Tiger II armor quality
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
The ko'd KT in Michael's Post #28 is a different tank from the one with the "impossible" penetration. The hits on the glacis are all different from the "impossible" tank below.
= =
Something definitely burned it out, that turret is scorched and side view shows central torsion bars have sagged. =
If this KT tank is #301 from s503 in August, then it can't be a 90mm hit, the M36 only arrived in Oct 44 and s503 fought on the British sector. Of other possible allied weapons, it only really leaves the 17pdr as capable of causing the damage. The depth of the scoops on the glacis and mg bulge speak of a close range encounter. The hit on the mg bulge would likely have caused the mg and ball mount some serious damage, maybe even pushing some parts inside? Where's the mg barrel? I wouldn't like to have been that mg Gunner, it would have seriously rung his bell! But his hatch is open, so he likely evacuated, as did the loader, who should have been torn to bits if the turret front WAS penetrated in that place. Maybe that's the evidence of no penetration?
= =
Something definitely burned it out, that turret is scorched and side view shows central torsion bars have sagged. =
If this KT tank is #301 from s503 in August, then it can't be a 90mm hit, the M36 only arrived in Oct 44 and s503 fought on the British sector. Of other possible allied weapons, it only really leaves the 17pdr as capable of causing the damage. The depth of the scoops on the glacis and mg bulge speak of a close range encounter. The hit on the mg bulge would likely have caused the mg and ball mount some serious damage, maybe even pushing some parts inside? Where's the mg barrel? I wouldn't like to have been that mg Gunner, it would have seriously rung his bell! But his hatch is open, so he likely evacuated, as did the loader, who should have been torn to bits if the turret front WAS penetrated in that place. Maybe that's the evidence of no penetration?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
Yes I see it now. I tried to be clever and did not check before introducing that photo. Serves me right.I have removed the attachment .
The tank at Sailly (Aug 28) is pretty well documented in Bruno Renoult's 'La Battaille Du Vexin'
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/BATAILLE-VEX ... id=1&pid=1
It is a very well researched book on this period.He uses accounts from both sides of the engagement including the German crew.
The (wrong) photo I used is on page 21 of Michael Green's Tiger Tanks 1995
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tiger-Tanks-Mi ... 0879389540
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
There does appear to be some distortion to the armor. Perhaps a pin came out? I just don't think machining down the turret front armoris a good idea.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
This image, if you look by the red arrow, and follow the zimmerit from the side armor forward, it appears that the front armor is detached from the side armor. Also, perhaps missing a pin. Click on image for enlarged view.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
There is a big chunk of the MG bulge missing This is a before and after of the same tank
looks like a hit on the bottom of the mantlet as well
looks like a hit on the bottom of the mantlet as well
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
The left edge of the faceplate of the turret shows some lateral displacement. Such displacement is typical for ductile holing events because the centre of impact was aprox. 1.0 to 1.5 cal distant the nearest (original) edge. However, when one examines the amount of dispacement, one can readily see no lateral displacement on the turret side armor and only minimal amount of lateral displacement at the fron/ side plate joint. The faceplate is much deeper than indicated by the photo and if the proectile obtained a full perforation, than it stands to reason that some sort of displacement would need to take place further behind the face of the plate, too. The armor does not disappear. It either gets displaced or else, it gets ejected with a plug formation. Because there is much more lateral displacement visible is at the face of the plate, the interpretation that the projectile did achieve a full perforation is tentatively not supported (gradual reduction of lateral displacement).
There seems to be enouther incomplete penetration at the mantlet.
There seems to be enouther incomplete penetration at the mantlet.
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
I can't quite see what Yoozername sees in his post #34. His red arrow is actually pointing at the underside of the opened mg gunner/radio op hatch. Do you mean something just above that?
The fully opened loader and commander's hatches speak of the turret crew being alive enough to evacuate, and that doesn't fit in with, but doesn't exclude, the turret front being pierced by a full size 17pdr shot...the loader should, at the least, have been covered in hi velocity, semi molten, metal spallings, if not torn in half by a shell or plug...
But, SOMETHING penetrated somewhere and burnt the tank up..
Critical Mass's blow up image above seems to reveal more damage inside the hull mg aperture. That and the absent mg barrel could mean that weak point was semi penetrated?
The fully opened loader and commander's hatches speak of the turret crew being alive enough to evacuate, and that doesn't fit in with, but doesn't exclude, the turret front being pierced by a full size 17pdr shot...the loader should, at the least, have been covered in hi velocity, semi molten, metal spallings, if not torn in half by a shell or plug...
But, SOMETHING penetrated somewhere and burnt the tank up..
Critical Mass's blow up image above seems to reveal more damage inside the hull mg aperture. That and the absent mg barrel could mean that weak point was semi penetrated?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
The details I posted about the engagement means that it was not a 17pdr. It was a victim of US tank destroyers. Look up the location 'Sailly'.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/782 ... 4d1.714958
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
The hit on the lower part of the mantlet is probably the deflection that shot downward into the radio operators station and killed him, and caused the damage to the drive train. If this account matches to that Tiger.
Quote:
...I started again in the direction of Stavelot trying to give my best. About fifty meters in front of the edge of the town my driver suddenly swung around our tank. The interphone isn't working, I don't know what happened. The driver drove back at full speed, passing the command post in the direction of Petit Spai. About 100 meters in front of the bridge we drive into the ditch. Only now can I see the reason for the sudden turn-around of the driver. We have received a hit into the turret ring. The shell had bounced downwards into the hull, torn off the hatch of the radio-operator, and killed the radio-operator...Fragments had destroyed the steering gear and the gearbox, oil was leaking. As the driving mechanism and gear shift was conducted by oil pressure the failing oil pressure caused the tank to run out of control. The Tiger was totally immobilized.
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
I think you’ve cracked it yoozer.
The KT burnt due to the shot that hit the mantlet’s 7 O’clock position, it deflected down, leaving a slight scar. It caused a fire in the front of the tank.
The big goddamn hole in the turret front isn’t a penetration. It may have popped part of the nearest welds. Kudos to the shooter though,he tried his best. But an M10’s 76mm can’t penetrate 180mm plate. Not in this universe.
This explains how the loader and commander survive to bale out, but the tank burns from frontal hits.
Sussed.
The KT burnt due to the shot that hit the mantlet’s 7 O’clock position, it deflected down, leaving a slight scar. It caused a fire in the front of the tank.
The big goddamn hole in the turret front isn’t a penetration. It may have popped part of the nearest welds. Kudos to the shooter though,he tried his best. But an M10’s 76mm can’t penetrate 180mm plate. Not in this universe.
This explains how the loader and commander survive to bale out, but the tank burns from frontal hits.
Sussed.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
Yoozername wrote: ↑19 Apr 2020, 16:26The hit on the lower part of the mantlet is probably the deflection that shot downward into the radio operators station and killed him, and caused the damage to the drive train. If this account matches to that Tiger.
I started again in the direction of Stavelot.....
It does not. One TII (301) destroyed in August and the other (133) in December. Different locations, different Tigers, different date and different Unit.
It clearly explains all this in the post I linked.
viewtopic.php?p=2244629#p2244629
No.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
The AAR for 813 TD Bn. Aug 28 1944
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
Maybe the whole subdiscussion could be moved to Michael Kennys thread?
I quote:
Thus, the tank was riddled but later examination demonstrated that none penetrated(!). At least thats what is claimed by sources? Similarely, the AAR reports "knocked out", which does not equal to be penetrated. I am sure, that available photos of a TIGER2 front turret beeing actually perforated by 76mm/3" regular AP (no HVAP is present in europe at this point) would have been worth mentioning.
Although I can understand a deep impact might get people nowadays to think there was a hole, it does not mean a perforation did occur.
This coincides with my, admittedly tentatve observation in relation to plastic deformation. 76mm or 3" firing either M62 shell or M79 shot cannot perforate >2.4 cal/D. However, if the penetrator stays intact, it may affect an intact rebound an leave a well defined cavity, just as is shown. The Army 3" M79 AP-T is well studied in this regard from Dr. Hersheys experimental series of ballistic tests.
Even the alternative, that requires a poor quality plate, is not a workable presumption. The quality of an 18cm thick plate to allow perforation of a 3" intact penetrator at 10° (minimum) obliquity and 500 yd would require either a very low BHN (80-100), lower even than mild steel or some sort of failure by extremely brittle, early plugging/ discing. Both are not possible. Armor plate was tested on BHN levels and needed to fullfill a minimum requirement, which is far in excess of that of mild steel. Also, it is obvious from the photos that the plate responded in ductile plastic deformation, not in excessive brittleness, thus removing the 2nd option too.
I quote:
-emphasized by myselfeLa Battaille Du Vexin, Bruno Renoult.
US view:
Our tanks continued to advance by firing all their guns on the enemy's armor, which were soon riddled with impacts none of which penetrate as I will see later. Seriously manhandled we saw the crew evacuate the tank…………..
Thus, the tank was riddled but later examination demonstrated that none penetrated(!). At least thats what is claimed by sources? Similarely, the AAR reports "knocked out", which does not equal to be penetrated. I am sure, that available photos of a TIGER2 front turret beeing actually perforated by 76mm/3" regular AP (no HVAP is present in europe at this point) would have been worth mentioning.
Although I can understand a deep impact might get people nowadays to think there was a hole, it does not mean a perforation did occur.
This coincides with my, admittedly tentatve observation in relation to plastic deformation. 76mm or 3" firing either M62 shell or M79 shot cannot perforate >2.4 cal/D. However, if the penetrator stays intact, it may affect an intact rebound an leave a well defined cavity, just as is shown. The Army 3" M79 AP-T is well studied in this regard from Dr. Hersheys experimental series of ballistic tests.
Even the alternative, that requires a poor quality plate, is not a workable presumption. The quality of an 18cm thick plate to allow perforation of a 3" intact penetrator at 10° (minimum) obliquity and 500 yd would require either a very low BHN (80-100), lower even than mild steel or some sort of failure by extremely brittle, early plugging/ discing. Both are not possible. Armor plate was tested on BHN levels and needed to fullfill a minimum requirement, which is far in excess of that of mild steel. Also, it is obvious from the photos that the plate responded in ductile plastic deformation, not in excessive brittleness, thus removing the 2nd option too.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
There was another source:critical mass wrote: ↑20 Apr 2020, 17:56
US view:
Our tanks continued to advance by firing all their guns on the enemy's armor, which were soon riddled with impacts none of which penetrate as I will see later. Seriously manhandled we saw the crew evacuate the tank………….. -emphasized by myself
Thus, the tank was riddled but later examination demonstrated that none penetrated(!). At least thats what is claimed by sources?
German view:
…………around noon it was hell, we were harassed by artillery and anti-tank fire under repeated blows. I suppose that a projectile ended up penetrating, because Tiger was on fire, we evacuated immediately but our radioman. Klaus Ricke, seriously injured, was transported to Sailly to the aid station of a cloister (Prioress of Montcient) where he was treated, but it was already too late and Ricke died. Our Panzer had been hit 18 times
The photo I posted in the linked thread shows several strikes on this Tiger II prior to its eventual demise. Counting strikes and attributing them all to the last action would be an error.
Something got inside that tank; mortally wounded a crewman and set it alight.
critical mass wrote: ↑20 Apr 2020, 17:56
Similarely, the AAR reports "knocked out", which does not equal to be penetrated. I am sure, that available photos of a TIGER2 front turret beeing actually perforated by 76mm/3" regular AP (no HVAP is present in europe at this point) would have been worth mentioning.
Why? The TII was first encountered/knocked out on July 18 1944 during GOODWOOD. Several wrecks lay scattered about and there are no WD 'reports' lauding any KO as some great feat of arms. There are no OR Reports that identify this tank as a problem and no crash firing trials on any wreck. Indeed the War Diary of The Irish Guards identified one destroyed TII as a Panther. There was absolutely no 'TII Panic' in NWE in 1944.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Panther 100 mm Cast Plate Qualities
To be clear, I don't think that hit on the Tiger is a complete penetration, I am questioning that design as being sound. It appears that the hit is probably a M62 76.2 mm hit or sorts (I don't follow MK's thread).I can't quite see what Yoozername sees in his post #34. His red arrow is actually pointing at the underside of the opened mg gunner/radio op hatch. Do you mean something just above that?
Reducing that edge thickness, to accommodate the side armor, is inferior to a solid plate across the front. The use of pins, evidently put in blind holes, and just welded on its outer surface does not lock in the plates. If the pins went all the way through, and were welded somehow inside the AFV, then it might give better strength. I would expect that the hit may have busted the weld at least by the displaced turret frontal armor. Repeated hits in this area, especially close to that beveled edge, would not bode well.