Pz-VIe Turret

[Voriax]

Paul, we love the game!

That's why we end up in these discussions that occasionally are almost nitpicking

Also this is a good sign for you. We are so happy with the general workings of the game that we have time to start whining at (relatively) minor matters! Just compare the content of early topics vs current ones.

As for the IS-3, who knows what will happen to it when the OOB rewrite happens.

Voriax

[Fabio Prado]

Originally posted by victorhauser:
Voriax Is Correct...


If you will take the time to check out the websites provided by Voriax, you will discover an additional site. The site I'm referring to is at (I don't know how to insert hyperlinks so you will have to type in the URL your self):
http://www.tiger1e.com/turret/TurretShape.html

This site shows a complete step-by-step process as to how the Tiger I turret is built. I'm not trying to sound pendantic or arrogant, but anybody who talks about the Tiger I turret without an understanding of how the Tiger I turret is built simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Please check out that site.

Simply put, the Tiger I doesn't HAVE a "front turret" in the way we think of other tanks. There is just a hole. When books quote 100mm of front turret and 100mm of gun mantlet, they are talking about one and the same thing. There are not two separate armored entities. The gun mantlet is absolutely and quite literally the only thing standing between the outside and the inside of the Tiger I. When you see the way the turret is built you will know for sure what I am talking about.

The Tiger I should have an effective front-turret armor value of around 120mm (plus or minus). This is not opinion or conjecture. This is fact based on the actual step-by-step construction and layout of the turret itself.

Voriax was correct. Voriax IS correct. I have seen it with my own eyes.
http://www.tiger1e.com/turret/TurretShape.html

Talk about arrogance...

The pages you so kindly quoted are about building a model of a Tiger I - they are NOT a wartime german technical sketch of the Tiger I turret, old boy...

Now, please pay attention and LEARN:

Like the Panther, the gun mantlet of the Tiger covered most of the turret front. Unlike the Panther, however, it was near-vertical. The thickness of the mantlet was 100-145 mm thick. It has thickened part at the left and right edge, as well as the sight port and the big boss around the gun tube. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger also had heavy bars of turret armor in back of the mantlet, making the effective armor in these areas 200+ mm. In fact only small areas of the turret front had an effective thickness of 100 mm.

The data above are not to be regarded as the absolute values for the ranges at which the armor could be penetrated. There was a fairly large variance in both the protection offered by the same thickness of different armor plates and thickness penetrated by the same type of armor-piercing projectiles.The Tiger's armor was invulnerable to attack from most tank guns firing normal armor-piercing shells or shot at ranges over 800 meters, including the American 75mm and the Russian 76mm. It is obvious that the 17-pdr. firing normal APCBC rounds could theoretically defeat the frontal armor of the Tiger I (and II !) in tank vs. tank actions in Europe. In practice, however, it was not that easy, see "Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; Thomas L Jentz; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6".

At this point it should be noted that the Tiger I had the BEST quality armor of any German tank. The Tiger's armor were NOT hard-facened. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured it stayed that way. The Tiger's armor was much superior to that of, for example the Panther, which armor had a much higher Brinell index, and was thus very brittle.
The quality of the Tiger 1's armor plates were superior to any other German tank, possible to any other WW2 tank (even if late war Shermans come close). Since production of the Tiger 1 stopped in August 1944, it wasn't too much affected by the generally decreasing quality of German armor plates.

I've researched the Tiger I and II for 30+ years. I've done my homework BEFORE I even thought about writing something about that subject. And that's not arrogance. It's a fact.

[Nikademus]

heh, nothing like causing a little strong debate in the morning

Certainly around the edges (for example) there are areas where the turret/mantlet armor would combine. However the large rectangular hole IMO is too large to ignore for the turret to warrent a 200mm rating.

There is one other aspect to the turret debate that has'nt been addressed. Some have suggested that the gun mechanism itself would 'add' to the armor factor and this is certainly true. However if a shell has sufficient velocity to penetrate the thick mantlet and strike this area, most likely the gun is going to be put out of action or perhaps jam the turret.

with a 200mm rating the liklihood of this happening is not very high. Others have suggested that its still not a big deal since other areas of the tank are far more vulnerable. In 'certain' cases this is true but what happens when the tank is hull down? (i assume this feature carried over from SP)
Only the turret will take the hits and with such a level of armor the Allies might as well be shooting spit balls. 120mm would still be a formidable level of armor for 95% of all Allied tank guns to get through vs. a virtual impossibility.

Another factor to consider....why did the Germans cease production of the Tiger I? why did'nt they just thicken the frontal plate so that there was near 200mm armor all along the front axis? True there was a desire to mount the 88/71 but i believe the incentive was equally due to the fact that by 1944 the Tiger I's armor scheme was becoming aged.

No one would question that the Tiger I was one of the most formidable and capable heavy tanks to emerge from the 2nd world war. But it's ensuing 'legendary' status tends to overexagerate it's capabilities.

[victorhauser]

You are correct Fabio. The "step-by-step" website is indeed how to build a model of the Tiger I turret. However, those instructions were taken directly from Krupp technical schematics and are precise in most cases down to the millimeter. In addition, the website to which the turret-construction website was linked was the one given by Voriax. And THAT website shows in clear photgraphic detail both internal and external views of the Tiger I turret.

In any event, what does seem clear in all this is that different people can draw entirely different conclusions from the same data and evidence. What is a perfectly obvious 120mm front turret rating for the Tiger I to me is an equally obvious 200mm front turret rating to somebody else.

However, regardless what the "final" rating of the Tiger I's front turret armor will be, the next question becomes, "Will that armor rating be accurately reflected in the Tiger I's price?" I trust Paul and the OOB team enough to believe that, yes, it will be soon (even though I don't think that's the case today in v2.3).

Postscript...
As I sit here typing, I just realized that that's what I've been struggling with all along. It's not that I'm irrevocably opposed to a front armor rating of 200mm for the Tiger I (pretty damned opposed, yes, but not irrevocably opposed ). But what's been really bugging me is that the Tiger I only costs 117 points with that 200mm of front turret armor. I only now realized it. And after all the heated debate this tank has generated, I believe that if ANY tank gets the most fair price that the SPWAW OOB team can produce in v3.0, it will be the Tiger I!

[Paul Vebber]

Thanks for the info on face - hardening.

There are so many issued with costs that I did not update the prices of many things. So the Tiger is one of the things thats needs correction price wise.

I appreciate everybodies input and am not myself permanantly wedded to 200mm for the front either

Phew, so much on the Tiger no one noticed we hadn't talked about the Panther yet

[Nikademus]

I did Paul heh, i just did'nt want to be too much of a pest this morning

Panther Turret armor was fairly consistant throughout the varients except for a slight thickening (100 to 110mm) with the only other notable change being in late model Panther's which eliminated the downward curve of the sloping Mantlet to eliminate the shot trap that it created.

I've noticed the same almost arbitrary turret front armor ratings in the Pz-IV varients as well.

[johnfmonahan]

How about a reality check ? Who lives near a museum that has a Tiger I ? Please take a tape measure and a notebook and get dirty. I live near an outdoor Military museum on the Wisconsin border near Illinois. They have mostly U.S. equipment. I will post an inventory and will measure items as desired.

------------------
When in doubt, go on line.

[Voriax]

Victor, this is for you

How does it feel if the Tiger price would be 151 points, and T34/85 134 points.

Panther A model 129 points and Pz-IIIe 54 points?

These are some results my Zecret formula gives out.

Also, do you people feel that armoured vehicles are priced right, or are they too cheap/expensive in general?

Hmm...this could've been an new topic but maybe I'll start it later. I still need comments from Matrix guys about my Zecret formula.

Voriax

[victorhauser]

I'm very interested in your Zecret formula, Voriax!

I would love to see the attributes you chose to include in your prices as well as the weights you applied. For instance, let's say you calculate an AFV price based on four "sub-prices": Offense, Defense, Agility, and Misc. How much more (or less) important is Offense than Defense, or Defense than Agility, etc.? I'd love to see what you've created and how you went about creating it.

I think you bring up a very important point regarding AFV prices compared to non-AFV prices. Since we all know that there are situations where AFVs are not worth much (like in heavy jungle) as well as situations where they are worth a lot (like in the open steppe), it's important to have a notion of what an "average across the board" price feels like. My suggestion would be to "anchor" your Zecret AFV prices (please don't keep them secret for long ) to a current v2.3 rating and scale all the others from there. For example, the Pz IIIe seems like a good place to drop your anchor. The SPWAW v2.3 Pz IIIe is priced at 39. So, if you subtract 15 points from the Voriax Zecret Pz IIIe price of 54 to anchor the Voriax pricing formula, then simply do that across the board for the rest of your AFVs to see how they fit with current SPWAW prices. This example would yield "adjusted" (or scaled) Voriax Zecret prices of
136 for your Tiger I, 119 for your T-34/85, 106 for your Panther A, and 39 for your Pz IIIe (your anchor point).

Of course, then you have the next problem--which is how do you test to see if your prices are any "better" than the SPWAW prices? Alas, I can offer no advice there since the SPWAW staff has the entire SPWAW gaming community to help them with feedback. But that doesn't keep me from wanting to see where you got your numbers from!

Happy Gaming,
Victor

[Voriax]

Victor, it's been Zecret because it is been changing a lot due to fine-tuning and taking different things into account. Currently I/we are looking into ammo capacity.

But here it is:

- Add all armour values except top and skirts
and divide by 6
- Add vehicle speed
- Add main gun AP penetration
- divide by 2
This yields what I call a 'base' value which is then modified with lot of things. The speed value is bit of a problem as it's effect with fast, small units is very much larger than in case of heavier units. although the greates price rises go to lightly armoured units with a very effective gun, like the German armoured cars with 50mm or 75mm PaK guns.

From the base:
- subtract 20% of base value if vehicle is open-topped
- subtract 10% if wheeled
- subtract 5% if no turret
- add 5% is it has APCR ammunition.

-add 1 for extra mg's, 2 if they are 10+mm or AAMG, 3 if 10+mm AAMG
- add 2 for smoke dischargers
- size: 3 is base value, add/subtract difference from this, smaller is better
- Rof: base is 5, add/subtract difference, higher is better
- add 2 if amphibious
- add 3 if it's command tank for certain radio
- add 15 for IR-sights
- add the values of Fire control and Range finder.

Some mathematician will likely flame me but go on, I get the asbestos clothes

Ammo amounts are missing, I thought determining a base ammo load for each caliber class of weapon and then adding/subtracting if ammo load differs from this amount. In steps of 5 rounds where each 5 is 1 point to a maximum of 10 points. (Some vehicles have piles and piles of ammo, like 500 20mm rounds in one Russian tank so a limit is needed not to penalize them. In game sense 100 or 500 rounds are practically the same, large amount that is enough for a battle in both cases)

also some fixed amout will be added for skirts, probably 5 points. Just that I'm not really sure how they are modelled in the game, do they help against AP too or just HEAT.

The crew number should be put in too, maybe in a way that 5 men is the base and add/reduce the difference. This would lower the price for those 2-3 men tanks a bit.

I'll put a list of values for some German and French armoured vehicles here, hopefully it'll come out legible. The first value is the 'base', second is the *final price* and the one in parenthesis is current SPWAW value.

W=Wheeled
OT= Open-top
Only those values are counted that are mentioned above

Armoured cars:

PSW-221 19 = 21 (14) W,OT
PSW-222 31 = 33 (26) W,OT
PSW-231 6-rad 30 = 35 (21) W
PSW-231 8-rad 34 = 41 (23) W
PSW-233 47 = 40 (36) W,OT
PSW-234/1 36 = 35 (28) W,OT
PSW-234/2 67 = 71 (45) W,OT
PSW-234/3 49 = 42 (40) W
PSW-234/4 93 = 81 (52) W,OT


Light tanks:

PzKpfw-Ib 14 = 22 (17)
PzKpfw-IIc 30 = 43 (21)
PzKpfw-IIf 33 = 47 (23)
PzKpfw-IIL 37 = 54 (25)

Main Battle Tanks:

PzKpfw-35(t) 38 = 49 (34)
PzKpfw-38(t) 41 = 53 (37)
PzKpfw-38(t)e 48 = 60 (41)
PzKpfw-IIIe 43 = 54 (39)
PzKpfw-IIIg 58 = 69 (51)
PzKpfw-IIIh 63 = 78 (54)
PzKpfw-IIIj 62 = 77 (55)
PzKpfw-IIIj(s) 72 = 89 (57)
PzKpfw-IIIL 75 = 93 (59) Amphib, Skirts
PzKpfw-IIIm 74 = 91 (59) Skirts, +5 points?
PzKpfw-IIIn 56 = 65 (51) HEAT?

PzKpfw-IVf2(s) 93 = 104 (67)
PzKpfw-IVg 95 = 112 (72)
PzKpfw-IVh 101 = 119 (73) Skirts
PzKpfw-IVj 99 = 111 (71) Skirts

PzKpfw-Va 119 = 129 (121)
PzKpfw-Vd 132 = 145 (116)
PzKpfw-Vg 135 = 149 (125)
PzKpfw-Vg(uhu)132 = 162 (144) IR-sights


CS-tanks:

PzKpfw-IVc 45 = 51 (39)
PzKpfw-IVd 47 = 55 (42)
PzKpfw-IVe 50 = 59 (44)
PzKpfw-IVf 55 = 63 (49) HEAT?

Heavy Tanks:

PzKpfw-VIb 180 = 193 (188)
PzKpfw-VIe 139 = 151 (117)
Maus 232 = 248 (250)


FRENCH ARMOURED VEHICLES:

Armoured cars:

Panhard 178 43 = 43 (33) W
AMD 80 AM 21 = 20 (20) W,OT
AMC P16 Mle29 31 = 26 (21) W,OT
AMD 50 AM 31 = 29 (10) W


LIGHT TANKS:

AMR-33 16 = 20 (14)
R-35 38 = 40 (43)
R-40 45 = 48 (30)
H-35 38 = 40 (22)
H-39 39 = 43 (22)
FT-17C 21 = 20 (17)
FT-17M 8 = 10 (7)
AMR-35 17 = 21 (16)
FCM-36 39 = 41 (20)

MAIN BATTLE TANKS:

Somua S-35 56 = 60 (53)
Char-D2 61 = 66 (55)
Char D1 B 52 = 55 (58)

HEAVY TANKS:

Char-B1 49 = 54 (58)
Char-B1 bis 60 = 66 (71)


Yki

[Drake666]

Will I desided to use most of the stats for armour units to come up with a fermula for prices. Doing this I came up with the list below covering a number of German and soviet units. Penatration and armor were the most importent in the fermula.

As you can see the Tiger I is 109 and the T-34/85 is only 86.


UNIT NAME Price
Porshe 205 Maus 173
Elefant 147
Elefant 147
Jagdtiger 145
PzKpfw-VIb 142
IS-3 126
IS-2m 120
Jagdpanther 119
ISU-152 112
PzKpfw-VIe 109
PzKpfw-Vg 108
ISU-122 108
Sturmtiger 104
PzKpfw-Va 104
PzKpfw-Vd 102
T-44 101
SU-100 100
IS-2 99
T-43 97
IS-1 97
KV-85 96
JPz-IV/70(V) 95
SU-152 95
JPz-IV/70(A) 93
SU-85 91
KV-1 M42 88
SU-122 88
Stug-IV 86
T-34/85 86
Hetzer 83
JPz-IV/48 82
Nashhorn 80
KV-1S 78
KV-1E 78
Stug IIIG 77
PzKpfw-IVh 75
KV-2a 73
PzKpfw-IVj 72
Pz T-34 M43(r) 71
PzKpfw-IVg 70
KV-1 M40 69
T-34 M43 67
KV-1 M41 67
PzKpfw-IVf2 (s) 66
T-34 M41 66
Brummbar 65
KV-1 M39 65

[Hauptmann6]

Voriax, I like your prices for armor, always seemed to me that tanks were way to cheap, although you may want to add more of a factor for fire control than you have. The tiger 2 (the PZVIe) seems way to cheap.

You may want to add a factor for sheer numbers built, yes I know, no-one wants that, but... Tigers were a bit rare and T34/85 were relitivly common, so they should be a bit cheaper, and japanese tanks should be VERY expensive, I mean how many battles where they encountered... just a few more ideas...


And that is another thing that bugs me, soon after the Tiger came out, it was no longer called the Pz VI, the official name was the Tiger, same with teh Tiger II... ok, I am ranting now... hehe

Haupt

[Voriax]

Originally posted by Hauptmann6:
Voriax, I like your prices for armor, always seemed to me that tanks were way to cheap, although you may want to add more of a factor for fire control than you have. The tiger 2 (the PZVIe) seems way to cheap.

You may want to add a factor for sheer numbers built, yes I know, no-one wants that, but... Tigers were a bit rare and T34/85 were relitivly common, so they should be a bit cheaper, and japanese tanks should be VERY expensive, I mean how many battles where they encountered... just a few more ideas...

Haupt

Positive support! great

You probably mislooked the Tiger II's price. It's the VIb which is the King Tiger costing 193 points, and the 'normal' Tiger is the IVe with 151 points. Perhaps it's name in the lists should be changed to Tiger 2 as "Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B Königstiger" is bit too long

dunno about firecontrol...for example the difference in the FC rating between Tiger and T34/85 is only one point. I haven't played with russians that much to get a 'feel' of how much it really means.

More important factor might be accuracy, for the 85mm D-5T gun it's 36 = 9 hexes while it's 13 hexes for the 88mm L56 gun.

For now I will honour Paul's view that rarity should not be considered in price. I agree as this is not really a production cost or number thing but a method to try represent the combat value. King Tigers were also very rare, but that information probably didn't warm those poor suckers that ended up facing them

If some day a separate rarity factor can be programmed in that will limit the players choices of equipment it'll be great but now we are stuck with this. Btw, there is already a rarity factor in that will direct a bit of AI's buyings (the second number in unit's radio code). For human players we must rely on our good judgement

Regarding the Japanese tanks, you are suggesting that rarity factor. Besides, I think someone on another topic mentioned that while the numbers of Japanese tanks weren't that huge they were encountered quite commonly, if not in large numbers at one time.

Also you could say that Japanese tanks suck so deep that it's really unfair make those tin cans very expensive.

Voriax

[Fabio Prado]

Ok, here we go again...



I was searching for a photo to illustrate why the Tiger I front armor cannot be considered as a mere 100-120mm...And then you kindly provided it to all of us! Thanks very much!
Now, looking at the beautiful photo above:How can anyone tell that it's only the mantle covering a "hole"? Can't you see there is another plate (and a lot many things) BEHIND the mantlet???

By the way, the mantlet was NOT only 120mm - It was 100-145 mm thick. It has thickened part at the left and right edge, as well as the sight port and the big boss around the gun tube. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger also had heavy bars of turret armor in back of the mantlet, making the effective armor in these areas 200+ mm. In fact only small areas of the turret front had an effective thickness of 100 mm. Look at the photo, please!!

Now, what I feel we should do is to stop this discussion altogether and let everyone out there make its own mind on the subject...

Best of luck

FAP

Originally posted by Voriax:
Well yes, nice pic of the turret. however that piece of armour is not very big, it's only a relatively narrow 'stripe'. 100 mm thick though if we assume that the guy at that modelling site has inspected that original workshop drawing correctly and represents it in here: http://www.tiger1e.com/turret/TurretShape5.html

for me it's beginning to look that firstly we have this mantlet, which is about 100mm thick. Except in the area surrounding the gun it looks like it's even thicker. Then we have these 'stripes' of armour, one of which is visible in your photo. Those are 100mm thick.

But if you remove the gun (darn I haven't found a turret photo with gun removed) there *will* be an opening. But as there will be a gun shield. Hmmm...a pic...okay, go to http://www.history.enjoy.ru/index.html select the 'soviet afv's' and 'T-34-85 development history'. The third pic from the top shows what I imagine the Tiger turret would like (roughly) if we remove the gun mantlet. There would still be the actual gun shield covering the hole.

this place: http://www.panzernet.com/panzerfile/tigerIcob.html has a pic of Tiger turret that has been cut open, shows a bit about the hole in front and what is filling it.

also the armour in focus has nice turret pics: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/tiger1/

Voriax

------------------
Fabio Prado fprado@fprado.com
Webmaster - The ARMOR Site!

[Fabio Prado]

URL for that beautiful photo was wrong - my mistake.



Ok, here we go again...

I was searching for a photo to illustrate why the Tiger I front armor cannot be considered as a mere 100-120mm...And then you kindly provided it to all of us! Thanks very much!
Now, looking at the beautiful photo above:How can anyone tell that it's only the mantle covering a "hole"? Can't you see there is another plate (and a lot many things) BEHIND the mantlet???

By the way, the mantlet was NOT only 120mm - It was 100-145 mm thick. It has thickened part at the left and right edge, as well as the sight port and the big boss around the gun tube. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger also had heavy bars of turret armor in back of the mantlet, making the effective armor in these areas 200+ mm. In fact only small areas of the turret front had an effective thickness of 100 mm. Look at the photo, please!!

Now, what I feel we should do is to stop this discussion altogether and let everyone out there make its own mind on the subject...

Best of luck

FAP



------------------
Fabio Prado fprado@fprado.com
Webmaster - The ARMOR Site!

[victorhauser]

I see the exact same photo as everybody else, and I draw a completely different conclusion than the one Fabio does.

A friend of mine has video footage of Tiger I's being assembled. I'll see if I can track it down.

In any event, I think that no matter what number is eventually chosen for the front turret armor rating of the Tiger I in v3.0, there are going to be disagreements. At this point it appears that a "compromise" value of 150mm (between 100mm and 200mm) might satisfy most of the people most of the time.

[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited 07-11-2000).]

[Nikademus]

agree with victorhauser. Looking at the above photo gives me the same conclusion.

Yes around the edges there is more armor behind the mantlet but the size of the gun machanism gives one a clear impression of the large rectangular opening in the front turret, the size of which necessitaed the large square external gun mantlet needed to protect the gun and crew.

That last sentance is my main point on why i feel 200mm level protection is inappropriate for the Tiger I.

We need to remember that in SP:WAW, we see a lot less one hit one kill situations than before. Even the larger shells tend to cause damage more vs a complete kill. Its true that all that metal from the gun mechanism itself and its support members behind the mantlet will add considerabley to abosrbing the effect of an incoming round.

However, any shell that has sufficient velocity to slam through the mantlet and strikes the gun mechanism is bound to either

a) damage the gun so that it cannot be fired

and/or

b) wound/kill turret crew members due to spall/splinters.

having the Tiger I's turret armor set to 200mm would make the Turret virtually immune to both damage as well as penetration vs almost all Allied tank weapons. At least with a rating of 120mm (or maybe up to 145mm perhaps we need a greater # of subvarient Tigers?!) would allow a allied tank crew a chance to put the Tiger's gun out of action and force it to retreat

[Pave]

If mantlet increases the front turret armor value in Tiger I, maybe same kind of increase should happen in other tanks too, which have some sort of mantlet.

I also noted that the KwK 36 has APCR round pen values set, but Tiger I doesn't carry any. Tiger I used at least two types of AT ammo.

Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap
Pzgr.40 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
'39 120mm 110mm 100mm 91mm 84mm
'40 171mm 156mm 138mm 123mm 110mm
(Source: Achtung Panzer)

If the APCR in SPWAW is Pzgr.40 that 233mm pen value must be at a very close range.


BTW. Why the Mause front turret angle is 90 degrees, which means horizontal plate?

[Paul Vebber]

This boils down to being something of a "glass half empty/glass half full" sort of thing.

The pictures show clearly that there are places where the armor is thicker than "front" or teh "mantle" and others where the mantle is teh nly protection. The problem comes in deciding which value to use if you have to pick one. Some think the lessor, some the higher.

Jentz has a good record of shots at different locals by different weapons and summarizes by indicating that the "mantle" how ever he defined it, was significantly harder to penetrate than the "front".

If someone has that book, what was teh penetration of the 6 lber APDS? I think it was largely ineffective but managed one penetration? THis would argue for something like 180 as a compromise value giving the 6 lber APDS some chance?

Looking at this from an effectiveness standpoint I think is the only way to get a good compromise rather than simply picking numbers out of the air, or making it an "either/or"

[Voriax]

Originally posted by Pave:


If the APCR in SPWAW is Pzgr.40 that 233mm pen value must be at a very close range.


BTW. Why the Mause front turret angle is 90 degrees, which means horizontal plate?

My guess is that the Tiger does not carry APCR because tungsten was in very short supply in Germany, especially after 1943. So whatever supplies remained was reserved to be used in machining tools. So in order of not to have two versions of same Tiger, one with APCR and one without it was decided to save space in the OOB and forget the *very* rare APCR.

That Maus armour slope is a typo, those things happen


Voriax