Have done a little home research on the Turret/Mantlet armor issue surrounding the Tiger I in the current issue. Right now it stands at 200mm, which makes tank (IMO) even tougher to take on than historically.
Found some photo references showing the inside of the Turret. A large portion of the frontal turret is cut away in order to fit in the massive 88/56 KwK 36 gun, hence the very large and thick external gun mantlet.
Given the preportion of the cut away section of the turret, the 120mm (some sources say 110) frontal turret/mantlet rating would seem to be the more correct setting.
also, a question: whats the deal with all the different turret/slope ratings for the Pz-V variants? it almost seems arbitrary.
Pz-VIe Turret
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
From what I've seen of the Tiger front turret, the armor PRIOR to the inclusion of the gun mantlet is as thick as the side 80mm armor. The picture I've seen looks as though the mantlet portion is twice the thickness os the turret proper, which would make it somwehere in the area of 200mm. There is a small portion of the front angle, which is VERY sloped, but is actually, as part of the general turret 80mm thick. You might say, in order to be more precise, that 80-90% of the turret front armor is 200mm thick, while 10-20% of it is 80mm with at a very pronounced slope.
Every source i has quotes the 'Front Turret' as 100mm and the Mantlet as 110 (or 120mm)
Turret is fair boxy with the only 'slope' really emulating from sides/rear of the turret which is a single solid piece of armor bent into a horseshoe shape. The Turret front is pretty much unsloped.
This has often been a source of confusion in regards to German Panzers. I've seen wildly different 'Front Turret' ratings for the Pz-III and IV series as well as the lastest with the Tiger.
This is due to the large 'external' mantlets that some models had, a good example would the 50mm armed Pz-III tanks.
But remove the mantlents and just how much of the frontal turret is left? Maybe i'm wrong but i was always under the impression that the purpose of a gun mantlet cover the opening in the front turret from which the gun mechanism pokes out.
Some models have very small mantlents like the Sherman and Pz-IVg so there there is less confusion, a shell could easily hit either the mantlet or the front part of the turret.
Its harder to calculate with a Pz-IIIh which has a large mantlet shield which covers the whole length of the front turret. In that case i could see combining the armor ratings as the smaller 50mm gun is'nt has huge as the 88 of the tiger and looking at past versions of SP, this would seem to be the norm (SP:WAW does it too giving a higher mm rating for 'front turret' than the stated thickness given in such references as the German encyc of tanks)
But in examining photographs of the Tiger I interior this is not the case, the mantlet is definately covering a large rectangular hole in the front turret so that the massive 88mm gun can be fitted.
True the gun itself might impeed penetration but remember that not all turret penetrations lead to complete destruction of the AFV but often to disablement of the main armament.
200mm level protection would make the Tiger I's frontal turret arc be immune to virtually all if not all Allied weapons and that just does'nt seem right.
Turret is fair boxy with the only 'slope' really emulating from sides/rear of the turret which is a single solid piece of armor bent into a horseshoe shape. The Turret front is pretty much unsloped.
This has often been a source of confusion in regards to German Panzers. I've seen wildly different 'Front Turret' ratings for the Pz-III and IV series as well as the lastest with the Tiger.
This is due to the large 'external' mantlets that some models had, a good example would the 50mm armed Pz-III tanks.
But remove the mantlents and just how much of the frontal turret is left? Maybe i'm wrong but i was always under the impression that the purpose of a gun mantlet cover the opening in the front turret from which the gun mechanism pokes out.
Some models have very small mantlents like the Sherman and Pz-IVg so there there is less confusion, a shell could easily hit either the mantlet or the front part of the turret.
Its harder to calculate with a Pz-IIIh which has a large mantlet shield which covers the whole length of the front turret. In that case i could see combining the armor ratings as the smaller 50mm gun is'nt has huge as the 88 of the tiger and looking at past versions of SP, this would seem to be the norm (SP:WAW does it too giving a higher mm rating for 'front turret' than the stated thickness given in such references as the German encyc of tanks)
But in examining photographs of the Tiger I interior this is not the case, the mantlet is definately covering a large rectangular hole in the front turret so that the massive 88mm gun can be fitted.
True the gun itself might impeed penetration but remember that not all turret penetrations lead to complete destruction of the AFV but often to disablement of the main armament.
200mm level protection would make the Tiger I's frontal turret arc be immune to virtually all if not all Allied weapons and that just does'nt seem right.
With the cut-away photo I have, there is no other conclusion to come up with. The opponent found they were either hitting the 80mm very sloped horseshoe bit or they were hitting the mantlet or the gun itself. Though people may want to omit the mantlet, shells had to go through the mantlet anyway. The same thing goes for the Dozers. If the Dozer were raising it's blade, then enemy fore would have to go through the blade to get to the turret, however, as I recall SP games, the blade was adding to the front hull since the game wasn't getting into the details of allowing you to lift it.
I don't see why the Tiger creates such an issue. If the Tiger were hiding behind a brick wall, the round would then have to go through the wall too. The US didn't have to face that many Tigers, and when they did, they sure weren't killing them from the front. It's almost as though people think that if armor is put onto the tank, seemingly as an afterthought, such as in a mantlet, that it shouldn't count. I don't understand such thinking. Actually it's sort of brilliant, because if you were able to fix a 125mm gun onto it later, as with the Jagdtiger, then you could also give it thicker mantlet with each new gun, thereby strengthening front turret armor if needed.
I don't see why the Tiger creates such an issue. If the Tiger were hiding behind a brick wall, the round would then have to go through the wall too. The US didn't have to face that many Tigers, and when they did, they sure weren't killing them from the front. It's almost as though people think that if armor is put onto the tank, seemingly as an afterthought, such as in a mantlet, that it shouldn't count. I don't understand such thinking. Actually it's sort of brilliant, because if you were able to fix a 125mm gun onto it later, as with the Jagdtiger, then you could also give it thicker mantlet with each new gun, thereby strengthening front turret armor if needed.
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Let me see if I can clear up the confusion here regarding the Tiger I's front turret armor. Nikademus is saying that there is a thick mantlet (100mm or so). Nikademus is also saying that there is a thick front turret armor (100mm or so). But...
But what Nikademus is also saying is that there is a big hole directly behind the mantlet because the 88 is a big gun. So that if a shell penetrates the mantlet, then that shell goes directly into that big hole--it does NOT have to go through any more front turret armor. So a shell has a choice: 1) penetrate the front turret without hitting the mantlet, or 2) penetrate the mantlet without hitting the front turret.
***
In either case, the shell only has to penetrate one layer of armor, either the front turret armor or the mantlet armor, NOT both.
***
So the armor rating that yields an "effective" front-turret armor value of approximately 120mm is actually correct for the Tiger I, and 200mm is incorrect.
But what Nikademus is also saying is that there is a big hole directly behind the mantlet because the 88 is a big gun. So that if a shell penetrates the mantlet, then that shell goes directly into that big hole--it does NOT have to go through any more front turret armor. So a shell has a choice: 1) penetrate the front turret without hitting the mantlet, or 2) penetrate the mantlet without hitting the front turret.
***
In either case, the shell only has to penetrate one layer of armor, either the front turret armor or the mantlet armor, NOT both.
***
So the armor rating that yields an "effective" front-turret armor value of approximately 120mm is actually correct for the Tiger I, and 200mm is incorrect.
VAH
But wait. The Tiger I's mantlet covers the entire front turret, thereby creating areas which have 200mm of armor. So how big is this hole, anyway? If there really is basically no turret front, then 100-120 is about right. If the hole is only in the middle right around the gun, then 200 is much better.
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Seth, that is a question that can probably only be answered by cutaway analysis and visual inspection. All I know is that every game I've played prior to SPWAW and every source I've read prior to SPWAW gives an effective front-turret armor of approximately 120mm.
However, just because everybody else says 120mm doesn't automatically mean that SPWAW is wrong. It only means that a lot of thorough cross-checking and verification of data is in order.
There is also a credibility issue here. When we play an historical game, then we want to believe that the people producing the game are providing historically accurate data. If some numbers seem suspicious (or just plain inaccurate), then we begin to ask ourselves if there are other inaccuracies present as well. And on and on. Bigjim is an example of this. He strongly suspects that the game is out to get him and is losing enjoyment as a result. Even though no company can please everybody, this is still an important consideration.
I personally believe that the Matrix staff is working hard to give us the best and most historically accurate game they can. And we can help them by pointing out areas that we believe are out of line with the data we have. I think the Tiger I's (as well as the IS-3's) current front turret armor rating merits further analysis and revision.
However, just because everybody else says 120mm doesn't automatically mean that SPWAW is wrong. It only means that a lot of thorough cross-checking and verification of data is in order.
There is also a credibility issue here. When we play an historical game, then we want to believe that the people producing the game are providing historically accurate data. If some numbers seem suspicious (or just plain inaccurate), then we begin to ask ourselves if there are other inaccuracies present as well. And on and on. Bigjim is an example of this. He strongly suspects that the game is out to get him and is losing enjoyment as a result. Even though no company can please everybody, this is still an important consideration.
I personally believe that the Matrix staff is working hard to give us the best and most historically accurate game they can. And we can help them by pointing out areas that we believe are out of line with the data we have. I think the Tiger I's (as well as the IS-3's) current front turret armor rating merits further analysis and revision.
VAH
After looking at the Specs for other armour units I thing they are doing the best they can with the information they can use. Like Its hard to but in the game something like how hard was it to the hit Frontal Terret of a tank. You had more of a chance to hit the front terret of a Tiger one then the Tiger 2.
-
Scipio Africanus
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Somerville, Ma, USA
I would like to point out that the Tiger I is far from immune to US tanks from the front in actual practice, despite a 200mm turret. I just had one taken out in a single shot by a Jumbo 76 firing APCR at 450 yards. As the manual states, comparing penetration numbers to armor ratings does not tell the whole story. The physics of SPWAW are complex enough that making an inference based simply by looking at penetration numbers and comparing them with armor thicknesses will not always prove true in the actual game.
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
When you look at the pictures in here: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/tiger1/index.htm
and especially the drawing in here: http://Tiger1E.com/saumur/English/tourelle.html
It looks to me that if you remove the gun + mantlet all you have in turret front is a large hole. so perhaps the 100mm for mantlet and 20-30 mm for the gun fittings is not that much wrong. That's the real problem here. How thick was the gun shield under that mantlet?
Voriax
and especially the drawing in here: http://Tiger1E.com/saumur/English/tourelle.html
It looks to me that if you remove the gun + mantlet all you have in turret front is a large hole. so perhaps the 100mm for mantlet and 20-30 mm for the gun fittings is not that much wrong. That's the real problem here. How thick was the gun shield under that mantlet?
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
What's the difference anyway? I suppose the talk is centering around a hole in the turret/mantlet to allow for gun recoil. So what else is new? How many tanks didn't have a basic hole to allow for recoil? We're acting as though this was entirely unique to the Tiger. If we are suggesting compromising Tiger armor because of a hole every other tank has, then it would seem proper to compromise the others as well.
If you saw the picture I see in "German Tanks of World War Two in Action" by George Forty, as I do, you would see exactly what I'm talking about, but alas I have no scanner.
To further back my assertion go here: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm and read. Here's a crucial point, note front turret and mantlet are BOTH listed:
Specifications
Weight: 56000kg (early)
57000kg (late)
Crew: 5 men
Engine: Maybach HL 210 P 45 - 12 cylinder / 600hp (early)
Maybach HL 230 P 45 - 12 cylinder / 700hp (late)
Fuel Capacity: 534 liters (four tanks)
Speed: Road 38km/h
Cross-Country 10-20km/h
Range: Road: 140km
Lenght: 8.45m
Width: 3.4-3.7m
Height: 2.93m
Armament: 88mm KwK 36 L/56
2 x 7.92mm MG34 (early)
3 x 7.92mm MG34/42 (late)
6 x NbK 39 90mm smoke generators (early)
Ammo: 88mm - 92 rounds
7.92mm - 4500-5700 rounds
Armor (mm/angle): Front Turret: 100/8
Front Upper Hull: 100/10
Front Lower Hull: 100/24
Side Turret: 80/0
Side Upper Hull: 80/0
Side Lower Hull: 80/8
Rear Turret: 80/0
Rear Hull: 80/8
Turret Top / Bottom: 25/81-90
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Gun Mantlet: 100-110/0
To further back my assertion go here: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm and read. Here's a crucial point, note front turret and mantlet are BOTH listed:
Specifications
Weight: 56000kg (early)
57000kg (late)
Crew: 5 men
Engine: Maybach HL 210 P 45 - 12 cylinder / 600hp (early)
Maybach HL 230 P 45 - 12 cylinder / 700hp (late)
Fuel Capacity: 534 liters (four tanks)
Speed: Road 38km/h
Cross-Country 10-20km/h
Range: Road: 140km
Lenght: 8.45m
Width: 3.4-3.7m
Height: 2.93m
Armament: 88mm KwK 36 L/56
2 x 7.92mm MG34 (early)
3 x 7.92mm MG34/42 (late)
6 x NbK 39 90mm smoke generators (early)
Ammo: 88mm - 92 rounds
7.92mm - 4500-5700 rounds
Armor (mm/angle): Front Turret: 100/8
Front Upper Hull: 100/10
Front Lower Hull: 100/24
Side Turret: 80/0
Side Upper Hull: 80/0
Side Lower Hull: 80/8
Rear Turret: 80/0
Rear Hull: 80/8
Turret Top / Bottom: 25/81-90
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Gun Mantlet: 100-110/0
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Since you have to pick a single number, I picked 200 because at least 50% of the frontal area is at least that thick. THe mantle on different versions is of various thickness and a big part of the hole is filled with the breech of teh gun which is quite a big chunk of metal to have to go trough itself.
THE big thing I think folks are forgetting is that a 20mm can cause a non-penetrating main gun casualty that renders the tank imopotant. The chance of that is fairly high (like 25-30 percent) for big guns (like the soviet 122) and to me overs the case of hitting the part of the mantle that is not 200mm , but filled with that large gun breech.
Jentz book on the Tiger indicates that the mantle greatly reduced the kill chance, but its not clear what is exactly meant by the mantle.
Maybe it should be 190 or 180 or 175 to better reflect "reality" but then the effect of face hardeneing which some of teh TIger plates where given would enhance their protection by 15-20% more in some cases.
I'm open to suggestions on what folks feel is appropriate, but I'm personally convinced it was MUCH more than "either or" 100 or 120mm.
THE big thing I think folks are forgetting is that a 20mm can cause a non-penetrating main gun casualty that renders the tank imopotant. The chance of that is fairly high (like 25-30 percent) for big guns (like the soviet 122) and to me overs the case of hitting the part of the mantle that is not 200mm , but filled with that large gun breech.
Jentz book on the Tiger indicates that the mantle greatly reduced the kill chance, but its not clear what is exactly meant by the mantle.
Maybe it should be 190 or 180 or 175 to better reflect "reality" but then the effect of face hardeneing which some of teh TIger plates where given would enhance their protection by 15-20% more in some cases.
I'm open to suggestions on what folks feel is appropriate, but I'm personally convinced it was MUCH more than "either or" 100 or 120mm.
Paul: Perhaps you didn't see my last post, which shows the ratings to be very accurate. You can't have nations afraid of a tank that didn't have no more than 100mm armor anywhere, allegedly, being fired at by guns that could pentrate 100mm armor, and for it to make sense. Add to that, the fact that the tank was such a large target; A 100mm large target wouldn't be terribly difficult to knock out with even just the US 76L54, not to even speak about how easy APCR would've made it.
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
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
Originally posted by Voriax:
When you look at the pictures in here: http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/tiger1/index.htm
and especially the drawing in here: http://Tiger1E.com/saumur/English/tourelle.html
It looks to me that if you remove the gun + mantlet all you have in turret front is a large hole. so perhaps the 100mm for mantlet and 20-30 mm for the gun fittings is not that much wrong. . . .
Voriax
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
VAH
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
I'm considering the front as only the part square to teh front, not the angled side exposure which would be a side turret vice front turret hit.
Look at those photos of the WHOLE front turret. Yes there are some significant areas where the mantle is all that is there, but the outer 4-6 inches or so around the whole perimeter is "double" and the large raised area around the gun is up to 220mm thick itself. Late model mantlets had another large ridge on the left side, so the majority of the front is effectively greater than 120mm. To say the front should be 120mm disregards the outer framwork and the significant thickened area near the gun barrel. How can you ignore those areas?
If there was a way to give more than one value, I would givce about 15% of the surface area of the front to the gun tube itself, another 15% a VERY high value becasue of the thickness of the sides and roof - effectively hitting them end on, about 30% at 120mm for the area that the mantle itself is over the "hole" and the remaning 40% is on the order of 200mm. SO a guesstimate puts about 50% of the front at at least 200mm and I believe the mantlet was face hardened so it should be effectively more than that against certain ammo types. (I don't have access to the Jentz book, somebody I'm sure will check that...)
Given the track record of the tank I gave it the benefit of the doubt, considering the ability of nonpenetrating hits by smaller caliber (like 50mm and below) rounds likely should not have the ability to knock the gun out, but there is only so much specificity the game allows.
So the gun is a bit more vulnerable than it should be, and turret perhaps a bit tougher than it should be.
Since "averaging it out" doesn't work, I think the current compromise or vulnerbale gun and tough turret a good representation.
Look at those photos of the WHOLE front turret. Yes there are some significant areas where the mantle is all that is there, but the outer 4-6 inches or so around the whole perimeter is "double" and the large raised area around the gun is up to 220mm thick itself. Late model mantlets had another large ridge on the left side, so the majority of the front is effectively greater than 120mm. To say the front should be 120mm disregards the outer framwork and the significant thickened area near the gun barrel. How can you ignore those areas?
If there was a way to give more than one value, I would givce about 15% of the surface area of the front to the gun tube itself, another 15% a VERY high value becasue of the thickness of the sides and roof - effectively hitting them end on, about 30% at 120mm for the area that the mantle itself is over the "hole" and the remaning 40% is on the order of 200mm. SO a guesstimate puts about 50% of the front at at least 200mm and I believe the mantlet was face hardened so it should be effectively more than that against certain ammo types. (I don't have access to the Jentz book, somebody I'm sure will check that...)
Given the track record of the tank I gave it the benefit of the doubt, considering the ability of nonpenetrating hits by smaller caliber (like 50mm and below) rounds likely should not have the ability to knock the gun out, but there is only so much specificity the game allows.
So the gun is a bit more vulnerable than it should be, and turret perhaps a bit tougher than it should be.
Since "averaging it out" doesn't work, I think the current compromise or vulnerbale gun and tough turret a good representation.
You know, this makes senseOriginally posted by Paul Vebber:
If there was a way to give more than one value, I would givce about 15% of the surface area of the front to the gun tube itself, another 15% a VERY high value becasue of the thickness of the sides and roof - effectively hitting them end on, about 30% at 120mm for the area that the mantle itself is over the "hole" and the remaning 40% is on the order of 200mm. SO a guesstimate puts about 50% of the front at at least 200mm and I believe the mantlet was face hardened so it should be effectively more than that against certain ammo types. (I don't have access to the Jentz book, somebody I'm sure will check that...)
If you hit the edges there is a darn lot of armour. then in the link given by Victor there are visible two horizontal armour 'bars' at the bottom and top of the gun opening.Then you have to think that if you remove the mantlet and let the gun stay in it's place the sun doesn't shine inside the turret yet. there are the gun trunnions which, looking at the pics, may have been 100-150mm thick. Also I'm pretty sure there would be a small curved gun shield, most earlier tanks have only such shield covering the turret front opening. The Tiger's mantlet can be considered add-on armour.
I'll be willing to swallow the 200mm value as for now..btw, I think there is a pic in the picture gallery on www.tiger-tank.com where several 6-17 lbr shots had been fired at the hull front of a Tiger in testing purposes, and the results weren't that good. So the turret front is so thick it's nearly impossible to penetrate? Go for the sides then.
Having a face-on duel with Tiger wasn't very smart in the first place, or what?(Also the thicker turret gives better values in my zecret pricing formula)
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Alas, by the same logic, then the front-turret armor rating of the IS-3 should be way higher than it is since even more of the front-turret area is made up of "side aspect" armor than the Tiger I. (I'd say about 30% or less of the Tiger I front turret area contains "side aspect" armor profile, where about 60% or more of the IS-3 front turret area contains "side aspect" armor profile.) And such "side aspect" profile comparisons could be made for all tanks I'm afraid...
I know that some compromises must be made and some subjective choices decided upon. But I'd also be grateful for assurances that whatever choices are being made, then they are being applied to all tanks fairly and consistently, and not just to a chosen few.
That last sentence sounded a little too harsh... Forgive me... Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not accusing, (and I know that appearances can be deceiving) but it seems that the Tiger has been rated according to a different standard than the standard applied to other tanks.
I know that some compromises must be made and some subjective choices decided upon. But I'd also be grateful for assurances that whatever choices are being made, then they are being applied to all tanks fairly and consistently, and not just to a chosen few.
That last sentence sounded a little too harsh... Forgive me... Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not accusing, (and I know that appearances can be deceiving) but it seems that the Tiger has been rated according to a different standard than the standard applied to other tanks.
VAH
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Anybody who wants to voice an opinion can do so right here. Unfortunately data is generally not available to go into such detail on every tank. The limitation of the "six slab model" prevent a great many things. Not by design or neglect but just becausit does.
The Tier was a bit of a special case simply because generated a lot of discussion and a lot of data is available.
I think in general most can agree that the new system is better than the old system. Nothing will ever be perfectly accurate!
Better than we had is the best we can do right now...
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited 07-08-2000).]
The Tier was a bit of a special case simply because generated a lot of discussion and a lot of data is available.
I think in general most can agree that the new system is better than the old system. Nothing will ever be perfectly accurate!
Better than we had is the best we can do right now...
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited 07-08-2000).]