# Tiger-II front glacis vs AT guns



## delcyros (Jun 6, 2006)

Even if it is a few weeks behind the discussion, I submit some aspects to penetration of the King Tigers frontal 45* degrees inclined 150 mm plate (upper part, face hardened Q=0.98, elongation=13%).
-It is estimated that only core hits (neglecting longitudinal impact angles) counts, hits with longitudinal impact angle will have a worser time to defeat this plate-

*the actual inclination is 50 degrees but I take light "downshooting" into account to make penetration easier
------------------------CONTENDERS------------------
type--ammo---size-----shellweight-muzzle vel.---examples
SU:
D5----APCBC--85 mm---9,2Kg----792 m/s------T-34/85, SU-85
D10---APCBC--100 mm--15,8Kg---880 m/s------SU-100
D25---APCBC-125 mm---24,9Kg--780 m/s------JS-II
US:
M7----APCBC--76,2mm-7.0 Kg-----793 m/s.----Sherman (typical)
M3----APCBC--90mm---10.94 Kg---808 m/s.----Pershing
Britain:
QF75--APCBC--75mm---6,8 Kg----620 m/s------Cromwell
17pdr--APCBC--76,2mm-7,7 Kg----900 m/s------Comet, Sherman Firefly
Germany:
KWK42-APCBC-75mm---6,8Kg------893 m/s.----Panther
KWK36-APCBC-88mm---10,2 Kg----773 m/s.----Tiger-I
KWK43-APCBC-88mm---10,2 Kg----1000 m/s.---Tiger-II, Elefant
Pak44--APCBC-128 mm-28,3 Kg----920 m/s.----Jagdtiger
--------------------------------------------
US :

M7) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle
velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible
M3) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible

Britain:

QF 75)- minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible
17pdr) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible

SU: 

D5 - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (> 1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible
D10 - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~1140 m/s), no penetration ever possible
D25 - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~ 987 m/s), no penetration ever possible

Germany:

KWK42) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible
KWK36) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~1062 m/s), no penetration ever possible
KWK43) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~1062 m/s), no penetration ever possible
PAK 44) - Full penetration achieved. Minimum striking velocity needed: 908 m/s. Shell suffers nose shatter. Shell suffers lower body broken up at impact, rendering the projectile ineffective. The gun will achieve full penetration at 0-170 yrds distance only. 

CONCLUSION: Other than via pure luck (it went through the optics, the welding is poor, etc.) or by repeated hits, no ww2 tankgun will defeat the Tiger II glacis plate, even from point blanc range. Only the 128 mm Pak 44 of the Jagdtiger has a chance to do so. The closest tank gun to achieve this is the Kingtigers 8.8cm KWK 43, only 63 m/s (mostly thanks to it´s superior AP-cap). striking velocity are missing to achieve full penetration. The soviet D 25 misses 207 m/s striking veloicty and the soviet D 10 missed it by 260 m/s (interesting. I always believed the D-10 would be better than the D-25). However, at these velocities, the projectile will always suffer full shatter, rendering the small cavity charge useless.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2006)

Delc, interesting information.

Was the US 90mm gun as specified, the same gun as used on the Pershing tank?


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Delc, interesting information.
> 
> Was the US 90mm gun as specified, the same gun as used on the Pershing tank?




Yes, its the 90mm M3, which is the gun on the Pershing.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 6, 2006)

Absolutely.

Here some armoured vehicles (sorry for simplification) to use the guns from above:

SU:
D-5: T-34/85, KW-85, Su-85
D-10: T-34/100 -prototype, Su-100
D-25: JS-2

US:
M3: Pershing
M1/M7: Sherman

Britain:
QF75: Cromwell
17pdr: Sherman Firefly, Comet

Germany:
KWK36: Tiger I
KWK42: Panther
KWK43: Tiger-II / (same gun as Pak 43 used in Elefant)
Pak44: Jagdtiger

Does anyone out here has informations about the exact shellweightfor the soviet guns? I do used approximations for them but there might be an error up to 8% in shellweight (even in the best case = firing superheavy 65 lbs shells, excludes them from reaching striking velocity to defeat the front glacis plate).


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2006)

D-5, APCBC: 9.2 kg
D-10, APCBC: 15.8 kg
D-25, APCBC: 24.9 kg


----------



## delcyros (Jun 6, 2006)

Thanks Soren. I fixed the points. Nothing really changed, the D-10 peformance improves but still is far away from defeating the glacis plate.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2006)

Ur welcome Delcyros.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 9, 2006)

Delcyros- Got no idea why anyone would imagine the Tiger could be defeated by any available guns in the field at the time. There are simply too many accounts of ordnance bouncing harmlessly off them.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 9, 2006)

It has been matter of discussion some weeks earlier. Based on post war evidence I read that the later SU guns (D10 and D-25) could defeat the glacis plate (there exist a photo showing a defeated Tiger-II glacis). I had to collect much information on specific shell and AP-capdesign and armour properties to perform these computations. Now I am pretty sure that the plate was defeated by repeated heavy shell hits from very close range and not by a single hit.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

You could have just asked me that, delcryos. If it's the same King Tiger that I'm thinking of, it was turret #502 and was captured by the Russians and used for extensive testing. It was shot repeatedly by various Russian cannon, but mostly by the A-19 122mm at all ranges. I haven't got the images, but they do exist of the King Tiger's plate and it is punctured but you can see dent marks all around the hole. Clearly, the King Tiger had been shot over and over again.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2006)

Thanks for clarification, Plan_D!
I believe, we have the same sample in mind.


----------



## Hop (Jun 10, 2006)

> Britain:
> QF75--APCBC--75mm---6,8 Kg----620 m/s------Cromwell
> 17pdr--APCBC--76,2mm-7,7 Kg----900 m/s------Comet, Sherman Firefly



Couple of points. Firstly, I don't think the Comet carried the 17 pdr, afaik it carried the detuned version, the 77mm.

Secodnly, why no apds for the 17 pdr? It was widely used post D day, and offered far superior performance (over 1200 m/s, iirc)


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2006)

I still have my problems with APDS and APCR calculations. Big obstacle are the design specifications for them avaiable in the net. I know about the performances, only. However to compute with some degree of reliability I need more specific informations, such as CAP-shape datas, cross sectional density, rate of deceleration, Brinell hardness of the projectile nose / APcapnose (very important if You want to penetrate any face hardened type of armour) and core diameter for sub calibre and / or rigid core ammo. I could compute approximations for them but the differences are significant, so I leave it until I get the datas fixed for them.
Personally, I cannot imagine, how a APDS shell may defeat the glacis. At these velocities the shell will always suffer full shatter as well. The inclination of the glacis makes it to difficult to defeat with APDS at least for a 76,2 mm gun.
It still remains interesting if the subcalibre may offset the disadvantages in impact weight. Theoretically spoken, halving the weight and increasing the impact velocity by 50% remains the same in terms of armour penetration (with all other factors beeing identic). However, the subcalibre delivers some additional benefit, but the question remains if this would reduce the +300 m/s minimum striking velocity to a point to defeat the glacis.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2006)

Well considering that the 17pdr's APDS rounds would often shatter on impact with the Tiger Ausf.E's frontal armour, even at close ranges, I think we can be pretty sure that it had no chance what so ever of penetrating the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armour.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jun 28, 2006)

This is very interesting delcyros, the results are interesting thankyou!

Here is what you are looking for:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=123〈=en

Please be aware that the Soviet 122mm didn't work by penetration, it used other kinetic factors like internal spalling and mechanical shock etc.

You can actually use mechanical shock to start an engine too! (Cockney screwdriver).

Also the test example was of poor quality.

It was hit a number of times, but if you're going to say 'armour failure' then you cannot discount 'work hardening'.

Also if plunging fire was used against the glacis (the D25 was a howitzer after all) the damage would be more severe, though you have mentioned this.

Also if the MG ball mount or seams were hit...

It doesn't look like you've counted skate angle, this would make the 17pdr innefective.


delcyros, would it be possible for you to calculate the max range the Tiger II's turret front can be penetrated by the Soviet 100mm?


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)




----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jun 28, 2006)

Aw, come on! I don't deserve that?


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

For directing us to that site again for the 1000th time, yes you do !


----------



## delcyros (Jun 29, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> delcyros, would it be possible for you to calculate the max range the Tiger II's turret front can be penetrated by the Soviet 100mm?



Absolutely no problem as far as we go with general APCBC rounds and no APCR or subcalibre ammo. I just need to know the following charckteristics:
1.) Which turret type (early or standart)
2.) inclination (10 degrees I believe)
3.) armour thickness quality (180 mm and Q:0.92; Elongation 15%, I believe, but this may be wrong, so a doublechecking would be useful)


----------



## Erich (Jun 29, 2006)

SS Schwere Abteilung 503 in Pommern und Danzig and finally the retreat back into Berlin: what few Königstigers that were lost to enemy action were hit from rear or flank hits, other than that it was busted off tracks, abandonment, running out of fuel and blown up, stuck in oversized bomb craters............

E


----------



## delcyros (Jun 29, 2006)

To make it repeatable, I give my approximations for the D-10 ballistics:
gun: D10
nation: soviet
timeframe: mid-late ww2
Caliber = 3.9 inch (10.0 cm) 
Shell weight = 35 lbs (16 kg) 
Muzzle velocity = 2922 fps (891 m/s) 
plate thickness in calibres = 1.8
Relative ballistic performance: 1.00 (my assumption, but soviet ballistic
projectiles were not bad in comparison to other. I might be wrong here)

Muzzle energy = 6.262 megajoules = 2307.6 foot-tons 

Relative muzzle energy: 1.18 

Elevation-----Range --------Time-----Velocity----Fall Angle--effect*:
0.0 deg-----~300 yards----0.1 sec--2896 fps----0.1 deg---1886 fps
0.5 deg-----1400 yards----1.6 sec--2561 fps----0.6 deg----1318 fps
1.0 deg-----2500 yards----3.1 sec--2295 fps----1.2 deg----676 fps
1.2 deg-----3100 yards----3.7 sec--2204 fps----1.5 deg----234 fps
1.3 deg-----3300 yards----4.0 sec--2161 fps----1.7 deg----plate holed normal plug punched out
1.4 deg-----3500 yards----4.2 sec--2134 fps----1.8 deg----no holing of the plate
1.5 deg-----3700 yards----4.5 sec--2094 fps----1.9 deg----no holing of the plate
1.6 deg-----3900 yards----4.8 sec--2055 fps----2.1 deg----no holing of the plate
2.0 deg-----4600 yards----5.9 sec--1925 fps----2.7 deg----no holing of the plate 
2.5 deg-----5400 yards----7.3 sec--1783 fps----3.6 deg----no holing of the plate
5.0 deg-----8600 yards----13.4 sec-1360 fps----8.3 deg----no holing of the plate
7.5 deg-----10800 yards---18.9 sec-1140 fps----13.8 deg---no holing of the plate
10.0 deg-----12600 yards---23.9 sec-1014 fps----19.6 deg--no holing of the plate


(excluding fractions)

*) means effect on plate (holed or not), resp. the remaining projectile velocities in case the plate is defeated. 
Assuming no hit on the bulge of the gunmount (in most cases the projectile would glance off anyway). Armour properties:
Q=0.95, E=15%, armour tends to be brittle, NO FACE HARDENED TYPE (?not sure in this?)
Thickness: 180 mm, no backing plate, inclined back by 10 degrees from the vertical

Conclusion: The D10 will achieve full penetration at distances up to 2870 m (normal) for direct impact angles and under assumption of no shatter. Records show that this shelltype is susceptible to shatter for greater impact velocities than 2200 fps. (at these direct impact angles nose shatter with only minor or no lower body damage)
Shatter would greatly reduce the ability of the projectile to penetrate, so I conclude that a terminal striking distance of ~1490 m for defeating of the turret face with >80% reliability. Keep in mind that perfect impact angles are rather uncommon. a difference in 20 degrees target angle for a net impact obliquity of 21.74 would result in a terminal striking distance of 2400 m without shatter and ~ 1330 m with shatter for >80% reliability. Higher impact angles sharply decrease the performance of this shell to penetrate due to a higher probability of lower body damage due to shatter.

-----NOTE that I (probably) slightly exagerated the D10 ballistic performance (guns with NO barrel wear) and understimated the armour properties in order to give a high degree of reliability for the immune distances, rather than a low degree of reliability for penetrating distances----- (edit)

-----NOTE that at ~3000 m +-20m a danger gap exists, when the impact velocity of the projectile allows a no shatter, so that at this distance the plate may be holed again, all under ballistic , armour and shell assumptions as above-----


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2006)

Tiger Ausf.B's on the Eastern front were very frequently engaged by soviet 100-122mm AT guns, however NEVER did the Soviet AT guns, any of them, manage to penetrate in ANY area on the Tiger's frontal armor - and let me remind you that it was standard practice for the Tiger Ausf.B to ALWAYS have its front towards the enemy, almost never exposing its flanks. (And you can read Soviet reports about this as-well) Yet never, NEVER, was the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor ever penetrated in combat, it didn't happen, despite many Tigers taking extreme amounts of hits.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2006)

delcyros,

The 100mm D-10 would penetrate 185mm of vertical 240BHN RHA at 1,000m with its APBC round, the best AP round available to the D-10. (Against FH armor however it wasn't the most effective, like most soviet projectiles)

- Results achieved at the Aberdeen proving grounds.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 29, 2006)

I know the reports.
I made this calculations with a lot of assumptions, like 1) no gunwear
2) ballistic performance of soviet shells = average US ballistic quality
3) frontal turret armour beeing of inferior quality with high degree of britellness
4) no backing layers (I actually believe this is wrong but so far I have no idea what kind of construction steel was used for it)
6) homogenious instead of glacis (am not sure if this is correct) for turret front
7) soviet projectile beeing as resistable to shock damage as was the US M79 APC -which truly isn´t the case

As You see, I generally decided pro D10. The critical values for this specific projectile are, without doubt, lower than those I posted above. Nethertheless I must admit that the gun will reach penetration limit and at reasonable distance. The degree of inclination is too low in case of Tiger Ausf. B turret front.
Hope, this will cause some discussion here...


----------



## delcyros (Jul 1, 2006)

Soren said:


> delcyros,
> 
> The 100mm D-10 would penetrate 185mm of vertical 240BHN RHA at 1,000m with its APBC round, the best AP round available to the D-10. (Against FH armor however it wasn't the most effective, like most soviet projectiles)
> 
> - Results achieved at the Aberdeen proving grounds.



185 mm of 240 BHN equals to a Q: 0.98 and E:20%, which is of substantially tougher quality than the King Tiger´s near vertical turret front plate. So far, little difference exist between 1000 m and the 1490 m I posted above. The difference may reflect the different shell / plate properties. No doubt the D10 may defeat the turret front plate on this distance.


----------



## Soren (Jul 2, 2006)

Yet the D10 never once achieved to penetrate the Tiger's front, eventhough engagements between this gun and the KingTiger were plenty according to Tiger crews ! (And hits weren't rare at all either)

Fact is Soviet AP projectiles were often of such low quality that the JS-2's 122mm L/43 D-25 armament even had a nasty and frequent tendency of bouncing off the "Tiger Ausf.E's" frontal armor, at close range ! Ofcourse this can be partly attributed to the Tiger Ausf.E's unequalled armor quality, but it nonetheless still says quite abit about the quality control of Soviet projectiles - cause the gun itself packed more than enough power to cut straight through the Tiger Ausf.E at close range if just the projectile was of sufficient quality.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 2, 2006)

...worth mentioning.
The Tiger I E had plates of excellent quality, beeing highly resistent ductile (Q:1.0; E:20%). Possible that projectiles with soft AP-caps will ricochet off or suffer full shatter on distances when they physicly should achieve penetration.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 3, 2006)

The last frontal area to be hit of the Tiger II is the lower, 120 mm inclined 50 deg. hullplate. The approximated necessary striking velocities are (assuming nose shatter but only minor lower body damage):
85mm D5: 3110 fps, exceeds muzzle velocity, no penetration possible
122mm D25: 2626 fps, exceeds muzzle velocity, no penetration possible
100mm D10: 2683 fps, full penetration achieved. Penetration possible up to 540 m at direct impact angles (with >80% reliability).
So far, only the turret front plate is a reasonable defeatable plate of the frontal layout of the Tiger-II against the best soviet AT gun, the 100mm D10. Note that the area to hit is rather small and most projectiles will glancing off from the "Blende".


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2006)

Delcyros, just a minor correction - the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal hull armor is 100mm thick, not 120mm.

And regarding the Tiger Ausf.E's armor quality, relying purely on memory, the Tiger Ausf.E's armor was of 255-260BHN and of the RHA type ofcourse - The very best.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 5, 2006)

You are correct, Soren. There is something wrong in my books. Several contradicting thicknesses are given but I see the lower figure (100mm @ 50 deg) beeing dominant. Maybe Schwarzpanzer may help out here.
The revised estimations for this area are:
minimum striking velocity, necessary to achieve penetration (assuming nose shatter but only minor / no lower body damage):
D5 (85mm): 2809 fps, exceeds MV, no penetration possible
D10 (100mm): 2435 fps, Full penetration achieved, penetration possible at distances up to 1400 m for direct impact angles (~980m with >80% reliability)
D25 (122mm): 2308 fps, full penetration achieved, penetration is possible at distances up to 650 m for direct impact obliquities (~500 m with >80% reliability). Note that the minimum striking velocity needed for penetration is high enough to ensure full shatter of these specific projectiles.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

The Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E had an armour thickness of 100mm. On the Gun Mantlet is was 100 - 110mm.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 6, 2006)

Posted in wrong thread


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

Soren said:


> Tiger Ausf.B's on the Eastern front were very frequently engaged by soviet 100-122mm AT guns, however NEVER did the Soviet AT guns, any of them, manage to penetrate in ANY area on the Tiger's frontal armor - and let me remind you that it was standard practice for the Tiger Ausf.B to ALWAYS have its front towards the enemy, almost never exposing its flanks. (And you can read Soviet reports about this as-well) Yet never, NEVER, was the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor ever penetrated in combat, it didn't happen, despite many Tigers taking extreme amounts of hits.



I think what you mean is a TII was ever photographed with a glacis penetration. To say it was never penetrated (in combat because at least one was penetrated in the Russian tests) you would have to know the fate of every knocked out Tiger II.
How do you 'always' keep your front to the enemy when they are in front and on your flank?




Soren said:


> Fact is Soviet AP projectiles were often of such low quality that the JS-2's 122mm L/43 D-25 armament even had a nasty and frequent tendency of bouncing off the "Tiger Ausf.E's" frontal armor, at close range ! Ofcourse this can be partly attributed to the Tiger Ausf.E's unequalled armor quality, but it nonetheless still says quite abit about the quality control of Soviet projectiles - cause the gun itself packed more than enough power to cut straight through the Tiger Ausf.E at close range if just the projectile was of sufficient quality.



I would think a hit by a 122mm projectile, even without penetration, would do so much damage to the turret and its mountings that the Tiger would be out of action.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2006)

m kenny, 

The Soviets were big on propaganda, any penertration of the glacis of the Tiger II would have been photographed and used to it's limit. The _fact_ that no picture of this exists (aside from the Russian test) shows us the Soviets had no image to go with. Thus, no frontally penertrated King Tiger to go with. 

The post-war Russian tests do no indicate combat ability of the Tiger II. That test was done with various calibre cannon shells at all ranges. By the time the glacis was penertrated, the Tiger II had been hit several hundred times. The cannon to finally do the job was the A-19 122mm artillery piece. 

In answer to your question, while directed at Soren, the King Tiger crews *tried* to keep their front to the enemy. When they failed to do this, they could well be destroyed.


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

British destruction/test of 2 Tigers.


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

The Russians did no more than any one else did.
The last pic is a frontal penetration


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2006)

I don't believe I stated that the Russians performed more ballistics tests than others. But the only penertration of a King Tiger glacis plate is #502 Tiger II on a Russian proving ground, after being shot several hundred times. 

More to the point, you're showing Tiger I images. The penertration ability of Allied guns against the Tiger I is not in dispute.


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 26, 2006)

The tank mueseum in Bovigdon has an impressive coolection of tank guns form 128mm down to 20mm. I recomend that people go there as it has the largest collection of AFVs in the world


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

Went there a couple of years ago. Was really nice.


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 28, 2006)

they also have these little Weapon-thingymabobs wich are real WW2 weapons but modified to shoot electricly. The are a Bren gun, A lee-enfeild rifle, a vickers gun and a PIAT bomb projector


----------

