tiger's frontal turret is penetrated by sherman???

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

37 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

The answer I get is 73.1mm

  

19 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

The M3 was rated for 73mm against rolled steel

Well, there we have it. That's penetration, and the game's depiction of this situation appears to be realistic according to your own math.

[LachenKrieg]

55 minutes ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

  

Well, there we have it. That's penetration, and the game's depiction of this situation appears to be realistic according to your own math.

The only problem is that I have taken a closer look at the size of the hole in the photo, and I get 105+mm using two different methods. So your 93mm is way out, and when we account for the larger hole, it will push the average area thickness out of reach for the Sherman.

 

The first method I used was to import the picture into an ipad running ios 14.6 and then using the ruler in the notes app, I measured the side of the mantlet with a known dimension before measuring the opening of the hole to build a ratio. For the known side of the mantlet (550mm) I got 2.6cm, and the size of the opening was 0.55cm = 116mm

 

For the second method, I downloaded the image and used the Grab app on a mac running 10.12.6 to perform the same measurements. For the known side of the mantlet, I got 324 pixels, and for the size of the opening, I got 63 pixels = 106.9mm

 

So no, it appears that Sherman cannot penetrate the Tiger there from 1000m based on average area thickness. 

 

And this is in addition to the measurement of 105mm that I got when I took the purple and red lines posted by one of the crew.

Edited June 15, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

29 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

The only problem is that I have taken a closer look at the size of the hole in the photo, and I get 105+mm using two different methods.

Please explain why the size of the hole in the photo from an unknown gun at an unknown distance is relevant for the purposes of calculating whether or not a sherman round can penetrate the tiger's mantle at 1000 meters based on the accurate schematics and data we have of the sherman round and the tiger's mantle. This is important becuase whilst I could show to you that your measurements appear inaccurate (you appear to be measuring the scarring around the hole rather then the actual hole), all of this is pointless when your base methodology is flawed.

Edited June 15, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LachenKrieg]

21 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

Behold this side-by-side comparison of the ingame and the historical result.

 

 

But it only seems to be relevant when you want it to be. What ever made that hole, it was not a Sherman tank at 1000m.

 

And look, I want to be clear with the crew here, I am not trying to dismantle the argument for the sake of argument. If I am out in my measurements, I highly doubt that it is by 10+mm.

 

But I am just curious as someone that has used the Tank Crew module, when you are in a Sherman looking at a Tiger from 1000m how close to real do you think it is? This is not a trick question, I am really curious to know your personal opinion. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[Peasant]

I too get the internal diameter of the hole of about 100mm.

[LachenKrieg]

6 minutes ago, Peasant said:

I too get the internal diameter of the hole of about 100mm.

Thanks for that Peasant, and I don't mean to be critical, but if you look close to your bottom reference point for the mantlet you might be able to bring it up just a tad, which may in turn add a couple mm to your estimate. But I think it is safe to say that it is at least 100mm+. I have used 3 different methods to measure it and they were all 105+.

[[F.Circus]Wales_Grey]

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

The only problem is that I have taken a closer look at the size of the hole in the photo, and I get 105+mm using two different methods. So your 93mm is way out, and when we account for the larger hole, it will push the average area thickness out of reach for the Sherman.

 

4 minutes ago, Peasant said:

I too get the internal diameter of the hole of about 100mm.

 

I don't see how this is remotely relevant to the question at hand. A M3 75mm Cannon, firing M61 AP shot, can reliably penetrate up to 73mm of RHA at 1000m as per published charts. Your math indicates that the portion of Tiger H1 turret where the shell struck was approximately 73mm thick. The angle of impact at 1000m for a M61 shell, as per documentation provided earlier in the thread, should be less than 1° from perpendicular which would produce an increase in effective armor thickness of less than 1mm. Ignoring all the other factors mentioned earlier in the thread, including edge effects and armor composition which could greatly reduce the effective thickness of the armor, 73mm of penetration is greater than or equal to 73mm of armor.

 

Disagreements about the size of an entry hole in an armored plate are irrelevant to the topic at hand. I cannot stress this enough: pictures of Tiger tanks are irrelevant to the question that was asked.

So, to answer the question originally posed by OP: "The shell had gone through where the gun optic is located, is it possible [for a M4 Sherman to frontally penetrate a Tiger H1]?" the answer is "Yes: a Tiger H1, the model currently present in IL-2 Tank Crew, can be frontally penetrated by a M4 Sherman firing from 1000m or closer if the shell strikes the weaker armor that is in front of the gun optic."

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

But it only seems to be relevant when you want it to be

Sith's point in posting that picture, as explained by him several times now, was a rebuttal to the picture that Noel Gallagher posted.

 

I hope that by putting this information in front of you for the fifth time you will finally read it.

[LachenKrieg]

1 hour ago, [F.Circus]Wales_Grey said:

 

 

I don't see how this is remotely relevant to the question at hand. A M3 75mm Cannon, firing M61 AP shot, can reliably penetrate up to 73mm of RHA at 1000m as per published charts. Your math indicates that the portion of Tiger H1 turret where the shell struck was approximately 73mm thick. The angle of impact at 1000m for a M61 shell, as per documentation provided earlier in the thread, should be less than 1° from perpendicular which would produce an increase in effective armor thickness of less than 1mm. Ignoring all the other factors mentioned earlier in the thread, including edge effects and armor composition which could greatly reduce the effective thickness of the armor, 73mm of penetration is greater than or equal to 73mm of armor.

 

Disagreements about the size of an entry hole in an armored plate are irrelevant to the topic at hand. I cannot stress this enough: pictures of Tiger tanks are irrelevant to the question that was asked.

So, to answer the question originally posed by OP: "The shell had gone through where the gun optic is located, is it possible [for a M4 Sherman to frontally penetrate a Tiger H1]?" the answer is "Yes: a Tiger H1, the model currently present in IL-2 Tank Crew, can be frontally penetrated by a M4 Sherman firing from 1000m or closer if the shell strikes the weaker armor that is in front of the gun optic."

The relevance of the photo is that it was used and labeled as being done by a Sherman at a 1000m, when the actual distance the shot was fired, or the gun it was fired from is unknown. You can read and behold the linked post above.

 

Like the disputed size of the penetration mark in that photo, there are other bits of information used in the discussion that may not be completely accurate, all be it, there are also other important factors that have not been taken into account as you mentioned. 

 

I was surprised to learn that the supposed area of the gun sight is as large as what we accounted for in the discussion. IMO, the verdict may still be out there regarding the actual full dimensions of this area, but as already mentioned by others, there is no doubt this area posed a weakness on the Tiger's frontal armor. That is to say I have full confidence in David Byrden's work, but we were left to guess a little in terms of the actual size of the 80mm section. The other thing I learnt is that there are a lot of smart people on this forum, and it is always nice to meet someone taller than you are. 

 

 

1 hour ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

Sith's point in posting that picture, as explained by him several times now, was a rebuttal to the picture that Noel Gallagher posted.

 

I hope that by putting this information in front of you for the fifth time you will finally read it.

I read your posts as they were being published, and my comments were a rebuttal to the notion that the penetration mark in the photo was done by a Sherman at a 1000m.

 

Even if the Sherman could send a round through there, it would have to be able to hit it first. And in order to do that, the gunner would have get a very luck shot in to park it between the two view ports like that.

 

I asked if you think viewing a Tiger from 1000m away in a Sherman was close to real in this SIM. You never replied, but to stress the point, the attached photo is me in a Sherman looking at at Tiger from that distance. You can barely distinguish the turret, let alone the mantlet, and you can just simply forget about being able to see the view ports.

 

When I look at the picture you used, it doesn't look like a lucky shot day to me. It looks more like the Tiger crew was sniped. One shot in the turret, and one shot in the radio. Those two shots appear to be well planned as the tank seems to be surrounded based on the different LOF of both shots. So just going by the impressions taken from the photo including the officer talking to the salvage team, what ever made that shot was close enough to get a good bead on the mantlet area. I don't know what distance that would be, because I have no doubt that experienced gunners could be accurate with these gun sights pretty far out, but you still need to be able to see what your aiming for. Just look at the shot in the radio compartment, it is just as accurate as the shot in the turret.

 

             

[[F.Circus]Wales_Grey]

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

The relevance of the photo is that it was used and labeled as being done by a Sherman at a 1000m, when the actual distance the shot was fired, or the gun it was fired from is unknown. You can read and behold the linked post above.

 

That is not even remotely close to what was said about the photo. If you think otherwise, please quote the specific part where someone said that the penetrating hit was explicitly done by M4 Sherman. Actually, don't do that because it's totally irrelevant. The math says that the M4 Sherman can frontally penetrate the Tiger H1. If you want to prove otherwise, I want to see some documentation or work that proves at least one (but preferably more) of the following:

1. That there is no ammunition available to the Sherman that can penetrate the equivalent of 73mm RHA at 1000m
2. As above, but at a range of 500m or less
3. As above, but at a range of 100m or less
4. As above, but at a range of 10m or less
5. That the gun mantlet of the Tiger H1 is thicker than 73mm in that specific spot
6. That the gun mantlet of the Tiger H1 has an unknown magical property that makes its effective thickness greater than it is measured at, and to be clear I'm not talking about angling the armor or anything like that. I specifically want you to show that the Tiger H1 has a previously unknown feature that makes that specific spot on the gun mantlet thicker than it actually is

To further expand your options, I will accept proofs with data from (unmodified) IL-2 Tank Crew or historical documentation regarding the armor penetrating qualities of the M3 75mm cannon and its available ammunition, or the relative composition and geometry of armor for the gun mantlet on the Pz.6.

 

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

I asked if you think viewing a Tiger from 1000m away in a Sherman was close to real in this SIM. You never replied, but to stress the point, the attached photo is me in a Sherman looking at at Tiger from that distance. You can barely distinguish the turret, let alone the mantlet, and you can just simply forget about being able to see the view ports.

 

It's a good thing that we're not talking about the ability of Shermans to see or engage a point target at 1km then. We are explicitly discussing the ability of the M4 Sherman to frontally penetrate the Pz.6 H1. This tangent is irrelevant.

Edited June 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]Wales_Grey

[F.Circusxthetenth]

The Sherman hit on the tiger's turret gun sight is part of the premise. It happened, and we're trying to determine whether that hit would have penetrated.

 

If you'd like to argue that the Sherman can't possibly make the hit OP claims it did, rather than that it's merely unlikely or difficult, go ahead, just know that the most likely way of reconciling that hit with your statement that the hit can't possibly be from 1000 m is that the OP was mistaken and the hit was at shorter range, which doesn't exactly make a penetration less likely.

 

That said, what peasant turned up means that the Sherman gunner has a decent amount of leeway to hit an area where before we get into the plate being compromised by the inclusion of a hole the overall thickness averages out to less than the US penetration figures for the 75mm gun M3 firing M61 AP. The US standard is 50 percent chance of penetration, which puts it at the middle of a pretty significant range of values. For reference, there's a soviet chart that's a great example for just how much stochastic phenomena effect shell penetration here: Tank Archives: Penetration

 

The soviets list two kinds of data. When they give one value, it's the armor thickness at which 75% of the shell fragments end up on the far side of the armor. This is considerably more stringent than 50% chance of any penetration, which is borne out by the very low values they have for known guns like the Panther's 75mm or the Lee's 75mm gun M2 (which is what they test there, thus the lower muzzle velocity). Like the long German 88mm off the Ferdinand only doing 168mm of penetration at 100m. But, very conveniently they also have some guns where they give two numbers, one of which is the thickness of armor which the gun can penetrate 20% of the time (much thicker) and one of which is how much it can penetrate 80% of the time. The ratio between those numbers is huge. It settles down after the first hundred meters, which makes perfect sense since the yaw of a projectile takes a while to stabilize after it leaves the muzzle and penetration/fragmentation of shells/bullets is very variable before it gets to stabilize. That said, there's still a good amount of variance as the range opens.

 

So not only is the thickness almost definitely within the capability of a 75mm gun M3 firing M61 AP, not only is there the fact that edge effect makes the spot weaker than its nominal thickness, but also armor penetration is a probabilistic thing, and the 73mm figure is the middle of a range of values with different probabilities of penetration, and you're de facto arguing on the side that there is no chance that that combination of range, target location and shell/gun can lead to a penetration. I mean it certainly helps that it's more likely than not from all the information we have even before we get into the factors that are hard to firmly calculate, and those factors make it more rather than less likely that a penetration would occur.

[Peasant]

3 hours ago, xthetenth said:

That said, what peasant turned up means that the Sherman gunner has a decent amount of leeway to hit an area where before we get into the plate being compromised by the inclusion of a hole the overall thickness averages out to less than the US penetration figures for the 75mm gun M3 firing M61 AP. The US standard is 50 percent chance of penetration, which puts it at the middle of a pretty significant range of values. For reference, there's a soviet chart that's a great example for just how much stochastic phenomena effect shell penetration here: Tank Archives: Penetration

 

The soviets list two kinds of data. When they give one value, it's the armor thickness at which 75% of the shell fragments end up on the far side of the armor. This is considerably more stringent than 50% chance of any penetration, which is borne out by the very low values they have for known guns like the Panther's 75mm or the Lee's 75mm gun M2 (which is what they test there, thus the lower muzzle velocity). Like the long German 88mm off the Ferdinand only doing 168mm of penetration at 100m. But, very conveniently they also have some guns where they give two numbers, one of which is the thickness of armor which the gun can penetrate 20% of the time (much thicker) and one of which is how much it can penetrate 80% of the time. The ratio between those numbers is huge. It settles down after the first hundred meters, which makes perfect sense since the yaw of a projectile takes a while to stabilize after it leaves the muzzle and penetration/fragmentation of shells/bullets is very variable before it gets to stabilize. That said, there's still a good amount of variance as the range opens.

 

I wish people would stop using this table as a reference . It's greatly misleading as the values are calculated using a model for the inferior WW2 soviet AP shells that penetrate less for a given caliber and muzzle velocity. Also the external ballistics for many non-soviet guns are just wrong.

The actual difference between a 50% and 80% criteria is much smaller than people think. I'm not gonna copy and paste the entire thread, just leave this link for you: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2220012#p2220012 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Peasant

[moustache]

Hello... I do not enter into the debate, it seems much too hot ... and I do not have your level of knowledge ... just a question: I see a lot of talk about "the side effect"? What is that?

 

(I'm sorry, I can't find anything on the internet. Maybe you already explained it, but I use an automatic translator, and with the terms used, the translation is often strange and complicated to understand ...)

[Dakpilot]

3 hours ago, moustache said:

Hello... I do not enter into the debate, it seems much too hot ... and I do not have your level of knowledge ... just a question: I see a lot of talk about "the side effect"? What is that?

 

(I'm sorry, I can't find anything on the internet. Maybe you already explained it, but I use an automatic translator, and with the terms used, the translation is often strange and complicated to understand ...)

 

A side effect of drinking too much alcohol is a hangover 

 

(example) 

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Irishratticus72]

53 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

A side effect of drinking too much alcohol is a hangover 

 

(example) 

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

[Dakpilot]

Tried that, you can only create a state of deferred hangover.. It catches up in the end ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Irishratticus72]

Just now, Dakpilot said:

Tried that, you can only create a state of deferred hangover.. It catches up in the end ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Imma gonna go and take that as a challenge. 

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

10 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

Imma gonna go and take that as a challenge. 

Make sure you don't come back as a wehraboo

[Irishratticus72]

5 minutes ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

Make sure you don't come back as a wehraboo

With how easily a Tiger had its mantle penetrated? Not likely..... ?

[moustache]

sorry, isn't "side effect" but "edge effect"...

[Irishratticus72]

1 hour ago, moustache said:

sorry, isn't "side effect" but "edge effect"...

You mean, Mass Effect, right?

I should go.

[moustache]

9 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

You mean, Mass Effect, right?

I should go.

 i show you the exit? 

 

no seroiusly, what is it ? real effect or just an error of translator?

Edited June 16, 2021 by moustache

[Peasant]

16 minutes ago, moustache said:

 i show you the exit? 

 

no seroiusly, what is it ? real effect or just an error of translator?

 

I hope this explanation is clear enough: https://www.quora.com/What-are-edge-effects-on-armored-fighting-vehicles

[LachenKrieg]

10 hours ago, [F.Circus]Wales_Grey said:

 

That is not even remotely close to what was said about the photo. If you think otherwise, please quote the specific part where someone said that the penetrating hit was explicitly done by M4 Sherman. Actually, don't do that because it's totally irrelevant. The math says that the M4 Sherman can frontally penetrate the Tiger H1. If you want to prove otherwise, I want to see some documentation or work that proves at least one (but preferably more) of the following:

1. That there is no ammunition available to the Sherman that can penetrate the equivalent of 73mm RHA at 1000m
2. As above, but at a range of 500m or less
3. As above, but at a range of 100m or less
4. As above, but at a range of 10m or less
5. That the gun mantlet of the Tiger H1 is thicker than 73mm in that specific spot
6. That the gun mantlet of the Tiger H1 has an unknown magical property that makes its effective thickness greater than it is measured at, and to be clear I'm not talking about angling the armor or anything like that. I specifically want you to show that the Tiger H1 has a previously unknown feature that makes that specific spot on the gun mantlet thicker than it actually is

To further expand your options, I will accept proofs with data from (unmodified) IL-2 Tank Crew or historical documentation regarding the armor penetrating qualities of the M3 75mm cannon and its available ammunition, or the relative composition and geometry of armor for the gun mantlet on the Pz.6.

 

 

It's a good thing that we're not talking about the ability of Shermans to see or engage a point target at 1km then. We are explicitly discussing the ability of the M4 Sherman to frontally penetrate the Pz.6 H1. This tangent is irrelevant.

I think part of the problem here is that there is some confusion in the thread about addressing two questions, and I may be guilty of creating some of that confusion myself. I should have been more clear in stating that I was talking about the tank in the photo when I last reported a discrepancy with the size of the opening in the photo that sith originally posted.

 

So yes you are correct, the question asked by the OP to this thread has been answered thanks mostly to Xthetenth's explanation/demonstration. And I stand corrected because if a Sherman fires a shot that happens to hit that weak spot, then it has a good chance at penetrating.

 

But the second question raised by me in a response to Moeras was weather the penetration mark in sith's photo was caused by a Sherman. Now we don't need a point-by-point replay, but this thread is about a Sherman penetrating a Tiger from 1000m away. And while the remote chance of that happening has now been proven to be plausible, Moeras was also suggesting that the Tiger's demise materialized thanks to the Sherman tank, which is almost laughable even with the early Tiger's weak spot. The point here being that Moeras was overstating a connection between the Sherman's performance and the OP's question. This automatically makes discussion related to his views on the Sherman's performance as relevant to the thread.

 

He would later go on to use the photo again as proof that it explained the in-game result. One of the most irrelevant things in this thread relative to the question asked by the OP is that photo. As far as I understand, neither sith or Moeras know what gun fired that shot, and from what range, and yet he used it as if it answers the OP's question. All that photo can do is tell us that in fact a cannon(we don't know which one) penetrated a Tiger there from some unknown distance, which does not translate into, "the in-game result you saw with a Sherman 1000m away is explained!" A penetrating shot fired from a gun at 200m, or 300m, or 400m tells us nothing about what happens at 1000m, so by raising this issue, Moeras himself has made all of the discussion around the photo relevant. They also repeatedly implied that the shot was from a Sherman at 1000m. And I repeatedly questioned whether a Sherman could do that damage from 1000m.

 

And since the OP's question has now been put to rest, you can opt out of this discussion if you want, but I am interested in better understanding the question of whether a Sherman could have actually made that shot from 1000m based on the damage (105+mm opening) and what little information can be gleaned from the photo. So the point may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me. That is why I took the time to point out the possibility of what looks like a coordinated attack/ambush and the accuracy of both the shot on the turret and radio position. Because I believe the shot was likely taken from a distance of <1000m.

 

And if you think this is irrelevant, look at your own post because the discussion was never about ammunition types available to the Sherman and what they can and can't do at 10 to 500m.

 

 

10 hours ago, xthetenth said:

The Sherman hit on the tiger's turret gun sight is part of the premise. It happened, and we're trying to determine whether that hit would have penetrated.

 

If you'd like to argue that the Sherman can't possibly make the hit OP claims it did, rather than that it's merely unlikely or difficult, go ahead, just know that the most likely way of reconciling that hit with your statement that the hit can't possibly be from 1000 m is that the OP was mistaken and the hit was at shorter range, which doesn't exactly make a penetration less likely.

 

That said, what peasant turned up means that the Sherman gunner has a decent amount of leeway to hit an area where before we get into the plate being compromised by the inclusion of a hole the overall thickness averages out to less than the US penetration figures for the 75mm gun M3 firing M61 AP. The US standard is 50 percent chance of penetration, which puts it at the middle of a pretty significant range of values. For reference, there's a soviet chart that's a great example for just how much stochastic phenomena effect shell penetration here: Tank Archives: Penetration

 

The soviets list two kinds of data. When they give one value, it's the armor thickness at which 75% of the shell fragments end up on the far side of the armor. This is considerably more stringent than 50% chance of any penetration, which is borne out by the very low values they have for known guns like the Panther's 75mm or the Lee's 75mm gun M2 (which is what they test there, thus the lower muzzle velocity). Like the long German 88mm off the Ferdinand only doing 168mm of penetration at 100m. But, very conveniently they also have some guns where they give two numbers, one of which is the thickness of armor which the gun can penetrate 20% of the time (much thicker) and one of which is how much it can penetrate 80% of the time. The ratio between those numbers is huge. It settles down after the first hundred meters, which makes perfect sense since the yaw of a projectile takes a while to stabilize after it leaves the muzzle and penetration/fragmentation of shells/bullets is very variable before it gets to stabilize. That said, there's still a good amount of variance as the range opens.

 

So not only is the thickness almost definitely within the capability of a 75mm gun M3 firing M61 AP, not only is there the fact that edge effect makes the spot weaker than its nominal thickness, but also armor penetration is a probabilistic thing, and the 73mm figure is the middle of a range of values with different probabilities of penetration, and you're de facto arguing on the side that there is no chance that that combination of range, target location and shell/gun can lead to a penetration. I mean it certainly helps that it's more likely than not from all the information we have even before we get into the factors that are hard to firmly calculate, and those factors make it more rather than less likely that a penetration would occur.

I should start by saying that I think you have done an excellent job at walking me through this, so thank you. I am just repeating myself from above, but there are two parallel issues at hand here. The first being the initial question by the OP, the second is regarding a photo that was used over the course of the discussion to explain the in-game result. Well before it was revealed that an area almost twice the size of a 75mm round had an average area thickness that fell bellow the penetrating power of the shell, Moeras used the photo to explain the in-game result being questioned. And since that point, I have been trying to clarify that not only is the photo incapable of supporting this claim, I question whether a Sherman could make that size of opening from 1000m.

 

Assuming you haven't missed anything in your original calculations regarding the view ports, and I correctly adjusted your results to account for the thinner wall thickness, then I would expect the average area thickness to increase above 73mm if we made further adjustments to account for the actual size of the opening. The question I have is if the average thickness increased beyond 75mm, would it still be reasonable to conclude that the Sherman's 75mm gun made the shot in the photo? In other words, after penetrating that area from 1000m with the Sherman, what would the damage look like? I understand that the edge effect you mentioned decreases armor strength in that area (so the increase in average thickness needed would be more than just 2mm), but could that fact alone be responsible for causing a different outcome from what is shown in the photo?

 

I ask because of two notable differences between the Tiger photo, and the Panther photo you linked. In the case of the Panther, plate thickness doesn't change, and the size of the cutout for the hull MG is huge in comparison to the size of the shell hitting the plate. The result being a larger area of unsupported plate in relation to the open edge size. In the case of the Tiger, the armor thickness changes from 70 to 80 to 100, and the size of the view ports are small enough to be obliterated by the size of the shell itself. So while the view ports decrease the surrounding armor strength, would the resulting weakness in that area also allow the shell to pass through quicker, and deform less to leave a smaller bore as compared to passing through thicker armor with more resistance? I am wondering if the inherent weakness there wouldn't cause it to act as a sort of pressure relief, like a plug that is engineered to disintegrate when exposed to a high enough pressure. Don't misunderstand my meaning, I am not suggesting that the gun sight was engineered to disintegrate when hit, I am asking if the inherent weakness there would cause it to act like...

 

Based on a 105mm opening, the shells radius would have to increase by 15mm, which means that only 2.5mm of its radius would have to pass through 100mm thick armor if our understanding of the view port area is correct. I know this doesn't sound like a lot, but I guess my question is whether 15mm is within the expected ranges for the 75mm Sherman round given the decreased resistance in the armor? This BTW is linked to the point you misquoted me on regarding the angle of contact. You somehow interpreted my comment as meaning that I thought the changes in angle due to gun elevation would cause the effective armor thickness to be 100mm. What I was referring to was the point at which the shell would have to pass through the 100mm thick armor area. I am assuming you were under the same impression because your original calculation considered the shell passing through 100mm of armor within a 37.5mm radius.

 

8 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

This hasn't happened, which is easy enough to check if you go back to the start of the thread. Making easily debunked false claims like this is what makes me wonder whether you're interested in having this discussion in good faith at all.

 

Like I've accepted that you apperently find it difficult to tell people apart (with the exception of xthetenth funny how that works), but you should be able to atleast do stuff like read the header on an image or be able to check if your recollection from yesterday is accurate when the information is right there in front of you.

You made several references/inferences between the damage in that photo and the Sherman tank.

 

You also posted this: "Behold this side-by-side comparison of the ingame and the historical result." Regardless of what you meant, I understood your comments to mean in a side-by-side comparison, the in-game result and the historical result are the same. Since the question here was whether the Sherman can penetrate a Tiger at 1000m, then I understood that you were suggesting the shot in the photo was from a Sherman at 1000m if the comment was meant to have relevance to the OP's question. And you can't claim that you didn't realize that because I brought it up repeatedly. So you could have made your point clear at anyone of the opportunities I gave. Otherwise, why would you make a comparison with a shot fired from a distance other then 1000m? Makes a lot of sense right?

 

But you have also been misquoting me throughout this entire thread. And that stared from the very first response I gave to YOUR comments about myths and propaganda. Your comments were linked to sith's post with the Tiger photo. I made it clear that I was addressing YOU by asking if you aren't responsible for making a myth yourself. I also asked you about the image because you seemed to have an opinion about it in relation to German tank technology during WWII. I don't see anything wrong with that, and yet you played stupid as if you didn't understand me. Like you continue to do in your last post. Your reference to my ability to recollect something from yesterday is another example of how you are either confused yourself, or are doing this on purpose as a method of defending your point in a discussion. For example, if you want to know who made mention of the rounds welded in the Tiger turret being 120mm(122), go to the first page of this thread/10th post in. So no, the reference didn't originally come from me. I made a guess when asked by you to give my opinion about the size of the bore in the picture sith posted. You guys were first reporting the opening to be 76mm. So if you know about how armor works, and how that relates to a penetration bore size, how could you guys be so comfortable with the estimate of 76mm?

 

I enjoy these type of discussions even though they can get a little hot at times, and am happy to be able to come away with a lot better understanding of the Tiger's gun sight, and armor in general. And I think it is safe to say in the heat of a discussion, it is easy to sometimes overlook the relevance of something someone said, like when I asked about the 17 pdr penetration marks in the Panther photo. Someone during another part of the discussion did mention the penetration effects using APCR ammo, but I didn't make the connection to the questions I raised about the Panther photo until much later. I know I have also misstated/misused facts and information out of my own misconceptions, but never to be misleading. Aside from that, I think it is a little more than just being dishonest to be repeatedly misquote/misrepresent someone in a discussion and then turn around and accuse them of acting in bad faith. 

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

He would later go on to use the photo again as proof that it explained the in-game result. One of the most irrelevant things in this thread relative to the question asked by the OP is that photo. As far as I understand, neither sith or Moeras know what gun fired that shot, and from what range, and yet he used it as if it answers the OP's question. All that photo can do is tell us that in fact a cannon(we don't know which one) penetrated a Tiger there from some unknown distance, which does not translate into, "the in-game result you saw with a Sherman 1000m away is explained!" A penetrating shot fired from a gun at 200m, or 300m, or 400m tells us nothing about what happens at 1000m, so by raising this issue, Moeras himself has made all of the discussion around the photo relevant. They also repeatedly implied that the shot was from a Sherman at 1000m. And I repeatedly questioned whether a Sherman could do that damage from 1000m.

 

This is can easily be addressed by actually reading my posts or reading other people's posts where everyone involved has repeatedly told you that this wasn't what was being said or implied. I'm not sure why these things have to be repeated several times only for you to go back and blame others for your apparent failure to comprehend the written word, when everyone in this thread has gone out of their way to get their point across to someone who was at best unwilling to listen and at worst unable to.

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

But you have also been misquoting me throughout this entire thread. And that stared from the very first response I gave to YOUR comments about myths and propaganda. Your comments were linked to sith's post with the Tiger photo. I made it clear that I was addressing YOU by asking if you aren't responsible for making a myth yourself. I also asked you about the image because you seemed to have an opinion about it in relation to German tank technology during WWII. I don't see anything wrong with that, and yet you played stupid as if you didn't understand me.

 

Okay, you know what, I am going to do a little bit of your homework for you. Because I'm feeling generous and it's *waaayyy* to hot outside. I'll focus on this instance since if I have to go back and explain literally all my posts to you we'd be here for another week and although I am absolutely sure that a lot of lurkers are eating popcorn right now, if they want the full entertainment they'd have to pay me at this point.

 

This may be a little patronizing, and I personally consider having to explain this to you in such intricate detail an insult to your intelligence, which is why I'd rather assume that you are a troll.

 

Anyway, here is my first post in this thread:


Notice the red box I drew? That highlights something known as a quote. It indicates that this post was a reply to the quoted earlier post, in this case the post from SCG_judgedeath3, who has posted a video called Myths of American Armour. The quote feature exists so that people can tell what you are replying to in a forum thread, since a thread isn't just people repying to whoever posted last. It is SCG_Judgedeath's posts that my comments were linked to. I talk, in general, about how myths about Nazi arms and armies are and were propagated by who and why.

You may note that Sith does not appear anywhere in this post, nor does any of his pictures and nor do I talk about anything related to Sith's post - I don't even make a claim about Tigers, shermans, or whether or not we are still at war with Eurasia. You claim that there is a link between my post and Sith's post. This is not the case and by using the quote feature I've made this clear in the clearest possible way.

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

Aside from that, I think it is a little more than just being dishonest to be repeatedly misquote/misrepresent someone in a discussion and then turn around and accuse them of acting in bad faith. 

All my quotes are direct citations from you using the "Select text - press the quote selection button" method. If you feel you were misrepresented by this, you're free to explain why that is, but I am very reluctant to listen at this point because...

 

... Look, the one misrepresenting people and misquoting people in this thread was you. You attributed my statements to other people, you attributed other people's statements to mine, and when repeatedly called out on it, your reaction is:

 

On 6/15/2021 at 4:42 AM, LachenKrieg said:

Yeah well at this point, does it really matter who is posting. You are both saying the same thing and have been from the start. I didn't mean to insult you by addressing someone else, but in my view, I am addressing the same argument anyway.

 

When everyone stinks it's time to look under your own shoe.

Edited June 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LachenKrieg]

Fair enough, and I apologize for contributing to the confusion here for ya, but this is what I posted in response: "

•  
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 363
• 859 posts
• Location:In a tank

 

•  

Posted Monday at 12:29 PM

@[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly, regarding myths, I am wondering if you aren't contributing to them yourself.

 

 

Now this in no way is an attempt at being patronizing, but notice there is no red box around the text, only your name with an @ symble before it. That generally means it is not a quote, but just simply someone trying to get your attention on the forum.

 

But following that complex exchange of communications, I would have thought that you could make the simple connection between the post you just made, and the equally simple question I ask immediately after. But apparently you weren't able to do that. I'm not aware of that failing at this point because you just simply respond. 

 

Now the thread isn't about myths, so I asked in response if you knew what gun penetrated the Tiger turret, because again, I thought you would somehow make the connection between the explanation you just finished giving regarding the German myth making machine that was needed to prop up it's failing tank tech and the question I asked. Nowhere in your response did you say, excuse me, but I only want to talk about myths in this thread! I thought Judge had already covered myths fairly extensively, but I'm glad to see you were able to fill any of the holes.

 

I think we know the rest of the story, but going back to the top of your post,

 

Behold this side-by-side comparison of the ingame and the historical result.

 

I have read you posts, but have you read mine? Because I asked/questioned you on this point repeatedly, but got no response other than its not relevant.

 

How is claiming that an image you know nothing about regarding gun/range relevant to answering a question about a specific gun/range?

 

If you used it to simply say the Tiger can be penetrated there, how does it relate if the shot was actually fired from 200m?

 

Just because a gun can penetrate something at 500m, does it mean it can penetrate the same thing at 1000m?

 

This is in fact the back and forth discussion that took place with no explanation from your side other than "not relevant". So the only one that seems to be unable, or unwilling to read/listen is you. Because you saying something is not relevant isn't an explanation to a valid question.

Edited June 16, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

27 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

How is claiming that an image you know nothing about regarding gun/range relevant to answering a question about a specific gun/range?

The answer is that it is not relevant. That is what you have been repeatedly told. The image only exists becuase it is a rebuttal to a previous image posted by NoelGallagher, where the former shows the actual tank in the game (the point being that it can be penetrated in the spot that NoelGallagher is complaining about) and the latter shows a later, improved design (the point being that NoelGallagher is using that to claim that the spot can not be penetrated). This has been repeatedly pointed out by several people.

 

In conclusion: lol. This is just a repeat of previous statements, once again because you are unwilling to actually read. Like, even simply me saying that I didn't post the picture and do not know the gun that was used to make the hole should have tipped you of on the notion that I did not post the picture and did not know the gun that was used to make the hole. But ofc, you omit that reply from your supposed analysis, becuase you really don't have any interest in having a good faith discussion.

Edited June 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LachenKrieg]

First of all, you are not being clear here in terms of what image you are talking about. Normally I wouldn't go into this kind of detail because I see it as an insult to your intelligence, but clearly you struggle with expressing yourself, or reading written text. So to be clear, I am talking about the side-by-side image you made yourself with the following explanation:

 

Behold this side-by-side comparison of the ingame and the historical result.

 

So I don't mind that you don't respond to my valid question here because I understand why you can't. But just to help you out with your homework, because its way too cold out, I'm happy to add further clarification.  Your confused again, and my question to you is valid and relevant.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

7 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

 

Behold this side-by-side comparison of the ingame and the historical result.

 

Again, the purpose of the image is to show that the tank can be penetrated at the spot depicted ingame, the side by side comparison being a visual aid to make that point, in rebuttal to the point that penetration is not possible there that was claimed by people posting images of a different tank. I am not sure how many times this should be repeated for it to make sense to you, but I'm going to stop now, since you clearly don't give a fuck about anything other then making this drag on as long as possible.

Edited June 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LachenKrieg]

I'm not the one that needs to make sense out of something.

 

Yeah I get what you were trying to do, but you cant seem to realize that showing a hole in a tank in response to someone asking how a Sherman penetrated the Tiger's frontal armor from 1000m means nothing.

 

If the hole in the tank you showed was made at point blank range, how does that explain the question being asked about a Sherman 1000m away? The answer to that question, it doesn't, and is therefore not relevant.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

... you do realize that you're now just literally repeating what me and several others have been telling you all along, right?

Edited June 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LachenKrieg]

How is that? I am the one that originally raised the question to you, but until now have yet to received a response other than not relevant.

 

Like I said, you seem to have a problem with reading simple written text, but somehow I know that asking you to explain your last post will simply be added to the growing list of unanswered questions.

[[F.Circus]sith1144]

 

3 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

This is in fact the back and forth discussion that took place with no explanation from your side other than "not relevant".

Well... How is it relevant? The range and gun are unknown, we've been saying this all along? I personally still suspect that hole was put there by a 76.2mm gun. If you explain why it's relevant to the discussion I'll consider answering more questions about it

Edited June 17, 2021 by [F.Circus]sith1144

[JG1_Wittmann]

On 6/16/2021 at 6:40 PM, [F.Circus]sith1144 said:

 

Well... How is it relevant? The range and gun are unknown, we've been saying this all along? I personally still suspect that hole was put there by a 76.2mm gun. If you explain why it's relevant to the discussion I'll consider answering more questions about it

I'm not really sure why you suspect the hole was made by a 76.2 mm gun.   Now I say that not knowing too much about the digital photograph  measuring tools.  If those tools are close too accurate,  and the hole is @100m   then there is virtually no way that a 76.2 mm gun made that hole.    This  is rolled  plate ,  even if it was cast it wouldn't make a difference.  IF you doubt this  here is a simple way to test it.  Grab a piece of steel plate.  3/16, 1/4 " will do,  1/8 even.  Fire a 30 cal rifle round through it.    If the resulting hole is not 40 cal or close, and it won't be,  you'll have the answer to your question.    This hole, if close to 100mm diameter was most likely caused by an SU-100   as those were very numerous in the later years of the war.

[[F.Circus]Adastra99]

32 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

I'm not really sure why you suspect the hole was made by a 76.2 mm gun.   Now I say that not knowing too much about the digital photograph  measuring tools.  If those tools are close too accurate,  and the hole is @100m   then there is virtually no way that a 76.2 mm gun made that hole.    This  is rolled  plate ,  even if it was cast it wouldn't make a difference.  IF you doubt this  here is a simple way to test it.  Grab a piece of steel plate.  3/16, 1/4 " will do,  1/8 even.  Fire a 30 cal rifle round through it.    If the resulting hole is not 40 cal or close, and it won't be,  you'll have the answer to your question.    This hole, if close to 100mm diameter was most likely caused by an SU-100   as those were very numerous in the later years of the war.

Just stepping in real quick.

 

Aside from the fact that it was already demonstrated mathematically that a sherman's gun can in fact penetrate the stated thickness of the tiger 1's mantlet at that spot (70mm of steel vs ~73mm penetration, plus the weakening of the plate due to the perforations), and that overfocusing on the picture is basically pointless, it couldn't have been an SU-100 that did the deed. According to the image caption, that tiger got knocked out in February 1943 (which would suggest this is the 3rd Battle of Kharkov). Work on the SU-100 wouldn't even start until February 1944, the first prototype appearing about a month later. Even SU-85 production hadn't started until mid-1943. In fact, neither was the 100mm fieldgun/AT gun available at this time.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about the picture of the early tiger 1, without the later fixes to the mantlet, which is more or less analogous to the one in the game.

So, pretty much, the hole couldn't have been made by a self-propelled 85mm or 100mm. Since the germans were attacking in this battle, it's conceivable that a stationary 85mm gun did the deed, or another weapon at a much shorter range, but 100mm+ guns are pretty much ruled out unless we're talking about howitzers or divisional field guns.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Adastra99
adding some speculation and clarification

[Irishratticus72]

29 minutes ago, Adastra99 said:

Just stepping in real quick.

 

Aside from the fact that it was already demonstrated mathematically that a sherman's gun can in fact penetrate the stated thickness of the tiger 1's mantlet at that spot (70mm of steel vs ~73mm penetration, plus the weakening of the plate due to the perforations), and that overfocusing on the picture is basically pointless, it couldn't have been an SU-100 that did the deed. According to the image caption, that tiger got knocked out in February 1943 (which would suggest this is the 3rd Battle of Kharkov). Work on the SU-100 wouldn't even start until February 1944, the first prototype appearing about a month later. Even SU-85 production hadn't started until mid-1943. In fact, neither was the 100mm fieldgun/AT gun available at this time.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about the picture of the early tiger 1, without the later fixes to the mantlet, which is more or less analogous to the one in the game.

So, pretty much, the hole couldn't have been made by a self-propelled 85mm or 100mm. Since the germans were attacking in this battle, it's conceivable that a stationary 85mm gun did the deed, or another weapon at a much shorter range, but 100mm+ guns are pretty much ruled out unless we're talking about howitzers or divisional field guns.

I actually thought of an 85mm AA in the anti tank role for a moment. 

[Spinnetti]

Funny aside, I was playing Tank crew yesterday, and got a shot from about 1200m in the mantlet right by the gun just like the picture above. I didn't know it until I drove up and saw it and it gave me a chuckle.

[JG1_Wittmann]

5 hours ago, Adastra99 said:

Just stepping in real quick.

 

Aside from the fact that it was already demonstrated mathematically that a sherman's gun can in fact penetrate the stated thickness of the tiger 1's mantlet at that spot (70mm of steel vs ~73mm penetration, plus the weakening of the plate due to the perforations), and that overfocusing on the picture is basically pointless, it couldn't have been an SU-100 that did the deed. According to the image caption, that tiger got knocked out in February 1943 (which would suggest this is the 3rd Battle of Kharkov). Work on the SU-100 wouldn't even start until February 1944, the first prototype appearing about a month later. Even SU-85 production hadn't started until mid-1943. In fact, neither was the 100mm fieldgun/AT gun available at this time.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about the picture of the early tiger 1, without the later fixes to the mantlet, which is more or less analogous to the one in the game.

So, pretty much, the hole couldn't have been made by a self-propelled 85mm or 100mm. Since the germans were attacking in this battle, it's conceivable that a stationary 85mm gun did the deed, or another weapon at a much shorter range, but 100mm+ guns are pretty much ruled out unless we're talking about howitzers or divisional field guns.

I did not look at the  caption on the pic.   It is winter  , agreed, due to the clothing.   Whether or not it is actually 1943   is anyones guess.   If  the measurement  of @100mm  is correct for the hole,  then an 85mm gun I do not believe  would be the culprit  the hole is about 17-18% larger than the round.  I don't believe a 90mm gun would either.  If the hole is actually 100mm  then the round is going to have to be from a caliber, larger than 85   and not larger than 100,  although  a 105  maybe.    It all comes down  to what the actual size of the hole is.   What it is definitely not  is one created by a 75 or 76 mm gun and very unlikely  a gun less than 100mm, which is why I mentioned the SU100.  Perhaps there are other 100mm guns. If the measurement of 105mm estimate was close  then the  107mm  gun in service as russian artillery would probably have been the culprit.  If the exact size of the hole was a known fact,  that would narrow down the list.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

2 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

I did not look at the  caption on the pic.   It is winter  , agreed, due to the clothing.   Whether or not it is actually 1943   is anyones guess.

The caption says Tiger 423, february 1943. If you wish to dispute that, take it up with the source.

 

2 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

If  the measurement  of @100mm  is correct for the hole

Okay, let's assume this is correct. Here's a problem: Whilst we didn't figure out how through the course of this thread how big the holes left by 76.2 mm guns are, we do know how big the holes left by an 85mm AA gun firing into a Tiger tank are: At least 110mm (for a 1.45km shot into the side), going up to 150mm (1km shot into the front), topping out at a massive 350 by 230mm (800m shot into the side). So if we assume that the 100mm measurement of the breach entry hole is correct, we're most likely looking at a smaller round then 85mm.

 

I personally think 76.2 soviet is likely because of the date. The soviets simply did not have anything much bigger then 76.2 in service at that point  in time. the 85mm aa cannon on AT duty is another contender but it doesn't have to be:

The optics of a Tiger H1 are a weak spot: Around the optics the armor is 70mm cast iron, and to make matters worse for the gunner, the armor has holes drilled in it, so it is significantly weaker then a solid 70mm plate. In later tiger models the gunner optics were reinforced for this reason.

 

The ZIS-3 is capable of penetrating 70mm armour or more from 500 meters or less, 75% of the time. Given that 76.2 was the most ubiquitous AP gun that the soviets had at the time, it's simply the most logical option even if we simplify the armour in that spot to 70mm (which is an simplification in favour of the tiger tank thanks to the holes - arguably a smaller round could do it).

 

Ofc this is an educated guess at the end, but I do think an educated guess is better then an uneducated one.

Edited June 19, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[Irishratticus72]

3 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

The caption says Tiger 423, february 1943. If you wish to dispute that, take it up with the source.

 

Okay, let's assume this is correct. Here's a problem: Whilst we didn't figure out how through the course of this thread how big the holes left by 76.2 mm guns are, we do know how big the holes left by an 85mm AA gun firing into a Tiger tank are: At least 110mm (for a 1.45km shot into the side), going up to 150mm (1km shot into the front), topping out at a massive 350 by 230mm (800m shot into the side). So if we assume that the 100mm measurement of the breach entry hole is correct, we're most likely looking at a smaller round then 85mm.

 

I personally think 76.2 soviet is likely because of the date. The soviets simply did not have anything much bigger then 76.2 in service at that point  in time. the 85mm aa cannon on AT duty is another contender but it doesn't have to be:

The optics of a Tiger H1 are a weak spot: Around the optics the armor is 70mm cast iron, and to make matters worse for the gunner, the armor has holes drilled in it, so it is significantly weaker then a solid 70mm plate. In later tiger models the gunner optics were reinforced for this reason.

 

The ZIS-3 is capable of penetrating 70mm armour or more from 500 meters or less, 75% of the time. Given that 76.2 was the most ubiquitous AP gun that the soviets had at the time, it's simply the most logical option even if we simplify the armour in that spot to 70mm (which is an simplification in favour of the tiger tank thanks to the holes - arguably a smaller round could do it).

 

Ofc this is an educated guess at the end, but I do think an educated guess is better then an uneducated one.

Still think we're dismissing the time travel theory a little bit too readily.