Armor quality of the Tiger I

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Peasant
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Peasant » 01 Oct 2019 19:18

Mobius wrote:
01 Oct 2019 15:56
While I've found both muzzle velocities for the 85mm gun in the same document there are slight ballistic differences if you look for them.
85mm BR-365 792 800.jpg
The only differences I see is that the one with 792m/s has terminal velocities shifted by the difference in the muzzle velocities (800m/s - 792m/s) at all ranges.

Something I think might be important to mention is that while the BR-365 penetration table is compiled using K constant = 2400, like all the other blunt headed soviet shells, BR-365K shell has the DeMarre constant set to 2275-80.

Image

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 14:57
Location: Pa

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Contender » 01 Oct 2019 19:31


Peasant
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Peasant » 01 Oct 2019 20:06

Contender wrote:
01 Oct 2019 19:31
Found this the other day:
https://elgri.livejournal.com/41694.html
This guy sounds like a f***** nutjob, like the ones that believe that the Twin Towers were blown up by the CIA to justify the invasion of Iraq and that reptile people have overtaken our government. Good thing logical thinking is not his forte, otherwise he wouldn't have posted a document disapproving his whole crazy theory right on top of the page:

Image
"D5-S85A is 48.8 calibers long but has the same length of rifling as the other 85mm guns."
There. It doesn't matter how long the entire gun is, if the rifling length is the same and they all use the same rounds, with the same propellant load, then they will all have the same muzzle velocity.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 14:57
Location: Pa

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Contender » 01 Oct 2019 20:33

The round "sleeves" part & US gun powder part was interesting however idk how valid it is as you say the person seems to be a bit of a "character" & translation is a bit difficult...
*Edit*
I think I linked the wrong one (sorry at work atm) try this link:
https://elgri.livejournal.com/24309.html

Peasant
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Peasant » 02 Oct 2019 21:16

Contender wrote:
01 Oct 2019 20:33
The round "sleeves" part & US gun powder part was interesting however idk how valid it is as you say the person seems to be a bit of a "character" & translation is a bit difficult...
*Edit*
I think I linked the wrong one (sorry at work atm) try this link:
https://elgri.livejournal.com/24309.html
People in the comment section agree that OP knows nothing about internal ballistics of the tank/AA guns and is loosely interpreting facts to suit his agenda.
But the final saying on the matter comes from this:
Image
"Velocity of the APHE-T projectile averaged 2605fps 83.7 feet from the gun muzzle."
There, the standard mv of this gun might've been either 792 or 800m/s, but either way it's nowhere close to what that guy is trying to prove.
Last edited by Peasant on 02 Oct 2019 21:27, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 14:57
Location: Pa

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Contender » 02 Oct 2019 21:21

It looked like this might have been the case but I wasn't sure, russian is not my first language.
Ty, for your patience & research m8. :thumbsup:

Peasant
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Peasant » 26 Nov 2019 18:24

Estimated immunity angles for Tiger I superstructure side armour(82mm/0° 280-300BHN) against the soviet 85mm BR-365/BR-365K shells. Estimated from Protection limits for US T33 90mm AP shell:
55° 787m/s
50° 714m/s
45° 658m/s
40° 614m/s
Approximate equivalent ranges for BR-365K shell:
55° 100m
50° 500m
45° 850m
40° 1100m
A word of caution: these are pretty pessimistic estimates for protection afforded by the Tiger's armour, since the soviet shells would likely perform a bit worse than post war T33 shell in these conditions, so while it is possible that the armour might stop 85mm shells at somewhat higher velocities, it's extremely unlikely for them to defeat armour of good quality(under protection criteria) at lower striking speeds than those given here.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by critical mass » 26 Nov 2019 23:02

From what I gather, the 85mm was incapable of holing the 80mm/55deg glacis at any range and had difficulties to penetrate the 60mm/55deg nose plate at short range.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Mobius » 27 Nov 2019 14:27

Peasant wrote:
02 Oct 2019 21:16
"Velocity of the APHE-T projectile averaged 2605fps 83.7 feet from the gun muzzle."
There, the standard mv of this gun might've been either 792 or 800m/s, but either way it's nowhere close to what that guy is trying to prove.
You can get that with a MV of 802m/s. The range at which you would get 1856 ft/s would be about 2900 yds.
[corrected]
I don't have much data on the 76mm T128 other than it apparently is uncapped AP projectile.
Last edited by Mobius on 27 Nov 2019 19:08, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2083
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Yoozername » 27 Nov 2019 18:53

Mobius wrote:
27 Nov 2019 14:27
Peasant wrote:
02 Oct 2019 21:16
"Velocity of the APHE-T projectile averaged 2605fps 83.7 feet from the gun muzzle."
There, the standard mv of this gun might've been either 792 or 800m/s, but either way it's nowhere close to what that guy is trying to prove.
You can get that with a MV of 802m/s. The range at which you would get 1856 m/s would be about 2900 yds.
I don't have much data on the 76mm T128 other than it apparently is uncapped AP projectile.
Do you mean 1856 ft/s?

This probably has info on T128

https://www.scribd.com/document/2510578 ... imit-Study

Image

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Mobius » 27 Nov 2019 19:28

That would put it in same the category as the M79 shot.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by critical mass » 28 Nov 2019 11:54

Wasn’t the T128 sort of a calibration AP used for armor trials, primarily?
I recall Richard Anderson (?) shared some information but I cants find them now.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Mobius » 28 Nov 2019 14:54

critical mass wrote:
28 Nov 2019 11:54
Wasn’t the T128 sort of a calibration AP used for armor trials, primarily?
I recall Richard Anderson (?) shared some information but I cants find them now.
I've never seen anything about it before but is in this study below (page 36) which I believe you sent me.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/301343.pdf
It may or may not have a ballistic windscreen. The photos yousername post show no windscreen.
But using its other name M339 does show a windscreen.
But the description can't possibly be correct.
http://bulletpicker.com/cartridge_-76mm-ap-t_-m339.html

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2083
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Yoozername » 28 Nov 2019 15:55

That projectile is from a collector site. Basically selling brass and such. It could be missing the screen. It is a 'E6' variant I suppose. This ammunition is from the walker bulldog tanks I believe. (M41?) Some people speculate that it is solid shot, but a form of tungsten steel. In any case, pun intended, the driving bands are crimped into the brass itself, Perhaps explaining the damage on that projectile's first (thin) driving band.

I would take this data as more accurate...

https://firearmcentral.fandom.com/wiki/76mm_Gun,_M32

Peasant
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Armor quality of the Tiger I

Post by Peasant » 15 Feb 2020 22:06

Avalancheon wrote:
03 Dec 2018 16:45

Yeah, about that. I was reading the book, Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka. Apparently, the 9th tank corps of the Central Front captured a Tiger tank at Kursk and did ballistics tests on it. The results are surprising.

''From the front target aspect, not a single shell from any of the guns, fired from a range of 2000 meters, was capable of penetrating the tanks frontal armor. At a range up to 400 meters, the 45mm shell can disable the armament and jam the turret. From a range up to 400 meters, the armor piercing 85mm shell penetrates to a depth of 12-13mm and remains embedded.''

So once again, the mystery deepens. Why were the results so different from the other tests? Maybe they were firing at the thicker armor of the mantlet, or were shooting at an oblique angle (unlikely)... How could the 85mm penetrate at 1000 meters and yet fail at 400 meters? The only thing I can think of is shatter gap!

I have no idea what the title of this report was, or who signed off on it. Its only identifier is: TsAMO RF NSB inv. No 9989, s. 89. My attempts to contact the author were unsuccessful.
Sorry everyone for resurrecting an old thread, but I have found important information relevant to this part here. A user on the russian speaking part of the Internet has posted scans of the very same report referenced in the book on his blog, which sparked quite a discussion in the comment section about the results obtained: https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/37 ... w=13102454
Backup(scans only): https://imgur.com/a/q2BEXaD

I'm not gonna translate this because, even though I know russian, this writing is atrocious and the book pretty much sums it up with one but important exception: in the original it says not "12-13mm" but "12-13cm" which changes things completely. Since there are no thicknesses like these anywhere on the hull of the tank, we can only conclude that these shots were fired at the mantlet front which has thicknesses around 135-150mm in the central part.

Another mystery solved(?).

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”