Tiger II armor quality

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Tiger II armor quality

#1

Post by critical mass » 17 Apr 2020, 17:04

They do. Keying plates to each other provides a high degree of mutual support, both structurally and under ballistic impact. Unfortunately, neither the turret roof- nor the turret bottom plates are connected in this way with the faceplate.

I am now convinced that the turret front of TIGER-II are RHA and not CAST ARMOR. Courtesey of Jentz & Doyle, we have a telling cutaway drawing of the serial turret which shows the front plate and the bulge. The bulge is clearly denoted with a differing graphic code, which points strongly to it not beeing the same material as the turret face plate:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi ... stiger.php
https://i.imgur.com/Uf8b55d.png

Also other indications support that. The weld lines connecting the cast rounded element with the RHA plate are visible in the Kubinka trial series foto No. 26 and No. 33. The base of the turret has cut out sections to not interfere with the hatches. This cutting or machining was only needed for RHA plates, while a cast plate would utilize the advantages of rounded corners instead. The turret face plate of late TIGER2 was made of E43, which is never used for cast armor but only for thick RHA plating. The mantlet and other cast elements of supposedly deep cross sections are made of alloy "D" instead. Similarely, the early turret of the TIGER-2, albeit severely bent (bent, reheated and bent again), was made from RHA, not cast armor.

The function of the bulge, which is an element made of cast armor, is to protect the gunport from blast, shrapnell and direct ballistic impact. It fully overlaps with the turret faceplate behind. The armored section thickness increases here from the mean turret front plate thickness of~185 mm to ~265mm (bottom) - 310mm (sides) and 290 mm (top). Because cast armor is rounded, it can be made showing fewer edge effects. Cast armor is not as resistent as RHA and the connection between both elements consitutes a discontinuity, too, so the netto protective effect is somewhat lower. If I use the .85 cast modifier used by the germans in their own sources, and take into account the effect of a laminate, then the single layer RHA aequivalent would be ~220 to ~280mm RHA at it´s thickest section (mostly 250mm and less due to the cutout in the faceplate not always fully overlapping). Because this section is also closest to the free edge of the gunport, effectively its lower, ca. 190 to 220mm, depending on cal. The graduall increase in section thickness close to the free central opening somewhat over-compensates the free edge effect in relation to the gun port opening. Its a little bit like the KUGELBLENDE, which is not a weakpoint anymore.

During the KUBINKA trials, the soviets seem to have removed the protective casting in front of the RHA in order to expose the RHA turret front during the turret firings (Foto No.26), albeit its still present before (!) the trials commenced.

It wouldn´t surprise me much to see something very similar happening on the JAGDTIGER, too.
Attachments
kubinka4.jpg
kubinka3.jpg

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#2

Post by bam » 17 Apr 2020, 18:21

I agree, the 180mm KT turret front plate isn’t cast. Looking at the size of the impacts on that front plate, I’ll wager the bulges just fell off as the welds failed. Those penetration holes are scary, do you know if they’re 100 mm or 122 mm?
I’ve read of plenty of accounts of JS2s firing 122mm at the glacis of panthers and tiger Is, not penetrating, but blowing open the weld seams due to shocks, rendering the tank hors de combat.

The Jagdtiger superstructure front plate WAS a casting.
This quote is from Jagdtiger Technical History Vol.1 by Devey, page 17:
"With the exception of the superstructure front, all plates were rolled [RHA] . The superstructure front was a casting, as was the mantlet. The exhaust cover protection blocks, fan covers and radiator covers were steel castings."


Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#3

Post by Yoozername » 17 Apr 2020, 21:04

bam wrote:
17 Apr 2020, 18:21

The Jagdtiger superstructure front plate WAS a casting.
This quote is from Jagdtiger Technical History Vol.1 by Devey, page 17:
"With the exception of the superstructure front, all plates were rolled [RHA] . The superstructure front was a casting, as was the mantlet. The exhaust cover protection blocks, fan covers and radiator covers were steel castings."
Of course it is. look at the surface, there is no welds around the bulge....
noweld.jpg
Also, it is a very odd shape under the mantlet...
castjt.jpg

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#4

Post by Yoozername » 17 Apr 2020, 21:53

I've seen photos of tiger armour plates held on place on jigs BEFORE the welding, so the plates are held with slight gaps between them, to accommodate the weld bead. This could be the moment to drill holes?

The Maus also uses bolts, and as there's just 1 book on that subject, I have found the sources. Kampfpanzer Maus by Fröhlich
I would like to see that if someone could post it. I posted a similar jig picture for the panther.

I suspect that the pins are also an aid for assembly in the jig process. That is, The turret frontal armor is put in place first, the rear plate is put in place next, and the curved side armor is attached. The pins are needed in the front plate so that the side armor (already drilled) can slide over them. The back part of the side armor fits into the rear plate with the usual notched interlocking method. Once fitment meets spec, they can start welding.

It is interesting that the Maus uses both the interlocking plates and pins. They actually reduced the size of the pins from 100mm to 80mm since they thought it might weaken the plate

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... thickness/

IF the Tiger II used a rolled plate for the front turret THEN it would have to have some extensive machining. First to cut it to the basic trapezoidal shape. Second machine off the sides, and this is not a right angle or so it appears, and drill 4 holes each side for pins, drill the optics and MG holes, cut out center gun hole for the cast rounded part behind mantlet. Also, machine off the lower edges so that the turret does not hit hatches, etc.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#5

Post by Yoozername » 17 Apr 2020, 23:15

Inside of Tiger II turret. Hole for optics. The rectangle might be a slide? Welds appear to be consistent across the surfaces. Meaning similar materials.

Image

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#6

Post by bam » 17 Apr 2020, 23:43

Found these images of the turret assembly jigs, page 197, from Trojcas KONIGSTIGER book, 720 page version, 2014. They are grainy images to begin with, please don't blame my camera!
1587159048962-2085162702.jpg
1587159140236678856236.jpg
=
The weld beads around the front plate Bulge show up in the above photo, confirming the kubinka images
=
1587159307675-291893820.jpg
=
I'm afraid those are the clearest images of the turret assembly in that book. The above photo says it has been Tack welded, ie not the final full weld up. But it looks like the tacking precedes the pins being drilled. The pins are not yet in place. I can confirm, despite grainy quality, the images don't show pins in place yet. None of the book's other images of the Tiger in the welding jigs show the pins, they likely came at a later stage.
=
1587159981485-1566070714.jpg
=

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#7

Post by bam » 18 Apr 2020, 00:05

To help Yoozername gauge the depth of the turret front plate verses the side plate's pins, Trojca says the track hangers are 40mm wide. So you can use them to measure the 180mm distance in your post #13 images; go 4 and a half widths back from the front edge,, which takes you behind the pins.
=
1587161104212-1330889079.jpg

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#8

Post by Yoozername » 18 Apr 2020, 07:19

Is the 'Turret in the Manipulator' getting reamed out for the cast blast protector??

So, they drill through the tacked-on side armor, continue drilling into the frontal armor behind that side armor?, and then insert a pin and weld that pin...on its outer perimeter?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#9

Post by Yoozername » 18 Apr 2020, 07:33

I don't quite buy the 'edge-effect' giving such protection. Most people have seen this. Can't really say it is a penetration, or the story behind it. In any case, it does not seem the pins were fully through the interior, or welded on that side. They are just banged in a hole, and welded on teh outside.

Image

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#10

Post by Yoozername » 18 Apr 2020, 07:41

bam wrote:
17 Apr 2020, 18:21
I agree, the 180mm KT turret front plate isn’t cast. Looking at the size of the impacts on that front plate, I’ll wager the bulges just fell off as the welds failed. Those penetration holes are scary, do you know if they’re 100 mm or 122 mm?
I’ve read of plenty of accounts of JS2s firing 122mm at the glacis of panthers and tiger Is, not penetrating, but blowing open the weld seams due to shocks, rendering the tank hors de combat.
download/file.php?id=292065&t=1

bam
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 23:10
Location: moseley-u.k.

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#11

Post by bam » 18 Apr 2020, 12:41

The turret in the manipulator is just attached to a revolving jig that can rotate the turret to enable welding from above on all required joints. The device attached to the front plate just holds the turret. It looks like most of the guns aperture is already machined out, so that plate was probably machined when it was a single solid plate, before it was joined to the rest of the plates.

The likely "impossible" penetration of the front plate by the 17pdr looks as though it is mostly to the right of the 80mm side plate. And maybe it penetrated the front plate then disintegrated upon hitting the edge of the side plate. It's impossible to know from that image.
I don't get why that article says "they say this is impossible"... The red disk chart shows that the turret is likely penetrated from the front by 17pdr, the red area = penetration? Plus, which type of KT turret were they firing at?

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 15:57
Location: Pa

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#12

Post by Contender » 18 Apr 2020, 14:52

Yoozername wrote:
18 Apr 2020, 07:33
pic
Perhaps its been posted here in the past, but I've never seen any other photos of that vehicle. The dark spot might not be a penetration but a deep scoop however unlikely this may appear since the penetration is a dark void despite the turret hatches being open.
In any case are you quite sure that damage/penetration was from a 17pdr? I've heard everything from the Pak 43 to the US 90 mm/17pdr credited, even a few claims of the US 76mm.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#13

Post by Michael Kenny » 18 Apr 2020, 15:26

Contender wrote:
18 Apr 2020, 14:52
[ I've never seen any other photos of that vehicle. The dark spot might not be a penetration but a deep scoop however unlikely this may appear since the penetration is a dark void despite the turret hatches being open.
In any case are you quite sure that damage/penetration was from a 17pdr? I've heard everything from the Pak 43 to the US 90 mm/17pdr credited, even a few claims of the US 76mm.

Details here:

viewtopic.php?p=2244629#p2244629
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 18 Apr 2020, 21:08, edited 2 times in total.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#14

Post by critical mass » 18 Apr 2020, 17:08

bam wrote:
17 Apr 2020, 18:21
Looking at the size of the impacts on that front plate, I’ll wager the bulges just fell off as the welds failed. Those penetration holes are scary, do you know if they’re 100 mm or 122 mm?

The Jagdtiger superstructure front plate WAS a casting.
This quote is from Jagdtiger Technical History Vol.1 by Devey, page 17:
"With the exception of the superstructure front, all plates were rolled [RHA] . The superstructure front was a casting, as was the mantlet. The exhaust cover protection blocks, fan covers and radiator covers were steel castings."
All three perforations in foto No#26 in the Kubinka trials stem from german 88mm Pzgr39 fired by PAK43. The holes are ductile events with petals starting to form, implying an intact penetrator, as could be expected. I disagree that the casting just fell off. In the schematic drawing of the firing trials with hit markings, the turret faceplate is drawn without its cast armor protecting the gunport, this is a strong indicator for its removal on purpose. Understandably so, because it represented something new and might have bene considered worthy of studies seperate from ballistic trial. It´s also not mentioned, despite at least one, possibly two hits should have made contact with it before hitting the faceplate had it been there.

I think the phots from the TIGER2 turrets on the manipulators come from a british post war report, which also entailed MAUS data. I think I have it somewhere at the library but cant remember the title.
EDIT: found it:
https://de.scribd.com/doc/281797280/BIO ... rrets-1948
it is also of interest in regard to construction and plate type:
"...(...) and the fact that the front [context is turret, my note] on the Panther was cast whereas that of the TIGER II was plate.

In regard to the Tiger2 turret penetration. It does not seem conclusive to me. There is an entry impact visible. No evidence for the presence of a hole through or plug formation has been forwarded, ever, to the best of my knowldge. The cavity in the faceplate is not rigged but shows a ductile and plastic deformation. It´s way too large in diameter for APDS/HVAP/APCR type sub calibre penetrators.
The little evidence available points towards full calibre, capped AP of high quality causing the impact. The pastic deformation implies that shell apparently did not shatter or went fully into break up upon impact, whether or not it actually perforated or (more likely) rebound. This makes 17pdr APCBC or 88mm Pzgr39 the most likely candidates. Its nowhere certain that an actual perforation event, that is the projectile through the plate, took place. The germans at least in a statement dated to dec. 1944 pointed out that the 18cm flat turret armor plate was never penetrated in battle. That doesn´t need to be correct, it only mirrors their believe at that point.
If (hypothetically) a perforation took place, I regard 17pdr more probable than 88mm FLAK (insufficient kinetic energy to obtain a perforation at range). My default interpretation would be to remain inconclusive, even sceptical as far as the -projectile through the plate- definition is concerned.
Last edited by critical mass on 18 Apr 2020, 18:41, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 15:57
Location: Pa

Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities

#15

Post by Contender » 18 Apr 2020, 18:19

critical mass wrote:
18 Apr 2020, 17:08
In regard to the Tiger2 turret penetration. It does not seem conclusive to me. There is an entry hole visible. No evidence for an exit hole or plug has been forwarded, ever, to the best of my knowldge. The hole is not rigged but shows a ductile holing. It´s too big for APDS/HVAP/APCR type penetrators.

I think I might have derailed the discussion a bit so my last comment on the Tiger II turret penetration stuff (not strictly relating to cast armor):
Tried to lighten the area:
Image
reminds me a bit of this:
Image
Apparently Stuk 37 v. KW.
Last edited by Contender on 18 Apr 2020, 22:42, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

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