Main page

Side pen to the tiger? TOO EASY show me the same test...In front armor from 2KM away

Such a pity. Destroying such a rare and important piece of history. Oh I know why they did it and the when they did it matters too, but still.

Coll find.

Montykoro, on Mar 31 2012 - 03:03, said:

Two things.

1: They clearly show two penetrations on the front glacis.

2: 2km?  On a 17 pounder?  Lol.  The APDS on the 17 pounder had a 25% probability of hitting at 600 yards.  2 km.  That's funny.

Mini_Bolo, on Apr 08 2012 - 22:49, said:

The 17 pounder more commonly used APCBC rounds, anyways. Because of an obnoxiously enormous powder charge (9 pounds!) and heavy shell for a 76mm, it had similar penetration to the 75mm on the Panther. I'd choose more accurate shells that do more damage and are more expendable than innacurate APDS shot that has excellent penetration but low damage and dismal accuracy at long range. Though, with regular APCBC, the 17 pounder was unable to penetrate the front of the tiger from 2 kilometers- if I can remember properly, the maximum range that it could pen the front of a Tiger I was 1000 meters.

Mini_Bolo, on Apr 08 2012 - 22:49, said:

So? they can shoot the glacis with another gun...

Mini_Bolo, on Apr 08 2012 - 22:49, said:

Its no my problem... they "show" the POWERFULLLLLLLLL gun... I show my POWERFULLLLLLL armor at 2 km.... see the irony?

Mini_Bolo, on Apr 08 2012 - 22:49, said:

In US tests at 700m the APDS from a 17pdr had a 56% chance of hitting a target, the UK tests were 60% chance of hitting. Standard British target size is 6 foot by 6 foot, you may notice that a Tiger and a Panther are a teeny bit larger than that at the front.

At 1000m it dropped to 16% to 20% which roughly equals 25% chance of hitting a Panther with APDS directly at the front.

17pdr APCBC had slightly better penetration than the US HVAP and was very accurate. Neither could be relied on to penetrate a Panthers glacis plate every time but could penetrate the mantlet. In one penetration test of three Panthers armour two were found to have substandard armour the third had good armour and was used for recording the results.

The two frontal hits on the Tiger look like APDS as does the turret side penetration. The lower hull penetration that took the armour off from the other side as well looks like a APCBC.

British believed that the accuracy issues were trumped by it's ability to penetrate which in the real world of tank warfare is what matters.  They compensated with high rate of fire and multiple guns, it was a great gun and served them well.

Yep, the Tiger I wasn't as awesome as it was thought to be. But it's still a great tank.

Lert, on Mar 31 2012 - 18:01, said:

If I had a tiger I IRL in perfect condition with working ammo and all, I would sell it or blow it up. Such a sucky tank lol

Posting to incite unrest in forums.
warning issued, no R/O.
~SgtGrunt
Edited by SgtGrunt, May 21 2012 - 11:52.

Nice find, hope the in-game 17pdr sounds like that.

Montykoro, on Mar 31 2012 - 03:03, said:

Yeah really...so the 17lber can penetrate 80mm of flat armor from like 100yards hahha...not impressive lol...

KnightFandragon, on Jun 24 2012 - 03:10, said:

those stats are completely wrong.... are you high?

so many beautiful tanks left on firing ranges just to be shot up and not put in museums. such a waste to me anyways.

razielkaine, on Jun 24 2012 - 03:26, said:

Huh? No, the Tiger's side armor is like 80mm, maybe 82 or 85....in that vid they are firing from maybe 100 yards or maybe slightly more.......I know the actual 17lber could do FFFFFFAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR Greater then that...im just saying, what they are showing in that vid is an unimpressive display of the 17lber's capabilties.  Turn the Tiger forward and put that thing at 1km or more +D Or get a Panther on a ridge and fire up at it's increased slope lol.
Edited by KnightFandragon, Jun 24 2012 - 16:07.