they are talking about is in fact the upper plate or glacias (whatever the technical term is).

4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres
.
They are refering to where the front and side armor plates interlock. Not the actual front plate.


5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres.
Well, isn't that interesting. Too bad their own penetration data proves otherwise.

Tiger II front turret plate - 180mm

122mm penetration at 1000 meters from 90 degrees - 142mm
100mm penetration at 1000 meters from 90 degrees - 135mm

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=58
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=106&Itemid=49

The 100mm BS-3 is an anti-tank gun. It's penetration at 1000 meters is 170mm. Still not enough to support their claim of penetrating the 180mm turret plate.
 
Last edited:

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
They are refering to where the front and side armor plates interlock. Not the actual front plate.
Well in the pic they show of the front plate penetrations I see what looks to be deep penetrations in non-joint areas.



Well, isn't that interesting. Too bad their own penetration data proves otherwise.

Tiger II front turret plate - 180mm

122mm penetration at 1000 meters from 90 degrees - 142mm
100mm penetration at 1000 meters from 90 degrees - 135mm
Maybe that's because the Tiger 2 armor is indeed not good or typical quality as the test concludes and thus 180mm of Tiger 2 armor is behaving like 110mm of good quality armor. I'm speculating of course.
 

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
35
in the pic they show of the front plate penetrations I see what looks to be deep penetrations in non-joint areas.
The width of the deeper penetrations are smaller then the dents. For all we know those are penetrations made by the Tiger II's own gun which can penetrate the front hull and turret.

This really isn't going anywhere. The whole point is the front of the Tiger II was never penetrated in combat. In RO it should be the same.
 

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
The width of the deeper penetrations are smaller then the dents. For all we know those are penetrations made by the Tiger II's own gun which can penetrate the front hull and turret.

This really isn't going anywhere. The whole point is the front of the Tiger II was never penetrated in combat. In RO it should be the same.
Like I said in an earlier post: Was it not penetrated due to it being inpenetrable or was it not penetrated because no Russian tank ever tried or had the opportunity or got close enough? RO is a game where scenarios that never historically happened happen all the time. You can't just take blanket statements (made by who knows?) and use them as basis for implementing something while ingnoring RL test data. So based on RL data an IS2 that gets within 600 meters could kill a King Tiger. Maybe it never happened IRL because circumstances never presented themselves. I'm sure no BA64 was ever penetrated in combat by a 20mm american AA naval gun but that doesn't mean it couldn't be.



The 100mm BS-3 is an anti-tank gun. It's penetration at 1000 meters is 170mm. Still not enough to support their claim of penetrating the 180mm turret plate.
Test numbers alone aren't absolute. We live in the real physical world where things vary and are not 100% absolute.
 

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
35
Like I said in an earlier post: Was it not penetrated due to it being inpenetrable or was it not penetrated because no Russian tank ever tried or had the opportunity or got close enough? RO is a game where scenarios that never historically happened happen all the time. You can't just take blanket statements (made by who knows?) and use them as basis for implementing something while ingnoring RL test data. So based on RL data an IS2 that gets within 600 meters could kill a King Tiger. Maybe it never happened IRL because* circumstances never presented themselves. I'm sure no BA64 was ever penetrated in combat by a 20mm american AA naval gun but that doesn't mean it couldn't be.
Maybe there are Nazi moon bases and moleman are the cause of earth quakes and volcanic eruptions! :rolleyes:

It didn't happen in real life because it is a fact that everything the allies threw at the front of the Tiger II in combat glanced off. Anyone can take a photo and write a caption under it. Photos of a Tiger II hull beaten to hell by dozens of hits by large caliber HE and AP rounds won't convince me and there is the fact that their own penetration data doesn't coincide with what they claim happened in the tests. Neither will "because it didn't happen in real life doesn't mean it shouldn't happen in video games". Because video games are just like real life. :rolleyes:

Theoretically the only Soviet anti-tank gun capable of penetrating the front of the Tiger II is the 100mm BS-3 firing the BR412D round below 100 meters.
 
Last edited:

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
It didn't happen in real life because it is a fact that everything the allies threw at the front of the Tiger II in combat glanced off.
Where are all these facts stating the SU-100 & IS2 fired their AP rounds at the King Tiger and they glanced off?

Photos of a Tiger II hull beaten to hell by dozens of hits by large caliber HE and AP rounds won't convince me and there is the fact that their own penetration data doesn't coincide with what they claim happened in the tests.
OK. So you would like to see the King Tiger (which was touted by who knows to be never penetrated "in combat" and so should be the same in RO) in game. Mmmm let me think a little.........So you want an invincible tank that no Russian tank can ever hope to destroy? Hmmmm sounds like some sweet gameplay there (for the Germans). So the current German teamstacking problem desperately needs to be kicked into overdrive I guess? It'll be fun for the Russians going 7 vs 25.
 

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
35
Where are all these facts stating the SU-100 & IS2 fired their AP rounds at the King Tiger and they glanced off?[/quoute]
Take a look at the penetration data on battlefield.ru.8989

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=58
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=106&Itemid=49

Or find me a combat report of an IS-2 or SU-100 penetrating the frontal armor of a Tiger II and no, that IS-2 ambushing a group of Tiger II's doesn't count.

OK. So you would like to see the King Tiger (which was touted by who knows to be never penetrated "in combat" and so should be the same in RO) in game. Mmmm let me think a little.........So you want an invincible tank that no Russian tank can ever hope to destroy? Hmmmm sounds like some sweet gameplay there (for the Germans). So the current German teamstacking problem desperately needs to be kicked into overdrive I guess? It'll be fun for the Russians going 7 vs 25.
Oh noes now you're putting words in my mouth.

If the Tiger II is put in RO I want to see it invulnerable to AP projectiles at the front. Because it infact was never penetrated in combat. Since RO is a combat FPS and not a Kubinka testing ground simulation that is how it should be. The sides and rear will be vulnerable to the IS-2 and T34/85 at 1000+ meters.
 

Recce

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 31, 2006
605
0
0
It was determined that the pictures were doctored
I had heard that one of the photos had been "photoshopped", and that this had been removed. How it was modified wasn't stated.
I'm not sure if you're calling out the 1944/1945 report or the original Tankomaster article.

This article on battlefield.ru has been thrown around the forum for the past year.
Why doesn't anyone mention the Achtung Panzer website article?
 
Last edited:

Welt

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
324
17
0
Finland
As AchtungPanzer (more fact than Battlefield.ru to some of you) says it:

significant damage and fragmentation but no penetration

You dont need to penetrate if the hits damage your tank to the point that you cant operate it.

Everyone, lets just stop this Tiger II discussion, its not going anywhere.
 

A-tree

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 3, 2006
370
11
0
UK
And now for something completely different
bt7.jpg

BT7 would be 1337
 
Status
Not open for further replies.